> Both sides in that you believe and maintain what’s
> true and that’s fine. I know a lot happened
> between you both and I know James is lying when he
> says he parted ways with you over money or sex.
> But I don’t think you are without fault in the
> whole thing. What those “faults” are, are not for
> me to say.
That's okay, :). I appreciate your view.
> What I see is two men slagging each other off, in
> a long-winded manner that isn’t very interesting
> to most people. Both of you need to take a good
> look at yourselves maybe, and get real about what
> people need to know, or not. If not, this will
> just escalate. I know you have emails to prove
> your point, but I don’t think the general public
> have enough reason to wade through the finer
> detail of you proving small points. It doesn’t
> come across well, in my view. I’m just being
> honest with you - as I want you to have your day
> and to be heard and to sort things out for
> yourself with regard to James, but I don’t want
> you to lose the “point” through masses of
> irrelevant detail. That was why I suggested you
> get someone to help you write with you, to clarify
> what needs to be said - if that’s what you want to
I appreciate this also, for sure. I came to this forum, topic, like you did. And I've posted to inform, like you have. Though i've posted much more. I don't agree that publicly refuting his defamation point by point in regard to me, is irrelevant. Actually, it's relevant to this topic. This is because i've been vocal for so long here about him, i've challenged his students who came on here, and now i'm being attacked. He's known of my identity for some time, at least two of his students have known also. And with 'cult-forums' being mentioned in a satsang in regard to me yesterday, to me this is salient.
And it's really okay that you & I see the approach differently.
> I can’t imagine for one moment, that any of his
> sincere students respect him more, for the things
> he’s saying and doing with regard to you.
I know that the wagons have circled once more there a little. But if there's anything good out of this, it's that it may be what you write.
> In my opinion, James has some kind of unhealthy
> history around sexuality, and his view on it are
> twisted and unhealthy. That has and will continue
> to, bite him on the bum. I think he was probably
> shaming you because you represent some hidden,
> under-belly in himself. Just a possibility - as an
> observer. I’ve seen James time and again be crude
> and crass and vicious and derogatory about any
> discussion of sexuality. That’s fine if he’s
> teaching Vedanta I suppose, but it hints strongly
> to me that has has a big load of shadow stuff
> going on, on that score. It’s not surprising then,
> that he laid into you as he has. However, I also
> know that where there’s smoke there is fire - so
> it would be my guess that you have in fact been
> inappropriate to women somewhere, somehow. Maybe
> it would be best to face that and address it. Take
> the toy/whip away from him, so to speak.
What's been said by him about me isn't true.
James has a common tactic. He will dress up something in which a person has done little or no wrong, in an event. And he will add layers of impropriety to it that actually doesn't legally
exist (he did this as late as this morning with me). Hence my insistence that Police and Facebook are notified, and Facebook's decisions about any report violating their 'community standards' is screenshot-ed. These two things are very easy to do.