Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Well, I think I'm at 47 posts with this one, so clearly I'll be quieter today. Something's gotta rein me in :) A schedule is coming soon enough, though and I need to walk my cat today and hit the gym. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. Quality of the relative versus quality of the absolute - from the internet...If one assumes the criteria for the quality of object x is something unquantifiable, then likely the it's relative phrase would be thrown around to describe its intrinsic dependence upon the observer as to the level of quality. I put level in quotes the time prior to this one, in order to emphasize the questionable relevance of the concept under this scenario. In that, it's all subjective, which I largely agree with. For example, I have a choice in how I interpret you, what you say, etc. After thinking on humiliation last night, the word that popped into my head this morning was humility. Now, I can't have a philosophical discussion on either of those words, so I'll leave it there. And then, there are the labels. For me, I ultimately don't see the point in applying them to the degree that it dismisses the individual from consideration. To the extent that I've been labeled in my life, it has served only to render part of me disabled, where I cease to exist to myself on some level and start to self-destruct behind said label. Rejecting the label as something that neatly defines me has been critical to my survival. What I have loved about this forum, is really (and I've said this before) the room that it gives to exist...and much of that room is granted by those that practice or have practiced TM - in seeming direct opposition to the control the organization might wield. It does seem to follow the concept of separating the message from the messenger, for me. The room that exists here has helped and healed me in so many ways, it is unbelievable, and unexplainable. I had a therapist tell me it would cost me thousands of dollars and years of therapy to recover from my life's wounds, so to speak. That was my last appointment with her, of course, as I'd already been through years of talk therapy. That kind of therapy has very limited applicability, in my view. I don't have the answers to much, but I want to be somewhere where there is the room to exist (at least in my fantasy). Ravi, please don't leave without saying until we meet again. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 11:12 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula No worries, words are always limiting and it only causes more questions. Trust me when I say this, my own intellect constantly challenges its own statements and opinions. So whatever I say can never be the truth or the final truth. You don't have to respond till you make sense of it or have more questions. Remember you are at 43 posts now :-). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: WaitI've had all I can take...I need to think about this statement below in the context of what you are saying.  Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not sure about this statement below either.  I'm not sure you will be the first person to do this...soothingly...I don't know that that was actually your first response when confronted...someone on this forum might beat you to it :) And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine Denise. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine Denise. You are a mother, you will easily understand this - the fact that you can hurt your child and then unconditionally love, soothe them a little later. That's why I always used to laugh at liberals, the ones who were single childless, their fascination for projecting non-violence, peace, non-violent communication on to others. Their furious, feverish efforts to numb themselves, insulate themselves from pain by trying to control the whole world used to be so hilarious and fascinating to me. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 28, 2011, at 8:13 PM, azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Speaking of mad as a March hare. Just sayin'. Yeah, I know. I haven't been in the CIA for years, I've been so busy with Indiana Jones trying to find Q.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Denise, you are one awesome lady. Always working to bring balance to situation. This is why I am such a fan of the female energy. Really, you leave me kind of speechless. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Thank god, DEFCON 1 has never been called for. From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  DEFCON 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
You both have hit on the troubling thing here. It is basically a strategy of of a closed system to any learning or feedback. Combined with pugnaciousness, and an belief that when he wins it is only from the perspective of the person he has humiliated (does anyone here think this has ever happened?) and that he feels their pain so it is all OK, and finally that it is coming from the level of the creator of the universe, we have a perfect anti-social storm. This belief system is not serving you Ravi. It is a thin excuse for loutish behavior. No one is buying it but you. Ravi raving: Curtis, the messiah of intellectual dishonesty This is unfair. I challenge you to provide a single thing I have written that is dishonest, you know, intellectually. Ravi, the spiritual perspective you are seeing yourself through is not serving you. It is misleading you as you mislead yourself. I don't doubt that you have special talents and a creative enough mind to accomplish all sorts of things in your life. But the idea that you are in a special state of mind that gives you insight into the mind of the creator of the universe, giving you special dispensation to act like a dick to people is dangerously delusional. It will cause you much unhappiness in your life and will serve as an impediment to your having successful relationships. If your so called friends here really cared about your welfare, they would be sending you this message form someone you might have a chance of hearing it from. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Denise, you are one awesome lady. Always working to bring balance to situation. This is why I am such a fan of the female energy. Really, you leave me kind of speechless. (-: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Thank god, DEFCON 1 has never been called for. From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  DEFCON 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@ wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: snip
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On 12/28/2011 09:43 PM, Emily Reyn wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? There is a list of UT to time zones at the bottom of the Post Count. For Pacific Time 0 hours UT is 4 PM. UT is Universal Time and a replacement for GMT or Greenwich Mean Time which becomes BST or British Summer Time (DST) in the spring and summer. UT never changes and probably because we've shrunk the world to the size of a pin head with the Internet what we should all be using instead of local time zones (did I hear a big hooray from the astrologers here). That way you'd always know when to call your friends in Mumbango.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Got nailed with this winner concept, didn't you Ravi. Having to twist this one around to make it more kosher. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
SNIP Or simply common sense. Zarzari, I wanted to submit this for an Unintended Irony Award, but I see you already won first prize this year with the love-bomb post(s) and also, that one with pictures really was in top form. I am curious if you are aware of why that post fell completely flat...could there have been something you missed in the larger picture, or maybe in your assumptions/analysis of Ravi and the conversations he was in, or was it just simply common sense on your part that you were trying to impart to those of us taken in by Ravi. I'm hoping I will be next to receive one of these base internet-style diagnoses. Based on what I've posted on this forum, there is a lot to go on at this pointit might be time to stifle me a bit, slap a label on me, employ some tough love, and then project an air of sympathy to the other forum members for how pathologically disturbed I am. What I like most about diagnoses are the labels...the more the merrier...for mine, feel free to use as many as it takes to get a comprehensive diagnosis in place and then, do me a favor, write them in calligraphy, wrap them in a box (a simple silver Nordtrom-like box will do) and tie it up with a pretty purple satin ribbon? I like my labels to be presented to me in a classy way and always inside a box. Your's/Barry's willingness to define Ravi and Robin with these kinds of labels on this forum (internet) in such a conclusionary manner is from a common sense perspective, simply unmitigated arrogance out of control - a classic symptom of NPD, in case you are interested. Now, like you, I have some real-world experience with NPD's. In fact, I have almost 50 years of deeply and intimately knowing and relating to NPDs. I was raised by two, took a short break during my 20's, and then powered down for the next 15 years with some true hard-core NPDs - the kind that fully fit Sam Vaknin's descriptions and the DSM IV and every other self-help book out there. The first has the honor of being my children's father; I rebounded immediately into another long-term relationship - one wasn't enough for me. I worked with one towards the end of my career and had so much experience by that point, that he never did know who it was that took him out (until the very end). From my years of experience, I am of the opinion that you/Barry have made some critical and major errors in judgment and should have preceded your diagnostic conclusions with a well-researched fatal flaw analysis, at the very least. Putting people in labeled boxes without their consent to serve your interests is another classic symptom of NPD, btw. Now, you've exhibited two. One more, and maybe I'll slap a label on you. Probably not though...it strikes me as kind of crazy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w From: zarzari_786 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 4:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: This stuff in unbelievable.  Taken in?  The assumptions in these statements demonstrates true psychic ability on this forum... Or simply common sense. ___ From: authfriend jstein@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:52 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: snip Of course. He is smart enough, he makes everyone either follower (or admirer) or opponent. (black and white, ask Curtis) In reality he is a poor and old guy, who's illusions were shattered. I don't really find any mystery about him, I rather find the fascination mysterious, he has for some people, intelligent people at that. Exactly. The real issue is not RWC, but those on this forum who have been taken in by him. That's just scary. Translation: Barry just *hates* it when somebody pushes him out of the spotlight he considers rightfully his.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: From my years of experience, I am of the opinion that you/Barry have made some critical and major errors in judgment and should have preceded your diagnostic conclusions with a well-researched fatal flaw analysis, at the very least. Emily, a couple of points. First, Vaj and I are different people, not one person with two names separated by a forward slash. You are the second person in two days to not be able to tell the difference between us, and that we're separate people. Just sayin'. Second, in saying that I think RWC was suffering from hypomania and a host of other serious disorders back when he first declared his enlightenment and still is today, I was stating my OPINION. I was not trying to sell that opinion to you. If you feel that someone spending several weeks and writing literally tens of thousands of words, all seemingly dashed off uncontrollably, as if in a fit of mania, all trying to get one person to interact with him so that RWC could tell him over and over and over what's wrong with him -- if you feel this is SANE behavior, I feel sorry for you, but that's your choice. Go with it. I'm merely pointing out that to me it *doesn't* feel like SANE behavior. It feels like the opposite. ALL of RWC's ramblings since he appeared on this forum have struck me as being highly manic and as lacking coherence. Often he goas off on and gets crazy behind things *that weren't even said to him*, such as that there was some incriminating photo of him in drag running around out there. That was pure imagination on his part, and in my opinion not healthy imagination. I think the guy's a total nutcase. Furthermore I think he's essentially the SAME nutcase he was back in Fairfield, running the SAME number on gullible people here that he ran on gullible people there. Back when he was a crazy person pretending to be a spiritual teacher in Fairfield, RWC's schtick (according to several sources, not just Vaj) consisted of dragging people up on stage and then confronting them and yelling at them and telling them what was wrong with them and what demons were inhabiting them. Now look at what he was trying to do to Curtis. Do you see any difference? I do not. If he sticks around, and you consider him SANE enough to do so, I think you should have as many conversations with RWC as you see fit. Go for it. Have a ball. But don't expect me to, because I just don't interact with crazy people any more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Ok, that's an unambiguous reply. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote: I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. Yes, that's exactly correct. Well, look who fell for the bait !
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag - I didn't pull up the whole thread of you and Zarzari and perhaps it had been snipped in error. I haven't appreciated all the psychiatric labeling of late because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then, but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to behave before he rejected his enlightenment and I hold out an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an individual communication style don't persist - that's part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe in an always coherent way, is difficult. But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow, in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that approach won't work for me. Also, I have a pretty loose definition of crazy - even looser since I started on this forum. We are all a bit crazy...you too, IMO. I admit to appreciating the craziness and absurdity of life. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:36 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: From my years of experience, I am of the opinion that you/Barry have made some critical and major errors in judgment and should have preceded your diagnostic conclusions with a well-researched fatal flaw analysis, at the very least. Emily, a couple of points. First, Vaj and I are different people, not one person with two names separated by a forward slash. You are the second person in two days to not be able to tell the difference between us, and that we're separate people. Just sayin'. Second, in saying that I think RWC was suffering from hypomania and a host of other serious disorders back when he first declared his enlightenment and still is today, I was stating my OPINION. I was not trying to sell that opinion to you. If you feel that someone spending several weeks and writing literally tens of thousands of words, all seemingly dashed off uncontrollably, as if in a fit of mania, all trying to get one person to interact with him so that RWC could tell him over and over and over what's wrong with him -- if you feel this is SANE behavior, I feel sorry for you, but that's your choice. Go with it. I'm merely pointing out that to me it *doesn't* feel like SANE behavior. It feels like the opposite. ALL of RWC's ramblings since he appeared on this forum have struck me as being highly manic and as lacking coherence. Often he goas off on and gets crazy behind things *that weren't even said to him*, such as that there was some incriminating photo of him in drag running around out there. That was pure imagination on his part, and in my opinion not healthy imagination. I think the guy's a total nutcase. Furthermore I think he's essentially the SAME nutcase he was back in Fairfield, running the SAME number on gullible people here that he ran on gullible people there. Back when he was a crazy person pretending to be a spiritual teacher in Fairfield, RWC's schtick (according to several sources, not just Vaj) consisted of dragging people up on stage and then confronting them and yelling at them and telling them what was wrong with them and what demons were inhabiting them. Now look at what he was trying to do to Curtis. Do you see any difference? I do not. If he sticks around, and you consider him SANE enough to do so, I think you should have as many conversations with RWC as you see fit. Go for it. Have a ball. But don't expect me to, because I just don't interact with crazy people any more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. I haven't appreciated all the psychiatric labeling of late because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then... So labels like stupid, liar, malicious, etc. are fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually reserved for shrinks. Vag is clearly also OK. I get it. ...but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. Isn't voyeur too psychiatric a term for you to be using, given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-) I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to behave before he rejected his enlightenment and I hold out an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an individual communication style don't persist - that's part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe in an always coherent way, is difficult. Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV. But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow, in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that approach won't work for me. Also, I have a pretty loose definition of crazy - even looser since I started on this forum. We are all a bit crazy...you too, IMO. I admit to appreciating the craziness and absurdity of life. What I'm questioning is the wisdom of *feeding the fantasies of people who could possibly be suffering from serious mental illness*. THAT is what I think has been going on here on FFL with Ravi and with Robin, and for the basest of reasons. IMO, a small group of rather sick people here praise these two, thus feeding their narcissistic fantasies and contributing to the possibility of making their condition WORSE, for no other reason than that they're trying to recruit people who will pile on and demonize the same people they live to demonize. I think that's not only a little sick, but dangerous. I fear it will end badly, and when it does the very people who have been *encouraging* Ravi and Robin to act even crazier than they normally do are going to say, A...too bad. But it wasn't my fault. How crazy does a person have to BE before someone used to craziness in the TM movement NOTICES? Would RWC have to have written *twenty* thousand words trying to insult and taunt Curtis into perpetuating a useless and pointless I'm right and you're wrong argument with him before they thought it was crazy? I got it after the first ten thousand words. Truth be told, I got it during his first couple of weeks on FFL. Knowing almost nothing about him, I struggled valiantly for a while to make it through the incoherent mass of self obsession that he posted, wrote him off as not worth my time to read, and said so. The realization that he was actually crazy came later, after he started to make up things to act outraged about, and started to abuse people who failed to consider him important enough to argue with. Although I have my doubts about several other people on this forum, who strike me as fairly high functioning psychopaths, there are two I think are losing their ability to function. I have named them, and applied what I think are the approp- riate psychiatric labels to their behavior. You don't seem to like these labels. Well, come up with your own. When doing so, I hope you aren't as limited as those who have to rely on epithets like stupid or liar. Or, for that matter, Vag. From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:36 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: From my years of experience, I am of the opinion that you/Barry have made some critical and major errors in judgment and should have preceded your diagnostic conclusions with a well-researched fatal flaw analysis, at the very least. Emily, a couple of points. First, Vaj and I are different people, not one person with two names separated by a forward slash. You are the second
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Emily, if you feel that Robin is sane, and coherent, please explain this (which I looked up after being alerted in email that RWC had lost it so heavily that he no longer even knew who he was talking to on this forum). In this particular tirade, he launches into an abusive analysis *of the wrong person*. And then, even after being told he was referring to the wrong person, he has not indicated that his analysis might be wrong, or even admitted that his entire manic tirade was based on not caring enough about the people he is supposedly conversing with to tell one of them from the other. This strikes me as being in the same ballpark of crazy as when he earlier lost it heavily over a photograph of him *that no one ever suggested existed*. Zarzari: [Not really. This was written by me, and Robin is too out of it to even notice.] The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania. Robin: Judy has done a pretty good job of demolishing this diagnosis. Zarzari, right from the beginning when you came to post at FFL you had an intense bias; you waited until taking your leave of absence, to come out with it directly; but it was always there in everything you wrote. You have escaped detection in this regard, for your motives were always under a compulsion which would vitiate any claims of fairness or objectivity in this matter. You were only about saying what you finally said: this MZ guy, he is a nutcase. Interesting that the credibility of Turq immediately trumped everything that Judy had been explaining to you: in that moment you revealed your uncontrollable agenda. You have impeached yourself, zarzari. If you honestly believe that this is sane behavior, Emily, I wish you good luck in life. You're going to need it. What I see is the same pattern that was established and legally censured in Iowa courts -- a disconnect with reality that involves becoming highly obsessed with people who don't react to him the way he wants them to, and devolves into being abusive towards them *for* seeing him differently that he wants them to. That was his entire act back in Fairfield, and it's his entire act on Fairfield Life. In my opinion, of course. Yours may vary, and that's OK.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 28, 2011, at 12:48 AM, maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: What you have declared in this post makes me out to be a liar. Am I a liar, Steve? No, but you're still walking around with that boogar on your face.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:11 AM, turquoiseb wrote: What I see is the same pattern that was established and legally censured in Iowa courts -- a disconnect with reality that involves becoming highly obsessed with people who don't react to him the way he wants them to, and devolves into being abusive towards them *for* seeing him differently that he wants them to. That was his entire act back in Fairfield, and it's his entire act on Fairfield Life. In my opinion, of course. Yours may vary, and that's OK. While the MIU legal team was pretty heavy-handed, they don't sentence people to 40 days in prison for J-walking. There were obviously some behaviors that were way out of line (as mentioned previously) which in addition to this 'skillful action' also resulted in several junior or senior MIU students being expelled and unable to finish their degrees. I remember at that time, MIU was more expensive than most private colleges. So due to these actions, they also lost a huge investment - although one could argue that if they were able to graduate somewhere else, they probably were better off not graduating from a Vedic madrasa in the long run. The weirdest thing I remember was his going onto campus and shouting at the buildings to break down the demonic forces which were supposedly endangering MIU.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:11 AM, turquoiseb wrote: What I see is the same pattern that was established and legally censured in Iowa courts -- a disconnect with reality that involves becoming highly obsessed with people who don't react to him the way he wants them to, and devolves into being abusive towards them *for* seeing him differently that he wants them to. That was his entire act back in Fairfield, and it's his entire act on Fairfield Life. In my opinion, of course. Yours may vary, and that's OK. While the MIU legal team was pretty heavy-handed, they don't sentence people to 40 days in prison for J-walking. There were obviously some behaviors that were way out of line (as mentioned previously) which in addition to this 'skillful action' also resulted in several junior or senior MIU students being expelled and unable to finish their degrees. I remember at that time, MIU was more expensive than most private colleges. So due to these actions, they also lost a huge investment - although one could argue that if they were able to graduate somewhere else, they probably were better off not graduating from a Vedic madrasa in the long run. The weirdest thing I remember was his going onto campus and shouting at the buildings to break down the demonic forces which were supposedly endangering MIU. Vaj, as I've said before, all of this was *long* after my time in the TMO. I wouldn't have been interested in it (meaning RWC himself) then, and I'm not now. What I *am* interested in is the environment in which behavior this insane can arise, *not* be recognized as insanity, and even develop a following. You have your own theories as to the destructive legacy of Maharishi and the TMO, and I agree with some of them and disagree with others. What I see as its saddest legacy, one that persists to this day, is in creating the mental and physical environment in which charlatanry (or even insanity) can be perceived as enlightenment. The thing that appalls me about the original Fairfield version of RWC's saga is the same thing that appalls me about round two of it on Fairfield Life. The low stan- dards being applied to what he says and how he presents himself, and the gullibility of those who find it either fascinating, or representative of some higher state of functioning. Assuming the worst -- that RWC was actually having an enlightenment experience and not just bull goose loony -- how could anyone have been *attracted* to the vision of enlightenment he embodied? That, for me, just does not compute. My theory is that for the most part TMers have had to subsist on theories about higher states of consciousness and other people's stories about them for so long -- and the *same* stories repeated over and over -- that they become suckers and fall for almost *anything* that seems new. As Buck and others have reported, they'll line up and plunk their money down for almost ANYBODY who comes through town promising either new stories of their own supposed enlightenment, or their healing abilities, or whatever. Call me crazy, but for 30-to-40-year followers of a trad- ition ostensibly founded by the guy who wrote a book called The Crest Jewel of Discrimination, I don't see much dis- crimination in this scenario. It's as if the only thing people look for in an enlightened being is that he or she claims to be enlightened. That's perceived as *enough*. I don't think it's enough. Given the claims made *about* enlightenment over the centuries, I think that anyone who claims to be enlightenment has a lot to live up to. If they do not, and in fact display behavior that is 180 degrees opposite of how we've been told the enlightened would act, I think it's perfectly legitimate to question whether the claimant is or ever was really enlightened and look into other explanations for their behavior. Such as insanity.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
The weirdest thing I remember was his going onto campus and shouting at the buildings to break down the demonic forces which were supposedly endangering MIU... turquoiseb: Vaj, as I've said before, all of this was *long* after my time in the TMO... Everyone knows by now that you've never been to Fairfield or been inside a Golden Dome of Pure Knowledge. Almost everything you know about the TMO came BEFORE there even was a 'TMO' up in Fairfield! I think that anyone who claims to be enlightenment has a lot to live up to... You are not making any sense. Live up to what - your expectations? Besides, you once said that you thought anyone who was 'enlightened' was really just like any other ordinary guy, nothing special, just a 'big whoop'. Go figure. P.S. You sure have a lot to say about R.C., whom you've obviously never met, and have not read any of his books or any of his writings on FFL. If you're not interested in R.C., why are you feeding it? Maybe you're just a little jealous because you want to be perceived as a great spiritual teacher. But, listen, Pal, you're going to have to do a lot more than posting to internet forums to prove to me that you're the least bit enlightened. LoL!!!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
So, it's all about Robin. P.S. Your post was kind of short, though. LoL!!! turquoiseb: Emily, a couple of points. First, Vaj and I are different people, not one person with two names separated by a forward slash. You are the second person in two days to not be able to tell the difference between us, and that we're separate people. Just sayin'. Second, in saying that I think RWC was suffering from hypomania and a host of other serious disorders back when he first declared his enlightenment and still is today, I was stating my OPINION. I was not trying to sell that opinion to you. If you feel that someone spending several weeks and writing literally tens of thousands of words, all seemingly dashed off uncontrollably, as if in a fit of mania, all trying to get one person to interact with him so that RWC could tell him over and over and over what's wrong with him -- if you feel this is SANE behavior, I feel sorry for you, but that's your choice. Go with it. I'm merely pointing out that to me it *doesn't* feel like SANE behavior. It feels like the opposite. ALL of RWC's ramblings since he appeared on this forum have struck me as being highly manic and as lacking coherence. Often he goas off on and gets crazy behind things *that weren't even said to him*, such as that there was some incriminating photo of him in drag running around out there. That was pure imagination on his part, and in my opinion not healthy imagination. I think the guy's a total nutcase. Furthermore I think he's essentially the SAME nutcase he was back in Fairfield, running the SAME number on gullible people here that he ran on gullible people there. Back when he was a crazy person pretending to be a spiritual teacher in Fairfield, RWC's schtick (according to several sources, not just Vaj) consisted of dragging people up on stage and then confronting them and yelling at them and telling them what was wrong with them and what demons were inhabiting them. Now look at what he was trying to do to Curtis. Do you see any difference? I do not. If he sticks around, and you consider him SANE enough to do so, I think you should have as many conversations with RWC as you see fit. Go for it. Have a ball. But don't expect me to, because I just don't interact with crazy people any more.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Robin, I am willing to look like a fool for the purposes of trying to sort things out. Vaj replies to several points with regards to your career in specific detail. He tells me directly that on several occassions he met you, or saw you in person. On the other hand he said he had a video showing you hitting someone, and then he seemed to say he didn't have such a video, or that if he did, he would not share it out of the respect for the privacy of the persons in it. Nor would he share it with a third party. So, that sounds a lot like lying. He tell Emily that you took the bait when you replied to some of his accusations. I took that to mean that you could not resist replying to what he posted. I did not take it mean that he made up things and you couldn't resist replying to them. He told me in no uncertain terms that he, on at least this one ocassion, saw you coming out of the courthouse in Jefferson County, or Fairfield or some such venue. As far as certain details he describes, the impression I got was that he was not going to third party to find out what really happened in these instances. The impression I got was that he was pulling these out of his own memory. Now maybe I am being played by Vaj, but to me he has sounded credible in much of what he said. And since no one else who hasn't already assigned Vaj to the liar bin, or to the Vaj speaks the truth bin has chimed in, I'm sort of left on my own to sort it out. I guess it would really be nice, if someoone who knew you from that time from that time would come in and put the matter to rest. Certainly Vaj would appear to have been somewhat of an insider to your activities. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Ok, that's an unambiguous reply. Thanks. RESPONSE: You're doing it again Stevo! This reply of Vaj's actually did not satisfy you at all; however, you suddenly felt that it might serve your purposes to deny this experience and go with another one: that Vaj had exhibited the virtue of being unambiguous, even if, as it happens, you did not get any satisfaction or clarification at all from Vaj's reply. Vaj has never even seen me in the flesh. He has never come near a seminar I have given (in my notorious past). He has never spoken to me. You have a disturbingly perverse need to twist things (inside your undeniable friendliness), and it undermines in a very subtle way you pretensions to be sincere. Sincere you no doubt are; but there is this tic you have; and it means you don't really ever want to know the Truth. Yeah, that's right, Steve. Did you hear that rumour that Christ and Judas actually made up before Christ had his heart attack? (He didn't get crucifiedat least I don't think he did; he died from cardiac arrest: he was scared shitless when they hammered those nails into his hands and feet. Caiaphus told me this, and, call me a sap, but his response sounded credible to me.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote: I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. Yes, that's exactly correct.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
RESPONSE: Somebody tell me that I am a sap. Somebody tell me that this is all made up. Because Steve's responses sound credible to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Robin, I am willing to look like a fool for the purposes of trying to sort things out. Vaj replies to several points with regards to your career in specific detail. He tells me directly that on several occassions he met you, or saw you in person. On the other hand he said he had a video showing you hitting someone, and then he seemed to say he didn't have such a video, or that if he did, he would not share it out of the respect for the privacy of the persons in it. Nor would he share it with a third party. So, that sounds a lot like lying. He tell Emily that you took the bait when you replied to some of his accusations. I took that to mean that you could not resist replying to what he posted. I did not take it mean that he made up things and you couldn't resist replying to them. He told me in no uncertain terms that he, on at least this one ocassion, saw you coming out of the courthouse in Jefferson County, or Fairfield or some such venue. As far as certain details he describes, the impression I got was that he was not going to third party to find out what really happened in these instances. The impression I got was that he was pulling these out of his own memory. Now maybe I am being played by Vaj, but to me he has sounded credible in much of what he said. And since no one else who hasn't already assigned Vaj to the liar bin, or to the Vaj speaks the truth bin has chimed in, I'm sort of left on my own to sort it out. I guess it would really be nice, if someoone who knew you from that time from that time would come in and put the matter to rest. Certainly Vaj would appear to have been somewhat of an insider to your activities. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Ok, that's an unambiguous reply. Thanks. RESPONSE: You're doing it again Stevo! This reply of Vaj's actually did not satisfy you at all; however, you suddenly felt that it might serve your purposes to deny this experience and go with another one: that Vaj had exhibited the virtue of being unambiguous, even if, as it happens, you did not get any satisfaction or clarification at all from Vaj's reply. Vaj has never even seen me in the flesh. He has never come near a seminar I have given (in my notorious past). He has never spoken to me. You have a disturbingly perverse need to twist things (inside your undeniable friendliness), and it undermines in a very subtle way you pretensions to be sincere. Sincere you no doubt are; but there is this tic you have; and it means you don't really ever want to know the Truth. Yeah, that's right, Steve. Did you hear that rumour that Christ and Judas actually made up before Christ had his heart attack? (He didn't get crucifiedat least I don't think he did; he died from cardiac arrest: he was scared shitless when they hammered those nails into his hands and feet. Caiaphus told me this, and, call me a sap, but his response sounded credible to me.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote: I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. Yes, that's exactly correct.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Robin, Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the issue of Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin Wordworth Carlson, what would be the verdict? Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be thrown out. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. I am sorry to have to come to this conclusion since it seems to bother you so much, and because I like you. On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past events, and that is certainly his perogative. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: RESPONSE: Somebody tell me that I am a sap. Somebody tell me that this is all made up. Because Steve's responses sound credible to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Robin, I am willing to look like a fool for the purposes of trying to sort things out. Vaj replies to several points with regards to your career in specific detail. He tells me directly that on several occassions he met you, or saw you in person. On the other hand he said he had a video showing you hitting someone, and then he seemed to say he didn't have such a video, or that if he did, he would not share it out of the respect for the privacy of the persons in it. Nor would he share it with a third party. So, that sounds a lot like lying. He tell Emily that you took the bait when you replied to some of his accusations. I took that to mean that you could not resist replying to what he posted. I did not take it mean that he made up things and you couldn't resist replying to them. He told me in no uncertain terms that he, on at least this one ocassion, saw you coming out of the courthouse in Jefferson County, or Fairfield or some such venue. As far as certain details he describes, the impression I got was that he was not going to third party to find out what really happened in these instances. The impression I got was that he was pulling these out of his own memory. Now maybe I am being played by Vaj, but to me he has sounded credible in much of what he said. And since no one else who hasn't already assigned Vaj to the liar bin, or to the Vaj speaks the truth bin has chimed in, I'm sort of left on my own to sort it out. I guess it would really be nice, if someoone who knew you from that time from that time would come in and put the matter to rest. Certainly Vaj would appear to have been somewhat of an insider to your activities. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Ok, that's an unambiguous reply. Thanks. RESPONSE: You're doing it again Stevo! This reply of Vaj's actually did not satisfy you at all; however, you suddenly felt that it might serve your purposes to deny this experience and go with another one: that Vaj had exhibited the virtue of being unambiguous, even if, as it happens, you did not get any satisfaction or clarification at all from Vaj's reply. Vaj has never even seen me in the flesh. He has never come near a seminar I have given (in my notorious past). He has never spoken to me. You have a disturbingly perverse need to twist things (inside your undeniable friendliness), and it undermines in a very subtle way you pretensions to be sincere. Sincere you no doubt are; but there is this tic you have; and it means you don't really ever want to know the Truth. Yeah, that's right, Steve. Did you hear that rumour that Christ and Judas actually made up before Christ had his heart attack? (He didn't get crucifiedat least I don't think he did; he died from cardiac arrest: he was scared shitless when they hammered those nails into his hands and feet. Caiaphus told me this, and, call me a sap, but his response sounded credible to me.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote: I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. Yes, that's exactly correct.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
authfriend: Robin, delighted you're back. I was afraid you were through with FFL... After reading so many of the pompous claims by the Turq and the Vaj, this Robin guy is like breathing fresh air. If folks aren't reading Curtis and Robin, what are they here for? It really gets boring reading posts that begin and end on one line! Go figure. So, Robin insisted that Maharishi had privately acknowledged his attaining cosmic consciousness. But, apparently prior to joining TM, Carsen was involved with Werner Erhard and est. So, it seems like 'schism' is the correct word in this context. The word schism is from the Greek 'to split up'. This book provides the first book-length study of religious schisms as a general phenomenon: Examples are drawn from a wide variety of different traditions and geographical areas, from early Mediterranean Christianity to modern Japanese New Religions, and from the Jehovah's Witnesses to Neo-Pagans to TM, and the break between Robin Carlsen, Deepak Chopra, and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Read more: 'Sacred Schisms' How Religions Divide By James R. Lewis and Sarah M. Lewis Cambridge University Press, 2009 Amazon $94.42 http://tinyurl.com/6ntt548
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Robin, Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the issue of Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin Wordworth Carlson, what would be the verdict? Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be thrown out. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. I am sorry to have to come to this conclusion since it seems to bother you so much, and because I like you. On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past events, and that is certainly his perogative. Vag might as well have heard these stories from persons present at the time. His credebility on this list is on zero already, as you probably know. Or he read them in some FBI-files.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here. And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with Robin in his previous role. You know, the ones he has related here. I get it that the Vaj never even did TM team is not gunna budge. It provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated below. And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement to them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge. But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely that the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with them. And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with proof of his involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people. And so far it seems like it is working pretty well. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Robin, Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the issue of Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin Wordworth Carlson, what would be the verdict? Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be thrown out. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. I am sorry to have to come to this conclusion since it seems to bother you so much, and because I like you. On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past events, and that is certainly his perogative. Vag might as well have heard these stories from persons present at the time. His credebility on this list is on zero already, as you probably know. Or he read them in some FBI-files.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here. And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with Robin in his previous role. You know, the ones he has related here. I get it that the Vaj never even did TM team is not gunna budge. It provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated below. And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement to them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge. But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely that the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with them. And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with proof of his involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people. And so far it seems like it is working pretty well. I doubt that Vag's superiors in the FBI agree with you. Rather they probably wonder why he is still involved with a project they gave up decades ago.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. That's exactly what Emily was doing, referring to a conversation between Barry and zarzari. Barry is wrong to claim she got zarzari and Vaj mixed up. *He's* mixed up. Emily was not. Bear this mistake of Barry's in mind when you go on to read his follow-up posts making a big deal of *Robin* getting attributions confused. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. FWIW, I don't care for the Vag nickname either, not because it's insulting to Vaj--goodness knows he fools with people's names and handles all the time in order to insult them--but because when the shortened form of a word for a woman's sexual anatomy is used *to insult a man*, it demeans *women*. Not that either Vaj or Barry has the slighest inhibition about demeaning women... snip more hypocrisy from Barry ...but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. Isn't voyeur too psychiatric a term for you to be using, given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-) No, since voyeur, as Barry knows, has a common nonpsychiatric meaning. I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to behave before he rejected his enlightenment and I hold out an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an individual communication style don't persist - that's part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe in an always coherent way, is difficult. Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV. People who don't have a great deal of depth to start with have an easier time being coherent. snip IMO, a small group of rather sick people here praise these two, thus feeding their narcissistic fantasies and contributing to the possibility of making their condition WORSE, for no other reason than that they're trying to recruit people who will pile on and demonize the same people they live to demonize. This is deeply, *deeply* paranoid on Barry's part. And wildly inaccurate, of course. I subscribe to Robin's analysis, though: Barry doesn't really believe what he's saying. It's just one more exercise in demonizing people he doesn't like. In fact, Robin had started gathering fans his first week on FFL. During that week, Barry repeatedly tried to recruit *Robin* as *his* ally against the people *Barry* lives to demonize. Then Barry decided Robin had said more than Barry wanted to hear about Robin's past experience with enlightenment, and saw that Robin was getting along just fine with the people Barry wanted him to demonize. So Barry proceeded to dump a huge, very nasty load on Robin. Similarly with Vaj. Vaj and Robin had several cordial exchanges before Vaj revealed he was out to get Robin and things turned ugly. Nobody had to recruit Robin for him to decide who his enemies were. They initiated the hostilities on their own, while--and perhaps because--the rest of us were enjoying Robin's company. snip The realization that [Robin] was actually crazy came later, after he started to make up things to act outraged about, Robin's never made up anything to act outraged about. and started to abuse people who failed to consider him important enough to argue with. Who felt they should be entitled to abuse Robin repeatedly without incurring any pushback from Robin. snip You don't seem to like these labels. Well, come up with your own. When doing so, I hope you aren't as limited as those who have to rely on epithets like stupid or liar. Or, for that matter, Vag. How about hypocrite? snip Second, in saying that I think RWC was suffering from hypomania and a host of other serious disorders back when he first declared his enlightenment and still is today, I was stating my OPINION. I was not trying to sell that opinion to you. Says Barry, proceeding not to try to sell his opinion to Emily: If you feel that someone spending several weeks and writing literally tens of thousands of words, all seemingly dashed off uncontrollably, as if in a fit of mania, all trying to get one person to interact with him so that RWC could tell him over and over and over what's wrong with him -- if you feel this is SANE behavior, I feel sorry for you, but that's your choice. Go with it. I'm merely pointing out that to me it *doesn't* feel like SANE
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Did you ever consider that Vaj may be behind the crop circles? Think about it, it kinda makes sense. If I wasn't wearing my new Under Armour aluminum foil undies (boxer briefs) with the patented wick flow cooling system weave I would be a little freaked out right now. But since I do, I am immune to Vaj's FBI radiations as well as the effects of unwicked moisture where (can I be frank?) moisture ought NOT to be. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here. And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with Robin in his previous role. You know, the ones he has related here. I get it that the Vaj never even did TM team is not gunna budge. It provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated below. And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement to them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge. But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely that the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with them. And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with proof of his involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people. And so far it seems like it is working pretty well. I doubt that Vag's superiors in the FBI agree with you. Rather they probably wonder why he is still involved with a project they gave up decades ago.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Emily, if you feel that Robin is sane, and coherent, please explain this (which I looked up after being alerted in email that RWC had lost it so heavily that he no longer even knew who he was talking to on this forum). Note that Barry hasn't admitted his own mistake of thinking Emily was addressing Barry and Vaj when she was addressing Barry and zarzari. She had even begun the post with Zarzari... and was clearly responding to an exchange between him and Barry, but by the time Barry got to the phrase you/Barry, Barry was so lost he thought you was addressed to Vaj. Barry's brazenly stolen zarzari's prize for Inadvertent Irony from right under his nose by proceeding to call *Robin* crazy for getting people confused. In this particular tirade, he launches into an abusive analysis *of the wrong person*. And then, even after being told he was referring to the wrong person, he has not indicated that his analysis might be wrong, or even admitted that his entire manic tirade was based on not caring enough about the people he is supposedly conversing with to tell one of them from the other. In this exchange, the two of them--Barry and zarzari--were in near-perfect agreement; they were both saying the same things. In terms of content, who said what was inconsequential: Robin's analysis of biases and agendas fit them both. Plus which, what Barry quotes below was *clearly* directed at zarzari rather than Barry. Not only did Robin refer to zarzari by name twice, he mentioned zarzari coming to post at FFL (zarzari arrived here *after* Robin did, whereas Barry was here *before* Robin arrived); and also that zarzari had made the post he was commenting on before taking a leave of absence, which again obviously did not refer to Barry. Robin was careless in labeling what he quoted. We all get our attributions wrong on occasion. It's hardly an indication of mental illness or even personality disorder. This strikes me as being in the same ballpark of crazy as when he earlier lost it heavily over a photograph of him *that no one ever suggested existed*. Well, let's recall the layout of that ballpark, shall we? Here's what Barry had written: I may have to reveal on FFL that I got the image of Robin dressing up in women's clothing before posting from a private exchange with Curtis. Robin misinterpreted image to mean photograph. He quickly realized his mistake on that point and apologized. The rest of that episode was about the real issues involved, not the nonexistent photograph, contrary to what Barry misleadingly suggests above. Barry had revealed a private communication between him and Curtis in a way that made what Curtis had said to Barry about Robin sound derogatory, and Robin was understandably upset at Curtis's apparent hypocrisy, since he and Curtis had been having an extended very friendly discussion. Just to reinforce the point: Robin's mistake about the nonexistent photo was disposed of right at the start. It was inconsequential with regard to his actual grievance, which was based on Barry's deliberate misrepresentation of Curtis's remarks to Barry in private email. Curtis had to go to considerable lengths to explain to Robin the context that Barry had carefully omitted. (He had even misquoted Curtis.) Curtis also took Barry to task for having betrayed their private exchange, and Barry was forced to apologize to Curtis. The upshot was that Robin came to understand why Curtis had said what he did privately to Barry. And Robin's posts as that understanding developed were quite remarkable. The sequence can be read here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/293951 Bottom line, Barry did his damndest to drive a wedge between Curtis and Robin and *almost* succeeded. I'm not sure their relationship was ever quite the same after this, but they were able to mend fences for a while, at least. Barry's had many low points on FFL; this was unquestionably the lowest, although he's now coming close to exceeding those depths in trying to exploit them to Robin's disadvantage. Barry himself has made so many careless, stupid mistakes on FFL that one would think he'd have some humility when someone else makes them. Also note the *extraordinary* hypocrisy of his comment about Robin allegedly not caring enough about the people he is supposedly conversing with. As if Barry himself were a model of caring about those he converses with! Zarzari: [Not really. This was written by me, and Robin is too out of it to even notice.] The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania. Robin: Judy has done a pretty good job of demolishing this diagnosis. Zarzari, right from the beginning when you came to post at FFL you
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, richardatrwilliamsdotus richard@... wrote: snip [Barry wrote:] I think that anyone who claims to be enlightenment has a lot to live up to... You are not making any sense. Live up to what - your expectations? Besides, you once said that you thought anyone who was 'enlightened' was really just like any other ordinary guy, nothing special, just a 'big whoop'. Go figure. Nailed. Except that he's said it far more than once. I want to quote a bit more of the post you're responding to because it embodies another whopping contradiction: Call me crazy, but for 30-to-40-year followers of a trad- ition ostensibly founded by the guy who wrote a book called The Crest Jewel of Discrimination, I don't see much dis- crimination in this scenario. It's as if the only thing people look for in an enlightened being is that he or she claims to be enlightened. That's perceived as *enough*. (In fact, there aren't any 30- to 40-year TMers on FFL who are on the record as buying into any FFLer's claim to enlightenment, current or former. This mistake of Barry's is a function of his refusal to read the posts of the folks he's characterizing.) I don't think it's enough. Given the claims made *about* enlightenment over the centuries, I think that anyone who claims to be enlightenment has a lot to live up to. If they do not, and in fact display behavior that is 180 degrees opposite of how we've been told the enlightened would act, I think it's perfectly legitimate to question whether the claimant is or ever was really enlightened and look into other explanations for their behavior. Such as insanity. The contradiction here is one I pointed out recently in another post of Barry's: He has over and over mocked any appeal to authority that anybody else makes, but now that it's in the interests of getting back at the folks who have seen through his fraudulence, all of a sudden it's perfectly legitimate to accept how we've been told the enlightened would act as gospel truth and hold any claimant to enlightenment to the standards of those authorities. And *this* isn't to mention the fact that the Gita, one of the foundational documents of Maharishi's teaching, states *unequivocally* that you CANNOT judge enlightenment on the basis of behavior. Man, if *anybody's* thinking on this forum is incoherent, it's Barry's.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Did you ever consider that Vaj may be behind the crop circles? Think about it, it kinda makes sense. If I wasn't wearing my new Under Armour aluminum foil undies (boxer briefs) with the patented wick flow cooling system weave I would be a little freaked out right now. But since I do, I am immune to Vaj's FBI radiations as well as the effects of unwicked moisture where (can I be frank?) moisture ought NOT to be. Don't strain your brain too much regarding this Curtis; roll back to you HillBilly music !
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Robin, Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the issue of Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin Wordworth Carlson, what would be the verdict? What you seem incapable of incorporating into your thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney, depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of those details from somebody else who *was* in Fairfield and who *did* know Robin. Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be thrown out. That's hardly a technicality. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. Another point is that the jury in this case has heard testimony from Vaj on various issues for *years* now, not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not established a reputation for credibility, to say the least, among most of us here. Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is determined to get Robin any way he can. We don't know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's no question that's what he's engaged in. And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who has stood up in public and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth acquires thereby a certain basic measure of credibility because the person is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself. Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's testimony about his experiences with Robin remind me of nothing so much as the special effects trickery that inserted Forrest Gump into all kinds of important events. It's as if Vaj had Photoshopped himself into Robin's life. You can almost see the faint line between Vaj's image and the real ones. There's just no sense of first-person resonance, no ring of authenticity. snip On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past events, I agree with you 100 percent on these points. As I said in another post, Robin has so much to contribute, and perhaps even something to receive, from more positive interactions here. It's hard not to respond when you feel you're being unfairly maligned, but I wish Robin could find it within himself to limit his responses to the attacks to short statements of fact and just carry on. and that is certainly his perogative. You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here. And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with Robin in his previous role. You know, the ones he has related here. I get it that the Vaj never even did TM team is not gunna budge. It provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated below. Just springboarding off of your thoughts, Curtis, and not in any way trying to get you involved, this last is the real issue for me. What IS it about diehard TMers when their fallback position, when they have been unable to get someone to argue head-to-head with them so that they can win or at the very least claim to, becomes trying to go for the olde, tired ad hominem of You can't trust anything he says, because he's a liar. They've run that on Vaj, on you, on me, and on any number of people who criticize TM, Maharishi, or the TMO on this forum. They would have you believe that this is a coincidence, and that they work overtime trying to similarly demonize other liars who *don't* criticize TM, Maharishi, and the TMO, but I don't think anyone believes them about this any more. It's as if they still believe in the Maharishi model of how to deal with criticism: Find ways to put down the critic and insinuate that he/she has evil motives for saying what he does, or is lying, or is untrust- worthy, or whatever, and enough of the already-drank- the-Kool-Aid-brigade will believe it so that we can continue doing business. I kinda think it's lazy, and embarrassing. I'd like to see some of these Shoot the messenger types deal with the actual message. But that's not gonna happen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: snip What IS it about diehard TMers when their fallback position, when they have been unable to get someone to argue head-to-head with them so that they can win or at the very least claim to, becomes trying to go for the olde, tired ad hominem of You can't trust anything he says, because he's a liar. They've run that on Vaj, on you, on me, and on any number of people who criticize TM, Maharishi, or the TMO on this forum. No, only Barry and Vaj. They would have you believe that this is a coincidence, and that they work overtime trying to similarly demonize other liars who *don't* criticize TM, Maharishi, and the TMO, but I don't think anyone believes them about this any more. NO TMER ON FFL HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS, and Barry knows it. In other words, he's lying. He made it up out of whole cloth. What we *do* say is that we *don't* call any and all TM critics liars. Most of the critics here are *not* liars. Vaj lies and Barry lies. Barry lies primarily about TMers (especially the TMers on FFL, as he does here); Vaj lies about TM, TMers, MMY, and the TMO, as well as about his TM status. Barry also lies about practically everything else when it serves his purposes. It's as if they still believe in the Maharishi model of how to deal with criticism: Find ways to put down the critic and insinuate that he/she has evil motives for saying what he does, or is lying, or is untrust- worthy, or whatever, and enough of the already-drank- the-Kool-Aid-brigade will believe it so that we can continue doing business. There are any number of examples that rebut this canard. The most recent and prominent is Robin, whose outspoken criticism of MMY's teaching puts all the other critics here in the shade. And yet--as Barry himself, ironically, has made a big deal of in other posts--we get along with Robin very well indeed. It's the *other TM critics* who accuse Robin of being untrustworthy, most notably Barry and Vaj. I kinda think it's lazy, and embarrassing. I'd like to see some of these Shoot the messenger types deal with the actual message. But that's not gonna happen. Of course, we deal with the actual message *all the time*. But there's a limit to what we can accomplish along those lines when the messengers refuse to engage in any discussion with us and resort instead to the kind of crude demonization Barry spouts here. It isn't the TMers who ostentatiously refrain from reading the posts of those with whom they disagree. We aren't afraid to even *look* at their message, the way Barry and Vaj are afraid to look at ours. It isn't the TMers who are afraid to discuss the issues, it's Barry and Vaj. The dishonesty and hypocrisy emanating from Barry and Vaj are choking this forum to death.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: What we *do* say is that we *don't* call any and all TM critics liars. Most of the critics here are *not* liars. Vaj lies and Barry lies. Barry lies primarily about TMers (especially the TMers on FFL, as he does here); Vaj lies about TM, TMers, MMY, and the TMO, as well as about his TM status. Barry also lies about practically everything else when it serves his purposes. That's right ! And they're both Buddhists. Like the americans say; what's up with that ?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses... From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. **ER. This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was hearing the word vague...probably subconsciously influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way. And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to vagina. That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to demean women - not at all my intent, of course. I haven't appreciated all the psychiatric labeling of late because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then... So labels like stupid, liar, malicious, etc. are fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually reserved for shrinks. Vag is clearly also OK. I get it. **ER. Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in implication or use? You are talking apples and oranges here in a huge way. ...but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. Isn't voyeur too psychiatric a term for you to be using, given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-) ** ER. I don't know about voyeur as a psychiatric term, but it is true that almost everything on this forum has been hitting me as a love sonnet of giant proportions. But, I do often interpret abstractly and may ignore the details and stay in my version of the big picture. Take Merudanda's poetry for example - her communication style is really quite incredible and blows me away. I really must get back to Sean Williams videos on is it bipolar or is it waking up. I'm healing, but who knows, maybe I'm Bipolar I or Bipolar II or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a sex addict or in menopause or in the throes of a growing brain tumor, or any number of other things. Maybe I'm normal with more than my fair share of common sense. Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe you actually have no idea who I really am, based on what I write here. I'm not in any real rush to diagnose myself, honestly, and see no value in entertaining some internet-based diagnosis either. It's a real buzz-kill honestly. I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to behave before he rejected his enlightenment and I hold out an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an individual communication style don't persist - that's part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe in an always coherent way, is difficult. Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV. **ER. This is a ridiculous statement to make, particularly, as a writer/editor, if that's what you do. You know better than that. But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow, in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that approach won't work for me. Also, I have a pretty loose definition of crazy - even looser since I started on this forum. We are all a bit crazy...you too, IMO. I admit to appreciating the craziness and absurdity of life. What I'm questioning is the wisdom of *feeding the fantasies of people who could possibly be suffering from serious mental illness*. THAT is what I think has been going on here on FFL with Ravi and with Robin, and for the basest of reasons. IMO, a small group of rather sick people here praise these two, thus feeding their narcissistic fantasies and contributing to the possibility of making their condition WORSE, for no other reason than that they're trying to recruit people who will pile on and demonize the same people they live to demonize. I think that's not only a little sick, but dangerous. I fear it will end badly, and when it does the very people who have been *encouraging* Ravi and Robin to act even crazier than they normally do are going to say, A...too bad. But it wasn't my fault. How crazy does
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it? Enough is known about Vaj to clear up any mystery of what relationship, if any, he had with Robin and his followers. Perhaps at some point someone will come forward to help clear it up. Robin has stated on several ocassions that it Vaj's accusations were true someone would have come forth to verify them. Well, as far as I can see no one, cept Robin has come forth to refute them. Robin, tear down that wall!. Wait, got that wrong. Robin, present that evidence!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning. You are likely one post away from being on Barry's DNRL. Just so you know. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses... From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. **ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was hearing the word vague...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to vagina.  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to demean women - not at all my intent, of course.  I haven't appreciated all the psychiatric labeling of late because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then... So labels like stupid, liar, malicious, etc. are fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually reserved for shrinks. Vag is clearly also OK. I get it. **ER.  Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in implication or use?  You are talking apples and oranges here in a huge way.  ...but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. Isn't voyeur too psychiatric a term for you to be using, given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-) ** ER.  I don't know about voyeur as a psychiatric term, but it is true that almost everything on this forum has been hitting me as a love sonnet of giant proportions.  But, I do often interpret abstractly and may ignore the details and stay in my  version of the big picture.  Take Merudanda's poetry for example - her communication style is really quite incredible and blows me away.  I really must get back to Sean Williams videos on is it bipolar or is it waking up.  I'm healing, but who knows, maybe I'm Bipolar I  or Bipolar II or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a sex addict or in menopause or in the throes of a growing brain tumor, or any number of other things.  Maybe I'm normal with more than my fair share of common sense.  Maybe I'm crazy.  Maybe you actually have no idea who I really am, based on what I write here.  I'm not in any real rush to diagnose myself, honestly, and see no value in entertaining some internet-based diagnosis either.  It's a real buzz-kill honestly. I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to behave before he rejected his enlightenment and I hold out an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an individual communication style don't persist - that's part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe in an always coherent way, is difficult. Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV. **ER.  This is a ridiculous statement to make, particularly, as a writer/editor, if that's what you do.  You know better than that. But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow, in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that approach won't work for me. Also, I have a pretty loose definition of crazy - even looser since I started on this forum. We are all a bit crazy...you too, IMO. I admit to appreciating the craziness and absurdity of life. What I'm questioning is the wisdom of *feeding the fantasies of people who could possibly be suffering from serious mental illness*. THAT is what I think has been going on here on FFL with Ravi and with Robin, and for the basest of reasons. IMO, a small group of rather sick people here praise these two, thus feeding their narcissistic fantasies and contributing to the possibility of making their condition WORSE, for no other reason than that they're trying to recruit people who will pile on and demonize the same people they live to demonize. I think that's not only a little sick
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it? Enough is known about Vaj to clear up any mystery of what relationship, if any, he had with Robin and his followers. Perhaps at some point someone will come forward to help clear it up. Robin has stated on several ocassions that it Vaj's accusations were true someone would have come forth to verify them. Well, as far as I can see no one, cept Robin has come forth to refute them. Robin, tear down that wall!. Wait, got that wrong. Robin, present that evidence! Don't be ridicelous, the evidence in the FBI-files are not open to Robin.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Are you trying to ruin my afternoon, here? It's already pouring rain. I'm just trying to help the guy out with an alternate perspective - not one more or less valid than his. I have zero expectations of him - its his choice, after all. From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning. You are likely one post away from being on Barry's DNRL. Just so you know. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses... From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. **ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was hearing the word vague...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to vagina.  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to demean women - not at all my intent, of course.  I haven't appreciated all the psychiatric labeling of late because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then... So labels like stupid, liar, malicious, etc. are fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually reserved for shrinks. Vag is clearly also OK. I get it. **ER.  Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in implication or use?  You are talking apples and oranges here in a huge way.  ...but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. Isn't voyeur too psychiatric a term for you to be using, given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-) ** ER.  I don't know about voyeur as a psychiatric term, but it is true that almost everything on this forum has been hitting me as a love sonnet of giant proportions.  But, I do often interpret abstractly and may ignore the details and stay in my  version of the big picture.  Take Merudanda's poetry for example - her communication style is really quite incredible and blows me away.  I really must get back to Sean Williams videos on is it bipolar or is it waking up.  I'm healing, but who knows, maybe I'm Bipolar I  or Bipolar II or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a sex addict or in menopause or in the throes of a growing brain tumor, or any number of other things.  Maybe I'm normal with more than my fair share of common sense.  Maybe I'm crazy.  Maybe you actually have no idea who I really am, based on what I write here.  I'm not in any real rush to diagnose myself, honestly, and see no value in entertaining some internet-based diagnosis either.  It's a real buzz-kill honestly. I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to behave before he rejected his enlightenment and I hold out an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an individual communication style don't persist - that's part of the human - expressing who we are and what we believe in an always coherent way, is difficult. Not, in my experience, if one is coherent to start with. YMMV. **ER.  This is a ridiculous statement to make, particularly, as a writer/editor, if that's what you do.  You know better than that. But, those that aren't willing or able to explore or question themselves and their depths never truly change/evolve/grow, in my experience. That's O.K. too for thembut that approach won't work for me. Also, I have a pretty loose definition of crazy - even looser since I started on this forum. We are all a bit crazy...you too, IMO. I admit to appreciating the craziness and absurdity of life. What I'm questioning
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Emily, I did not read in detail the entire exchange. But I read enough to see that you were taking issue with some of Barry's perceptions. Unlike Judy who feels that Barry has always been a dishonest broker about all things TMO and MMY, that has not been my perception. When he began posting here, I thought he had a more playful demeanor, and had some neat insights. And sometimes that playfulness, and those insights still come through. But for the most part I feel they have been overtaken by a hard cynicism. And he seems to have lost the appetite for any kind of self reflection, although when he started, that seemed to be one of the areas he felt was important as a general concept. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Are you trying to ruin my afternoon, here?  It's already pouring rain.  I'm just trying to help the guy out with an alternate perspective - not one more or less valid than his.  I have zero expectations of him - its his choice, after all. From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning. You are likely one post away from being on Barry's DNRL. Just so you know. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses... From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula à--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. **ER. àThis was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was hearing the word vague...probably subconsciously àinfluenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way. àAnd, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to vagina. àThat was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to demean women - not at all my intent, of course. àI haven't appreciated all the psychiatric labeling of late because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then... So labels like stupid, liar, malicious, etc. are fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually reserved for shrinks. Vag is clearly also OK. I get it.à**ER. àAre you telling me you don't understand the difference in implication or use? àYou are talking apples and oranges here in a huge way. à...but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. Isn't voyeur too psychiatric a term for you to be using, given what you just criticized? Just sayin'... :-) ** ER. àI don't know about voyeur as a psychiatric term, but it is true that almost everything on this forum has been hitting me as a love sonnet of giant proportions. àBut, I do often interpret abstractly and may ignore the details and stay in my àversion of the big picture. àTake Merudanda's poetry for example - her communication style is really quite incredible and blows me away. àI really must get back to Sean Williams videos on is it bipolar or is it waking up. àI'm healing, but who knows, maybe I'm Bipolar I àor Bipolar II or hypomanic or an NPD myself or a sex addict or in menopause or in the throes of a growing brain tumor, or any number of other things. àMaybe I'm normal with more than my fair share of common sense. àMaybe I'm crazy. àMaybe you actually have no idea who I really am, based on what I write here. àI'm not in any real rush to diagnose myself, honestly, and see no value in entertaining some internet-based diagnosis either. àIt's a real buzz-kill honestly. I don't experience Robin here the way he was purported to behave before he rejected his enlightenment and I hold out an ideal that people that are willing to explore their depths change. It doesn't mean that communication patterns or an individual
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Yes, I was addressing the self-reflection issue indirectly I guess, as he did respond to me directly. Barry does have a playful demeanor at times and I appreciate his posts and the comics and the communiques - I really do. I simply disagree with his approach here, but I do hear what he is saying and I understand it as stated in words on the forum. I assure you that I am operating as an independent - if my perspective appears to align with someone else's on certain points than that's the way it is, but I have my own voice and I do not parrot on purpose or with some unstated intent to pile on. That's never been my MO and I'm not going to start now. I choose to stay out of judgment in the big picture, but that doesn't mean I don't play with my opinion or approach at times, or perhaps delve into the weeds or mire or wallow or whatever. On this forum, I think all contribute substantially no matter where their state of mind, and I appreciate that more than words can say. From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:54 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula Emily, I did not read in detail the entire exchange. But I read enough to see that you were taking issue with some of Barry's perceptions. Unlike Judy who feels that Barry has always been a dishonest broker about all things TMO and MMY, that has not been my perception. When he began posting here, I thought he had a more playful demeanor, and had some neat insights. And sometimes that playfulness, and those insights still come through. But for the most part I feel they have been overtaken by a hard cynicism. And he seems to have lost the appetite for any kind of self reflection, although when he started, that seemed to be one of the areas he felt was important as a general concept. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: Are you trying to ruin my afternoon, here?  It's already pouring rain.  I'm just trying to help the guy out with an alternate perspective - not one more or less valid than his.  I have zero expectations of him - its his choice, after all. From: seventhray1 steve.sundur@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 3:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  Emily, I feel obliged to give you fair warning. You are likely one post away from being on Barry's DNRL. Just so you know. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: Alrighty, I tried my hand at interspersing my responses... From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:31 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@ wrote: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. **ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was hearing the word vague...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to vagina.  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to demean women - not at all my intent, of course.  I haven't appreciated all the psychiatric labeling of late because it's so limiting and dismissive and disrespectful and inaccurate. Other types of labeling - alright then... So labels like stupid, liar, malicious, etc. are fine with you, just as long as no one uses terms usually reserved for shrinks. Vag is clearly also OK. I get it. **ER.  Are you telling me you don't understand the difference in implication or use?  You are talking apples and oranges here in a huge way.  ...but psychiatric labels by armchair experts on an internet forum is a bit of a stretch, I think. I actually find the exchanges between Curtis and Robin quite interesting, but I'm acting as a voyeur only in that respect. Isn't voyeur too psychiatric a term for you to be using, given what you just criticized? Just
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Maybe Vaj has been interested in posting on this TM oriented forum for years and years and years because he had personal experience as a teacher of TM and has since changed his perspective on its value like most of us here. And maybe Vaj's obvious intererest in Robin comes from his experiences with Robin in his previous role. You know, the ones he has related here. I get it that the Vaj never even did TM team is not gunna budge. It provides a complete ad hominem against anything he says as Nabbie repeated below. And since he doesn't seem interested in proving his TM involvement to them that seems like a position that isn't gunna budge. But for we who hold no stock options in that angle, it seems more likely that the guy is interested in these topics due to previous experiences with them. And if I had to guess why he has not answered critics with proof of his involvement, it would be in a folder labeled: F'ing with people. And so far it seems like it is working pretty well. I doubt that Vag's superiors in the FBI agree with you. Rather they probably wonder why he is still involved with a project they gave up decades ago. Speaking of mad as a March hare. Just sayin'.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
I'd sure like to know the burden of proof you are looking for Judy. Evidently details such as time and place, nuances are not good enough for you. Vaj must keep a complete dossier on Robin, which he must also have pretty much memorized since he posts in nearly zero lag time in response to Robin's posts. But evidently you maintain that all this could be accounted for by public records, interviews, newspaper articles that Vaj has compiled. And of course this could be the case. But a more likely scenario is that Vaj was present in the scenes he describes. And if I were the betting type, and someone asked me to be on the other side a bet which said that Vaj's story was all heresay, I would take that bet. I guess there is the other matter where Vaj has asked Robin to carry on the discussion offline, whereby names and other details could be discussed in private. That offer was declined. contemporaneous time --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Robin, Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the issue of Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin Wordworth Carlson, what would be the verdict? What you seem incapable of incorporating into your thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney, depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of those details from somebody else who *was* in Fairfield and who *did* know Robin. Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be thrown out. That's hardly a technicality. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. Another point is that the jury in this case has heard testimony from Vaj on various issues for *years* now, not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not established a reputation for credibility, to say the least, among most of us here. Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is determined to get Robin any way he can. We don't know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's no question that's what he's engaged in. And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who has stood up in public and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth acquires thereby a certain basic measure of credibility because the person is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself. Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's testimony about his experiences with Robin remind me of nothing so much as the special effects trickery that inserted Forrest Gump into all kinds of important events. It's as if Vaj had Photoshopped himself into Robin's life. You can almost see the faint line between Vaj's image and the real ones. There's just no sense of first-person resonance, no ring of authenticity. snip On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past events, I agree with you 100 percent on these points. As I said in another post, Robin has so much to contribute, and perhaps even something to receive, from more positive interactions here. It's hard not to respond when you feel you're being unfairly maligned, but I wish Robin could find it within himself to limit his responses to the attacks to short statements of fact and just carry on. and that is certainly his perogative. You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's doing; but is it *right* that he's doing it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Emily Reyn: I tried my hand at interspersing my responses... Just a hint: Use before what they say, and then post your replies below that. That way, we can tell what they say and your replies. (Try looking at Judy's posts to get the formatting). Use the ENTER key to break lines at 40 characters; that makes your replies much easier to read, instead of a mess like this: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. **ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was hearing the word vague...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to vagina.  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to demean women - not at all my intent, of course.  snip
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
I know. I saw that. It doesn't look that way on my screen obviously. Which is why I attempted to use the **ER start. I'm not even sure my posts are coming through without the weird characters that show up here in the reply, for example. 40 characters? Is there a button to push to know when that is or that counts characters? I certainly can't be counting. I am really a techno-dinosaur, so I welcome feedback. From: richardatrwilliamsdotus rich...@rwilliams.us To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 5:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula Emily Reyn: I tried my hand at interspersing my responses... Just a hint: Use before what they say, and then post your replies below that. That way, we can tell what they say and your replies. (Try looking at Judy's posts to get the formatting). Use the ENTER key to break lines at 40 characters; that makes your replies much easier to read, instead of a mess like this: I'm sorry Barry. I may have this wrong...I thought I was referring to a conversation between you and Zarzari, not Vag. I can tell the difference between you and Vag Vaj. Short for Vajranathra, his screen name. You don't seem to be aware of the fact that by referring to him as 'Vag' you are perpetuating derogative namecalling started by people who don't like him. That's fairly clueless of you IMO, especially in the context of criticizing someone else for the terms *they* use to describe people. **ER.  This was a complete mistake/mistype on my part...in my head, I was hearing the word vague...probably subconsciously  influenced by Bob's post - oh, oh, I see a diagnosis coming my way.  And, I totally didn't even think of what Judy mentioned, in terms of relating the name to vagina.  That was a real shocker and particularly with regard to the potential to demean women - not at all my intent, of course.  snip
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: I'd sure like to know the burden of proof you are looking for Judy. Evidently details such as time and place, nuances are not good enough for you. Vaj must keep a complete dossier on Robin, which he must also have pretty much memorized since he posts in nearly zero lag time in response to Robin's posts. But evidently you maintain that all this could be accounted for by public records, interviews, newspaper articles that Vaj has compiled. And of course this could be the case. But a more likely scenario is that Vaj was present in the scenes he describes. And if I were the betting type, and someone asked me to be on the other side a bet which said that Vaj's story was all heresay, I would take that bet. I agree with you on this one, Steve. If we assume that Vaj was present for some of these events and has such insider knowledge, it makes me think that either he or someone close to him was one of Robin's followers or else, for some reason, was very interested in the outcome of the whole enterprise. It does sound as if there was some very odd, extreme behavior happening with Robin in those days -whether mental instability or some kundalini triggered imbalance. Without the protection of being part of the TMO or any other such org, he would have ended up in the hospital, or jail, in the real world. This entire subject seems beaten to death here on FFL. I don't get the ongoing fascination with this, or with Ravi, either. I guess there is the other matter where Vaj has asked Robin to carry on the discussion offline, whereby names and other details could be discussed in private. That offer was declined. contemporaneous time --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Robin, Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the issue of Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin Wordworth Carlson, what would be the verdict? What you seem incapable of incorporating into your thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney, depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of those details from somebody else who *was* in Fairfield and who *did* know Robin. Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be thrown out. That's hardly a technicality. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. Another point is that the jury in this case has heard testimony from Vaj on various issues for *years* now, not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not established a reputation for credibility, to say the least, among most of us here. Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is determined to get Robin any way he can. We don't know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's no question that's what he's engaged in. And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who has stood up in public and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth acquires thereby a certain basic measure of credibility because the person is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself. Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's testimony about his experiences with Robin remind me of nothing so much as the special effects trickery that inserted Forrest Gump into all kinds of important events. It's as if Vaj had Photoshopped himself into Robin's life. You can almost see the faint line between Vaj's image and the real ones. There's just no sense of first-person resonance, no ring of authenticity. snip On the other hand, what is so wrong with simply dealing with these events that happened 25 or 30 years ago, and then moving on? Or at least trying to move on. It appears that Vaj is going to continue to confront you with these past events, I agree with you 100 percent on these points. As I said in another post, Robin has so much to contribute, and perhaps even something to receive, from more positive interactions here. It's hard not to respond when you feel you're being unfairly maligned, but I wish Robin could find it within himself to limit his responses to the attacks to short statements of fact and just carry on. and that is certainly his perogative. You could say that. Vaj has the *right* to do what he's
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Thanks Wayback. I appreciate a little nod of support. But the fact of the matter is that I think the whole affair is being kept alive by Robin for some reason. On the one hand he claims to be sensitive to those who were involved in his activities way back when. Then, in almost the same sentence he will not consent to moving the discusssion offline where it could be determined if Vaj is being credible in his statements. So as Richard is fond of saying, go figure. One the one hand we have specifics. On the other hand we have a flat denial based on, based on, based on. Sheesh what is the denial based on? And then we close off the means to verify. With regards to Ravi, I think we in the west sort of like to be approached as equals. After so many times as being referred to as Ravi's bitch, or one of his many bitches, you sort of build up a little resentment. OMG. OMG. Did I just divulge that I'm not enlightened? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: I'd sure like to know the burden of proof you are looking for Judy. Evidently details such as time and place, nuances are not good enough for you. Vaj must keep a complete dossier on Robin, which he must also have pretty much memorized since he posts in nearly zero lag time in response to Robin's posts. But evidently you maintain that all this could be accounted for by public records, interviews, newspaper articles that Vaj has compiled. And of course this could be the case. But a more likely scenario is that Vaj was present in the scenes he describes. And if I were the betting type, and someone asked me to be on the other side a bet which said that Vaj's story was all heresay, I would take that bet. I agree with you on this one, Steve. If we assume that Vaj was present for some of these events and has such insider knowledge, it makes me think that either he or someone close to him was one of Robin's followers or else, for some reason, was very interested in the outcome of the whole enterprise. It does sound as if there was some very odd, extreme behavior happening with Robin in those days -whether mental instability or some kundalini triggered imbalance. Without the protection of being part of the TMO or any other such org, he would have ended up in the hospital, or jail, in the real world. This entire subject seems beaten to death here on FFL. I don't get the ongoing fascination with this, or with Ravi, either. I guess there is the other matter where Vaj has asked Robin to carry on the discussion offline, whereby names and other details could be discussed in private. That offer was declined. contemporaneous time --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote: Robin, Has it ocurred to you that Vaj has built his case, (if you want to call it a case) on specific details. Your response has been to declare that it is all a lie. Now, if there were a bench of 12 jurors listening to the evidence, on the issue of Did this Vajradhatu know or meet this Robin Wordworth Carlson, what would be the verdict? What you seem incapable of incorporating into your thinking is what the prosecutor (or defense attorney, depending on who's suing whom) would point out to the jury: that Vaj could have gotten every single one of those details from somebody else who *was* in Fairfield and who *did* know Robin. Now Judy may say, well, you haven't presented any person who can identify this Vajrahatu at the scene, and because of this technicality, the case could be thrown out. That's hardly a technicality. But short of this standard, it seems to me that Vaj has presented credible, seemingly first person evidence. Another point is that the jury in this case has heard testimony from Vaj on various issues for *years* now, not just for a few hours in a courtroom. He has not established a reputation for credibility, to say the least, among most of us here. Plus which, he has a clear motive to lie about what he knows firsthand: He's made it very plain that he is determined to get Robin any way he can. We don't know why he's on this personal vendetta, but there's no question that's what he's engaged in. And here, by the way, he's not testifying under penalty of perjury as he would be in a courtroom. A person who has stood up in public and sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth acquires thereby a certain basic measure of credibility because the person is aware of the penalties for perjuring himself. Personally, just on the level of impressions, Vaj's testimony about his experiences with Robin
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
love, and then project an air of sympathy to the other forum members for how pathologically disturbed I am. What I like most about diagnoses are the labels...the more the merrier...for mine, feel free to use as many as it takes to get a comprehensive diagnosis in place and then, do me a favor, write them in calligraphy, wrap them in a box (a simple silver Nordtrom-like box will do) and tie it up with a pretty purple satin ribbon? I like my labels to be presented to me in a classy way and always inside a box. Your's/Barry's willingness to define Ravi and Robin with these kinds of labels on this forum (internet) in such a conclusionary manner is from a common sense perspective, simply unmitigated arrogance out of control - a classic symptom of NPD, in case you are interested. Now, like you, I have some real-world experience with NPD's. In fact, I have almost 50 years of deeply and intimately knowing and relating to NPDs. I was raised by two, took a short break during my 20's, and then powered down for the next 15 years with some true hard-core NPDs - the kind that fully fit Sam Vaknin's descriptions and the DSM IV and every other self-help book out there. The first has the honor of being my children's father; I rebounded immediately into another long-term relationship - one wasn't enough for me. I worked with one towards the end of my career and had so much experience by that point, that he never did know who it was that took him out (until the very end). From my years of experience, I am of the opinion that you/Barry have made some critical and major errors in judgment and should have preceded your diagnostic conclusions with a well-researched fatal flaw analysis, at the very least. Putting people in labeled boxes without their consent to serve your interests is another classic symptom of NPD, btw. Now, you've exhibited two. One more, and maybe I'll slap a label on you. Probably not though...it strikes me as kind of crazy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w -- *From:* zarzari_786 no_re...@yahoogroups.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, December 26, 2011 4:26 PM *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: This stuff in unbelievable.  Taken in?  The assumptions in these statements demonstrates true psychic ability on this forum... Or simply common sense. ___ From: authfriend jstein@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:52 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: snip Of course. He is smart enough, he makes everyone either follower (or admirer) or opponent. (black and white, ask Curtis) In reality he is a poor and old guy, who's illusions were shattered. I don't really find any mystery about him, I rather find the fascination mysterious, he has for some people, intelligent people at that. Exactly. The real issue is not RWC, but those on this forum who have been taken in by him. That's just scary. Translation: Barry just *hates* it when somebody pushes him out of the spotlight he considers rightfully his.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula Your's/Barry's willingness to define Ravi and Robin with these kinds of labels on this forum (internet) in such a conclusionary manner is from a common sense perspective, simply unmitigated arrogance out of control - a classic symptom of NPD, in case you are interested. Dear Denise, Thank you for your comments above. I have explained these before but let me explain it again since it has been a while and my responses might have been scattered across multiple posts and you probably weren't around here. Though initially I was offended at these labels, the very fact that these labels were thrown at me helped me go back to the drawing board. I spent a lot of time on Wiki and other websites in trying to understand these issues. My opinions below. Now I'm not surprised that people throw these labels from DSM around and I can clearly see how this is the only way the intellect can wrap around the outer manifestations of the incredible states that I go through. Prior to my being enlightened I used to suffer a lot because I was constantly misunderstood by my ex. But then I would ask myself if I truly loved her or the kids, regardless of how unjustified her behavior was. And I came to realization that my love was not selfless and there was an element of recognition I needed from others, i.e.my love was ego bound - this used to really bother me a lot. I had done lot of work during my marriage to be as selfless as possible i.e. give without needing anything in return but the existence apparently was not satisfied and kept hammering through the guise of my ex. After my series of awakening experiences, I go into deep intense states of joy and pain. I also realized that there was an impersonal quality to it, as in it didn't feel like I was suffering or enjoying for myself and then slowly realized that most of the times there wasn't even anything outisde that caused it. Now because I am so absolutely still, the pain and joy really overwhelms me. You wouldn't want to be around me when I go through these states, I will cry very loudly and laugh very loudly. Yet I am a witness to these states, very hard to describe in words. I notice because I don't filter this energy through any belief system such as god, religion, Gurus, socialism, communism, Buddhism, social utopia, UFO's, age of Aquarius, Pisces, age of enlightenment, Mayan calendar and such, I really wallow in pain, get really high on bliss. In fact over the period of last 2 years my body is getting more stronger, more sensitive - earlier I would get very dizzy, disoriented after these intense states but now it's no more a problem. I haven't been as healthy as now. And I'm totally introverted when I'm by myself, yet the minute there's another person I become the opposite totally extroverted, as in the center shifts from myself to other. And I notice since I don't have any agenda, I don't have any belief and I'm completely focused on the other it, I feel one with the other and this also gives me lot of insights into the other merely by my being absolutely quiet. The love I feel is also totally impersonal. As in I don't feel more love to my children than say Bob, Robin or you. The only person I can shower more love
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Such hifalutin words. Hifalutin concepts. Existance made me do it. What a a great invention. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
DEFCON 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine Denise. You are a mother, you will easily understand this - the fact that you can hurt your child and then unconditionally love, soothe them a little later. That's why I always used to laugh at liberals, the ones who were single childless, their fascination for projecting non-violence, peace, non-violent communication on to others. Their furious, feverish efforts to numb themselves, insulate themselves from pain by trying to control the whole world used to be so hilarious and fascinating to me. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Thank god, DEFCON 1 has never been called for. From: seventhray1 steve.sun...@sbcglobal.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:58 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula DEFCON 2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? You have made 41 posts so far, the post count for standard time would be till 4:00 PM PT and in the Summer till 5 PM. You can go to the group's main page to get the details on the post count - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/messages. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly.  P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hm..the winner huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win.  You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched.  This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:  snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love.  I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win.  You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you.  Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched.  This is your reality then?Â
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
WaitI've had all I can take...I need to think about this statement below in the context of what you are saying. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not sure about this statement below either. I'm not sure you will be the first person to do this...soothingly...I don't know that that was actually your first response when confronted...someone on this forum might beat you to it :) And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine Denise. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine Denise. You are a mother, you will easily understand this - the fact that you can hurt your child and then unconditionally love, soothe them a little later. That's why I always used to laugh at liberals, the ones who were single childless, their fascination for projecting non-violence, peace, non-violent communication on to others. Their furious, feverish efforts to numb themselves, insulate themselves from pain by trying to control the whole world used to be so hilarious and fascinating to me. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that. But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic? It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly. P.S. I might be close on my posts. When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com wrote: Hm..the winner huh. Your statement here is a bit convoluted. If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win. You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched. This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love. I know this Ravi. This is true for all humans, in the end. This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO). I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response. It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw). Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Thank you. That helps tremendously, nowas soon as I finish reading: The humiliation of Christ: in its physical, ethical, and official aspects. and, internalize what you've said this evening...because I have to get out of my head to really do that...I'll get back to you...or, maybe not :) Love, ~Em... From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? You have made 41 posts so far, the post count for standard time would be till 4:00 PM PT and in the Summer till 5 PM. You can go to the group's main page to get the details on the post count - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/messages. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly.  P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hm..the winner huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win.  You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched.  This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:  snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love.  I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do not have a fixation btw).  Robin thought someone should meet you where you were at...that was my attempt :) snip If someone approaches me with an agenda to one up me, with a belief, through the intellect I will always be the winner because I myself have no agenda, no beliefs so this person who approaches me thus is completely vulnerable to my attacks. If I so desire I will use my toxic tongue and caustic sarcasm to humiliate them or may be like Barry says rip them a new asshole or I may just my playful detached humor to escape or use my unconditional love to spoil them with attention, love, humility and kindness. Either way I remain untouched, untainted, untarnished by anything outside of me. Hm..the winner huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win.  You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you.  Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched.  This is your reality then?Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
No worries, words are always limiting and it only causes more questions. Trust me when I say this, my own intellect constantly challenges its own statements and opinions. So whatever I say can never be the truth or the final truth. You don't have to respond till you make sense of it or have more questions. Remember you are at 43 posts now :-). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote: WaitI've had all I can take...I need to think about this statement below in the context of what you are saying.  Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not sure about this statement below either.  I'm not sure you will be the first person to do this...soothingly...I don't know that that was actually your first response when confronted...someone on this forum might beat you to it :) And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine Denise. From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  And I will be the first person, if needed to soothe, love, apply medicine Denise. You are a mother, you will easily understand this - the fact that you can hurt your child and then unconditionally love, soothe them a little later. That's why I always used to laugh at liberals, the ones who were single childless, their fascination for projecting non-violence, peace, non-violent communication on to others. Their furious, feverish efforts to numb themselves, insulate themselves from pain by trying to control the whole world used to be so hilarious and fascinating to me. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:55 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Thanks Denise. Well because if the other throws his shit at me I sometimes double down and throw it back at them. Again humiliation from their perspective. Humiliation is only a quality of the relative not of the essence. I'm not that egotistic to think I can ever taint, or humiliate the truth. Well the truth is essentially untouched like I say. I feel I only attack their beliefs, their personality, together with socially, morally inappropriate curse words thrown to complete the shock treatment but for the other it's a humiliation because they are so identified with it. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:  AlrightI might buy most of this.I am taken in by you...you have pushed me and I appreciate that.  But, while I do understand the concept that you might feel the other persons pain after humiliating themwhy choose that tactic?  It's not clear to me how humiliation really serves anyone except yourself possibly.  P.S.  I might be close on my posts.  When the post count goes out...what is UT...how do I translate that to Pacific Time? From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula  And Denise, yes Winner from the perspective of the one who wanted to challenge me. Now having humiliated this person, I feel that person's emotions - hurt, pain, anger, because they are another part of me, how can I not feel hurt? But I am able to quickly internalize and transform these emotions, both mine and the other. I feel joy and blissful very quickly. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:19 PM, Ravi Chivukula chivukula.ravi@... wrote: Hm..the winner huh.  Your statement here is a bit convoluted.  If you have no agenda, then why do you have to win.  You make some assumptions here about the person who approaches you... Ravi - Approaches with an agenda that is, as in to confront me. Winner only from their perspective. I don't care either way, but the choice to play or withdraw with my playful humor or entice them with my love is entirely up to my intuition. Yesif you so desire you can use whatever tactics please you.you remain untouched.  This is your reality then? Yes. Since I'm ever alert I just adapt seamlessly, a bit unruffled at first on a completely new situation but never throws me off balance. It's work in progress anyway, I will only get better. On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.reyn@... wrote:  snip Anyway my 99 cents on this. The only way anyone can approach me, understand me, conquer me is through love.  I know this Ravi.  This is true for all humans, in the end.  This is why I sent you that painting - it really is a beautiful piece (IMHO).  I think Bob understood what I was saying as he was the only one to respond, except for your initial response.  It was not at all about my fixation with the male sex organ (and I do
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 26, 2011, at 5:31 PM, zarzari_786 wrote: Maharishi had a word for this, for people slipping into Brahman (or so) and not being really grounded: Moody Brahman Yeah, I remember him, didn't he play the sax?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Well, almost an hour by the Web site timestamps. But no matter. Oh, yes, I must have been in Turya state of consciousness then (wink wink willy) Very impressive! So, we are agreed, zarzari_786: Yes we are agreed. but I thought it was Robin that had been in the Turiya state He was in a delusional state as of his own reporting. And that isn't turya. - now we've got a whole new set of claims from Zazari. Go figure. P.S. You can call me 'willy' if that makes me seem less human to you - I don't mind, but that's my email address. LoL! Okay, then richie? Or Richie Ji? OK, zarzari_786, but how, exactly would you be knowing anything about 'turya'. Turq says you can't get there without proof. Turq says you probably read about it in a book. Vaj says TM can't get you to 'turytita' at all. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania. Some people who believe they are enlightened may just be spacey. turquoiseb: Or delusional. I completely agree. I have seen nothing in RWC's performance here that rules out delusional, either then, or now. It is worth noting that most of the people discussing these supposed higher states of consciousness that some on this forum claim to have had are doing so completely from a theoretical basis. They have personally never had such experiences, and are basing anything they say on theories given to them by Maharishi, who IMO was in exactly the same boat they were. That is, only having heard about enlightenment, and never having experienced it. Even the early stages of it. Well, obviously, the only teacher to have been really 'enlightened' was your teacher, the Zen Master Rama, a teacher that even you certified as being an adept of the 'siddhi' of levitation, just like a Simon Magus. Which proves he was one of the few on the planet ever to have achieved that kind of enlightened state, that is, other than the Master Fwap, Fred Lenz's teacher, or maybe Lobsang Rampa. The only thing I can't figure out is, why Rama did not give you a spiritual name after all those years and all that money, like he gave to his dog 'Vayu'. Go figure. So, why I mean why, if Rama was NOT enlightened, would you have given him all those thousands of dollars to him and write that book about him with all those stories of you and him on the road trips? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 26, 2011, at 7:12 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: According to Maharishi and according to tradition this [losing Unity Consciousness] is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. Either that or it never happened in the first place. That is, from everything that has been reported here that I've read, the entire episode sounds like a classic case of NPD/hypmania augmented by moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other people's attention. There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. So the claim from his guru is that no, he was not enlightened. His behaviors continued to escalate and I believe, to this very day, if RWC sets foot in the state of Iowa, he would be detained for 40 days in the Jefferson Co. prison - possibly longer, since he skipped off to Victoria to escape his fate. The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania. Yep. I wonder what his mother Norah - an esteemed and groundbreaking Ph.D. psychologist - would have said? I cannot help hear her voice in the psychobabble of Robin interspersed in his lingo back then. But if IIRC, she did not approve. She may have even been declared demonic - a certain, real shunning for anyone in the World Teacher Seminar. She left this world however in 2000, so we may not ever know, but it's an interesting part of the RWC story: boy raised by glass ceiling breaking female psychologist. And I wonder how many present day psychologists she inspired? Perhaps many. IMO, Dr. Norah Carlsen, Ph.D. is the more interesting story I'd like to hear. My belated condolences on the passing of this incredible woman.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
snip It is worth noting that most of the people discussing these supposed higher states of consciousness that some on this forum claim to have had are doing so completely from a theoretical basis. They have personally never had such experiences, and are basing anything they say on theories given to them by Maharishi, who IMO was in exactly the same boat they were. That is, only having heard about enlightenment, and never having experienced it. Even the early stages of it. authfriend: Says Barry, who, having experienced all the stages of enlightenment, is able to discern precisely what experiences others have had and exactly what state of consciousness they are in, including MMY. Jai Barry! Why are we discussing this at all when we could just ask Barry to explain it to us, the whole nine yards? Well, I think Barry already posted his explanation about his enlightenment experience - maybe not the whole nine yards - but most of it. It's the power of the 'koan' given out to him by the Zen Master Rama. Maybe you just missed the part about you being too ponderous to make the 'breakthrough'. In my experience, the real value of a koan, and why their value has been passed down to history but misunderstood, is that there is a power to a koan when it is *spoken* by a teacher. NOT as words, NOT in the same sense that many here believe a mantra has power, but a kind of synergistic thing, a perception on the part of the teacher that this *particular* set of nonsense words has the capability of providing a breakthrough for this particular student at this particular moment in time. And, sometimes, it does. However, the same set of nonsense words, spoken to another student, may have no effect whatsoever. The same set of nonsense words, pondered by someone ponderous, could only serve to make her more ponderous... Read more: Subject: Re: Two simple questions... Author: Uncle Tantra Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: 2003-03-19 07:00:21 PST
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Vague, You and Barry give new meaning to the epithet Pond Scum, first you go after Robin's ex-wife, speculating on their love life, and now its his mother (neither of whom would give either of you the time of day---opps, I guess that may be your problem). Your poorly written fictions obviously have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the shared Oedipus complex that draws the two of you together. If you're going to continue to *attempt* to write fiction you must look into a few courses; you *must* realize, its a discipline. vague |vāg| adjective of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning : many patients suffer vague symptoms. • thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way : he had been very vague about his activities. DERIVATIVES vaguely adverb vagueness noun vaguish adjective ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French, or from Latin vagus ‘wandering, uncertain.’ From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:09:43 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula On Dec 26, 2011, at 7:12 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: According to Maharishi and according to tradition this [losing Unity Consciousness] is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. Either that or it never happened in the first place. That is, from everything that has been reported here that I've read, the entire episode sounds like a classic case of NPD/hypmania augmented by moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other people's attention. There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. So the claim from his guru is that no, he was not enlightened. His behaviors continued to escalate and I believe, to this very day, if RWC sets foot in the state of Iowa, he would be detained for 40 days in the Jefferson Co. prison - possibly longer, since he skipped off to Victoria to escape his fate. The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania. Yep. I wonder what his mother Norah - an esteemed and groundbreaking Ph.D. psychologist - would have said? I cannot help hear her voice in the psychobabble of Robin interspersed in his lingo back then. But if IIRC, she did not approve. She may have even been declared demonic - a certain, real shunning for anyone in the World Teacher Seminar. She left this world however in 2000, so we may not ever know, but it's an interesting part of the RWC story: boy raised by glass ceiling breaking female psychologist. And I wonder how many present day psychologists she inspired? Perhaps many. IMO, Dr. Norah Carlsen, Ph.D. is the more interesting story I'd like to hear. My belated condolences on the passing of this incredible woman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Hey Boob: On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Bob Price wrote: Vague, You and Barry give new meaning to the epithet Pond Scum, first you go after Robin's ex-wife, speculating on their love life, and now its his mother (neither of whom would give either of you the time of day---opps, I guess that may be your problem). Actually, she did give me the time of day, and an answer to whether R. was still alive - contrary to the disinformation that was coming from TM types like yourself. boob 1 |boōb| informal noun 1 a foolish or stupid person : why was that boob given a key investigation? 2 Brit. an embarrassing mistake. ORIGIN early 20th cent.: abbreviation of booby 1 .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
And what about my accusation that you're pond scum? From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 10:44:28 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula Hey Boob: On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Bob Price wrote: Vague, You and Barry give new meaning to the epithet Pond Scum, first you go after Robin's ex-wife, speculating on their love life, and now its his mother (neither of whom would give either of you the time of day---opps, I guess that may be your problem). Actually, she did give me the time of day, and an answer to whether R. was still alive - contrary to the disinformation that was coming from TM types like yourself. boob1 |boōb|informal noun 1 a foolish or stupid person : why was that boob given a key investigation? 2 Brit. an embarrassing mistake. ORIGIN early 20th cent.: abbreviation ofbooby 1 .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Bob Price wrote: And what about my accusation that you're pond scum? Pretty hard in the winter Boob.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net snip Actually, she did give me the time of day ***BP: Now we're getting somewhere, Dr. Carlsen treated you and Barry for your Oedipus complex. Vague, Don't ever let anyone tell you you're not terminally unique, I am absolutely convinced you're the only person on the planet pretending to be a TM initiator.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Judy: According to Maharishi and according to tradition this [losing Unity Consciousness] is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. Zarzari: Either that or it never happened in the first place. That is, from everything that has been reported here that I've read, the entire episode sounds like a classic case of NPD/hypomania augmented by moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other people's attention. Vaj: There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. Robin: There is no commentary in The Discovery of Grace. And I never dictated anything. I wrote in a state of inspiration, but always alone. It felt (in writing anything while in Unity) as if this must have been Maharishi's experience of writing The Science of Being and Art of Living. Everything was written in longhand. And the writing was always very neat. I consider those books an indictment of my enlightenmentthat is to say, proof of the final non-objective (not congruent with reality) status of my Unity Consciousness. Zarzari: I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. Vaj: While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. Robin: Maharishi summoned me to Seelisberg several months after acting out my meta-theatre of enlightenment and 'individuation'. There I talked to him personally, and while he did not exactly say: Go to it, Robin Boy! he nevertheless said nothing that would indicate that I should attempt to stop what I was doing. About six months later he sent one of his secretaries to observe and reflect upon what was going on among the TM teachers in the city where I was acting out my role as the enlightened man, and causing such fierce controversy among the teachers there. Once again there was no move to inhibit me in what I was doing. Maharishi's secretary stayed at the same residence where I and a number of initiators were living. We got along famously. There were other phone calls from Seelisberg, other messages from Maharishimeanwhile the show went on. Without any formal interference whatsoever from Maharishi. He had seven years in which to put a stop to this enlightenment nonsense, and he scrupulously withheld any censorious comments. I forced him to confess not only the validity of my enlightenment, but evenhere is where I went too far [not to say that I was in a hallucinatory state to begin withbut then, so was Maharishi himself]the superiority of my own version of the Sidhis. His back was up against the wall, and he did indeed make these gruff sounds nixing my enlightenment and my innovative updating of the Sidhis. But the ambiguity surrounding all this was too obvious. There was no sense of triumph for the MIU establishment; nor was there any sense of having learned Maharishi's true estimate of my enlightenment. It was all very murky, and I just continued to do what I was doing. Vaj: So the claim from his guru is that no, he was not enlightened. Robin: There was nevereven in the mind of Bevan, who played the audio tape of Maharishi in court that dayany clear cut evidence that actually altered anyone's understanding of what was going on. Maharishi it is true, did not endorse me as I was certain he would; but at the same time his actual words on that tape did nothing to clarify or resolve anything. As everyone realized who heard the tape or subsequently found out about its contents. Vaj: His behaviors continued to escalate and I believe, to this very day, if RWC sets foot in the state of Iowa, he would be detained for 40 days in the Jefferson Co. prison - possibly longer, since he skipped off to Victoria to escape his fate. Robin: There is a complex legal history to all of what followed after Maharishi's audio tape. Which included the conscious ignoring of the ruling that I must not hold my seminars within a certain geographically defined area deemed by the judge to constitute a violation of the territorial rights of MIU. I was found in contempt of court; there was an appeal. The contempt of court ruling was narrowly upheld, and the legal consequence of this was that I should be detained in the manner in which Vaj has described
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Bob Price wrote: From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net snip Actually, she did give me the time of day ***BP: Now we're getting somewhere, Dr. Carlsen treated you and Barry for your Oedipus complex. Alas, we never met. But a relative did send me the family tree.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
vajradh...@earthlink.net snip Actually, she did give me the time of day vajradh...@earthlink.net snip Alas, we never met. But a relative did send me the family tree. ***BP: Your VAGUENESS, Like I said: vague |vāg| adjective of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning : many patients suffer vague symptoms. • thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way : he had been very vague about his activities. DERIVATIVES vaguely adverb vagueness noun vaguish adjective ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French, or from Latin vagus ‘wandering, uncertain.’
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:14 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Vaj: There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. Robin: There is no commentary in The Discovery of Grace. And I never dictated anything. I wrote in a state of inspiration, but always alone. It felt (in writing anything while in Unity) as if this must have been Maharishi's experience of writing The Science of Being and Art of Living. Everything was written in longhand. And the writing was always very neat. I consider those books an indictment of my enlightenment—that is to say, proof of the final non-objective (not congruent with reality) status of my Unity Consciousness. They did seem rather impressive at the time. And I'm sure to many TM folk, they still would. I must have been thinking of 'the sutras of the personal' or something like that. Zarzari: I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. Vaj: While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. Robin: Maharishi summoned me to Seelisberg several months after acting out my meta-theatre of enlightenment and 'individuation'. There I talked to him personally, and while he did not exactly say: Go to it, Robin Boy! he nevertheless said nothing that would indicate that I should attempt to stop what I was doing. About six months later he sent one of his secretaries to observe and reflect upon what was going on among the TM teachers in the city where I was acting out my role as the enlightened man, and causing such fierce controversy among the teachers there. Yes, I remember you speaking (and writing of the Sunnyside experience). Indeed I liked the house. Charming. Once again there was no move to inhibit me in what I was doing. Maharishi's secretary stayed at the same residence where I and a number of initiators were living. We got along famously. There were other phone calls from Seelisberg, other messages from Maharishi—meanwhile the show went on. Without any formal interference whatsoever from Maharishi. He had seven years in which to put a stop to this enlightenment nonsense, and he scrupulously withheld any censorious comments. I forced him to confess not only the validity of my enlightenment, but even—here is where I went too far [not to say that I was in a hallucinatory state to begin with—but then, so was Maharishi himself]—the superiority of my own version of the Sidhis. Yes, that would have been the last straw. And I can understand why. His back was up against the wall, and he did indeed make these gruff sounds nixing my enlightenment and my innovative updating of the Sidhis. But the ambiguity surrounding all this was too obvious. There was no sense of triumph for the MIU establishment; nor was there any sense of having learned Maharishi's true estimate of my enlightenment. It was all very murky, and I just continued to do what I was doing. Yep, that's pretty much how I remember it. Vaj: So the claim from his guru is that no, he was not enlightened. Robin: There was never—even in the mind of Bevan, who played the audio tape of Maharishi in court that day—any clear cut evidence that actually altered anyone's understanding of what was going on. Maharishi it is true, did not endorse me as I was certain he would; but at the same time his actual words on that tape did nothing to clarify or resolve anything. As everyone realized who heard the tape or subsequently found out about its contents. I saw your expression the instant you emerged from the courthouse. The instant I saw your expression and those of your entourage, I knew what the answer had been. That's all I needed to see. Vaj: His behaviors continued to escalate and I believe, to this very day, if RWC sets foot in the state of Iowa, he would be detained for 40 days in the Jefferson Co. prison - possibly longer, since he skipped off to Victoria to escape his fate. Robin: There is a complex legal history to all of what followed after Maharishi's audio tape. Which included the conscious ignoring of the ruling that I must not hold my seminars within a certain geographically defined area
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Robin, delighted you're back. I was afraid you were through with FFL. Several attribution corrections below (you have me confused with zarzari and zarzari confused with Barry); plus a backup to your remarks concerning MMY's attitude toward your activities back in the day. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Judy: According to Maharishi and according to tradition this [losing Unity Consciousness] is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. This was zarzari's comment, not mine. Zarzari: Either that or it never happened in the first place. That is, from everything that has been reported here that I've read, the entire episode sounds like a classic case of NPD/hypomania augmented by moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other people's attention. All this is from Barry, not zarzari. snip Zarzari: I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. This is also from Barry, not zarzari. snip There were other phone calls from Seelisberg, other messages from Maharishimeanwhile the show went on. Without any formal interference whatsoever from Maharishi. He had seven years in which to put a stop to this enlightenment nonsense, and he scrupulously withheld any censorious comments. In past discussions of Robin before he joined us, Peter Sutphen (he hasn't posted to FFL for some time now), who was in Fairfield on Purusha while Robin was doing his thing, asserted numerous times that MMY had told Bevan to leave Robin alone. According to Peter, Bevan's failure to follow MMY's order showed that MMY is surrounded by morons! snip Zarzari: The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania. This is from Barry, not zarzari, as well. zarzari had his own rather slimy (IMHO) diagnostic-type comments to make agreeing with Barry's, but with this beaut of a caveat: I don't like it to be blunt like this, especially, since the person is here on the board. it is also not meant to be a put-down, these persons can't help it. Goodness me, who would *ever* think this was meant to be a putdown?
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: Hey Boob: On Dec 27, 2011, at 1:40 PM, Bob Price wrote: Vague, You and Barry give new meaning to the epithet Pond Scum, first you go after Robin's ex-wife, speculating on their love life, and now its his mother (neither of whom would give either of you the time of day---opps, I guess that may be your problem). Actually, she That would have to be Robin's ex-wife, not his mother, BTW. did give me the time of day, and an answer to whether R. was still alive - contrary to the disinformation that was coming from TM types like yourself. And this would be none other than our host, Rick Archer. To repeat Lawson's bemused comment on Vaj's assertion that it was most likely a rumor being spread by TM zealots hellbent on revenge: And why would TMers be hell-bent on revenge? A dead saint is harder to denounce than a live apostate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Vaj: And I wonder how many present day psychologists she inspired? Perhaps many. IMO, Dr. Norah Carlsen, Ph.D. is the more interesting story I'd like to hear. My belated condolences on the passing of this incredible woman. Robin: Vaj: will you just shut up about my mother? You know nothing about her. You know nothing about me. You never met me. You are a victim of a disturbing obsession, and I wish you would get over it. There are standards of decency and taste, Vaj: You are bereft of what is required as the most minimal sense of discretion in order to have a civil and civilized conversation with an adult human being. I wish you would stop it. What can I do to touch your conscience, Vaj? You can't. But you could throw some dollars in his direction. I'm pretty sure that would make his attention go elsewhere in the TM-Universe and leave you alone.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 27, 2011, at 5:09 PM, nablusoss1008 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Vaj: And I wonder how many present day psychologists she inspired? Perhaps many. IMO, Dr. Norah Carlsen, Ph.D. is the more interesting story I'd like to hear. My belated condolences on the passing of this incredible woman. Robin: Vaj: will you just shut up about my mother? You know nothing about her. You know nothing about me. You never met me. You are a victim of a disturbing obsession, and I wish you would get over it. There are standards of decency and taste, Vaj: You are bereft of what is required as the most minimal sense of discretion in order to have a civil and civilized conversation with an adult human being. I wish you would stop it. What can I do to touch your conscience, Vaj? You can't. But you could throw some dollars in his direction. I'm pretty sure that would make his attention go elsewhere in the TM-Universe and leave you alone. I'm a firm believer in supporting our senior citizens. But ones as clear as MZ usually don't need much primping. He still has a huge ego though, and that can always get expensive IME. But, hey, he could have our old iPhone if he needed it…sheesh.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Bob, does the wife know you are dispensing free advice to these guys? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price bobpriced@... wrote: Vague, You and Barry give new meaning to the epithet Pond Scum, first you go after Robin's ex-wife, speculating on their love life, and now its his mother (neither of whom would give either of you the time of day---opps, I guess that may be your problem). Your poorly written fictions obviously have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the shared Oedipus complex that draws the two of you together. If you're going to continue to *attempt* to write fiction you must look into a few courses; you *must* realize, its a discipline. vague |vÄg| adjective of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning : many patients suffer vague symptoms. ⢠thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way : he had been very vague about his activities. DERIVATIVES vaguely adverb vagueness noun vaguish adjective ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French, or from Latin vagus âwandering, uncertain.â From: Vaj vajradhatu@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:09:43 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula On Dec 26, 2011, at 7:12 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@ wrote: According to Maharishi and according to tradition this [losing Unity Consciousness] is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. Either that or it never happened in the first place. That is, from everything that has been reported here that I've read, the entire episode sounds like a classic case of NPD/hypmania augmented by moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other people's attention. There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. So the claim from his guru is that no, he was not enlightened. His behaviors continued to escalate and I believe, to this very day, if RWC sets foot in the state of Iowa, he would be detained for 40 days in the Jefferson Co. prison - possibly longer, since he skipped off to Victoria to escape his fate. The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania. Yep. I wonder what his mother Norah - an esteemed and groundbreaking Ph.D. psychologist - would have said? I cannot help hear her voice in the psychobabble of Robin interspersed in his lingo back then. But if IIRC, she did not approve. She may have even been declared demonic - a certain, real shunning for anyone in the World Teacher Seminar. She left this world however in 2000, so we may not ever know, but it's an interesting part of the RWC story: boy raised by glass ceiling breaking female psychologist. And I wonder how many present day psychologists she inspired? Perhaps many. IMO, Dr. Norah Carlsen, Ph.D. is the more interesting story I'd like to hear. My belated condolences on the passing of this incredible woman. Â
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
RESPONSE: I am grateful to you for pointing out some of my misattributions, Judy. I have made the appropriate corrections below. By the way, you were right: I was not planning on posting again at FFL. But I couldn't help acting when I saw the post to which this is a response. I appreciate your conversations with Emily about first person ontology and John Searle. You attempt always to give the fairest and most just reading of the posts at FFL. I was tempted to jump in there when you were interpreting me in my stead; but I had determined it was over for me at FFL. And now that I am back in here for a while I suppose I should try to respond to several persons who have directed their posts to me. Consider this me being just nice and chatty as I always am :-) Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: Zarzari: According to Maharishi and according to tradition this [losing Unity Consciousness] is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. Barry: Either that or it never happened in the first place. That is, from everything that has been reported here that I've read, the entire episode sounds like a classic case of NPD/hypomania augmented by moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other people's attention. Vaj: There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. Robin: There is no commentary in The Discovery of Grace. And I never dictated anything. I wrote in a state of inspiration, but always alone. It felt (in writing anything while in Unity) as if this must have been Maharishi's experience of writing The Science of Being and Art of Living. Everything was written in longhand. And the writing was always very neat. I consider those books an indictment of my enlightenmentthat is to say, proof of the final non-objective (not congruent with reality) status of my Unity Consciousness. Barry: I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. Vaj: While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. Robin: Maharishi summoned me to Seelisberg several months after acting out my meta-theatre of enlightenment and 'individuation'. There I talked to him personally, and while he did not exactly say: Go to it, Robin Boy! he nevertheless said nothing that would indicate that I should attempt to stop what I was doing. About six months later he sent one of his secretaries to observe and reflect upon what was going on among the TM teachers in the city where I was acting out my role as the enlightened man, and causing such fierce controversy among the teachers there. Once again there was no move to inhibit me in what I was doing. Maharishi's secretary stayed at the same residence where I and a number of initiators were living. We got along famously. There were other phone calls from Seelisberg, other messages from Maharishimeanwhile the show went on. Without any formal interference whatsoever from Maharishi. He had seven years in which to put a stop to this enlightenment nonsense, and he scrupulously withheld any censorious comments. I forced him to confess not only the validity of my enlightenment, but evenhere is where I went too far [not to say that I was in a hallucinatory state to begin withbut then, so was Maharishi himself]the superiority of my own version of the Sidhis. His back was up against the wall, and he did indeed make these gruff sounds nixing my enlightenment and my innovative updating of the Sidhis. But the ambiguity surrounding all this was too obvious. There was no sense of triumph for the MIU establishment; nor was there any sense of having learned Maharishi's true estimate of my enlightenment. It was all very murky, and I just continued to do what I was doing. Vaj: So the claim from his guru is that no, he was not enlightened. Robin: There was nevereven in the mind of Bevan, who played the audio tape of Maharishi in court that dayany clear cut evidence that actually altered anyone's understanding of what was going on. Maharishi it is true, did not endorse me as I was certain he would; but at the same time his
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 27, 2011, at 6:47 PM, maskedzebra wrote: But I couldn't help acting when I saw the post to which this is a response. Well, look who fell for the bait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
It is worth noting that most of the people discussing these supposed higher states of consciousness that some on this forum claim to have had are doing so completely from a theoretical basis. They have personally never had such experiences, and are basing anything they say on theories given to them by Maharishi, who IMO was in exactly the same boat they were. That is, only having heard about enlightenment, and never having experienced it. Even the early stages of it. Well, I think you've broken some new ground in your evaluation of MMY. Previously you seemed to be willling to give him at least a little credit in the spirituality dept. Evidently even this has now been rescinded. I wonder what we can expect for 2012? Maybe that he didn't exist at all. That he was a just figment of TBs imagination. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 27, 2011, at 7:43 PM, seventhray1 wrote: It is worth noting that most of the people discussing these supposed higher states of consciousness that some on this forum claim to have had are doing so completely from a theoretical basis. They have personally never had such experiences, and are basing anything they say on theories given to them by Maharishi, who IMO was in exactly the same boat they were. That is, only having heard about enlightenment, and never having experienced it. Even the early stages of it. Well, I think you've broken some new ground in your evaluation of MMY. Previously you seemed to be willling to give him at least a little credit in the spirituality dept. Evidently even this has now been rescinded. It's relatively easy reality to accept, esp. if you realize what close associates had been saying for decades: Maheshiji does not meditate, he only meets with business people all day long and has yagyas outsourced on his behalf. Effete TB's wax that as 'he's a yogi, so therefore he's in nitya-samadhi', at least CC - no big deal. There are people who still actually believe this story. Seriously.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Somebody tell me that I am a sap. Somebody tell me that this is all made up. Because Vaj's responses sound credible to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:14 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Vaj: There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. Robin: There is no commentary in The Discovery of Grace. And I never dictated anything. I wrote in a state of inspiration, but always alone. It felt (in writing anything while in Unity) as if this must have been Maharishi's experience of writing The Science of Being and Art of Living. Everything was written in longhand. And the writing was always very neat. I consider those books an indictment of my enlightenmentthat is to say, proof of the final non-objective (not congruent with reality) status of my Unity Consciousness. They did seem rather impressive at the time. And I'm sure to many TM folk, they still would. I must have been thinking of 'the sutras of the personal' or something like that. Zarzari: I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. Vaj: While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. Robin: Maharishi summoned me to Seelisberg several months after acting out my meta-theatre of enlightenment and 'individuation'. There I talked to him personally, and while he did not exactly say: Go to it, Robin Boy! he nevertheless said nothing that would indicate that I should attempt to stop what I was doing. About six months later he sent one of his secretaries to observe and reflect upon what was going on among the TM teachers in the city where I was acting out my role as the enlightened man, and causing such fierce controversy among the teachers there. Yes, I remember you speaking (and writing of the Sunnyside experience). Indeed I liked the house. Charming. Once again there was no move to inhibit me in what I was doing. Maharishi's secretary stayed at the same residence where I and a number of initiators were living. We got along famously. There were other phone calls from Seelisberg, other messages from Maharishimeanwhile the show went on. Without any formal interference whatsoever from Maharishi. He had seven years in which to put a stop to this enlightenment nonsense, and he scrupulously withheld any censorious comments. I forced him to confess not only the validity of my enlightenment, but evenhere is where I went too far [not to say that I was in a hallucinatory state to begin withbut then, so was Maharishi himself]the superiority of my own version of the Sidhis. Yes, that would have been the last straw. And I can understand why. His back was up against the wall, and he did indeed make these gruff sounds nixing my enlightenment and my innovative updating of the Sidhis. But the ambiguity surrounding all this was too obvious. There was no sense of triumph for the MIU establishment; nor was there any sense of having learned Maharishi's true estimate of my enlightenment. It was all very murky, and I just continued to do what I was doing. Yep, that's pretty much how I remember it. Vaj: So the claim from his guru is that no, he was not enlightened. Robin: There was nevereven in the mind of Bevan, who played the audio tape of Maharishi in court that dayany clear cut evidence that actually altered anyone's understanding of what was going on. Maharishi it is true, did not endorse me as I was certain he would; but at the same time his actual words on that tape did nothing to clarify or resolve anything. As everyone realized who heard the tape or subsequently found out about its contents. I saw your expression the instant you emerged from the courthouse. The instant I saw your expression and those of your entourage, I knew what the answer had been. That's all I needed to see. Vaj: His behaviors continued to escalate and I believe, to this very day, if RWC sets foot in the state of Iowa, he would be detained for 40 days in the Jefferson Co. prison - possibly longer, since he skipped off to Victoria to escape his fate. Robin: There is
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. I saw your expression the instant you emerged from the courthouse. The instant I saw your expression and those of your entourage, I knew what the answer had been. That's all I needed to see.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote: I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. Yes, that's exactly correct.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Ok, that's an unambiguous reply. Thanks. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote: I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. Yes, that's exactly correct.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Well, your vagueness does need a new starting point...I see it's back to square one :) 'Lowest common denominator' is often used as a figure of speech meaning the most basic, least sophisticated level of taste, sensibility, or opinion among a group of people. From: Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula On Dec 27, 2011, at 6:47 PM, maskedzebra wrote: But I couldn't help acting when I saw the post to which this is a response. Well, look who fell for the bait.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Somebody tell me that I am a sap. Somebody tell me that this is all made up. Because Vaj's responses sound credible to me. Stevie Wonderboy: What about Robin's responses? He is saying that Vaj is lying, is misrepresenting the facts, is a busybody, is fantasizing, is obsessive, is rude, is perverse. For (assuming you are serious) to have this experience of Vaj's responses [sound credible to me] must mean, by contrast, that Robin's responses are not credible, are evasive, are *equivocal*, are defensive, are mendacious. Because I am saying that Vaj's responses are *not* credible; for you they are credible; so why not take the logical and inevitable next step and declare Robin's responses, in juxtaposition to Vaj's, to be (at the very least) unconvincing. There is no alternative for you, Steve; you have to draw this conclusion. So, please, for my sake, since you avowedly are a sincere person, allow me to see what I don't at all see now; namely, that you are in fact the biggest sap at FFL. But your sappiness is an unconscious defence mechanism to escape from having to bear too much reality. Something like that. I say you are doing your predictable number here, Steve; and that you get a certain secret gratification from being ornery. What you have declared in this post makes me out to be a liar. Am I a liar, Steve? I was there. All this which Vaj refers to happened to me. You like seeing a worm inside a rose? Oh, what a pretty worm; I think the worm is more beautiful than the rose. . . Read that five-parter yet, Stevie Boy? Anyhow, you can see I am on the run here, because this comment of yours really upset me, and goddamn it if it hasn't ruined my Christmas. I hope I can over it, Steve, but it seems if you don't get the 8th degree, your metaphysical tic will continue. Now please do a good deed here, Steve, and just add one more sentence to what you say here: And Robin seems like he is not telling the truth at all. You seem one hundred percent more convinced about the veracity of Vaj's post than Vaj himself is, since he hardly attempted to rebut a single thing I said in response to his post. Think about it, Stevie: Are you a dormant pyromaniac or something? Merry Christmas. By the way have you taken a St Louis patent out on using purple when you epigrammatically tease us here at FFL? I wonder what would happen to you if we took away all your purple crayons. He shoots! He scores! But if it's not the Blues, Stevie sulksand sometimes even goes a little further, and tries to pay off the referees. Personally equivocaland it's a bad habit of yours, Steve. You might think about controlling it. It makes you into a little saboteurgetting a thrill out of putting bubblegum on shoes that are not your own. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 2:14 PM, maskedzebra wrote: Vaj: There's more evidence to suggest this, as a common 'bragging claim' of Carlsen followers was the fact that he wrote The Discovery of Grace with commentary (I believe, or one of his tomes) by staying up all night and simply dictating it, in one go. To us rabid TMers this was just more evidence of enlightenment when, in 20/20 retrospect it was more evidence of hypomania run amuck. Robin: There is no commentary in The Discovery of Grace. And I never dictated anything. I wrote in a state of inspiration, but always alone. It felt (in writing anything while in Unity) as if this must have been Maharishi's experience of writing The Science of Being and Art of Living. Everything was written in longhand. And the writing was always very neat. I consider those books an indictment of my enlightenmentthat is to say, proof of the final non-objective (not congruent with reality) status of my Unity Consciousness. They did seem rather impressive at the time. And I'm sure to many TM folk, they still would. I must have been thinking of 'the sutras of the personal' or something like that. Zarzari: I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. Vaj: While some passing remarks of Maheshiji were at first used to prop up his claim of Unity, later this was not enough. This culminated in RWC's court case against M. where it was required that M. respond on tape declaring or denying RWC's enlightenment. This was done and a tape was delivered to the court in Ottumwa, as with baited breath they awaited the final verdict, - which consisted of Maheshiji grunting a noew to the tape recorder. Robin: Maharishi summoned me to Seelisberg several months after acting out my meta-theatre of enlightenment and 'individuation'. There I talked to him personally, and while he did not exactly say: Go to it,
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote: Ok, that's an unambiguous reply. Thanks. RESPONSE: You're doing it again Stevo! This reply of Vaj's actually did not satisfy you at all; however, you suddenly felt that it might serve your purposes to deny this experience and go with another one: that Vaj had exhibited the virtue of being unambiguous, even if, as it happens, you did not get any satisfaction or clarification at all from Vaj's reply. Vaj has never even seen me in the flesh. He has never come near a seminar I have given (in my notorious past). He has never spoken to me. You have a disturbingly perverse need to twist things (inside your undeniable friendliness), and it undermines in a very subtle way you pretensions to be sincere. Sincere you no doubt are; but there is this tic you have; and it means you don't really ever want to know the Truth. Yeah, that's right, Steve. Did you hear that rumour that Christ and Judas actually made up before Christ had his heart attack? (He didn't get crucifiedat least I don't think he did; he died from cardiac arrest: he was scared shitless when they hammered those nails into his hands and feet. Caiaphus told me this, and, call me a sap, but his response sounded credible to me.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Dec 27, 2011, at 8:41 PM, seventhray1 wrote: I do have one question, Vaj, if you're listening. You are on record saying that you were not allowed to attend MIU by your parents. But evidently you were in Fairfield to witness certain events in RWC saga. Do I have this right? Thanks for a reply if you are so inclined. Yes, that's exactly correct.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote: RESPONSE: I am grateful to you for pointing out some of my misattributions, Judy. I have made the appropriate corrections below. By the way, you were right: I was not planning on posting again at FFL. But I couldn't help acting when I saw the post to which this is a response. I appreciate your conversations with Emily about first person ontology and John Searle. You attempt always to give the fairest and most just reading of the posts at FFL. I was tempted to jump in there when you were interpreting me in my stead; but I had determined it was over for me at FFL. And now that I am back in here for a while I suppose I should try to respond to several persons who have directed their posts to me. Consider this me being just nice and chatty as I always am :-) Well, stick around as long as you can stand it. You've participated in or inspired some of the most interesting conversations we've had around here in years, the abuse you've taken in the process notwithstanding. It's a shame you've had to spend so much of your time here dealing with the abuse, given how much else you could be contributing, and perhaps, at least a little, even receiving. When you're finished responding to whatever you think needs a response, I have some questions for you, if you have any patience left and are in the mood to chat. BTW, zarzari is away on business for a week, and whynotnow overposted last week and is out until next week.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: I'm not sure whether it's considered possible in MMY's teaching to abandon higher consciousness once it's become stable (Robin's, according to him, lasted for at least a decade). According to Maharishi and according to tradition this is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. That is to say in TM lingo, 'there was still some stress', not matter how long it lasted to come out. It's the last stress, remember?, the most difficult one. And again, if it wasn't complete, it wouldn't have been MMY's Unity Consciousness in the first place. Now this is word-picking, it could have been on the way to UC or temporary experiences of UC, but not fully established. At any rate, I think it's much more a matter of Robin's personality and how he interacts with folks here than his past experience with TM that we find appealing. TM-wise, he's an anomaly any way you look at it. There is a considerable group dynamics in this, and Ravi is part of the equation, and you too. snip Not Brahma Chaitanya, but Brahmi Chetana. Well, OK, Brahma Chaitanya was emptybill's spelling (I've now found the post), and he equated it with Unity Consciousness. What he objected to was Robin saying his ego was extinguished when he entered Unity. He said that wasn't how Shankara or Vidyaranya described Unity. Here's his post if you're interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/295775 Tell me a scripture where Brahmi Chetana is mentioned. I don't know, maybe there is, chetana simply means consciousness, Brahmi (of Brahman I think). I think that it is more a translation back from english. Just like bhavatita dhyan which is hindi for TM. I don't really think it is a 'term' of vedanta. And if it is, it probably has a different connotation than unity. You'll have to fight that out with emptybill. As a rule of thumb, I don't fight with emptybill. But I agree with him that the categories of his system and the definitions of MMY are different from tradition. snip Well, thanks. I've said it before, at least the part about what we hoped for from King Tony. I started thinking about it way back when, not long after Tony's coronation, when it had become clear he would be MMY's designated successor. I think, Maharishi, till the very end of his life, when he officially withdrew, would never have given the reigns out of his hand. I had the sense that after MMY died, he'd emerge from the woodwork and take the reins. And he still might. That would be a surprise. If he still wants to do something, he has to do it now, time is running out, many old TMers will be dead in 10 years, or simply incapable of doing anything. New people are hardly there. This is the situation. Anyway, leaders are known to act quickly, he doesn't have this mindset. You think maybe when Bevan dies? It will be too late. For all we know, he could be quietly working behind the scenes, and it's just not evident yet. Yes, that is evident. They were developing this new course/technique of Vedic physiology at lightening speed, which they were already working on for 10 years when Maharishi was still alive. Tony Naders paperback edition of his book on vedic physiology, is also on the NYT bestseller list since years. snip Right, you said he commands a natural authority (which gave Feste fits). Hehe
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: According to Maharishi and according to tradition this [losing Unity Consciousness] is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. Either that or it never happened in the first place. That is, from everything that has been reported here that I've read, the entire episode sounds like a classic case of NPD/hypmania augmented by moodmaking and a desire to become the focus of other people's attention. I've seen it happen before to other gurus who set up shop based on self-announced (and never verfied, even by their own teachers) enlightenment. The thing that causes me to believe in this theory is the fact that RWC refuses to even consider it, even as a possibility. *His* subjective view is the only possible explanation. That's pretty much classic NPD/hypomania.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
zarzari: Not Brahma Chaitanya, but Brahmi Chetana... Brahman Consciousness or brahmi chetana. All of the acharyas of Vedanta point to this state of being. O Svetaketu, do you understand what I am telling you? This great but most essence of all the worlds is the Truth, the Atman, the Supreme Reality within you, and you are THAT - Uddalaka - Chhandogya U. But I agree with him that the categories of his system and the definitions of MMY are different from tradition... Not so different, it seems to me. For example, in Brahmi Chetana you no longer are in a relationship to this creation because you are this creation, Brahman. In this state, according to MMY, there is no duality, there is no other, because when all thought drops off, you are left all by your Self. At other times you reflect duality, self and others. When mental activity disappears, then knower, knowing and known become merged one into another, just like a transparent crystal which assumes the appearance of that upon which it rests. Pantanjali - Yoga Sutras I.41.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
It isn't as MMY described if he can throw it all off and become de-enlightened, going back to mere waking state! zarzari: This is not a classic term, as emptybill rightly pointed out, it doesn't belong to the Vedantic system... According to the Sri Vidya tradition of SBS, Gaudapada was the philosophical grandfather of Shankara. Gauda's 'Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad' is the oldest known systematic exposition of Advaita Vedanta. The Fourth has no sound-element, it is incommunicable, it is the extinction of phenomena, blissful, non-dual. Gaudapada shows clear signs of familiarity with Buddhist philosophy, and both his language and his doctrine are close in many cases to Buddhist originals. This has led many scholars to speculate that Gaudapada himself was originally a Buddhist. So, in fact, MMY was really a 'Vijnana' Buddhist in many respects - he often uses the Vijnana nomenclature which is classic Vedanta terminology. Source: 'Mandukya Karika' by Sri Gaudapadacharya Tr. Mm. Pt. V. Bhattacharya Calcutta U. 1943 Calcutta U. 1943
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: snip Judy, I think you are not quite right here. The spoof, which some may not get, was about Robin, and Barry was about the first to catch this, about 2 min. after I had posted it. Well, almost an hour by the Web site timestamps. But no matter. Oh, yes, I must have been in Turya state of consciousness then (wink wink willy) I don't think Barry was referring to your Robin spoof here. Robin hadn't reacted to it; he had other fish to fry that morning and was beginning to run short of posts. He may not even have read it. So how could Barry know how he felt about it? I don't want to get in the Barry /Judy battle here, but I had made a reference that maybe some persons didn't understand. Among those was empty. That can happen, as one can read it as irony on Vaj as well, but I wasn't conscious about this when I wrote it. In any case, if you are interested, my little spoof had a diolog between Robin and whynotnow as its ideal, which whynotnow somehow must have realized. In my completely incompetent view, his approach to Robin was all too sheepishly, and the way Robin took this up and turn it in his way, simply took me out of my seat. Therefore, I can really understand, from my 3rd person ontolgical account, that whynotnow had reasons to be mad on me. Here is the model for my little spoof, that inspired me, as it is,it can of course not stand in comparison the master. Robin OTOH made another post a little later to Vaj, from which I gathered, he could have imitated my spoof, not knowing it was one, and being ironic on Vaj. I may be imagining all of this, but here is the post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299578 Last words: Graffiti for the soul, Vaj: this really has Merry Christmas all over it. Jesus, he is proud of you today. It's much more likely Barry was referring to whynotnow; Barry's frequently made that criticism of him (inaccurate, but that's another story). I think he had in mind your earlier response to whynotnow, the Ji Ji one, figured that was a spoof that somehow presented whynotnow in a different light than the one [he wanted] to be presented in, and that whynotnow wasn't getting the point, assuming that the discussion involved your criticizing whynotnow rather than the reverse. See here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299493 And zarzari has a perfect right to object to what he feels is an inaccurate presentation, as does anybody else. Goodness knows Barry does it often enough. As to not getting the point of a spoof, that has nothing to do with whynotnow being presented in a different light than the one they want to be presented in in this exchange. As noted, that isn't what was happening. I guess the reference was about Robin, not whynotnow. Don't think so. whynotnow is one of Barry's perennial targets, and when he saw there was a disagreement between you and whynotnow, he quickly piled on. He got to Robin later in the post when you referred to Robin's five-parter to Curtis, but even then his comment was mainly a swipe at whynotnow. Barry doesn't really pay all that much attention to what he's responding to if he sees an opportunity for a putdown of someone he doesn't like. You can expect Barry to back you up, BTW, no matter what it was he actually intended.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Judy, I think you are not quite right here. The spoof, which some may not get, was about Robin, and Barry was about the first to catch this, about 2 min. after I had posted it. Well, almost an hour by the Web site timestamps. But no matter. Oh, yes, I must have been in Turya state of consciousness then (wink wink willy) I don't think Barry was referring to your Robin spoof here. Robin hadn't reacted to it; he had other fish to fry that morning and was beginning to run short of posts. He may not even have read it. So how could Barry know how he felt about it? I don't want to get in the Barry /Judy battle here, but I had made a reference that maybe some persons didn't understand. Among those was empty. That can happen, as one can read it as irony on Vaj as well, but I wasn't conscious about this when I wrote it. In any case, if you are interested, my little spoof had a diolog between Robin and whynotnow as its ideal, which whynotnow somehow must have realized. In my completely incompetent view, his approach to Robin was all too sheepishly, and the way Robin took this up and turn it in his way, simply took me out of my seat. Therefore, I can really understand, from my 3rd person ontolgical account, that whynotnow had reasons to be mad on me. Here is the model for my little spoof, that inspired me, as it is,it can of course not stand in comparison the master. Oh, I forgot to insert: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299380 Robin OTOH made another post a little later to Vaj, from which I gathered, he could have imitated my spoof, not knowing it was one, and being ironic on Vaj. I may be imagining all of this, but here is the post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299578 Last words: Graffiti for the soul, Vaj: this really has Merry Christmas all over it. Jesus, he is proud of you today. It's much more likely Barry was referring to whynotnow; Barry's frequently made that criticism of him (inaccurate, but that's another story). I think he had in mind your earlier response to whynotnow, the Ji Ji one, figured that was a spoof that somehow presented whynotnow in a different light than the one [he wanted] to be presented in, and that whynotnow wasn't getting the point, assuming that the discussion involved your criticizing whynotnow rather than the reverse. See here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299493 And zarzari has a perfect right to object to what he feels is an inaccurate presentation, as does anybody else. Goodness knows Barry does it often enough. As to not getting the point of a spoof, that has nothing to do with whynotnow being presented in a different light than the one they want to be presented in in this exchange. As noted, that isn't what was happening. I guess the reference was about Robin, not whynotnow. Don't think so. whynotnow is one of Barry's perennial targets, and when he saw there was a disagreement between you and whynotnow, he quickly piled on. He got to Robin later in the post when you referred to Robin's five-parter to Curtis, but even then his comment was mainly a swipe at whynotnow. Barry doesn't really pay all that much attention to what he's responding to if he sees an opportunity for a putdown of someone he doesn't like. You can expect Barry to back you up, BTW, no matter what it was he actually intended.
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
Well, almost an hour by the Web site timestamps. But no matter. zarzari: Oh, yes, I must have been in Turya state of consciousness then (wink wink willy) Very impressive! So, we are agreed, but I thought it was Robin that had been in the Turiya state - now we've got a whole new set of claims from Zazari. Go figure. P.S. You can call me 'willy' if that makes me seem less human to you - I don't mind, but that's my email address. LoL!
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: I'm not sure whether it's considered possible in MMY's teaching to abandon higher consciousness once it's become stable (Robin's, according to him, lasted for at least a decade). According to Maharishi and according to tradition this is not possible. In this case it wasn't fully established. That is to say in TM lingo, 'there was still some stress', not matter how long it lasted to come out. It's the last stress, remember?, the most difficult one. And again, if it wasn't complete, it wouldn't have been MMY's Unity Consciousness in the first place. Now this is word-picking, it could have been on the way to UC or temporary experiences of UC, but not fully established. No, it isn't word-picking with regard to what we're talking about. This is what I was addressing, from a couple of posts back: Robin, for all his critics of eastern systems, is still attached and in love with his 'enlightenment' past, you can see this in his posts, where he makes sure, everyboy gets the point that he was 'really enlightened', 'really in unity'. (For any TMer this proves that TM leads in fact to unity as MMY describes). If it wasn't fully established, it doesn't prove TM leads to Unity. Not to mention the trouble he got into on the basis of his belief that it *was* fully established. And anyway, I'm not sure you can make a case for temporary experiences of Unity when, according to Robin, it was an experience of Unity that lasted without a break for over a decade. And then there's the issue of how, even if Unity wasn't fully established, he could have *shed it all* right back to waking state, not even any witnessing. That's just not in the TM model. Presumably if one has attained a state where there's only the most difficult stress yet to be released, failing to get rid of that stress doesn't mean one reacquires all the stress that *had* been released, right back to square one. At any rate, I think it's much more a matter of Robin's personality and how he interacts with folks here than his past experience with TM that we find appealing. TM-wise, he's an anomaly any way you look at it. There is a considerable group dynamics in this, and Ravi is part of the equation, and you too. Perhaps. But the bottom line, my original point, is that entirely contrary to Barry's assertions, we have no problem being friendly with someone who has raised serious questions about the validity of MMY's teaching. For that matter, Ravi himself expressed some skepticism about MMY's teaching, and it didn't stop us from being friendly with him either. snip Not Brahma Chaitanya, but Brahmi Chetana. Well, OK, Brahma Chaitanya was emptybill's spelling (I've now found the post), and he equated it with Unity Consciousness. What he objected to was Robin saying his ego was extinguished when he entered Unity. He said that wasn't how Shankara or Vidyaranya described Unity. Here's his post if you're interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/295775 Tell me a scripture where Brahmi Chetana is mentioned. I don't know, maybe there is, chetana simply means consciousness, Brahmi (of Brahman I think). I think that it is more a translation back from english. Just like bhavatita dhyan which is hindi for TM. I don't really think it is a 'term' vedanta. And if it is, it probably has a different connotation than unity. You'll have to fight that out with emptybill. As a rule of thumb, I don't fight with emptybill. But I agree with him that the categories of his system and the definitions of MMY are different from tradition. OK. I'm just pointing out that you said: But on the whole he is using TM descriptions, primarily the term 'unity consciousness' itself. This is not a classic term, as emptybill rightly pointed out, it doesn't belong to the Vedantic system. It is a description, a categorization used by MMY and TM. That was *not* what emptybill pointed out. From the post of his you were referring to: Robin: And when I transcended for the last timethe actual act of slipping into UnityI also experienced the extinction of my ego. That, after all, is the very basis of Unity Consciousness. Emptybill: I don't think so. Unity (Brahma-Chaitanya) is not described this way by Shankara. It is also not described this way by Vidyaranya, a 14th Century proponent of the path of Yogic Advaita. Emptybill *confirmed* that Unity Consciousness is Brahma-Chaitanya. What he was questioning was Robin's assertion that ego-extinction is the basis of Unity Consciousness. (I have the sneaking suspicion that the ego-extinction issue is a matter of semantics, but Robin didn't address this in his response.) Well, thanks. I've said it before, at least the part about what we hoped for from King
[FairfieldLife] Re: SECOND Open [non-performance] Letter to Ravi Chivukula
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Judy, I think you are not quite right here. The spoof, which some may not get, was about Robin, and Barry was about the first to catch this, about 2 min. after I had posted it. Well, almost an hour by the Web site timestamps. But no matter. Oh, yes, I must have been in Turya state of consciousness then (wink wink willy) I don't think Barry was referring to your Robin spoof here. Robin hadn't reacted to it; he had other fish to fry that morning and was beginning to run short of posts. He may not even have read it. So how could Barry know how he felt about it? I don't want to get in the Barry /Judy battle here, Too late! but I had made a reference that maybe some persons didn't understand. Among those was empty. That can happen, as one can read it as irony on Vaj as well, but I wasn't conscious about this when I wrote it. It was unmistakably a parody of Robin. Vaj doesn't write that way at all. emptybill just had some kind of brain fart there; he's usually sharper than that. His conflict with Vaj is much more serious than his conflict with Robin, so empty might have been so eager to see a slam on Vaj that he leaped to the wrong conclusion. Or, he could have been *deliberately* misidentifying Vaj as the target of your parody as a way to irritate you. In any case, if you are interested, my little spoof had a diolog between Robin and whynotnow as its ideal, which whynotnow somehow must have realized. In my completely incompetent view, his approach to Robin was all too sheepishly, I don't think sheepishly is the word you want. Fawning, maybe. Sheepish usually implies some embarrassment. and the way Robin took this up and turn it in his way, simply took me out of my seat. Not sure what you're suggesting. It was *already* turned his way, by whynotnow. Seems to me Robin's gratitude at feeling understood was genuine. Therefore, I can really understand, from my 3rd person ontolgical account, that whynotnow had reasons to be mad on me. whynotnow was objecting to your support of Vaj. I don't think it had a thing to do with whynotnow's exchange with Robin or your parody thereof. Here is the model for my little spoof, that inspired me, as it is,it can of course not stand in comparison the master. Sheesh, zarzari, there are any number of similar models from Robin, including his earlier exchanges with Curtis. You could have used any one of them. Robin OTOH made another post a little later to Vaj, from which I gathered, he could have imitated my spoof, not knowing it was one, and being ironic on Vaj. I may be imagining all of this, You're imagining all this. Robin's been doing this kind of irony all along. He'd done it with Vaj a number of times before you even wrote your parody. It's his standard approach: He love-bombs the folks who are being nice to him--especially if they're disagreeing with him about something--and does *ironic* love-bombing with the folks who are being nasty. Your parody, BTW, could have been of either--Robin making nice with whynotnow, *or* Robin making nice *ironically* with Vaj. but here is the post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/299578 Last words: Graffiti for the soul, Vaj: this really has Merry Christmas all over it. Jesus, he is proud of you today. Totally cracked me up. That's pure Robin. The rest of us have a long way to go before we can even dream of matching that level of wit. I'm chortling even now as I read it again. My all-time favorite, in response to Vaj's jab, You get the Histrionic Personality award for 2011!: I think it all comes down to not having to pay any health insurance. That makes for a kind of unmerited freedom amongst us Canadians. We get--potentially-- histrionic in not having to face that adversity. That was just inspired, IMHO.
