Ah, I see that Robin is serving Idiot Under Glass for supper this evening - pass the salt...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:17 PM, maskedzebra wrote: > > Robin1:: I did not say it was impossible that you knew anyone that I knew; I > said it is impossible that anyone could verify your claim to know me in any > way whatsoeverpersonally. > > > Vaj: Hey Robin - I think Gary O. could put that to rest real quick. Is your > memory going? > > Robin2: You *THINK* Gary O. could put that to rest real quick? Why did you > not say: "Gary O COULD and WOULD put that to rest real quick"? If you are > willing to quote him verbatim regarding what he says to my accusation that > you are lying about any personal and meaningful knowledge of me, I will > believe you. You only have to go on the record as declaring that Gary O has > said the followingand then quote him exactly. (Such that if I confront him > with what you said he said to you, he will confirm it.) Willing to do this, > Vaj? > > Gary will never attest to your having had any role whatsoever in the > conversation in Washington, DC; and he will NOT confirm that you were ever > initiated into TMmuch less that you were and are a TM initiator. Whoever you > were in 1986 in Washington, DC, you never presented yourself as an initiator. > If, indeed, you were actually there. (Something I would also like Gary O to > confirmso add that while you're at it, OK?) > > Robin1: Your TM, Maharishi, initiator (and now flying) claims are bogus; but > you have found yourself able to subjectively act as if it doesn't matter if > people's conviction you are lying (about this)based upon the evidenceis so > much stronger than the impression you make in the presumption of telling the > truth. No one is even arguing with you about this, Vaj: the only question > becomes: how will you duck, bob, and weave such as to avoid directly, > candidly, sincerely answering these accusations of the utter falseness of > your TM declarations. > > Vaj: Honestly I could care less about any of this. What I find most > interesting is the lingering interest as if it is actually something > important. Get over it already. Wipe the egg off your face and move on. > > Robin2: So you don't care less about someone calling your a liar? If I deem > you a fantasist, a Pinocchio, a Walter Mitty, a dissimulator, that does not > interest you? If this is true, Vaj, then you don't have any investment in the > credibility of anything you say at FFL: you write not to be read, but to be > martyred into being disbelieved. You write about TM, Maharishi, and the > Sidhis in order to be judged a dissembleryour intention, in the final > analysis, is to enable others to have the satisfaction of knowing that you > are not telling the truth. Interesting, that. If I said that I don't believe > in the sincerity or relevance of what you have just said here, does *that* > interest you? What evidently interests you is the interest in whether you are > telling the truth or not. And since you are not, my telling this to you as a > presumed fact does not interest you. Which is more interesting, Vaj: that you > are a compulsive liar, or that you think this determination not interesting? > I am more interested in the fact that you lie than you are not interested in > the fact that you lie. > > Robin1: I also believe that the persons who were with you that afternoon in > Washington, DC know that you never were initiated into TM, and that (if they > have read your posts on FFL) you are lying about this. > > Vaj: This is of course utterly false - but what's interesting is your total > sense of desperation, as if my oldest TM friends would somehow disavow me > like a member of the Mission Impossible team who got caught! > > Robin: Rick Archer has just claimed there are something like 1400 persons > registered on FFL. Is there not one person among all of these persons who > could vouch for your claims to have been initiated into TM, Vaj? Or have you > sworn them to secrecy? as in: Look, guys, you *know* I was initiated into TM, > that I *am* an initiatoryou have the proof of this; but do you know what? it > is serving my ultimate purposes here at FFL for everyone [excepting those who > find it useful to believe you for in the exercise of this cynical intent they > can score points against the majority view, which they find it irresistible > to shock: epater les bourgeois] to innocently and infallibly know that I am a > liar. > > This agenda fascinates me, Vaj. What also fascinates me is that if you did > get initiated into TMmuch more that you were an initiator and practiced the > sidhisyou are the one human being who can act, and experience life, as if > this never happened to you. Therefore if you didn't or did get initiated > there would be no difference. > > Vaj: Perhaps you've fallen for other demonic TMer's innuendo? I suspect the > demonic TM shakti has a group consciousness and you tend to flock together. > That's my theory (points finger making shhhhhh-sing sound). > > Robin2: I don't give a damn for anyone's point of view here at FFLif by that > I mean: I am influenced by another person's point of view such as to give up > my own autonomy and independence. There is no 'group consciousness' here at > FFL. The very weakness, nay the pitiableness of your arguments on behalf of > the notion (more implicit than explicit) that you are telling the truth, is > the most unambiguous evidence of the truth that you are a liar, Vaj. For you > to be telling the truth means, once again, that your final intention here is > to just make others completely doubt your sincerity and integrity, because > you have convinced them, quite masterfully, of this notion of yourself. > > Robin1: The only thing I will grant is that you impressed some person or > persons with the intense curiosity of yourself in relationship to their own > experiences in having been associated with me. This person, or persons, found > therefore the opportunity to share their personal history with you a means of > releasing some unresolved tension and ambivalence. > > > Vaj: Uh no. Perhaps I should post some of my personal photos? > > Robin2: Post them. > > Robin1: It is the simplest thing for someone to use some coded reference to > meallowing themselves to be used in this waywithin one of your posts, such > that I can then know of the identity of this person without their having > divulged anything incriminating about themselves, and thus forfeiting their > anonymity. You cannot prevail upon a single person in the whole world who > will back up your assertion that 1. you are a TMer. 2. you know me. > > Vaj: Would it surprise you if I could get a good dozen or so people who could? > > Robin2: Yes, that would surprise me. No, that would astonish me. I am looking > forward to an experience where suddenly up is down. And down is up. You say > now you *could* GET " a good dozen or so people" to refute my judgment of you > about TM and myself. So, then, what's holding you up, Vaj? I ask anyone who > is reading this, if you know something about Vaj which even begins to support > him in his claims and which goes towards refuting what I hold to be true > about him, anonymously, to write some statement to this effect. > > > Vaj: And if I did why would that be such a big deal? Are you running in > constant paranoia of running into old students? > > I think you are, per usual, being a tad bit over-drah-maaaaaatic. > > Robin2: Are you now saying you are one of my "old students"? If you are you > 1. refute my enlightenment 2. refute the dominant experiences of everyone who > had anything to do with me (while I was in the hallucinatory state of Unity > Consciousness) 3. refute my own experience of what I was doing 4. refute > every single post of mine at FFL. > > Look, Vaj, I don't have any quarrel with you. Indeed I have a feeling that we > could have a most interesting conversation about enlightenment and what > spiritual integrity is and how I went off the deep end in my devotion to > Maharishi and in my experiences while roundingculminating in my different > "style of functioning" which came to define my actions and my interior > experience of myself in Unity Consciousness. And besides this, Vaj, I believe > everyone at FFL would welcome your confession that you were more than a bit > fudging it with regard to TM and Maharishi and flying. You would lose > nothing in coming clean here. Your pride stops youalong with this > inexplicable Walter Mitty compulsion. But I say to you that no one here > wishes you any ill will. They only would like you to be an honest broker in > these discussions and debates about TM and Maharishi and Enlightenment. > > And you have traduced yourself in this respect. > > You have obviously gathered a lot of material about me from the past. I am > flattered you have become somewhat obsessive about this. But you see I am not > about to try to justify or explain my past history when I was acting as the > enlightened man. Here is something else you posted about me today: > > Vaj: Well Bob, the worst part is, once RWC realizes his mistake, he's > promised to be my champion. If you knew Robin, you'd know that's probably not > something anyone would like...even for someone he knew from his TTC! > > Robin2: But isn't going to happen, is it, Vaj? Because if "RWC realizes his > mistake" I will have discovered something even more profound than this: > namely, the aesthetic and moral purpose of why you were determined to be seen > at FFL as a liar. That trumps whatever momentarily disquiet I might > experience in finding outit being legally proven as it werethat you were on > the level all this time at FFL about TM and Maharishi and the sidhis > (excepting that monstrous fib about having confronted me and proven that my > enlightenment was a sham: there is a witness who *can* verify or disconfirm > *this*, because I was there. And I categorically say you are a liar at least > in this instanceas you know you are, and have admitted as much in the > non-denial of this accusationonce I confronted you). > > No, if you are telling the truth, Vajand we will never with perfect > certainty know, will we, because you are determined not to bring your case to > court and have an impartial tribunal sift through the evidence: all evidence > is being withheld (because there is none)then all of us at FFL get in on a > real Sherlock Holmes mystery: Why did Vaj lead us into believing he was a > liarhe knowingly tempted us into this judgmentwhen all the while he knew > what he was saying was the truth. > > It's like this, Vaj: If you have been telling the truth about TM and > Maharishi and the sidhis, then you have crafted a way of telling the truth so > that it seems that you are lying. Even Shakespeare never dreamed of a > character like this. This would be unprecedented in all of literature. But > certainly a story or play (with you as something more devious than Richard > III or Iago or Lear's Fool or Lady Macbeth) worth creating. > > Vaj: The latest barrage of email is merely from a remark he made > (pre-conversion) about HH Michael Angelis Jackson the patron saint of > Propofol. Heaven forbid I got into the real juicy stuff. Sheesh. > > Robin2: What I think of Michael Jackson, what I thought about him > "pre-conversion" (nice touch-up there, Vaj), deserves a separate post. But I > think no one would be interested in this. When I saw him do his moon walk at > the Grammy's in 1984 I was carried away by the brilliance and intensity of > his performance. And I did think of him as transcendent in this. But just as > I fell from grace, so did he. That Michael Jackson was a genius cannot be > argued; that he was corrupted by forbidden desires also cannot be argued. > Let's leave Michael Jackson out of this, Vaj. I said a lot of wild and > extreme things in my enlightenment: perhaps I identified with Michale jackson > because he was deceived and so was I: we were both in a certain mystical > state. But I hardly have touched the surface of this. And I leave off here > without any desire to pursue this topic further. > > Vaj: Perhaps I would have faired better if I'd prefaced my emails with "Robin > by the Grace of God...."? [RWC created his "own" version of the TM Sidhi > program where he simply added "Robin by the Grace of God(...) etc" to the > beginning of all the sutras...] > > Robin: Yeah, this should have been the giveaway about me: trying to enhance > the sidhis by injecting the personal side of my enlightenment: You know, in > thinking I had achieved the state of human perfectionsolely through the > grace of Maharishi and Guru DevI imagined, in viewing the impersonal bias of > the TM Movement, that I could give through this alteration of the sidhis that > side of realitythe Western Civilization sidewhich seemed to come along with > the East at Arosa when I slipped into Unity Consciousness. > > I was deluded. This was preposterous. And at least I have the satisfaction of > knowing that everyone who began this variation on the sidhis has ceased the > practice, and either has stopped doing the TM-sidhi program altogether, or > has returned to what it was before I tried to turn enlightenment into a > hybrid of East and West. > > Now, why not be a man, Vaj, and stop all this nonsense. I'd like to get to > know the person who is behind the I Fought in the Crusades fantasy. > > By the way, just as an example: I was kidding about Lady Gaga. We never got > marriedbut we had some wild dates! >
