I've got to say that I am enjoying very much this continuing topic. But I feel I need to read the posts quickly not knowing if Rick, for some reason is going to delete huge swatches of posts in case someone raises an objection about something. Like, "Oh" I really didn't mean to reveal my name. Rick can you can delete any posts where my name or even remote association is used?" That said Ann, I'm really enjoying your input. There is nothing like someone who is willing to put it all out there. Thank you for that. Sounds like you rode the RWC experience through almost the full cycle.
--- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Jan 20, 2012, at 8:25 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > I wasn't getting that awoelflebater was a WTS TB, but perhaps > > > you're right. > > > > By her/his own accounts, *three years* pretty much > > constitutes a TB. I lasted less than three days when > > first exposed to Robin Carlsen. :-) > > > > Then there's the part about hanging in there after > > he could no longer return to Iowa for fear of prosecution. > > That's pretty TB. > > Good point. > > And really, anyone who let themselves enter into confrontation - > often in front of groups of others - had to not only be ready to dive > in head first, completely, nakedly vulnerable - there had to be some > belief that that process actually held some "evolutionary" value. > > > > > > > > By his or her own claim s/he underwent confrontation - but > > > failed. > > > > One wonders what "success" meant in such a situation. > > I am tempted to believe it entailed saying, "You're > > just the BEST, Robin, and everything you said about > > me is true...I shall amend my sinful ways immediately." :-) > > No, often such end states were very cathartic or the resolution was > one that dramatically affected the persons physical appearance and > their presence in the room. At the successful resolution of > confrontation, the audience benefitted from that resolution as well. > > But my feeling is that this style of catharsis will only work on a > small subset of people who are hypnotically very suggestible - esp. > R's various "manifestations" where he would manifest certain > ontological states, like a ride in Indra's chariot (my personal fave) > or the nervous systems experience of initial awakening, etc., etc. > It's a long list. > > > > > > > > This means s/he was likely expelled for that failure and > > > perhaps ostracized as well. S/he would have been declared > > > demonic and anathema. I'm assuming because of this outcome > > > s/he is not a very likely to be a WTS TB. > > > > I did use the words "*was* a TB." Did you miss that? > > > > Clearly, if she/he went so far as to go to the editor > > of a BC newspaper to denounce him, she/he wasn't still > > much of a TB at that time. > > True. And I do remember hearing word of this expose, but don't recall > ever reading it. > > > The "lingering traces" I > > see of former TB-dom also lie in the fact that she > > still hasn't mentioned any particulars of the practice, > > whether she now considers them positive or negative, and > > in the fact that she consistently refers to the experience > > in the same way that almost all former cultists speak of > > their involvement with a cult. If I'm not mistaken, she > > even called it a cult. > > That would be interesting for him/her to share. > > The only person I know who currently has expressed some significant > value from confrontation was Rory. I also suspect that this is part > of Rory's interest in the Chod: it developed from the insights he was > able to achieve. But from my own perspective one is an incredibly > powerful practice for awakening and also for integrating the shadow, > the other less so or not at all. > > > What I find most fascinating is that unless I have > > missed something (which is likely because I see his > > name in Message View and immediately move on to the > > next post without reading it), MZ himself doesn't > > seem all that anxious to interact with his former > > disciple. THAT speaks volumes to me, and leaves > > me to wonder about the possible reasons for that > > silence. > > Well there is a possibility R. has contacted an old friend to chime in. > > > One that pops to mind is that he's really enjoyed > > having his story about his own past be entirely one- > > sided up to now. His attacks on you have consistently > > been Judy-inspired attempts to pretend it really IS > > one-sided, because you never witnessed any of the > > things you speak of. > > Yeah, that's the key flaw, he actually believes/believed Judy's > strawmen are real. Although at some point, he seemed to awaken to the > Strawman Queen's nature. > > > But now we've got someone on > > the forum who claims to have been there on the front > > lines for three years. Seems to me a person as com- > > mitted to his own first person ontology and exposing > > it to challenges as RWC has claimed to be would be > > happy to interact with such a person. Shouldn't he > > be at least interested in getting his long-overdue > > Report Card as a spiritual teacher? Now wouldn't > > THAT be a "confrontation" worth watching? :-) > > Like I said, this could be an old friend who's let by-gones be by- > gones, or it could be a disgruntled "demonic" former student who's > freshly arrived from hell. :-) >
