|
Home > Archive > Yoga > November 2005 > Guruphiliac
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| jody radzik 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
| Using the sword of Vedanta to chop into little bits
the grandiose claimants to the throne of the "divine."
http://guruphiliac.org
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
| On 24 Oct 2005 13:45:22 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Using the sword of Vedanta to chop into little bits
>the grandiose claimants to the throne of the "divine."
>
>http://guruphiliac.org
were you wanting to point out Tilka in particular, or all the
gurus listed there?
Aren't you the the same jody that posted on here 4 years ago?
tracy
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2005 13:45:22 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> were you wanting to point out Tilka in particular, or all the
> gurus listed there?
>
> Aren't you the the same jody that posted on here 4 years ago?
>
> tracy
I've been posting to alt.meditation, on and off since
1992.
I'm pointing out that any guru who claims to be more
divine, or to possess magic abilities, is making
fraudulent claims. All are equally divine, or none
is divine. And most so-called siddhis are nothing more
than the myths the drive the occlusion which prevents
most of the devotees of the big times gurus from
becoming enlightened themselves.
Regarding Tilak, he's already been busted once in
1993 in New York. Now he's surfaced on the west coast
with his same satscam. Folks should know and understand
his history before they give him their cash, don't you
think?
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
| On 25 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I've been posting to alt.meditation, on and off since
>1992.
>
>I'm pointing out that any guru who claims to be more
>divine, or to possess magic abilities, is making
>fraudulent claims. All are equally divine, or none
>is divine.
That is, logically, a false dichotomy. It's trying to state two
opposing views without alllowing for any other possibility.
>And most so-called siddhis are nothing more
>than the myths the drive the occlusion which prevents
>most of the devotees of the big times gurus from
>becoming enlightened themselves.
>
>Regarding Tilak, he's already been busted once in
>1993 in New York. Now he's surfaced on the west coast
>with his same satscam. Folks should know and understand
>his history before they give him their cash, don't you
>think?
I tend to think that anybody who is thinking of getting into that
group, and actually does want to check them out before doing so,
now has the internet resources to do it. Were you thinking there
might be some people like that here on this ng?
Mind you, I'm not in favor of cults, just wondering.
| |
| Azure 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
|
tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
> On 24 Oct 2005 13:45:22 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> were you wanting to point out Tilka in particular, or all the
> gurus listed there?
>
> Aren't you the the same jody that posted on here 4 years ago?
>
> tracy
Some one else threatening me for who I am, not sure the Blade spoken of
Mine is Fraiegha, or Claighma Solaris, Sword of Light, the Blade of
Nemesis/Karma/Justice, actually the Blade of Seraphis, the Talking Idol
which must be rebuilt..
| |
| Azure 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
|
tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
> On 25 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> That is, logically, a false dichotomy. It's trying to state two
> opposing views without alllowing for any other possibility.
>
>
> I tend to think that anybody who is thinking of getting into that
> group, and actually does want to check them out before doing so,
> now has the internet resources to do it. Were you thinking there
> might be some people like that here on this ng?
>
> Mind you, I'm not in favor of cults, just wondering.
No, there is me, the one person proving they in fact are the legend.
Not saying I am, but showing how in the stories I am, it is my name, and
it is talking about me.
666
Je Saece, House of Je Oshua, Numbers 13:16, Gen 25:2, Shua's are the Wee
Folk, Babes (Badb's) of the House of Abraham.
Tribe of Gog and Magog, the 2 Brothers Wrestling for the Universe,
Joined into one being.
The Great "S", the Line which defines and separates the circle from
itself.
The sorry Podmieohm (?), to the Oghmanie(?).
Orkhon teachings explain a lot there.
I found the Codex Gi Toro and the existence of 2 doors, one where the
Arianhod fell, the other Hyper borealis, marked by the Red Ring in the
Sky.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
| On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:33:33 -0800, Azure <tain@pharae.org> wrote:
>
>
>Some one else threatening me for who I am, not sure the Blade spoken of
>Mine is Fraiegha, or Claighma Solaris, Sword of Light, the Blade of
>Nemesis/Karma/Justice, actually the Blade of Seraphis, the Talking Idol
>which must be rebuilt..
I don;t know what the heck you are talking about. Whatever.
| |
| Azure 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
|
tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:33:33 -0800, Azure <tain@pharae.org> wrote:
>
>
> I don;t know what the heck you are talking about. Whatever.
Long thread getting mixed cross groups quite wide thanks to the Sassers.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2005 13:55:39 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> That is, logically, a false dichotomy. It's trying to state two
> opposing views without alllowing for any other possibility.
Such is the nature of Brahman. All divinity is
derived from it, yet it is equally distributed in
the universe, you could say. You could also say
that it's not in the phenomenal universe at all.
Either way, gurus don't have it, nor can they wield it,
any more than anyone else. The direct and experiential
knowing of it, called "jnana", doesn't mean anything
except that you know it. No magic powers are included
in the deal. Those are packaged with the occluding
ideology about gurus that has as much to do with
their truth as my dog's XXX.
>
> I tend to think that anybody who is thinking of getting into that
> group, and actually does want to check them out before doing so,
> now has the internet resources to do it. Were you thinking there
> might be some people like that here on this ng?
Looking into Tilak? Probably not. Unfortunately,
there isn't very much material on him on the 'net.
The "New Yorker" piece is not published online,
although there was that one except that I found.
> Mind you, I'm not in favor of cults, just wondering.
I posted about the blog to build traffic for it.
The Tilak piece just happened to be the lead item
at the time. That will change, shortly.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-26, 11:50 am |
| On 26 Oct 2005 07:56:39 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Such is the nature of Brahman. All divinity is
>derived from it, yet it is equally distributed in
>the universe, you could say. You could also say
>that it's not in the phenomenal universe at all.
>
>Either way, gurus don't have it, nor can they wield it,
>any more than anyone else. The direct and experiential
>knowing of it, called "jnana", doesn't mean anything
>except that you know it. No magic powers are included
>in the deal. Those are packaged with the occluding
>ideology about gurus that has as much to do with
>their truth as my dog's XXX.
Leaving aside whether or not siddhis exist, traditionally, siddhis
were considered a distraction, and students were not encouraged
to focus on them too much. Are you equating, let's say, some
hypothetical guru's claim to have become enlightened, with
some hypothetical guru's claim to have siddhis? I want to be clear
about it. If that is what you are doing, it is a logical error.
Also, it looks to me like you are merely repeating the false
dichotomy. Basically you are saying there is no such thing
as enlightenment, whether any gurus are involved or not, in which
case you are wasting your time even being here, unless your
interest is merely to do some asanas to get in better shape.
btw, have you considered that your dog's XXX might have a lot
of truth in it?
>
>
>Looking into Tilak? Probably not. Unfortunately,
>there isn't very much material on him on the 'net.
>The "New Yorker" piece is not published online,
>although there was that one except that I found.
>
>
>I posted about the blog to build traffic for it.
>The Tilak piece just happened to be the lead item
>at the time. That will change, shortly.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2005 07:56:39 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
[snip]
> Leaving aside whether or not siddhis exist, traditionally, siddhis
> were considered a distraction, and students were not encouraged
> to focus on them too much. Are you equating, let's say, some
> hypothetical guru's claim to have become enlightened, with
> some hypothetical guru's claim to have siddhis? I want to be clear
> about it. If that is what you are doing, it is a logical error.
I'm saying that gurus who claim miraculous powers
are fraudulent.
> Also, it looks to me like you are merely repeating the false
> dichotomy. Basically you are saying there is no such thing
> as enlightenment
Wrong. I'm saying that enlightenment does not come
pre-packaged with magic powers, as much as the big
time gurus and their students want to attest to
otherwise.
> whether any gurus are involved or not, in which
> case you are wasting your time even being here, unless your
> interest is merely to do some asanas to get in better shape.
My interest is to expose the occluding ideologies
which infect the culture of realization. Yoga includes
Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, Tantra and others along with
Hatha. Hence my cross-posting to alt.yoga from
alt.meditation.
> btw, have you considered that your dog's XXX might have a lot
> of truth in it?
Duh! Why do you think I trot it out all the time?
[snip]
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 26 Oct 2005 12:14:10 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>I'm saying that gurus who claim miraculous powers
>are fraudulent.
>
ok. I'm going to make a correction here: I should have st arted t he
the second sentence with "also", not with "basically, which gives the
impression that the second sentence follows from the first, which it
doesn't. It's a separate point.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Wrong. I'm saying that enlightenment does not come
>pre-packaged with magic powers, as much as the big
>time gurus and their students want to attest to
>otherwise.
No, that is right. You were merely repeateing the false dichotomy.
You were making a statement that covered more than just that
"issue." Perhaps you need to define your thinking a little better
before present it, but in that case, you should try to be a little
less ahem, judgemental in your "crusade." That goes double for
ex-cult members who have not gotten over it, and would do
better to work on themselves instead of trying to fix everybody else.
I know how it is, I've done the PR wars things too, and you know
what, eventually I realized it was a waste of time. Eventually I
realized that people I thought I might save from going down
the same path I did, were attracted to occultism in the first place
because of a lack of moral quality.
Hmm...maybe the hare krisnhas do that, but pre-packaged?
come on.... nobody with any sense thinks that there is anything
easy or prepackaged about getting to enlightenment. Therefore,
it looks like you are trying to instill common sense into people who
don't have any.
>Such is the nature of Brahman. All divinity is
>derived from it, yet it is equally distributed in
>the universe, you could say. You could also say
>that it's not in the phenomenal universe at all.
>
>Either way, gurus don't have it, nor can they wield it,
>any more than anyone else.
If all divinity is equally distributed in the universe, then it
is equally distributed among humans too, and we are
all fine the way we are, and we can sit on our asses and go
" cool, I'm already divine, I don't have to do anything."
I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell that out.
The problem is, we are not fine the way we already are. Sure,
we originate from God, but we don't come here to this plane
so we can waste it sitting around patting ourselves on the back.
From that viewpoint, we are no better than a blade of grass.
>The direct and experiential
>knowing of it, called "jnana", doesn't mean anything
>except that you know it.
Again, there is more to self-relization or enlightenment
than just a simple concept.
>
>
>My interest is to expose the occluding ideologies
>which infect the culture of realization. Yoga includes
>Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, Tantra and others along with
>Hatha. Hence my cross-posting to alt.yoga from
>alt.meditation.
see my comments above.
I would like to see a blade of grass slap itself on the back though.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| tra...@askme.net wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2005 12:14:10 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> ok. I'm going to make a correction here: I should have st arted t he
> the second sentence ith "also", not with "basically, which gives the
> impression that the second sentence follows from the first, which it
> doesn't. It's a separate point.
>
> No, that is right. You were merely repeateing the false dichotomy.
> You were making a statement that covered more than just that
> "issue." Perhaps you need to define your thinking a little better
> before present it, but in that case, you should try to be a little
> less ahem, judgemental in your "crusade."
The subject does not lend itself to anything
*but* a false dichotomy. Perhaps you need to
come up with a better understanding of what
self-realization is to understand why it cannot
be spoken about in either the positive or the
negative, and yet can be pointed to from either.
[snip]
> Hmm...maybe the hare krisnhas do that, but pre-packaged?
> come on.... nobody with any sense thinks that there is anything
> easy or prepackaged about getting to enlightenment. Therefore,
> it looks like you are trying to instill common sense into people who
> don't have any.
You've misunderstood my use of the term.
I'm saying that when self-realization dawns,
there is nothing packaged with it in the way
of special abilities. It's just knowing who
you really are.
>
> If all divinity is equally distributed in the universe, then it
> is equally distributd among humans too, and we are
> all fine the way we are, and we can sit on our asses and go
> " cool, I'm already divine, I don't have to do anything."
> I was hoping I wouldn't have to spell that out.
You are putting words into my mouth. I'm saying we
are all equally divine. I'm not saying we shouldn't
practice to realize that.
> The problem is, we are not fine the way we already are. Sure,
> we originate from God, but we don't come here to this plane
> so we can waste it sitting around patting ourselves on the back.
> From that viewpoint, we are no better than a blade of grass.
Mythological belief about 'coming back to this
plane' is noted.
>
> Again, there is more to self-relization or enlightenment
> than just a simple concept.
I guess that one flew right over your head.
>
> see my comments above.
You don't like it? Don't read it.
> I would like to see a blade of grass slap itself on the back though.
There's one that flew right over my head!
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 26 Oct 2005 13:21:29 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>The subject does not lend itself to anything
>*but* a false dichotomy. Perhaps you need to
>come up with a better understanding of what
>self-realization is to understand why it cannot
>be spoken about in either the positive or the
>negative, and yet can be pointed to from either.
That is to say that the subject lends itself to false thought,
and what does false thought have to do with enlightenment?
Enlightenment should be something that goes beyond contradictions
and dichotomies. It does not merely sling them around, and slinging
them around won't get you there either.
St. Paul would be turning over in his grave.
>You've misunderstood my use of the term.
>I'm saying that when self-realization dawns,
>there is nothing packaged with it in the way
>of special abilities. It's just knowing who
>you really are.
I think that saying "it's just knowing who you really are"
borders on fluffiness.
>You are putting words into my mouth. I'm saying we
>are all equally divine. I'm not saying we shouldn't
>practice to realize that.
That's like the Mahayana buddhist view. You are giving
me fluffy Buddhism.
>
>
>Mythological belief about 'coming back to this
>plane' is noted.
Hey now, you can't get away with that unless you have it all
clearly worked out in your head first. I never said anything
about "coming back" to this plane. I said "come here"
to this plane. Please work on your reading comrpehension.
>
>
>I guess that one flew right over your head.
No, it didn't. I think that you water down what it really means,
but that is not what I'm concerned with.
>
>
>You don't like it? Don't read it.
I have seen you ride in here on your high horse before, and you know
what? I don't see that you have gotten over anything over the years.
You just keep going back to the same old thing. I don't think you
really improve yourself at all, and I highly doubt that you are really
working on doing anything spiritual. You want to come in here and
take out your frustations over not getting over cult issues on other
people, but you don't want to admit that you have any cult issues.
There is something really less than straightforward about it,
something that comes across as rather controlling actually.
Go work on yourself instead of preaching to other people about
what is wrong with them. That is my advice to you. Trust me,
it makes life more fun to not make anti-cult public relations wars
your mission in life.
| |
| omjaroo 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| >If all divinity is equally distributed in the universe, then it
>is equally distributed among humans too, and we are
>all fine the way we are, and we can sit on our asses and go
>" cool, I'm already divine, I don't have to do anything."
That would be absolutely correct! Bravo, I think you've got it. :-)
The only issue (there is) then becomes one of "acceptance". That's why
we do all the yoga stuff. Not because we can change into anything other
then what we already are "here and now". But because most of us can't
accept what we are "here and now". When we can, then we are deemed
"enlightened", "self-realized", "wise", etc, etc.
Someone said the siddhis don't automatically come with
"self-realization" and this has been my experience. They are a part of
the phenomenal world and part of our natural potential but they have to
be learned and developed by most people. Although some people seem to
have an easier time of it then others, no doubt owing to work they did
in their last incarnation/s. Siddhis do evolve with and are a natural
result of advanced yogic training and self-discipline. However like
amassing money, learning/practicing any of the siddhis requires a great
deal of time, attention and resources; in which, any spiritually
directed individual would have little interest in investing.
On the other hand "enlightenment" or "self realization" can and does
happen in an instant to anyone, anywhere but otherwise doesn't change a
thing except that now one "knows" the Truth, as opposed to "believing,
searching for, studying, etc" the Truth. Once "enlightenment" happens
then the challenge become aligning body, mind and soul with what is now
"known". For most of us, this is no easy task as the illusion/habits
of mortality are strong. So the yoga continues, the study/meditation
deepens, the questions becomes more pointed and the road becomes
narrower and narrower. All the wisdom in all the history of the world
starts to become clearer and more meaningful. One by one, the illusion
of separation of all which exists starts to dissolve as one learns to
live in the world but not of the world, until finally accepting being
"the world".
I would say that anyone who feels a need to collect money by telling
others they are able to express any of the siddhis needs to work on
"acceptance" and is probably not "enlightened" yet. I would go a step
further and include as well, anyone who teaches yoga in exchange for
anything.
Oh, BTW, in my experience cross-posting to alt.yoga is rarely
beneficial/satisfying for anyone involved. Alt.-yoga is not a very
"chatty" group and it's difficult to get any kind of argument going
there. I suppose that's because the members of alt.yoga already know
all there is to know, about everything, so there's little need to argue
:-)
Jared
O
^
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 26 Oct 2005 16:00:50 -0700, "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Oh, BTW, in my experience cross-posting to alt.yoga is rarely
>beneficial/satisfying for anyone involved. Alt.-yoga is not a very
>"chatty" group and it's difficult to get any kind of argument going
>there. I suppose that's because the members of alt.yoga already know
>all there is to know, about everything, so there's little need to argue
Oh, brother.
Indeed, and posting on alt.yoga is rarely beneficial
or satisfying either.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2005 13:21:29 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> That is to say that the subject lends itself to false thought,
> and what does false thought have to do with enlightenment?
> Enlightenment should be something that goes beyond contradictions
> and dichotomies. It does not merely sling them around, and slinging
> them around won't get you there either.
You can not think about enlightenment *at all.*
So "false thought" as you term it isn't any better
than "real" thought in this regard.
> St. Paul would be turning over in his grave.
St. Paul was a misogynistic, ignorant XXXXXXX.
He knew as much about enlightenment as my dog's
XXX.
>
> I think that saying "it's just knowing who you really are"
> borders on fluffiness.
Such indicates your ignorance on the subject.
>
> That's like the Mahayana buddhist view. You are giving
> me fluffy Buddhism.
You are seeing things through cloudy lenses.
>
> Hey now, you can't get away with that unless you have it all
> clearly worked out in your head first. I never said anything
> about "coming back" to this plane. I said "come here"
> to this plane. Please work on your reading comrpehension.
Either way, here and now is all there is. There's
nowhere else to go or be. I didn't come to this plane
or come back to this plane.
>
>
> No, it didn't. I think that you water down what it really means,
> but that is not what I'm concerned with.
Your convictions about your understanding
notwithstanding, you clearly aren't getting
what I'm saying.
>
> I have seen you ride in here on your high horse before, and you know
> what? I don't see that you have gotten over anything over the years.
> You just keep going back to the same old thing. I don't think you
> really improve yourself at all, and I highly doubt that you are really
> working on doing anything spiritual. You want to come in here and
> take out your frustations over not getting over cult issues on other
> people, but you don't want to admit that you have any cult issues.
> There is something really less than straightforward about it,
> something that comes across as rather controlling actually.
>
> Go work on yourself instead of preaching to other people about
> what is wrong with them. That is my advice to you. Trust me,
> it makes life more fun to not make anti-cult public relations wars
> your mission in life.
Like I said. You don't like it, then don't read it.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| omjaroo wrote:
[snip]
> On the other hand "enlightenment" or "self realization" can and does
> happen in an instant to anyone, anywhere but otherwise doesn't change a
> thing except that now one "knows" the Truth, as opposed to "believing,
> searching for, studying, etc" the Truth. Once "enlightenment" happens
> then the challenge become aligning body, mind and soul with what is now
> "known". For most of us, this is no easy task as the illusion/habits
> of mortality are strong. So the yoga continues, the study/meditation
> deepens, the questions becomes more pointed and the road becomes
> narrower and narrower. All the wisdom in all the history of the world
> starts to become clearer and more meaningful. One by one, the illusion
> of separation of all which exists starts to dissolve as one learns to
> live in the world but not of the world, until finally accepting being
> "the world".
Excellent rendering of what I'm saying as well.
Bravo!
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 27 Oct 2005 10:40:05 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>omjaroo wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>Excellent rendering of what I'm saying as well.
The problem, jody, is that you can't do it.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 27 Oct 2005 10:38:21 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
>You can not think about enlightenment *at all.*
>So "false thought" as you term it isn't any better
>than "real" thought in this regard.
You are saying that there is nothing useful to be said about
enlightenment, so then why are you engaging in discourse
about it?
Allrighty, I'll bite this time, but you are quickly boring me, and
it;s likely to end with you having some stupid last word because
you need to do that, but it won't have anything to do with truth or
reality.
You are saying that one cannot say anything wrong or right about
enlightenment, but you are still trying to prove that you are right
and that I am wrong in what I am saying, because you are trying
to feed your own ego. Here we go with a syllogism laying out your
thought process:
A and B are all there is
Neither A nor B is the case
However you want to be right.
You are trying to say that enlightenment cannot be spoken of,
that it can only be pointed to, but you are doing a piss-poor job
of it. You cannot bring yourself to believe that you could be
mistaken in what you are saying (not my correct paraphrase above),
and that in itself proves that you should not be preaching to others
about what is wrong with them, not even the current cult members who
upset you so much. In fact, that is a trademark of currently
brainwashed cult members - they cannot consider that they could
be wrong. You can't either.
Have you ever taken a class in logic? It could help you.
>
>
>St. Paul was a misogynistic, ignorant XXXXXXX.
>He knew as much about enlightenment as my dog's
>XXX.
Your dog's XXX knows more about enlightenment
than you do.
>
>
>Such indicates your ignorance on the subject.
You have no answers to what I'm saying, so you are descending
into any put-down you can think of, just to try to have the last word.
Also, you are desparately trying to cling to that high horse
of yours. The problem is, its head is so fat that you can't see
around it.
>
>
>You are seeing things through cloudy lenses.
high horse's fat head, again.
>
>
>Either way, here and now is all there is. There's
>nowhere else to go or be. I didn't come to this plane
>or come back to this plane.
How nice for you. I don't care, as I don't respect fluffy buddhists,
and especially not fluffy buddhists on high horses.
>Your convictions about your understanding
>notwithstanding, you clearly aren't getting
>what I'm saying.
I've understood more about it from other sources than
you have ever been able to articulate. Come now, we both know what
is going on here. You don't like what I have said, and you are trying
to find a way to get your knife in edgwise. Again, take my advice
and go work on yourself. Watch how Wade handles himself - even
that would be more worthwhile for you. If you even follow his
example, you'll improve a lot.
>
>Like I said. You don't like it, then don't read it.
Your enormous lack of self-awareness is noted.
You have not come up with a credible or even half - intelligent
rebuttal to my comments, so I can only conclude that you have come
to the end of having any half-articulate thoughts, and are now
reaching up your XXX for any half-assed insult you can come up with.
Really spiritual, dude.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
|
tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 10:40:05 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The problem, jody, is that you can't do it.
I was thinking that as well.
seems to me Jody gets as far as "On the other hand 'enlightenment' or
'self realization' can and does happen in an instant to anyone,
anywhere but otherwise doesn't change a thing" and never seems to
acknowledge the rest of the process as so aptly rendered by Omjaroo. At
least I have never seen Jody do so on Alt. yoga
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
|
tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2005 16:00:50 -0700, "omjaroo" <omjaroo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, brother.
>
> Indeed, and posting on alt.yoga is rarely beneficial
> or satisfying either.
Hi Tracy,
Omjaroo was making a joke.
hence the " :-) " at the end of the paragraph you quote.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 27 Oct 2005 12:32:01 -0700, hbkta@aol.com wrote:
>
>I was thinking that as well.
>seems to me Jody gets as far as "On the other hand 'enlightenment' or
>'self realization' can and does happen in an instant to anyone,
>anywhere but otherwise doesn't change a thing" and never seems to
>acknowledge the rest of the process as so aptly rendered by Omjaroo. At
>least I have never seen Jody do so on Alt. yoga
well, thank you.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 10:38:21 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> You are saying that there is nothing useful to be said about
> enlightenment, so then why are you engaging in discourse
> about it?
Because we need to stop creating expectations about
it that will never be reached, as it lies absolutely
outside of *any* expectation that *any* mind can
generate.
> Allrighty, I'll bite this time, but you are quickly boring me, and
> it;s likely to end with you having some stupid last word because
> you need to do that, but it won't have anything to do with truth or
> reality.
Opinion noted.
> You are saying that one cannot say anything wrong or right about
> enlightenment, but you are still trying to prove that you are right
> and that I am wrong in what I am saying, because you are trying
> to feed your own ego. Here we go with a syllogism laying out your
> thought process:
>
> A and B are all there is
> Neither A nor B is the case
> However you want to be right.
>
> You are trying to say that enlightenment cannot be spoken of,
> that it can only be pointed to, but you are doing a piss-poor job
> of it.
That may have more to do with your lack of understanding
than my presentation.
> You cannot bring yourself to believe that you could be
> mistaken in what you are saying (not my correct paraphrase above),
I can admit that I'm not the best communicator of what
I know, but I'm confident I'm not mistaken about the
assertion that enlightenment cannot be spoken about
with any veracity at all.
> and that in itself proves that you should not be preaching to others
> about what is wrong with them, not even the current cult members who
> upset you so much. In fact, that is a trademark of currently
> brainwashed cult members - they cannot consider that they could
> be wrong. You can't either.
See above.
> Have you ever taken a class in logic? It could help you.
Logic can't express enlightenment any better than
anything else. All words fail, logical or not.
>
> Your dog's XXX knows more about enlightenment
> than you do.
Heh.
>
> You have no answers to what I'm saying, so you are descending
> into any put-down you can think of, just to try to have the last word.
> Also, you are desparately trying to cling to that high horse
> of yours. The problem is, its head is so fat that you can't see
> around it.
As I said, you are looking at it all through inadequate
lenses.
>
> high horse's fat head, again.
Maybe they're cracked, too.
>
> How nice for you. I don't care, as I don't respect fluffy buddhists,
> and especially not fluffy buddhists on high horses.
Ok.
>
> I've understood more about it from other sources than
> you have ever been able to articulate. Come now, we both know what
> is going on here. You don't like what I have said, and you are trying
> to find a way to get your knife in edgwise. Again, take my advice
> and go work on yourself. Watch how Wade handles himself - even
> that would be more worthwhile for you. If you even follow his
> example, you'll improve a lot.
Mirrors up, Tracy!
>
> Your enormous lack of self-awareness is noted.
>
> You have not come up with a credible or even half - intelligent
> rebuttal to my comments, so I can only conclude that you have come
> to the end of having any half-articulate thoughts, and are now
> reaching up your XXX for any half-assed insult you can come up with.
>
> Really spiritual, dude.
"You don't like it, then don't read it" is an insult?
Grow some skin.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| hbkta@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
> I was thinking that as well.
> seems to me Jody gets as far as "On the other hand 'enlightenment' or
> 'self realization' can and does happen in an instant to anyone,
> anywhere but otherwise doesn't change a thing" and never seems to
> acknowledge the rest of the process as so aptly rendered by Omjaroo. At
> least I have never seen Jody do so on Alt. yoga.
My primary aim is to make clear the occluding effects
of ideas about self-realization. As to how to arrive
at that moment, the ways are as myriad as the folks
making the journey.
I can say that in the cases I am aware of personally,
much in the way of psychological transformation seemed
to occur before the recognition dawned. Were we to
imagine this to be part of a pattern, I'd say that one
is best off picking a meditation practice, sticking to
it, and then trying whatever else they feel is appropriate
to find out as much about themselves as psychological
creatures as they are able. This could include the use
of therapy, shamanism and the ingestion of entheogenic
substances. Or, maybe it will be about quiet days in a
cave or on a mountain top. Your mileage will *always*
vary in this game. All you can ever really do is to
follow your heart, heeding *or* rejecting the literature
and wisdom you come across along the way.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 27 Oct 2005 13:44:08 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"You don't like it, then don't read it" is an insult?
>
>Grow some skin.
Take the things I put at the end of my posts as applying to
the whole post.
You are a waste of time.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On 27 Oct 2005 14:06:26 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>I can say that in the cases I am aware of personally,
>much in the way of psychological transformation seemed
>to occur before the recognition dawned. Were we to
>imagine this to be part of a pattern, I'd say that one
>is best off picking a meditation practice, sticking to
>it, and then trying whatever else they feel is appropriate
>to find out as much about themselves as psychological
>creatures as they are able. This could include the use
>of therapy, shamanism and the ingestion of entheogenic
>substances. Or, maybe it will be about quiet days in a
>cave or on a mountain top. Your mileage will *always*
>vary in this game. All you can ever really do is to
>follow your heart, heeding *or* rejecting the literature
>and wisdom you come across along the way.
More spouting from someone who can't do it.
Oh, my apologies to the ng.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:36:43 -0400, Bruce Morgen <editor@juno.com>
wrote:
>tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
>Translation: "I can't stuff him
>into the box of my preconceptions,
oh brother, are you trying to say that jody's wisdom
and knowledge are beyond my ability to comprehend?
Wow, what a riot. I hardly think that is so.
>so let's see if I can prop up my
>image by feigning a curt dismissal."
I'll spell it out: She did not have any half-intelligent
response to what I had to say, so once one sees that,
one has to have the intelligence to wrap things up.
If one doesn't do that, it's pretty XXXXed up too.
And besides, not getting too embroiled in these things
is better for my own practice anyway.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:41:56 -0400, Bruce Morgen <editor@juno.com>
wrote:
>
>Which one?
Mainly alt.yoga, but I suppose all of them.
>This thread is
>cross-posted to a fare-thee-
>well. Moreover, if you
>believe what you posted and
>are confident you acquitted
>yourself well, why the
>"apologies?"
Ah, merely because it causes ripples in the water  .
| |
| omjaroo 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| >The problem, jody, is that you can't do it.
I'm thinking the issue being discussed is primarily a semantic one.
This is where "absolutists" often get in trouble :-) After all there is
a moment in understanding where you can no longer take anyone along
with you in words.
I don't think we're there yet, so I will try to clarify.
The problem I see with language (English, perhaps Sanskrit is better)
in trying to explain how to do "enlightenment" is this. We think of
"doing" something as causing something. Where as non-doing can also
have very powerful effects.
Enlightenment can't be done because there is nothing to do. However
enlightenment can be prepared for, it can be sought after, it can be
desired. All these things might give us the impression we are doing
something to become "enlightened". But because enlightenment is who
we are now, it can't be done, it just happens if we allow it (which is
a non-doing). The Bhagwan Shree Rasneesh, explains "non-doing" quite
thoroughly in his book "Meditation and the Art of Ecstasy". I think
that we sometimes confuse those things we are "doing" in order to
prepare for or in an attempt to gain "enlightenment" for
"causing" "enlightenment".
For example, quitting smoking. We think of this as a fine
accomplishment or something we "do" and many of us have worked long and
hard to "do" this. But what are we actually doing? Nothing of course.
Because what we are really "doing" is stopping (a non-doing) the
habitual introduction of stimulating toxins into our body. We may do
lot's of activities and tecniques in furtherance of "stopping"
our smoking. But in the end, if we are successful, it will be our doing
"nothing" which constitutes our victory over smoking. We simple
stop.
In the same manner "enlightenment", "self realization" and the like is
something we can chase after and try to do for years but when it come
right down to it, "enlightenment" is an "acceptance", a non-doing. We
stop resisting, stop fabricating illusions, stop "reasoning", stop
struggling, stop longing and simply "let go" and accept what is our
very nature. That which always has been and always will be. Then in
that moment, all the bullsh*t and lies fall away in a cascade so fast
one has to stop thinking for a moment or you will feel dizzy. Then you
look out at the world, past, present and future and you realize nothing
has changed at all. The only difference now is you can "see".
Then it's on to life, but now with "eyes open". This presents a
challenge. Everything you thought you knew when you were blind has to
be thrown out, as it is useless. More then useless it is a hindrance, a
regression. This is the hard part because likely you are not grounded
on a practical basis in living with the Truth but you are no longer
grounded in the lies either. All of ones experiences, habits, notions,
believes, right down to your DNA is based on the not knowing of the
Truth.
Not that "enlightenment is all beauty and light! One can become an
existential "tweener" caught between light and dark, Truth and fiction,
Love and fear. A nether world untethered from maya but not yet grounded
body, mind and soul in Love. This can be an immensely painful and
frightening place (illusion) to be in. This is why some of my posts can
be a bit intense. This is also how "enlightened" individuals can
"fall" far and hard (Osho anyone?). Any work one does in any art of
self-control/knowledge will be very helpful. If you've done little or
none you better learn something quick because your old ways just won't
work with your eyes open. One must "relearn" everything. Become "as
a child" but this time with one's eyes open. This is the primary
difference between the unconscious freedom and love of a child and the
freedom and conscious Love of an adult.
Jared
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:45:39 -0400, Bruce Morgen <editor@juno.com>
wrote:
>tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
>
>Ability? No. Willingness?
>Obviously!
>
>
>To be easily amused is a
>very mixed blessing.
>
>
>Clearly.
>
>Actually, Jodyji responded
>very patiently and honestly.
Honest, I hardly think so.
>You lacked the attention
>span and/or perceptual
>clarity to look where that
>finger was pointing -- and
>proceeded to call it a
>deficient finger.
I pointed out exactly what her logical errors were,
and she did not disagree with them. Wow, are you
her follower or something? When she could not come
up with a good answer, she tried some occlusion herself.
Either that or what they call "derailment."
>Quite typical of the occluded
>seeker contingent.
I'm not sure that you are thinking straight. She used that
term strictly for gurus trying to prove they have siddhis.
>Translation: "My practice is
>so dubious and tenuous that
>any challenge to my narrow
>perceptual aperture is enough
>to XXXX it up. Let's see how
>I can avoid that while saving
>face with my Usenet peers."
Ah, I get it, you put these little translations of yours, then when I
disprove it, you try to come up with another one. Why not just
ask me?
I hardly see how jody challenged my perceptions! ahahaha!
oh man!
Ok, I see you'r her little pet. Well, I've had enough. Hack away.
I now consider that I've got better things to do.
I really don't consider the people on these ng's to be my peers,
because I don't come around here that often, and if I cared that
much about my "face," I would probably be less candid than I am.
| |
| jody radzik 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| omjaroo wrote:
>
> I'm thinking the issue being discussed is primarily a semantic one.
> This is where "absolutists" often get in trouble :-) After all there is
> a moment in understanding where you can no longer take anyone along
> with you in words.
There is an understanding that cannot be approached by
thought, let alone thoughts stepped down to words.
[snip]
> In the same manner "enlightenment", "self realization" and the like is
> something we can chase after and try to do for years but when it come
> right down to it, "enlightenment" is an "acceptance", a non-doing. We
> stop resisting, stop fabricating illusions, stop "reasoning", stop
> struggling, stop longing and simply "let go" and accept what is our
> very nature. That which always has been and always will be. Then in
> that moment, all the bullsh*t and lies fall away in a cascade so fast
> one has to stop thinking for a moment or you will feel dizzy. Then you
> look out at the world, past, present and future and you realize nothing
> has changed at all. The only difference now is you can "see".
....who you really are.
> Then it's on to life, but now with "eyes open". This presents a
> challenge. Everything you thought you knew when you were blind has to
> be thrown out, as it is useless.
What!? Where did that come from?
You don't have to throw out anything you know. What you
know is who you are as an individual. That persists,
and slowly, over time, changes. A lot of what we learn
in our lives is useful.
But if you are talking about what you thought you knew
about realization, then I wholeheartedly concur. That's
what is so clear, the fact that 'this' is nothing you
can think of, have thought of, or will ever think of.
And any thinking you are doing about it is just keeping
you from seeing the truth that lies closer than your
own breath.
> More then useless it is a hindrance, a
> regression. This is the hard part because likely you are not grounded
> on a practical basis in living with the Truth but you are no longer
> grounded in the lies either. All of ones experiences, habits, notions,
> believes, right down to your DNA is based on the not knowing of the
> Truth.
Nah. The Truth is always known. It's a pre-existing
condition of all human life. The Self shines in beauty
and murder equally. But since we've been programmed
to believe we are the individuals we have been
conditioned to be, we just don't see what is always
there. When you come to see the Self for the first
time, it's absolutely amazing, because you realize
that you have *always* been seeing it. You just
didn't notice it.
> Not that "enlightenment is all beauty and light! One can become an
> existential "tweener" caught between light and dark, Truth and fiction,
> Love and fear.
This sounds like fiction to me, Jared.
> A nether world untethered from maya but not yet grounded
> body, mind and soul in Love. This can be an immensely painful and
> frightening place (illusion) to be in. This is why some of my posts can
> be a bit intense.
Dude, Maya is cool. You've just got to surrender
to Her. She's running the show.
> This is also how "enlightened" individuals can
> "fall" far and hard (Osho anyone?).
Osho didn't fall. He was just a quirky individual
who didn't give a XXXX what others thought. It
ended up being his downfall, along with some bad
management decisions, but it wasn't because he
had fallen in any way. You can't fall from knowing
who you are, but you can still be a pretty XXXXed
up individual.
> Any work one does in any art of
> self-control/knowledge will be very helpful. If you've done little or
> none you better learn something quick because your old ways just won't
> work with your eyes open. One must "relearn" everything. Become "as
> a child" but this time with one's eyes open. This is the primary
> difference between the unconscious freedom and love of a child and the
> freedom and conscious Love of an adult.
>
> Jared
I'm not on board this relearning thing, Jared.
You come to see who you are and you're amazed
you didn't notice it before. But as you said,
life goes on. You go to work, pay your bills,
have fun on the weekends, or whatever else is
happening in your life. No radical unlearning
is necessary.
At least that's how I see. As Bruceji says,
YMMV, or "your mileage may vary."
| |
| omjaroo 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| Thanks for your reply.
>Babbleon! :-)
I think there is a biblical joke here but I have only been studying the
bible for a couple of years and I don't get it :-(
Jared
0
^
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| omjaroo wrote:
>
> Oh, BTW, in my experience cross-posting to alt.yoga is rarely
> beneficial/satisfying for anyone involved. Alt.-yoga is not a very
> "chatty" group and it's difficult to get any kind of argument going
> there. I suppose that's because the members of alt.yoga already know
> all there is to know, about everything, so there's little need to argue
> :-)
>
Sometimes I've speculated if not yoga might be one of the most powerful
memes in the world, in effect changing the meme carriers into clones of
each other, both mentally and physically. That would explain why yogis
don't disagree much, except over minor details.
Then I think again: Yoga gives a powerful experience and a very sane
outlook on life and philosophy. Now, if many people are deluded, their
delusions will vary infinitely, but if some people see things as they
are and also share a common experience, they will naturally all agree on
what's what.
Hopefully, this is the real reason for the uncommonly (for Usenet)
argument-free atmosphere on alt.yoga. That, and the yogic ideal of
ahimsa, including agrodha (SP?) (=non-anger).
S.
(Headers edited)
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2005 14:06:26 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> More spouting from someone who can't do it.
>
> Oh, my apologies to the ng.
No need to apologize for how you feel, just note that Jody R has really
been on his best behaviour on alt.yoga, whether he "can do it" or not.
S.
| |
| omjaroo 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| >There is an understanding that cannot be approached by
>thought, let alone thoughts stepped down to words.
Of course. But then that doesn't make for a very interesting or helpful
usenet exchange :-)
I have come to believe my "assignment" on this planet is to put into
words, what can't be explained. If I can know it, then god damn it, I
should be able to explain it! Perhaps that is why I so love the the
quote of Emile Zola, that "If you asked me what I came into this world
to do, I will tell you: I came to live out loud."
[vbcol=seagreen]
>What!? Where did that come from?
Experience :-)
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Nah.
OK, can't argue with that :-)
[vbcol=seagreen]
>This sounds like fiction to me, Jared.
It is, just as everything I "experience" is. Sounds like you haven't
had the pleasure of this particular fiction. Consider yourself blessed
:-) Perhaps you ate sh*t in your last life, so you didn't have to do
it this time :-)
>Osho didn't fall.
Of course he didn't. There's no such thing. None the less if you look
at the "fruits" of his "life" this time around there was plenty of
"wheat" and plenty of "thorns". Me, I've been nourished and grown from
the wheat and I watch out for the thorns. BSR is my hero :-)
>No radical unlearning is necessary.
My weekends are never fun :-( I for one still have a great deal more
"unlearning" to do. ;-)
Jared
| |
| omjaroo 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| 700E,
Touche my friend! Fabrications are infinite; the Truth is absolute.
I have been participating in usenet, basically since it began and I
have noticed there are 2 kinds of groups.
1. The groups where people come to find information which will profit
them (car, computer, software support groups, yoga, etc.) people are
very respectful and polite. If they are not they will not profit from
their visit.
2. Groups where people come to "test" or "spew" their delusions. Try to
justify their fear and make themselves "right" so to speak. These
groups are rife with hate and discontent and reflect all the
uncivilness humans who are frightened and ignorant have foisted on
others since time began.
I appreciate and agree with your speculations.
Namaste.
O
^
| |
| Azure 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
|
tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
> On 26 Oct 2005 07:56:39 -0700, "jody radzik" <jodyrrr@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>their truth as my dog's XXX.
>
> Leaving aside whether or not siddhis exist, traditionally, siddhis
> were considered a distraction,
Sorry but a Genetic Factor is hardly a "Distraction".
Sithe exist, it is a Tribal Name for the people of my family.
Besides, Krishna was Sithe, Buddha was Sidthe, Jesus was Sithe, Badb was
Sithe, Lug was Sithe.
| |
| omjaroo 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| Excuse me for interupting but as I was wandering around in this thread
I wondered is this what you are talking about?
Gaelic dictionaries give Sidhe, Sithiche or Sithe as the corresponding
for "Fairy". From: http://users.skynet.be/keltic/edit03.html
Jared
| |
| Dave C?C? 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| "Sevenhundred Elves" <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote in message
news:Y%e8f.149281$dP1.507225@newsc.telia.net...
> omjaroo wrote:
>
> Sometimes I've speculated if not yoga might be one of the most powerful
> memes in the world, in effect changing the meme carriers into clones of
> each other, both mentally and physically. That would explain why yogis
> don't disagree much, except over minor details.
Maybe it's just that yogi's (well... some of 'em anyway) have come to the
realization that although we are all looking at the same Absolute,
PERCEPTION may be unique and VERY different.
> Then I think again: Yoga gives a powerful experience and a very sane
> outlook on life and philosophy. Now, if many people are deluded, their
> delusions will vary infinitely, but if some people see things as they
> are and also share a common experience, they will naturally all agree on
> what's what.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that. IMO that's why there are so many
different yogic disciplines. All different but all striving toward the same
objective.
> Hopefully, this is the real reason for the uncommonly (for Usenet)
> argument-free atmosphere on alt.yoga. That, and the yogic ideal of
> ahimsa, including agrodha (SP?) (=non-anger).
>
> S.
>
Then again, maybe it's just "good manners!" ;->
--
Namaste
Dave C?C
"Ego sum quis Ego sum quod ut est quicumque Ego sum"
http://www.howdydave.com
| |
|
| Hi Azure,
please try to be realistic...No one ever has seen Krishna was once
lived or not,samething is true for Jesus...If jesus was Sithe then he
should have shown his sithe toward the people who have killed him...
I am sure your dog knows more than you think so....
Don`t be a stup no siddhis exist. It is all illusion...
With compassion,
Puma
Azure wrote:
> tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
>
> Sorry but a Genetic Factor is hardly a "Distraction".
> Sithe exist, it is a Tribal Name for the people of my family.
> Besides, Krishna was Sithe, Buddha was Sidthe, Jesus was Sithe, Badb was
> Sithe, Lug was Sithe.
| |
| hbkta@aol.com 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
|
jody radzik wrote:
> hbkta@aol.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> My primary aim is to make clear the occluding effects
> of ideas about self-realization. As to how to arrive
> at that moment, the ways are as myriad as the folks
> making the journey.
>
> I can say that in the cases I am aware of personally,
> much in the way of psychological transformation seemed
> to occur before the recognition dawned. Were we to
> imagine this to be part of a pattern, I'd say that one
> is best off picking a meditation practice, sticking to
> it, and then trying whatever else they feel is appropriate
> to find out as much about themselves as psychological
> creatures as they are able. This could include the use
> of therapy, shamanism and the ingestion of entheogenic
> substances. Or, maybe it will be about quiet days in a
> cave or on a mountain top. Your mileage will *always*
> vary in this game. All you can ever really do is to
> follow your heart, heeding *or* rejecting the literature
> and wisdom you come across along the way.
Sounds like a reasonable approach
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-29, 11:43 am |
| On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:35:59 GMT, Sevenhundred Elves
<sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote:
>No need to apologize for how you feel, just note that Jody R has really
>been on his best behaviour on alt.yoga, whether he "can do it" or not.
You are sadly mistaken.
First, that is really perceptive coming from somebody who hasn't
noticed that jody is a girl's name. Second, Bruce Morgen is an
idiot and I won't bother with him, but I've got something to say to
this.
Jody does not practice this wonderful "ahimsa" that you all
value so much. So why should should she deserve it from others?
To expect that, would be hyocrisy.
It wasn't even that long ago, that she said, on the: "Re: New Moon Oct
3 & the coming civilization" thread:
________________________________________________________
> It's a pity that you're so comfortable with this insane world, where
> the blind lead the blind, and where there are lots of people who nod
> their heads wisely while speaking stupidly.
Samadhi is samsara. You better get used to it, XXXXX.
The magic kings are not coming. They are nothing more
than mere figments of your deluded imagination.
________________________________________________________
Now the person had called her a gasbag, it seems, and she descended
into even worse name-calling. How you think that is being on her
best behavior, I don't know. It's also not the first time I have
seen her be rude and arrogant, not by a long shot. So now you know
where I am coming from.
Next, she stated right out that she it's her business to teach people,
as in:
_______________________________
If folks want to stuff their heads
full of theosophical nonsense and
pray for the return of their magic
kings, that's their business.
Mine is to tell them they are wasting
their time.
_______________________________
No, it's not her business to teach people that what they believe
is nonsense. She is making it her business, and she's not qualified
to do it because she's so fluffy that she can't even get what the
fluffy buddhists believe, right in her head, and also because she has
something in common with these cultists, which I have already pointed
out.
So in short, even though I agree with jody that the magic kings
stuff is nonsense, I also believe that jody is a gasbag.
If you want to think that she's all fine and spirtual, go ahead, be my
guest.
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-10-30, 6:25 pm |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:35:59 GMT, Sevenhundred Elves
> <sevenhundred@elves.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> You are sadly mistaken.
>
> First, that is really perceptive coming from somebody who hasn't
> noticed that jody is a girl's name.
Really? You call this bald old guitar player a girl, then:
http://www.jodyfisher.com/photos.html
S.
| |
| tracym@askme.net 2005-10-30, 6:25 pm |
|
>
>Really? You call this bald old guitar player a girl, then:
>
>http://www.jodyfisher.com/photos.html
My comment about that was probably not necessary, but it's
interesting that you needed to make a comeback about that.
There's hardly any importance to it. Whatever. I admit it was
not necessary.
| |
| Wade Humeniuk 2005-10-30, 6:25 pm |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
>
>
> My comment about that was probably not necessary, but it's
> interesting that you needed to make a comeback about that.
> There's hardly any importance to it. Whatever. I admit it was
> not necessary.
>
>
So you have implied that Sevenhundred Elves is dense because you did
not take care. And now you do not even apologize. Wow.
Wade
| |
| Sevenhundred Elves 2005-10-30, 6:25 pm |
| tracym@askme.net wrote:
>
>
>
> My comment about that was probably not necessary, but it's
> interesting that you needed to make a comeback about that.
> There's hardly any importance to it. Whatever. I admit it was
> not necessary.
I'm glad you realize that. Apologies accepted.
S.
| |
|
|
Sevenhundred Elves wrote:
>
> Azure wrote:
>
>
> "Sevenhundred Elves" is just a pseudonym. I'm not really a bunch of
> elves. I'm thoroughly human. Any real elves should appreciate your
> concern, though.
>
> S.
I am a real Elve, follower of the ELPH, the "EEK" the scream the soul
makes when it meets the "Great Terrible Unknown".
Tautha De Dannan, "Followers of THE THE ONE".
3 G's to the Arianhod, Child of the Magh Danu, Danuvian to the Silver
Wheel, Bare to the Cave, Padmieohm to the Oghmanie.
|
| |
|
|