For what it's worth, a good friend of mine told me that Robin, SCREAMING ALOUD AT HER, slapped her in the face in front of the audience -- trying to get the demons out of her. That was all I needed to know about Robin. All his writings are for shit if he isn't willing to own up to the fact that he thought bitch slapping was spiritual therapy.
I put Robin and Ravi in the same category. Totally in love with their brains buzzings. I have compassion, cuz we all loves the brains, but my friend never agreed to be slapped and humiliated in order to up-notch her spiritual ken, and I count that as assault and battery. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > Beats me, the whole damn thing, Vaj. You're intelligent, you're witty, > > you're knowledgable, you have a life, why dress up and pretend to play > > house? > > That is part of the reason I think the whole Vaj is a fraud schtick lacks > merit. It does not account for motive. Here is a guy who has hung around > here for a really long time. Judy has proposed some ideas of why he might be > so interested in posting here, without having been a TMer, like having a > loved on who was. According to this thoery he had a relative who was > harmed,so he took up a crusade for years to subtly undermine the movement by > posting that TM is a beginners practice, that Maharishi does not represent > the tradition he claims, to a bunch of people whose affiliation to the > movement might be summed up in the word: raggedy? So he doggedly peruses > this with mission for years, impersonating a person who once gave a shit > about Maharishi... > > But that is not his only bizarre fixation on something with no personal > experience. No. He has a second mission that he is invested enough in to > post about here to once again dupe this group of Maharishi's misfit toys, he > is fascinated with you. > > See I was in the movement when you were rocking the boat Robin and I know > that detailed knowledge about you was really not that easy to come by. And I > was a full-timer. The faithful hid behind a carefully prescribed set of > rumors of denunciation. They were recited when your name came up. And in > polite mind controlled movement society, you got no extra credit points for > appearing too knowledgeable about the details of your blasphemy. You scared > us. And the movement's judgement about our appearing to associate with you > scared us even more. Starting a sentence at dinner table over the Mexican > Night's re-fried beans and rice (lard free, now THAT is blasphemy) with the > phrase "Robin's pamphlet says..." even as a prelude to denunciation was the > equivalent to quoting Karl Marx while defending yourself at the McCarthy > hearings. My favorite quote of that era about you was from a National big > wig who said "About HIM we don't even speak" with all the drama of Bela > Lugosi honing in on an innocent's neck. (kinda sexy, all vampire movies are > kinda sexy even when they are blatantly homo-errotic, Brad Pitt and Tom > Cruise! Great pair for the "if you were who would you do" game BTW. > > Vaj's story has some credibility for me because he has one at all. The rest > of us do-bees stayed as far away from you as our lotus posture emaciated legs > could carry us. > > I gunna try to sum up the reasons people believe Vaj is now a double imposter > of a person with a personal connection to the movement and to you and I'm > sure the people who are behind this position can beef up this skeleton. > > Why people don't believe Vaj was a TM teacher or even a TMer: > > He has said things that seemed to some people to contradict Maharishi's > teaching concerning the practice of TM itself. (people used to use this > technique on me to "prove" that I NEVER really understood Maharishi's > teaching because I now express it though my current filter and derisive > language. In an interview I talked about getting my "buzz" from the > technique and was highly denounced for such a non TM approved way to look at > the practice. > > He has denounced Robin's perspective on Maharishi's personal presence as > silly because he believes he was a spiritual charlatan with zero woo-woo. > > He has refused to give dates about when he was taught TM or made a teacher, > which we couldn't verify anyway. > > (Please feel free to add to the list if you are interested in this.) > > Why Robin doesn't believe Vaj ever met him in person or has personal > knowledge of how he conducted himself as a guru: > > Vaj claims to have met Robin in a hotel room and Robin does not remember this > meeting. > > Vaj claims to have personal knowledge about goings on in Robin's cult > including but not limited to bitch slapping the unenlightened (for their own > good of course). Robin denies these events happened. > > > Reasons Curtis believes that the probability of Vaj being both a TM teacher > and having personal knowledge about Robin's activities while Robin was acting > on the premise that he was in the KNOW and the rest of us weren't.(His > Holy-Mess Maharishi was the exception to the "I am and you aren't" self > perception): > > I believe Vaj because in my mission to bring down the movement I need as many > other partisan fighters as I can gather, so even in the face of overwhelming > evidence that he never took TM, because he speaks out against Maharishi, he > must be supported at all costs despite the obvious lie... > > psyche. > > Anywhoo there are my reasons: > > Vaj gives a shit. No he REALLY gives a shit. He appears personally offended > that Maharishi would pretend to represent a tradition of knowledge that he > values. (and which I still make jokes about like did you hear the one about > the Shankaracharya who forgot his umbrella chair? Well since he used to be > homeless he was able to piece together plastic bags into a surprisingly water > tight garment. OK I'm still working on this material but the elements are all > there if someone wants to give me a hand. It might work better as a sight > gag.) Back to business: > > Vaj through the years I have known him here has consistently shown up as > someone with a very high level of personal investment in these topics and > projects the snarky nuance of an insider who has chosen to go outside. > > Vaj cared about Robin's deal before he even showed up. He is really > interested in your past Robin. In a way that guys like me don't have. I > would certainly click on any link titled: Robin beats the demon out of some > poor sap, but I could only get through part of your personal story posted > here and there. Again, Vaj shows a genuine interest in the spiritual and a > personal investment in denouncing people who he believes don't represent a > tradition he values properly. > > While it is easy for me to speculate that back then you had a little > unnecessary confusion at the whole synaptic neurotransmitter level and leave > it at that, Vaj seems interested to exposing that you were improperly > representing a tradition of knowledge he values. He seems interested in > confronting a claim that you seem attached to, that you actually were in the > elevated state Maharishi called Unity. Your proof seems to be that a number > of teachers thought so too, but with Maharishi's denial, most TM teachers > just write of off the whole lot of you. (If it's any consolation I don't buy > the higher states interpretation at all, so for me your claim and Maharishi's > enlightened posturing hold the same water.) > > And what is my skin in the game? Vaj is one guy here who despite our > differing perspectives on the things he seems to hold most dear, doesn't > attack me personally for looking at it all in a completely different way. I > don't believe he deserves this rap as being the deceiver with no obvious > motive. But OTOH I could imagine that if Robin feels unfairly maligned by > charges without Vaj offering compelling proof, that would be maddening. And > I'm not sure what kind of proof for such events could be offered. I was at > the 7000 course in Fairfield, but if I had to use that tiny freezing ojas > glistening face in the mob picture as my proof, my attendance would be > suspect. And I could have gotten any details of the course from someone who > was there. > > This whole thing has some fascinating implications of how we are ever > confident of any historical events. Thanks for the ride guys. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 2:25 AM, maskedzebra wrote: > > > > RESPONSE: No, Vaj, the only possible response here should have been: > > "Robin, you are wrong. I *have* met you. I know you. And you will have to > > take back these words." > > > > Vaj: That fact should be already obvious, at least it is to several here. > > It doesn't matter to me if you take them back or not. > > > > RESPONSE 2: No, no, no, Vaj: for what you say here to be true must mean > > that everyone but three persons at FFL are deliberately and wilfully > > refusing to grant you the chance to prove that you are not lying. In other > > words, only these three persons are sufficiently non-biased and impartial > > to be able to apprehendboth intuitively and objectivelythat you are in > > fact telling the truth about TM, Maharishi, me, and those seminars. The > > rest of the FFL posters have some need *not* to believe you. > > > > Now what could that be? > > > > Not one poster at FFLand there must have been hundreds and hundreds since > > the beginning of FFLhas ever conceived of the scenario whereby people at > > FFL would be scrupulous and skeptical about anyone claiming to be a TM > > meditator, claiming to be a TM initiator, claiming to know Maharishi > > personally. > > > > The issue simply would never come up. After all, being initiated into TM is > > not some Secret Society with elaborate handshakes and a Skull & Bones > > harrowing initiation [where you have to give a complete account of your > > sexual history]. Your comments about TMand everyone here has commented on > > TM: there must be 5,000 such comments that have been made since Rick first > > created this forum*drew attention to themselves", as they almost > > invariably exhibited the evidence of someone who had never done TM, let > > alone taught TM. > > > > Let us say that all the posters at FFL not only attended a specific play on > > Broadway but eventually auditioned for that play and acted in it. FFL, in > > this analogy, was formed to essentially talk about that play and what it > > was like not just to see it, but to be in itand even to meet the > > playwright. > > > > Along comes someone who professes to have seen the production of the play, > > acted in that production, and yes, known the author personally. > > > > But in everything he says he conspicuously reveals that he could not have > > seen the play, because it was not mounted the way he says it was; he has > > the plot all wrong; and he discusses the leading actors in a way that is > > separated from the experience of having seen these actors live and on stage. > > > > Now three persons, for reasons only known to them, seek to burnish the > > credentials of this controversial drama critic who has been highly critical > > of this production, but who suspiciously appears never to have seen the > > production. Evidently the supporters of this critic (who is disbelieved by > > the majority of posters at FFL as having seen the production, let alone > > acted in the Broadway company associated with the play) find him useful in > > their determination to pan the artistic integrity of the playeven as there > > are other critics of the play who believe the play to have some severe even > > fatal weaknessesbut who can examine the play's flaws without necessarily > > suspending their critical faculties when it comes to believing in the bona > > fides of this singular critic. > > > > You are referring here to those three critics. Your response, then, Vaj, > > makes no sense. It isif we take you at your wordnot just that you don't > > care if you are believed or not (whether you have even been on Broadway; > > you go much further than this: You wish to impugn your own credibility by > > deliberately giving the impression that you have not seen the play, acted > > in it, met the author by making sure whenever you talk about the production > > you say things which no other member of the audience would say, let along > > someone who has acted in the production. Or who has discussed the play with > > its author. > > > > Either this, or you are making the whole thing up. > > > > Now there has been someone who has posted recently here at FFL who I > > recognize as a person who really did attend those seminars, someone who > > would presumably be familiar with you. Would you like me to ask them > > point-blank whether they remember you or not? > > > > IIf any of what you say is true, Vaj, what's the game here? We have seen > > snow; we have played in the snow; we have built snowmen. You say you have > > stomped through the snow as well; but it is as if you keep telling us that > > snow is green and makes a lot of noise when it falls from the sky. In fact > > TM is not like this at all. > > > > Be sure that we find your comments about other productions on Broadway > > [which you have indeed seen] to be interesting; but we wonder why you > > continue to pretend to have been a part of a production which leaves a > > particular impression on everyone who saw the production and especially > > those who acted in it, when you do not bear that impression upon your > > person whatsoever. > > > > Same goes for the play I wrote and mounted. You either saw the play or were > > a cast member, or you didn't see the play and did not appear on stage. > > > > Those who profess to believe in your testimony have to work a lot harder to > > make the case for your credibility than those who find themselves > > continually ambushed by evidence you have never seen the play, a play which > > often is the center of discussion and argument here. > > > > Beats me, the whole damn thing, Vaj. You're intelligent, you're witty, > > you're knowledgable, you have a life, why dress up and pretend to play > > house? > > >
