But you see, Ann, my post was not even directed at you.

Your name and words appear nowhere in this post, only
whose of RWC.

I have neither ill will nor malice towards you. Perhaps it is
simply a case of you misreading? 

Perhaps if you re-read my post, and realize to whom it was 
written, *you* will open your eyes, your mind and get smart. 

--- In [email protected], awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> You missed everything about my post. Read it again, open your eyes, your mind 
> and get smart.
> 
> --- In [email protected], azgrey <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > So you are going with a "The devil made me do it." explanation.
> > 
> > n'est-ce pas?
> > 
> > Lack of succinctness often results in obfuscation.
> > 
> > Just sayin'.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > How Robin Struck People—And Lied About it: An Open Letter to Barry Wright
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dear Barry Wright,
> > > 
> > > It is true that before I ever gave an official seminar I did, in fact, 
> > > apply in a more Western sense, the Zen Roshi method of shocking 
> > > someone—that is, I did on occasion, strike someone physically. Vaj said 
> > > there was a video of my acting in this way. I know that no such tape 
> > > exists. And if it did (as Vaj claims) it would be a simple matter of 
> > > contradicting my avowal here. You will naturally ask: But Robin, by 
> > > denying that you did in fact strike someone during a seminar, you are in 
> > > effect implying—surely you know this—that you *never* struck anyone. This 
> > > was your intent, right, Robin?
> > > 
> > > It was not, Barry. For me to have on the one hand denied this accusation 
> > > knowing it was false—if it had been true, Vaj would be able to convince 
> > > me very easily of this—and yet, then and there, admitted that I did 
> > > engage in this practise, or rather *had* engaged in this practise, would 
> > > mean disclosing something about me which would tend to be interpreted in 
> > > an entire vacuum of understanding of just what the context of this 
> > > metaphysical theatre was. I chose, since you are so hostile and 
> > > prejudiced, to withhold admitting that in fact I had struck people—on 
> > > rare occasions—inside the other, more intimate and personal context of 
> > > what chronologically preceded the formal seminars. When almost all the 
> > > persons who were convinced of my enlightenment lived in the same 
> > > residence. By itself, separated from the spiritual context within which 
> > > it is practised, the Zen Roshi's blow would seem primitive and brutal and 
> > > outrageous. But we must assume even Leonard Cohen accepted that this was 
> > > part of the spiritual methodology to which he was subjugating himself in 
> > > having determined he had a real Teacher. Now what I did resembled not at 
> > > all what is the classic Zen Flesh Zen Bones move. See if you can stay 
> > > with me while I try to explain the context within which this act did in 
> > > fact occur. Inside a seminar setting, however, it was never necessary or 
> > > appropriate. At least this is my sincere and I believe truthful 
> > > recollection.
> > > 
> > > Now my purported enlightenment, as I came to understand it, Barry, came 
> > > about through not just my own efforts, and my devotion to the Master 
> > > (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi); it was effected by the Vedic gods, these 
> > > impulses of Creative Intelligence, the devas. This was shown to me in the 
> > > form of a revelation once I realized that my enlightenment could not be 
> > > compatible with the description of the universe and the human soul as 
> > > taught to me by Thomas Aquinas and my learning of the Catholic catechism. 
> > > It was not that Catholicism forced this revelation upon me; it was more 
> > > the tremendous shock of having the whole context I had created [or had 
> > > been created *through* me] since I returned from Switzerland come apart, 
> > > and eventually disintegrate. Once I realized that certain invisible 
> > > beings had had a hand in my ultimate liberation I immediately realized 
> > > that these very beings were not beneficent, were not interested in my 
> > > happiness. *They had deceived me*.
> > > 
> > > From that point on, early in 1987, I became determined to vanquish my 
> > > enlightenment, to destroy the biochemical and intellectual basis of my 
> > > Unity Consciousness. I knew that if my enlightenment was an 
> > > hallucination, however real it was experientially, that my actions 
> > > flowing from this assumed state of consciousness, were also flawed, 
> > > defective, and problematic. And this included that infrequent instance 
> > > where I would, seemingly under supernatural inspiration and authority, 
> > > strike someone. Why strike someone, Robin? Well, here we get to the crux 
> > > of the matter, Barry.
> > > 
> > > These same celestial beings who created my enlightenment, and then pretty 
> > > much inspired the context out of which I then acted—they evidently knew 
> > > both the inherent and unrecognized weaknesses of each individual, as well 
> > > as what the Western Tradition represented in terms of individuation of 
> > > one's experience through a true existential willingness to allow life to 
> > > 'make' one's soul:—Also—*this is the key point, Barry*&#151;these same 
> > > celestial beings made me see each human being as existing inside a 
> > > context where actual fallen angels warred with the good forces in the 
> > > universe to take away a human being's innocence, determined as they were 
> > > to make an individual a tool of their purposes by subtly inducing that 
> > > person to compensate for some weakness or distortion inside of them 
> > > *through behaving in a particular mode*.The mode so chosen was the 
> > > creation of the fallen angel. Each person's mode was unique. 'Mode' here 
> > > representing the inauthentic presentation of themselves. 
> > > 
> > > The specific pattern of an individual's mode, then, revealed the 
> > > influence of these fallen angels (or rather, one specific and unique 
> > > fallen angel) upon this person, and it was my evident destiny to 
> > > interrupt, to challenge, to confront the fallen angels as they battled 
> > > with me, and the person's soul for domination over that person.
> > > 
> > > You understand, then, Barry, that the beings who had created my 
> > > enlightenment made me actually apprehend each human being who I 
> > > encountered as being subject to this fearsome temptation and tyranny. And 
> > > those who had not passed through the seminar, or pre-seminar experience, 
> > > were dupes of this hegemonic power of these fallen angels. Now, as it 
> > > happens, almost every person I knew was a victim to some extent of 
> > > unwittingly identifying with these fallen angels, falsely assuming that 
> > > what the fallen angel insinuated who they were, and how they had to act, 
> > > was actually originating in the substance and integrity of their own 
> > > individuality. The person, then, never suspected there was a 
> > > preternatural conspiracy going on which was the attempt to force a person 
> > > to falsify themselves (and each person came to sense this dissimulation 
> > > deep from within themselves) such as to cover up and conceal their 
> > > weakness, their ultimate flaw. To transcend one's compensatory mode 
> > > became the desideratum.
> > > 
> > > A seminar and before that the pre-seminar reality, was the process 
> > > precipitated inside the context of reading off reality such as to create 
> > > the actual metaphysical context within which *all that I have described 
> > > here became a physical perception for everyone present*. This meant that 
> > > the context was not actually under my control at all. It was a context—I 
> > > suppose like TM is subject to the mantras (or what Maharishi refers to 
> > > earlier in his history as the Vedic gods)—that imposed itself on all of 
> > > us. Even myself. What unfolded in front of our eyes was the actual 
> > > opening up of creation—seemingly—and what I was doing was merely a 
> > > systematic, mechanical, and objective process whereby the truth of what 
> > > was actually the case—with each individual soul intrinsically subject to 
> > > this exploration—becoming intricately and physically revealed before 
> > > everyone. There were no individual differences in what we all 
> > > experienced. It was as clear and unmistakable as a change in perception 
> > > effected by hallucinogens, only in this case, what happened to everyone's 
> > > consciousness in that room was virtually identical. Everyone experienced 
> > > the same thing. Everyone saw, understood, recognized what I was doing in 
> > > confronting someone. It all occurred very naturally as it were, very 
> > > intelligibly, with ultra metaphysical clarity, and the process obeyed 
> > > laws of its own. Far more compelling than even the laws which would have 
> > > protected or sustained someone in that state which would presumably not 
> > > be susceptible to this kind of context.
> > > 
> > > We simply broke open the reality which was there. Once we did, reality 
> > > took over and conducted the course of the drama through my enlightened 
> > > state of consciousness, and presumed consummated individuation. (As it 
> > > would turn out, there was more wrong with me than anyone who "came to the 
> > > microphone". But no one got to see this. But I did, during this 25 year 
> > > ordeal of de-enlightening myself.)
> > > 
> > > Now under the irresistible and inexorable inspiration of this 
> > > process—conducted by powers beyond myself, but enabled to articulate 
> > > themselves through this orchestration of reality through my Unity 
> > > Consciousness—the actual fallen being which had control over a given 
> > > person—obstructing, inhibiting, interfering with the ability of that 
> > > person to truly individuate themselves within the authenticity of who 
> > > they actually were—independent of this fallen angel—would make its 
> > > presence known, even coming right out and making itself visible in the 
> > > face of the person.
> > > 
> > > This produced what became the classic state of "having gone cosmic". And 
> > > a person in this state was 'seen' unavoidably, choicelessly, in terms of 
> > > their unique problem in standing up to the power and influence of the 
> > > fallen angel which was attempting to keep them from becoming 'innocent', 
> > > becoming the person they actually were destined to be. Separated from 
> > > that fallen angel.
> > > 
> > > If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of 
> > > themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact 
> > > defending or upholding the integrity of themelves in resisting the 
> > > beneficent and merciful inspiration of my enlightenment—consciously as it 
> > > were, or unconsciously colluding with the fallen angel—I might, on 
> > > occasion shock that person out of such an identification. And this took 
> > > the form sometimes of striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were 
> > > struck. I hardly think it was more than this. And this was not something 
> > > that happened on a regular basis. It was in extremis. But we shall see if 
> > > this testimony is contradicted by someone who was there.
> > > 
> > > This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was 
> > > an inspired—and much resisted (I hated it)—response in me in order to 
> > > facilitate the process whereby  a person could experience liberation—even 
> > > momentarily—from their trance caused by their being identified with the 
> > > particular fallen angel which had been chosen somehow to present this 
> > > formidable and ultimate existential challenge to this person's soul, and 
> > > their whole sense of who they really were.
> > > 
> > > Now I have come, in having repudiated and deconstructed my enlightenment, 
> > > to see that once I became enlightened on that mountain above Arosa, that 
> > > my perception had been played such that I could only apprehend each human 
> > > being in terms of this cosmic battle between good and evil. Now I am able 
> > > to see each person absolutely on their own, without respect to 'the 
> > > demonic'. And therefore I am sorry for all that I did which amounted to 
> > > being determined by this hallucination. Which especially included on 
> > > occasion trying to shock the person out of his or her identification with 
> > > the fallen angel which was tormenting and deceiving them, even if they 
> > > appeared oblivious to this truth.
> > > 
> > > Of course, you will realize from this analysis, that whenever this event 
> > > happened, no one so much as winced. Not because they were brainwashed, 
> > > but rather became everyone present sensed the intelligence and  
> > > inspiration behind this act. The act, then, simply occurred with a 
> > > complex process which made itself understood as being inevitable and 
> > > salutary in the extreme. It was harrowing, it was exhilarating, it was 
> > > dangerous, it was mysterious, it was terrifying. But for everyone present 
> > > it was very very real. And, I have to say it: right.
> > > 
> > > Although of course everyone realizes in retrospect it was wrong.
> > > 
> > > When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was 
> > > not true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I 
> > > done what I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before 
> > > attended a seminar would have walked out. I don't remember a single 
> > > person leaving a seminar.
> > > 
> > > It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something 
> > > I knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, 
> > > eventually the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of 
> > > my having at the very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience 
> > > is clear. I never hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of 
> > > me to on the one hand deny having done what I was accused of in one 
> > > context—which was true: I did not strike anyone during a seminar—while at 
> > > the same time feeling an obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did 
> > > in fact happen—on rare occasions—in a quite different and more intimate 
> > > context.
> > > 
> > > I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally 
> > > culpable in having acted as I have. 
> > > 
> > > Robin
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to