Thanks for the attention and commitment in the work you do.

When I reach this page:
“WP/2150/2016, then at the bottom, click on ‘Listing Dates’ to go to a page with links to reports on each session”, I don’t know how to read, if available, the documents of proofs, sessions or similar.

Ciao,
SV

MOD:
VF, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE ARTICLE FROM Sarlo ABOUT THE BOMBAY COURT? IF SO, AS HE GAVE A VERY SOPHISTICATED PATH TO THE INFO IT MIGHT BE BEST TO ASK HIM DIRECTLY.

P.S. (FROM VEET F):
SN is inspiring me a lot, and in these dark NWO years relaxes my nerves to be more and more ready for the (outward) revolution, almost set up by default.

I need give to you a short first reply, I’ll complete it later.

“BUT HARSH WORDS ARE ALMOST BOUND TO BE SAID AT TIMES – TO WHICH YOU YOURSELF HAVE ALREADY CONTRIBUTED.”

I have already written here and there that even in our mutual “fuck you!” there should be a grounded experience of Compassion with not only intellectual Intelligence and a Creating Trust’ goal.

I love to say/feel “If I hurt you, I’m sorry”, I’m trained in it, but to hurt people has its cost for me; that’s why for me the confrontational approach cannot be a tautological game: “I love you and I would like to apologize to you, because I love you.” (Btw, my first personal insight about the ‘Fatal Flaw’ could be related with this game).

So before going for a fight with someone that I suppose to be, or could become, my friend, I have to check what my heart says, how much I’m connected with my and others’ need of love.

It’s up to the wisdom of my heart to define the line of an honourable compromise; blaming or complaining mood is placed in a zone of not fighting, but not yet friendship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3CMsjY5c_Y

Thank you.

MOD:
NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, VF.

@MOD:

Currency, the value behind Words: Reality, Truth and Miracle.

Imho, I:
Assumed that this Forum is not an aseptic laboratory.
Assumed that Spirituality is not part of Hard Science.
Assumed that words we use to describe reality is not reality.
Assumed that ‘what is reality?’ is an open topic in the Hard Science field.
Assumed that to speak coherently about reality is not evidence in itself.
Assumed that even if I could, through words, persuade you about something I see/think/feel be true, yet that truth is not the reality but just one of the many possible versions of it.
Assumed that All IS an almost empty space, where everything is mysteriously interconnected, till even words could affect reality.
Assumed that we all, as sannyasins, ‘know’ that the ultimate vision of reality we (should?) share is a “mystery to enjoy, not a problem to solve”.
Assumed that to ask me questions that already contain the answers is not the best way to become my friend.
Assumed that you are not the same person as, or very close to, the one who was enquiring about my credibility with an over-ostentatious grin.
Assumed that this is the last time I answer on this topic.
Assumed that you read my last sentence in a comment I posted on 31 October, 2016, at 6:01 pm as an annoyed answer to a long question without question marks posted on 31 October, 2016, at 9:36am (please, tell me how many question marks you see).

So:

Given that I couldn’t show you evidence that my reality fits with yours, the point is that I DO NOT WANT to persuade you, or anybody else, about Siddhis, Synchronicity or whatever. But you could be very lucky enquiring of our people and YOURSELF about very popular topics like arising Kundalini, Tarot, Chakras, Channelling, Aurasoma, Reiki or …Past Lives.

I feel almost comfortable with the manifestation of this Mystery, I don’t need evidence to celebrate; I hope you do too.

Please, let me know who for you has credibility and who not; if before my brief time here, hostility, sarcasm, challenges, manipulation, cynicism, antagonism or bullying have never occupied these virtual pages, and if I should feel guilty.

Ciao,

VF

P.S:
About the second topic, I did the homework you asked me:

I confirm to you that for me the nuances seem to remain (especially between “but” and “despite”), and I have also reversed the order of the two elements to accentuate the sense of hierarchy between Joy and Laziness.

Today I’m joyful BUT lazy: assumes that joy could not make you lazy (hyperactive?).
Today I’m joyful AND lazy: assumes that between joy and laziness could be no rapport.
Today I’m joyful DESPITE my laziness: assumes that when I’m lazy I shouldn’t be joyful.
Today I’m joyful BUT not lazy: assumes that joy could make me lazy.
Today I’m joyful AND not lazy: assumes that between joy and no-laziness (hyperactive?) there could not be a relationship.
Today I’m joyful DESPITE not being lazy: assumes that when I’m not lazy (hyperactive?) I could not be joyful.

P.P.S:
This was my shorter first answer, for me much more significant:

“Yes, (for me) joy has infinite doors, laziness ‘could be’ one of them. And it’s not always in my power to open it.
In that “could be” I place all the “shades of meanings”.”

MOD:
THANKS FOR CLARIFYING YOUR Joy/Laziness POINTS, VF – MUCH APPRECIATED.

RE OTHER ISSUES YOU RAISE ABOVE:

Assumed that to ask me questions that already contain the answers is not the best way to become my friend – PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AS WE DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN HERE.

RE Lokesh’s POST, OCT.31, 9.36am:

SEEMS NO QUESTION MARKS ARE REQUIRED.

RE YOUR LAST SENTENCE, OCT. 31, 6.01pm:

YES, WE’VE READ IT. WHAT POINT DO YOU WANT TO MAKE BY DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO IT NOW?

RE words we use to describe reality is not reality (ETC.):

OF COURSE, BUT GIVEN THAT’S ALL WE HAVE HERE, WHY NOT DO OUR BEST ANYWAY AND THUS AVOID POTENTIALLY TOXIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS?

RE the point is that I DO NOT WANT to persuade you, or anybody else, about Siddhis, Synchronicity or whatever.

OK, BUT PLEASE NOTICE THE PROBLEMS ARISING WHEN ONE STATES SOMETHING POTENTIALLY ‘CONTROVERSIAL’ AND THEN REFUSES TO EXPAND UPON IT WHEN CHALLENGED.

RE Please, let me know who for you has credibility and who not; if before my brief time here, hostility, sarcasm, challenges, manipulation, cynicism, antagonism or bullying have never occupied these virtual pages, and if I should feel guilty.

VF, FOR THE SN TEAM, THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS PROTRACTED DISPUTE IS NOT ABOUT YOUR OVERALL credibility, IT CONCERNS ONE INSTANCE. WE’RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE YOU feel guilty, A ‘VICTIM’, ALTHOUGH YOU SEEM TO THINK OTHERWISE. WE’RE ATTEMPTING TO RESPOND TO YOUR COMPLAINTS (AND YOUR CHALLENGES).

SURE, SN HAS HAD PLENTY OF NEGATIVE EXCHANGES BUT SANNYASINS ARE FAR FROM A HOMOGENEOUS GROUP, SO DISAGREEMENTS ARE INEVITABLE. WE TRY TO KEEP GRATUITOUS ABUSE TO A MINIMUM, BUT HARSH WORDS ARE ALMOST BOUND TO BE SAID AT TIMES – TO WHICH YOU YOURSELF HAVE ALREADY CONTRIBUTED.

RE Assumed that you are not the same person as, or very close to, the one who was enquiring about my credibility with an over-ostentatious grin.

NO, HE’S NOT IN THE SN EDITORIAL TEAM.

G.A.Henty – He was a favourite. ‘Under Drakes Flag’ I must have read a hundred times. (That worked all right when I came back to it).

‘Swiss Family Robinson’ I loved as a kid, and then re-read as an adult – and what a load of didactic, list mania shite.

As you have shrewdly observed, Arpana, my choice of literature earlier in life continues to exert a profound influence on my psyche and language up to the present-day!

In the light of this candid confession, perhaps it only makes sense to consider Madhu’s exhortation for me to “move on”. A noble sentiment which I have interpreted in this instance as being akin to ‘grow up’!

The trouble is, I don’t think I want to!

So, what you then proudly recommend to others here, whom you are anyway hardly interested in: “move on” – one can say, I guess, you neither know to where they have already moved on, nor that you have showed much interest up to now to see or listen to their everyday moves.

As it turns out pretty much always, it may be best for you to take your own counsel, Ashok!

Madhu

The psychology of ‘beyond psychology’ seekers is a matter of discussion and one should not shy away from discussing the dark aspects of human interior.

A community which is unable to resolve issues amicably is a disgrace, especially when it is formed around the most genius mystic of our time.

It’s time to move on!

MOD:
POST EDITED.

I owe you an answer:

“IF YOU DON’T ADDRESS THE ACTUAL ISSUE WHEN QUESTIONED, YOU’RE LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED (AS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED TWICE IN YOUR BRIEF TIME HERE)”

Dear MOD,

Feel free to ask me with education, if not love, about everything, and I go on to feel free to answer or not to you, but with love or education, anyway.

If I don’t want to address (to be honest, I don’t give a shit) any evidence (?) or explanation to whoever approaches me in a way below that of my relating civil standard, it’s because you are right: first have a place for questions and after, eventually, the challenges.

I don’t know what you mean by “TWICE” but if you speak about questions that begin with “Please, could you share…” and finish with this “?” and not with this “!” or, even worse, with this “?!” it’s possible that I don’t feel to share, for thousand and one reasons, that I could even not know.

If this is an celebrating-no-serious-playful-joyful Osho place and not a police office…in that case I would play the bad one, of course if you, the sheriff agrees.

Ciao,

VF

MOD:
POST EDITED.

VF, THE TWO POINTS YOU DIDN’T ADDRESS WERE GIVING EXAMPLES OF THE ‘miracles’ (AND/OR high siddhis) YOU SAID YOU’D WITNESSED IN INDIA AND EXPLAINING YOUR LIST OF Laziness/Joy ALTERNATIVES (WE THINK THE RATHER LENGTHY Sun/Cold ANALOGIES TEND TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE RATHER THAN MAKE THE ORIGINAL POINTS CLEARER).

AS YOU KNOW, IN A PLACE WHERE WORDS ARE THE ONLY CURRENCY, MAKING THINGS CLEAR HELPS TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS THAT CAN EASILY LEAD TO CONFLICTS AND EVEN ONGOING ANTAGONISMS (WE SPEAK FROM PLENTY OF SUCH EXPERIENCE!). IT HELPS PRESERVE POTENTIAL SPACE FOR WHAT YOU SAY YOU WANT: a celebrating-no-serious-playful-joyful Osho place and not a police office.