Well the only logical thing that you missed was there could have been a
purpose behind why MMY would have declared RC in Unity and then out of
it. I believe the latter would be the right one based upon RC's postings
here, and I don't buy that you can come out of Unity. RC's postings here
and his relating of the actual experience is a good illustration that
his so called Unity was nothing but an intellectual deception.
--- In [email protected], "at_man_and_brahman"
<at_man_and_brahman@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> > >
> >
>
