> > > > > --- "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. > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > Are you implying that he is a cunning, calculative, > > publicity seeking and attention seeking hound.? > --- turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > I am implying nothing. I am making a statement about > the nature of the "relationship" between RC and MMY, > and using it as a springboard to discuss similar > relationships across the board in the wider world > of spiritual practice. > > As I see it, RC and MMY didn't have a "master-disciple" > relationship. What they had was a "rock star-groupie" > relationship. The groupie glommed onto the rock star > and followed him everywhere, gaining most if not all > of his own sense of self-worth from his proximity to > the rock star. Any sense of "specialness" in the groupie > was gained from nearness to something/someone even more > special, the rock star. > > One day the rock star happened to say to the groupie > in passing, "Wow, dude...you're the most *special* of > all my special groupies. You've attained specialnessitude > yourself." The rock star probably forgot saying it five > minutes later, and thought nothing more about it. But > for the groupie, this was a life-changing event. > > So the groupie went out on the road and tried to launch > his own career as a wannabe rock star, *based on nothing > more than what one other rock star to whom he had been a > groupie said about him*. Naturally, the only people he > could appeal to or expect to attend *his* concerts were > those who already were groupies for the original rock > star, so he pitched his "I'm special now, too" spiel > to them. > > When the rock star found out, he hit the roof. "How dare > this little twerp claim that he's special, just because > of some offhand remark I made to him?" So he smushed the > upstart groupie and forgot about him. But the groupie, > now having had a taste of what it felt like to be considered > a rock star himself, couldn't live with being smushed. He > launched campaign after campaign to discredit the rock star > or "prove" that he was either his equal (back then) or his > superior (now). And, of course, the only people on Earth > who cared about any of these drama queen hysterics were > people who once revered (or still revered) the rock star. > > That was RC's schtick then, and it's his schtick now. End > of story. > > He hangs out on TM- and MMY-centric forums because *no one > else on Earth would give a shit about his stories*. The > stories all *depend* on finding an audience who revere or > revered the same rock star. And the former groupie, now > wannabe rock star himself, is caught in a bind. He can't > *fully* denounce the rock star his "specialness" depends > on, because (duh!) his specialness depends entirely on > the rock star's specialness. If the rock star is perceived > as being...uh...not terribly special himself, and as sort > of a spiritual Milli Vanilli who ripped off all of his > songs and riffs from others, that reflects badly on the > former groupie. Can't have that. > > So *of course* Maharishi has to continue to be presented > by the groupie as enlightened, as "special." Because if he > wasn't, then the groupie wasn't, and isn't. Duh. > > I'm bringing up this subject not just because a lot of > people don't seem to be aware of this dynamic in RC, but > because they don't seem to be aware of it as a *general > phenomenon* in the larger spiritual smorgasbord. This is > NOT a TM-only phenomenon. You see the same thing among > former disciples/groupies of Yogananda, or Muktananda, > or Rama, or pretty much any other spiritual teacher. > There are many who have gone out and "set up shop" as > teachers/rock stars in their own right, but their *entire* > schtick revolves around the time they spent in proximity > to the original rock star/teacher. > > I think this is kind of dumb, which is why I made a > conscious decision never to allow this to happen to me > with regard to the Rama guy. I *could* have published > Road Trip Mind and gone on tour promoting it; I received > offers to do just that. But that would have required me > to 1) shill for a dead guy who I had no desire to shill > for, and 2) base any worth I might be perceived as having > as a writer on my relationship with this dead guy. Bzzzzzt. > Just not gonna happen. > > I'm just rapping about this because I couldn't believe > the absolute IDIOCY of the statement I stumbled upon this > morning suggesting that RC was "anti-TM" or "anti-MMY." > This is such obvious BS that it could not be allowed to > stand. RC is *utterly dependent* on both TM and MMY; he > drew in the past and draws in the present almost *all* > of his perceived "specialness" from that groupie-rock > star relationship. I'm just flabbergasted that someone > could be so obtuse as not to see that. >
Exactly, I too felt that way. Guys like Ned Wynn and Mike Coleman say, "The old bat was seducing young women." Old timers suspect if Maharishi was ever enlightened. I am astonished at the serious flaws and descreprancies in Robins descriptions of his "Enlightenment" It dosen't fit when you compare it with experiences with other genuine yogis. So if MMY was a Millie Vanilli, Robin is a mini milli Vanilli. Judy kinda trusts Robins "experiences" and follows him nose to bum. That's her privelege of course. --- "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.
