--- In [email protected], awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote: > > The operative words here are "stability" and "simplicity". > Having made the odyssey Robin has and still, apparently, > is, coming back to the beginning does not imply some sort > of having gone nowhere. Lots of us come out of the womb > better than we are twenty years subsequent to our birth. > All those mistakes, those transgressions, those trespasses > are what we are all guilty of and finding our way back to > an innocence, a deeper simplicity is very hard in my > experience. It is not a sign of stasis but a real of > success after negotiating the land mines of just living.
I will ignore the stuff about guilt and transgressions and all that, because I just don't swing that way. But I agree that there is often a magic in coming back home to an earlier self who, in its innocence, may have been onto something. Zennists speak of reattaining Beginner's Mind. Bob Dylan put it another way: "But I was so much older then...I'm younger than that now." > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > > > > > > I am perplexed. Who would want to go back to how they were before their > > journey started? The journey is an adventure, frought with tests and a > > lot of uncertainty that may or may not get clearer as we move along. > > But usually some things do become clearer, and there are occassional > > milestones that give us some confidence that we are on the right path. > > > > So, this notion of retreating back to where we once were? I'm not > > getting that. Perhaps you can elaborate a little. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], awoelflebater <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Susan, upon reading your response to Robin's open letter I think your > > sensitivity and wisdom shines out particularly in this statement: > > > > > > I wonder if there is any way of finding the stability and simplicity > > of how you were before > > > all this "enlightenment" happened? For all I know, that could be what > > you are > > > aiming for. I am just thinking out loud here........... but I can't > > morally > > > judge you on this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Susan" wayback71@ wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Robin, > > > > > > > > It took some bravery and guts to write what you did below. It was > > written in your signature Baroque style, but you dealt with some > > difficult old events. > > > > > > > > I feel confused in my own response. On the one hand, I think you > > went through a terribly disorienting process when you experienced your > > "Enlightenment" in Arosa. It sounds as if your brain/nervous system got > > pushed into a state that must have been a wild mix of religion and > > spirituality, intense energy, huge confidence in your state and > > abilities. Combine that with your already devoted involvement with a > > belief system like TM, and you were primed for unusual times. The usual > > checks and balances on our behavior in society were not there for you - > > you were part of a small subset of spiritual seekers - out of the > > mainstream. Not part of a grounded, traditional community that might > > have gotten you back to the structure of the requirements of daily > > living. I know that the TMO made some efforts to curtail your > > activities, but I know they did not know how to handle your situation, > > and you did not have the personal guidance of Maharishi. Perhaps no one > > could have changed it. And you were around loads of eager seekers who > > had the means and time and mindset to suspend material concerns and go > > for for anything that would have given them spiritual growth. So you > > found followers and played out your experiences with them. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, your followers found you and played out their > > hopes under your belief system. From what little I know, it sounds very > > intense for everyone. Certainly some who were involved seem to look back > > with amazement and fascination, still. Others might have gotten hurt. > > > > > > > > I know you then moved on to Catholicism with, again, great certainty > > and intensity of belief - all probably a carryover from your > > Enlightenment changes. And then you moved on from that, too. I am not > > sure where you stand now. It sounds as if you like to write about it all > > to put it in its place. I wonder if there is any way of finding the > > stability and simplicity of how you were before all this "enlightenment" > > happened? For all I know, that could be what you are aiming for. I am > > just thinking out loud here........... but I can't morally judge you on > > this one. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How Robin Struck PeopleAnd 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 > > someonethat 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 implyingsurely you know thisthat 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 falseif it had been true, Vaj would be > > able to convince me very easily of thisand 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 > > peopleon rare occasionsinside 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 actedthey > > 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*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 > > contextI 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 creationseeminglyand what I > > was doing was merely a systematic, mechanical, and objective process > > whereby the truth of what was actually the casewith each individual > > soul intrinsically subject to this explorationbecoming 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 > > processconducted by powers beyond myself, but enabled to articulate > > themselves through this orchestration of reality through my Unity > > Consciousnessthe actual fallen being which had control over a given > > personobstructing, inhibiting, interfering with the ability of that > > person to truly individuate themselves within the authenticity of who > > they actually wereindependent of this fallen angelwould 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 > > enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding > > with the fallen angelI 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 inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me > > in order to facilitate the process whereby a person could experience > > liberationeven momentarilyfrom 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 contextwhich was true: I did not strike anyone > > during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to > > acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare > > occasionsin 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
