The responses to my post about Robin Carlson were interesting. They revolve around a central theme, how unity consciousness is defined.
Range of responses: * RC was in a false UC, dubbed by Vaj-ji as "Maharishi UC" (MUC). * MUC is *real* UC (RUC) but Robin was in a false version of it. * RC was in MUC *AND* MUC is RUC, but MUC comes and goes, so RC being back in waking state is no big deal. That group ignores RC's claim that he intentionally forced himself out of MUC rather than having slipped out of it as a matter of course. They also discount Maharishi's implied teaching that MUC, though it can be glimpsed, is achievable as a permanent state. Others question whether Maharishi ever agreed that RC had reached MUC. Lots of fun variations. For the sake of coherent discussion, I choose to minimize variables: neither to alter Maharishi's definition of UC nor challenge that RC had achieved it or that MUC is RUC. Further, I'm assuming Maharishi did declare RC to be in MUC, was qualified to do so, and implied that he had achieved it in a permanent or meta-permanent way. What interests me is that RC establishes his entire claim around the gigantic pill of Aquinas's supremacy and a consequent theory of God and the Roman Catholic church that even he admits seems inexplicable, which I'm not prepared to swallow whole, and that he seems inadequately disturbed by his history of serial grandiosity. From FFL 282086: ________ ME: You agreed with me that you might be the only person in recorded history to win the spiritual Triple Crown: achieve unity consciousness, conclude intellectually that it was a false representation of reality, and then extricate yourself from it by some as-yet unexplained process. You don't seem to be concerned about the improbability thereof, assuming you were correct in all your determinations. In thousands of years, why hasn't anyone else in the spiritual/mystical literature of the world recorded the same thing if you're right? Why assume yourself to be special? RESPONSE: I do think the question you raise here warrants a full and comprehensive response. I hope that I can give it in the near future, at_man_and_brahman. It's such a good question, and I think it true that I have not even begun to answer it in any of my posts so far. ME: Here's your pattern: You once thought you were part of a special group of people, knowers of Ultimate Truth (UT) 1.0. Upon becoming an *embodiment* of UT 1.0 (UT 1.5, if you will), you then created and taught a subcult that you, uniquely, had UT 2.0, consisting of the missing ingredients of UT 1.0 (not unlike Ravi Shankar more recently, with his cognition of Sudarshan Kriya). Now, you believe you might be unique in all of history to have garnered UT 3.0 (that UTs 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 were all constructs of fallen angels as revealed through the writings of a man a large percentage of Christendom would regard as possessing UT 0.5, at most), inclusive of a means to extricate yourself from UT 1.5. My memory of college statistics is that we should be multiplying the odds of each of these improbabilities, using Bistro Mathematics (see Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), to get the combined improbability that you're in possession of the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. RESPONSE: Yes, certainly the odds are not favourable for me (to assume I have The Answer). Very convincing disproof I'd say in this paragraph. Any advice you would proffer me as to how to answer this? Just kidding: again this deserves to be answerednot defensively, not with some attempt to prove that I am right; but as the opportunity to test out the strength and viability of my present beliefs against this worthy challenge. Even necessary challenge. I shall get to it when I can, at_man_and_brahman. You are a mind that is to be respected. I shall have to have my wits about me. So, then, I will attempt to address this question in my next post. Thank you. ME: "Don't be humble. You're not that great." -- Golda Meir ________ Robin, my mind is very different from CDB's. I don't aspire to a dance like you've enjoyed with him, but I think I'm posing a set of challenges to you of similar caliber to his. I do this not because I'm inherently skeptical or difficult. I usually post to FFL about once a year, though I read it every day. Because you've played a significant role in my earlier life via my friend who was your student and because of the uniqueness and importance of your case, I want to present you with the best questions I can, hoping for some level of Socratic interchange. Peace.
