--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > > > > Robin you say that you had to "transfer your allegience to > another reality". There is only one reality. > > Has it occured to you that both east and west could be wrong > or both partially right.? > > Do you realise that by completely rejecting the east, you > have in effect 'thrown the baby along with the bathwater'. > > The five paras that you have written below conclusively, > authoritatively and empricaly prove that you were never in > Unity, Robin. > > Scientists say that any technology that is once unleashed > into the enviornment can never be rolled back. Same is the > case of enlightenment or awakening. > > There is no such thing as de-enlightenment Robin. It's a > one way trip. > > Face it Robin, you were *never* enlightened in the first > place.
Bingo! The conclusion is therefore: not the Maharishi was deceived, but Robin was (and still is) I found these two videos of Osho very helpful in understanding enlightenment: You Are in Prison and You Think You Are Free http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XyOmYVIsig Spiritual Growth and Enlightenment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP5J3i1H5dA There are several things that strike me as improbably on the account below. One of these is the fact that Robin presents his 'enlightenment' in a straight line leading up from his encounters with Maharishi and the experiences he has had on courses or through plain TM ('transcending'). But in my own humble experiences, this is not like it is. I remember Maharishi talking about the 'shock of unity' (I am not totally sure now, if it as 'shock of unity' or 'shock of Brahman') These were not very well known tapes, but I am sure, more than just me, who are here, have seen it. This is what actually coincides with my own experiences in this direction (I don't claim enlightenment though.) Think of somebody being in a prison, and coming out of it! If you were your whole life in a prison, you don't know what freedom is, you will only realize it the moment you come out. It is not just a slowly and natural fading into something you had already known before - as Robin depicts it. Think of Plato's cave analogy, how the person, who is led outside of the cave, first is blended by the bright sun light, before, he only knew the reflection of light, not even the sun, but of fire. I cannot help, and notice the strong emotional sense of nostalgia in Robins report. I think many TM teachers can identify with these feelings, the memories of being on rounding courses and so on. I know these feelings, but I don't in no way, have any sense of nostalgia about it. It is simply gone, was nice at the time, but has been replaced by something better, more true and more liberating. So. I believe firmly, once you are liberated, there will be a break to all of your past life, that cannot be reverted. > > Either the East was right, or Gerard Manley Hopkins was > > right. > > > > But the critical moment occurred when I realized: Well, > > either Christ is right or Maharishi is right. > > > > But truth is truth, and reality is reality. I came to the > > conclusion that Christ was right, that Aquinas was right, > > that Saint Theresa of Avila was right, and that Maharishi > > was deceived. > > > > I had to transfer my allegiance to another reality. That > > was easy while I was a Catholic, but in the fall of 1987 > > while in Lourdes, France, I became convinced that the > > Roman Catholic Church was without the power to save souls; > > that the Holy Ghost had abandoned it, that the Virgin Mary > > was not there > > > > but the suffering of deconstructing my enlightenment with > > help that was agony, confusion, terror beyond anything I > > could imagine. But it (getting de-enlightened) seems more > > or less to have come to an end. > > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The apotheosis of all this occurred when I went into Unity Consciousness > > September 19, 1976 at 1:23 PM in Arosa, Switzerland on my Six Months > > Course. In this moment Mother was not only at Home in the sense of being > > present in one's life and watching over and protecting and nourishing one; > > Mother now took up personal residence *inside my own consciousness*. > > Reality instead of bringing about transcending and supporting my life now > > embodied itself in my consciousness, and in in this act of making me > > enlightened *reality took command and authority over not just my life but > > my very actions as a human being*. So in effect *I* became the embodiment > > of this reality in my own person. And I could feel the effect of my Unity > > Consciousness upon other personsbut only in any perceptible way if they > > were doing TM; if they were initiators the impact was even more pronounced. > > > > > > > > So eventually, once I formally converted to Catholicism, there was bound to > > be a crisis. Theologically, metaphysically, psychologically. And boy! was > > there ever. But I think Catholicism, even though I eventually came see that > > it had lost its supernatural vitality and efficacy, nevertheless, > > intellectually, philosophically, and psychologically confronted me with > > some irreconcilable truths. Either the East was right, or Gerard Manley > > Hopkins was right. *The Science of Being and The Art of Living* could not > > be more different in its conception of reality, of the self, of the > > universe, of God from Aquinas's *The Summa Theologica*. "The Spiritual > > Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola" does not read like anything one > > experienced on Teacher Training with Maharishi. > > > > But the critical moment occurred when I realized: Well, either Christ is > > right or Maharishi is right. And if Christ is right my enlightenment is an > > hallucination, a mystical illusionand Maharishi, he is as deceived as I > > amno matter what influence and power and integrity he seems to possess. > > And I have never seen anyone one thousandth as beautiful and impressive and > > seraphic as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. But truth is truth, and reality is > > reality. I came to the conclusion that Christ was right, that Aquinas was > > right, that Saint Theresa of Avila was right, and that Maharishi was > > deceived. > > > > What about, then, "The Support of Nature" and "Mother is at Home" once I > > renounced my enlightenment and all things TM? Well, interestingly enough I > > had to disavow , abjure 'nature' and therefore 'Mother'. I had to transfer > > my allegiance to another reality. That was easy while I was a Catholic, but > > in the fall of 1987 while in Lourdes, France, I became convinced that the > > Roman Catholic Church was without the power to save souls; that the Holy > > Ghost had abandoned it, that the Virgin Mary was not there (except in some > > mystically deceitful way). In a sense, I felt I was now on my own. > > > > > > In any event, I very much do sense, feel, perceive this reality; but it > > does not contain God, or some Truth, or salvation, or perfection. No, it > > does not. So there can be nothing there which can take one to heaven, make > > one into a beautiful human being. But what it did for me was to disassemble > > my enlightenment, and allow me to find myself again, to return to waking > > state consciousness, to my imperfection as a human being. But having > > travelled through LSD to TM to Maharishi to Guru Dev (teaching TM) to > > Enlightenment to Roman Catholicism I feel I have been immensely enriched > > and deepened as human being, but the suffering of deconstructing my > > enlightenmentwith helpthat was agony, confusion, terror beyond anything I > > could imagine. But it (getting de-enlightened) seems more or less to have > > come to an end. > > > > > > > > But when someone whether consciously or inadvertently, argues, propounds, > > opines in a context of personal cynicism, reactiveness, coldness, > > hostility, and cruelty, then I can't help it; I feel the universe > > disapproving of this, registering its sorrow that someone could believe > > they were articulating the truth about reality when in doing so they carry > > nothing of reality into their words, into their experience. This is > > tantamount to experiencing the feedback from reality. It is unmistakable. > > So, in my way of experiencing reality, Emily's two e-mails to Barry > > enlisted the beneficence and support of reality; whereas what had > > precipitated those two e-mails from Emily: Barry's nasty and offensive > > posts,this was because, without actually knowing this consciously, Emily > > was feeling the feedback from reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry dosen't understand that Emily has true love and > > > > > > > concern for him. > > > > > > > > > > > --- iranitea <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Emily maybe full of love, but she doesn't understand > > > > > > Barry either: That he is completely truthful to himself > > > > > > and authentic. She could learn much from Barry. > > > > > > > > > --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Iranitea, there's only one problem with this: where is the > > > > > evidence in Emily's posts of some failure of sensitivity, > > > > > openness, receptivity to Barry? > > > > > > > > --- "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > JS: Robin, I think there's a hidden assumption in all this > > > > that needs to be stated up front, or it throws a monkey > > > > wrench into the analysis: that if Barry is, as iranitea > > > > claims, "completely truthful to himself and authentic," > > > > then *what he says* must reflect reality. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure this is the case. He could well be > > > > completely truthful to himself and authentic without > > > > necessarily reflecting reality in what he says. > > > > >
