For the record the "denial newsletter" mentioned in this earlier post IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE on their website.
You wonder why eh??Dis-illusioned Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> zizlz Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Whoa, good find, Sahara!
> >
> > Sahara71 Wrote:
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This information fits the picture we are
> > beginning
> > > to see emerge about Old James!
> >
> > Exactly! Just a few days ago I still held this
> man
> > in high regard but now that I'm reading the
> > Heather story I start noticing more and more
> > things that are off about him.
> >
> > Just like Mooji's denial-video was pretty
> damning
> > for himself (for those who actually listen
> > critically to what he says there), James'
> > denial-newsletter is also pretty damning.
> >
> >
> [
www.shiningworld.com]
> >
> >
Quote
When it is not possible to determine
> guilt
> > or innocence – assuming you are not able to
> accept
> > uncer-tainty – the law, which is based on
> dharma,
> > provides us with an interesting concept: the
> > preponder-ance of the evidence. In this case
> there
> > is actually no evidence and I categorically
> deny
> > the accuser’s statement, so how can you remove
> > your doubt? Of course the quickest way to
> > remove it is to see it as a mithya problem and
> > dismiss it as unreal. But in the event that you
> > are not at that level of inquiry, you can
> make
> > a reasonable determination based on what you do
> > know.
> >
> > Here it's clear that James does indeed use
> Vedanta
> > as a way to dismiss any wrongdoing as unreal,
> > since it's Maya/mithya. This confirms Heather's
> > story.
> > Then he writes "in the event that you are not
> at
> > that level of inquiry", in other words: if
> you're
> > so unadvanced that you actually believe
> anything
> > can be real, that anything can actually matter.
> > This is very manipulative. He tries to make you
> > believe that if you take the allegations
> serious,
> > that means you're not advanced enough.
> >
> > Another quote from the denial-newsletter:
> >
Quote
Third, consider the fact that I am
> > seventy-six years old and married to an
> extremely
> > beautiful – inside and out – discriminating
> woman
> > who obviously loves me. And there are public
> > doc-uments and witnesses that will testify to
> the
> > fact that at the time of the alleged event I
> was
> > married to an extremely beautiful woman, a
> > runner-up in the Miss California beauty pageant
> no
> > less.
> >
> > I don't know how James thinks his ability to
> > convince beautiful women to marry him proves
> his
> > innocence, but the way he emphasizes their
> beauty
> > does prove that he objectifies women.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My word!!!
>
> Reading back, I came across this post from ziziz.
> Spot on - and quite jaw-dropping really.