I appreciate this thought, and agree this his actions and intentions while in unity appear askew. However, given that, in the TM Universe, Maharishi himself defined unity consciousness and to my understanding initially agreed that Robin was in it, to conclude independently of Maharishi that Robin was not in u.c. is troublesome. It adds too many complications to the story.
As I stated in one of my initial posts on the matter, one of three things must be the case: * RC is an impostor who can convincingly appear to be RC (who rumor had it had committed suicide, anyway) and who wants to mess with TB's minds by making claims on his behalf or * RC is still in unity, but wants to claim otherwise for some cosmic purpose (how could it not be cosmic, if he's in unity?) [As an aside, a friend of mine attended one of his meetings in Fairfield back when. He heard Robin utter profanity and asked why a man in unity would do such a thing. Robin responded that he didn't remember doing it, but the universe must have had a need for him to speak profanely.] or * RC was in a temporary false unity (per your theory), rather than THE WHOLE THING, THE REAL THING, and Maharishi was incapable of distinguishing between the two, which raises its own questions Having read a lot of RC's writing since that posting, I now feel the need to add a fourth. * RC was in unity consciousness but acquired a false belief intellectually that impelled him to intentionally deconstruct unity to waking consciousness; his writings indicate that he is still partly under the "spell" of unity, which would make sense if he artificially forced himself back into waking state I don't accept his twin hypotheses that Aquinas held Ultimate Truth 3.0 and that unity consciousness is a false representation of reality. The fourth option appears to provide a way to preserve Maharishi's ability to determine whether or not someone else had attained unity while providing a means for Robin to have reverted, mostly, to waking state. --- In [email protected], "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > (If you are looking only for a response from MZ, please disregard this post, > but it is a subject I do care about and have devoted some thought to, so FWIW > I am throwing my two cents' worth in.) > > IMO and IME, Unity as MZ has described it is *not* Reality, not "Brahman" -- > not even true Unity, insofar as he has described identifying with a separate > self or Self which was invested in demonstrating it was better, smarter, > clearer than everyone else -- *what* everyone else? Where is the true Unity > in that? In Unity, at least we understand that we and our object of > perception are One. There is no other, as far as the immediate object of > perception is concerned. > > However, in so-called Unity there is or may still be a subtly separate self > who thinks it has reached the pinnacle of evolution, thinks it is enlightened > ("unlike most others"), but this is *not* Reality. This is an intellect lost > in its own creation, its own beliefs. Reality is not really attainable by a > separate Self; Reality only quickens to ItSelf and remembers ItSelf when we > Awaken from our intellect's dream of separation and comparison and > competition to remember we are *not* that separate Self, not the Witness, not > pure consciousness, not "in" Ignorance or C.C. or G.C. or U.C. or "in" any > thing, and never have been. > > We are the indescribable, the ungraspable. We are literally beyond belief. > Beyond ideas. Beyond stories. And yet we contain and embrace and enjoy all > beliefs, ideas and stories, for entertainment purposes only. We are the > devatas and the rakshasas; we are the divine and the demonic. What is there > to fear? Fear is born of duality, of projecting one's power or shadows > outside oneself, and there is only Us here. > > Personal enlightenment or ignorance or any specific state of consciousness or > quality of being is not really applicable; those are descriptions of a > separate self, and meaningful only to a separate self, stuck in an > intellect's illusion of separation, comparison, spacetime and evolution. Not > that there is anything whatsoever wrong with that! As we said earlier, "it's > all fun and games until someone loses an I." > > The point is, when Reality slaps or tickles itself Awake, and we cease > primarily identifying with our I, we may begin to see we are no more and no > less enlightened than every one of us who is in Us, and that is every one in > creation. As others see themselves and see Us, that is indeed how we are ... > in them and for them, in Us. > > And in Reality, we may gleefully investigate and throw ourselves into any > particular state(s) of consciousness we please. In fact, from one POV we are > continually cycling between ignorance and enlightenment, as we love our > I-points from "ignorance" -- when we are unconsciously lost in them and > identified with them -- into "enlightenment", when they are consciously > aligned with and identified with Us. > > But again, that's just a game we play, to pass the time :-) > > > --- In [email protected], "at_man_and_brahman" > <at_man_and_brahman@> wrote: > > > > My puzzlement about the unique claims of Robin Carlson continues. Here's a > > new thought. > > > > Premise: waking state consciousness is derivative of unity consciousness, > > which is to say that unity is a natural state from which man has "fallen." > > If that is true, and if Robin indeed attained unity, perhaps his later > > intellectual conviction that unity falsely represented reality set up a > > fascinating, if improbable, sequence of events. If unity can accidentally, > > if you will, forget its own status and fragment into waking state, then > > would it be impossible for a person in unity to *intentionally* deconstruct > > unity and reestablish, artificially, waking state? If so, such an event > > could be predicated on an intellectual mistake, which surely could befall > > even those in unity. > > > > Perhaps nobody else gives a shit, but I'm still chewing on this one. I do > > hope he eventually tries to answer my question about UTs 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. > > That should be interesting. > > > > He appears to be lurking, so the bait is tossed. > > >
