--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Now, try to judge for yourself: > > http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/default.asp?url=kashkul.htm > > (Robin describes his meeting of Khomeini) > > > > "Indeed I would say that the explosion of ecstasy and power > > that greeted the Imam was itself not so much a simple reflex > > based upon a fixed idea of the Imam; it was rather the natural > > and exuberant hymn of praise, of celebration that was demanded > > by the very majesty and overpowering charisma of this man. For > > once the door opened for him I experienced a hurricane of energy > > surge through the door, and in his brown robes, his black-turbaned > > head, his white beard he stirred every molecule in the building > > and riveted the attention in a way that made everything else > > disappear. He was a flowing mass of light that penetrated into > > the consciousness of each person in the hall. He destroyed all > > images that one tried to hold before one in sizing him up. He > > was so dominant in his presence that I found myself organized in > > my sensations by that which took me far beyond my own concepts, > > my own way of processing experience. I had expected-no matter > > what the apparent stature of the man to find myself scrutinizing > > his face, exploring his motivation, wondering about his real > > nature. Khomeini's power, grace, and absolute domination destroyed > > all my modes of evaluation and I was left to simply experience > > the energy and feeling that radiated from his presence on the > > stage. A hurricane he was, yet immediately one could see there > > was a point of absolute stillness inside that hurricane; while > > fierce and commanding, he was yet serene and receptive. Something > > was immovable inside him, yet that immovability moved the whole > > country of Iran This was no ordinary human being; in fact even > > of all the so called saints I had met-the Dalai Lama, Buddhist > > monks, Hindu sages-none possessed quite the electrifying presence > > of Khomeini. For those who could see (and feel) there could be no > > question about his integrity, nor about the claim, however muted > > by people like Yazdi, by his people that he had gone beyond the > > normal (or abnormal) selfhood of the human being and had taken > > residence in something absolute. This absoluteness was declared > > in the air, it was declared in the movement of his body, it was > > declared in the motion of his hands, it was declared in the fire > > of his personality, it was declared in the stillness of his > > consciousness. There was no mystery about why he was so loved by > > millions of Iranians and Muslims throughout the world and he > > demonstrated, to this observer at least, the empirical foundation > > for the notion of higher states of consciousness. Yes, the > > severity, the humourlessness, the absolutist judgement was > > apparent; yet given the circumstances within which he was placed, > > there was the affirmation of appropriateness in his every gesture > > and aspect. This was the most extraordinary person I had seen."
To further springboard off of this quote, being as it is an indicator of the validity of Robin's assessments of people, one should point out that the "most extraordinary person I [Robin] had seen" is judged by history to be the cause of an estimated 30,000 people executed in Iran during his regime, for the crimes of heresy or other perceived affronts to the glory of Islam. Most are also familiar with the fatwa (death sentence) he pronounced against writer Salman Rushdie, which has forced him to live most of his life in hiding. But then again, these things might not affect Robin's judg- ment of the man. He might, in fact, be comfortable with them. After all, when the subject of the Inquisition came up on FFL, he said, "Jesus, it feels good to align myself with Torquemada: I just love the psychology of the Inquisition." One of his other quotes on the subject was, "I have read the major books on the Inquisition: there is a case to be made for this institution." He tried to "balance" this statement by saying that "Hell is worse than the Inquisition" and suggesting that the Inquisition might not be appropriate in today's age, but he went out of his way to defend both the institution in its day and his "main man" Aquinas for supporting it. I suspect there is much to be learned not only by how clinically manic one is when describing the people (and institutions) one admires and defends, but in the choice of the people (and institutions) themselves. I further suspect that one can learn as much from which controversial fellow posters on Fairfield Life one admires and defends.
