> > --- "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > I would not call Robin the most radically anti-TM person > > who's ever been on FFL. > > --- turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > I haven't been following anything that led up to someone > saying this, but that's the most ridiculous idea I've > ever heard. Robin is *completely dependent* on both TM > and Maharishi. His entire story would be meaningless > without both of them. > > He still praises Maharishi and calls him enlightened > because if he didn't, and MMY was a nobody, then Robin's > *entire claim to fame* is worthless; a nobody once > hinted that he (Robin) was enlightened. > > Besides, Robin depends, for his entire audience, on > people who revolve around Maharishi. No one else would > pay any attention to him or consider him worth listening > to or reading. His exploits in the 80s depend *entirely* > on having either Maharishi or MIU to react against. > > Whoever said what Susan is responding to is an idiot. > Robin couldn't go five minutes when trying to impress > TMers or former TMers without mentioning Maharishi. He > is more dependent on the man than anyone who has ever > appeared on Fairfield Life. Maharishi is in a very > literal sense Robin's crutch, and will always be. >
Are you implying that he is a cunning, calculative, publicity seeking and attention seeking hound.? I now get a feeling that he tries to hide his illogical points tucked inside inside his voluminious post and further tries to hide it behind rare bombastic words. --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > If Maharishi posted something on FFL at, I say, at the > height of his powers and influence and prestige *we would > recognize that this poster—even if we didn't know who he > was was, in his discussion and analysis of enlightenment, > providing the most potent metaphysical subtext of anyone > posting on FFL*. > > Well, then, I had better realize this, shouldn't I, else > my irony sensibiity has atrophied something serious since > I gave up this enlightenment business. > > > > > But more than this, it is not the intelligence which > > created the universe which has created this state of > > consciousness; nor does the intelligence which created > > the universe have anything to do with the actions of the > > enlightened person I mean in the sense of being the > > direct and specific cause of those actions, In this > > sense the "cosmic" in cosmic consciousness is not cosmic > > at all. It certainly is a metaphysical power, and > > perhaps even is being controlled by very powerful > > intelligences; but those intelligences would be > > Maharishi's Vedic gods, or personal gods, or "impulses > > of creative intelligence". > > > > --- "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote > > > > > > > > > It was a pretty strongly worded FU to him, so he must > > > have gotten some of your attention. I ignore plenty of > > > people here without having to tell them I am ignoring > > > them. I believe you have a little more skin in the > > > game than you are claiming. I think he got to you in > > > the same way some posters have gotten to me. > > > > > > I think you may be missing his intent and POV in his > > > responses.
