--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, iranitea <no_reply@...> wrote Dear Iranitea,
Robin1: Multiple Personality. I was diagnosed recently, and have been fighting it. Iranitea: Robin, don't fight it. Because which Robin would fight it, and would all the other Robins agree? Try to take them into the boat rather. Robin2: Are you by any chance making fun of me, iranitea? I have found, since I wrote this post, that there is a way of *using my freewill* to choose which Robin I want to beI have not left that to the Three Gunas. I can be any Robin I want to beany of the seven. What interests me most, though, iranitea, is which Robin *would* you like me to be in this moment? By the way, there is a Robin8that's the Robin that realizes that B's "inadvertent irony" is an irony more subtle even than my own. But when I'm *not* Robin8 I keep thinking: Hey, Emily is right, and B is just studiously ignoring her posts (critical of himpoor guy)but when I become Robin8 (not sure what consciousness that isbut it permits me to see right into the soul of B) I realize B is having us all on. He's pretty damn good, I'd say. A big kidder all the waybut with the meanest of purity of intention, I am sure. That's no mean intention B has, I mean. What's this about a boat? It's funny you would say that because once I had a dream where all seven (I had not had the privilege of knowing sweet, gentle, docile Bso, no eight Robins then) Robins were existing simultaneously. And it was *inside a boat* It is called hepta-location rather than bi-location and is one of the miracles only available to the consciousness of he who has been two, then one, then two again. If you get my drift. (Two means something quite different when you have been absolutely oneI mean the pre-One Two is other than the Post-One Two.) Robin1: Robin0, Robin1, Robin2, Robin3, Robin4, and now (if you read my conversation with Share) Robin5 (Brahman Consciousness)I actually experience myself coming in and going out into all of these six forms of Robin alternately, iranitea. Mind you, when I am in one of these states of consciousness I have a particular view of another state of Robin; for instance the RobinOhe was still in waking state; and could only dream about BC (Robin5). But sometimes Robin5 looks nostalgically back at Robin-1 (before LSD): that guy is, if you really want to know the truth, who my shrink wants me to get back to. And I think him right in this. (Actually it is a sheand she's very beautifulOh, my: but now we are into another problem: RobinR (Robin Romantic)but he has been with all the other seven Robins. Robin-1, Robin0, Robin1 and so on.) Iranitea1: Yes RobinRomantic, he must be a twin of RobinN (RobinNostalgic) Robin2: No nostalgia, no romances. You trying to get a dig in there, iranitea? Look, I am fiercely proud of going with those mantras (they took me there) right into Unity. But I am even more proud of defying those mantrasand the Unity Consciousness they gloriously conferred upon meand getting back to being in ignorance. Where is the f***ing nostalgia, iranitea? I just stand up for my rights around here. Nostalgia, well, that would mean I pine for the good old days, right? I wouldn't go back there for all the bliss inside Vaj's mind. "Sentimental longing for the past"that kind of pain and ache and melancholy, why that's that first person ontology BS. No, I am a now kind of guy, iranitea. Feel it? No looking back for me. But I think you right in this one respect: My fame derives from my claims to have been enlightened under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and to the extent that gets the attention of readers at FFL, well, I think it is a legitimate trick when I postOf course I have no businessif I really have moved onreferring constantly and nauseatingly to my enlightenment past, but I can assure you, iranitea, if you had been there, you would find this temptation quite overwhelming. Because you see, when I was enlightened I wielded authority over othersand this, I admit, I find hard to give up. But all things considered, iranitea, I am trying, like Share, to love my way out of all this. Trying, then, in the very end, to make B be nice to me. I will consider legal action if you ever accuse me of being RobinNostalgicThey're ain't no such Robin. Not so far, iranitea. So this is a libel. (Right Marek?) By the way, are you on the level here? Perhaps you are just joshing meyou are capable of doing that, aren't you? I don't mind intellectual argument, but no ad hominems, please, iranitea. Are you Persian by the way? Born into a Shi'a household? Or does "iran" refer to your Aryan roots? And you quite possibly are Indian. Doesn't matter to me by the way: But you got the reference to the "tea and oranges that come all the way from China", right? Robin1: Are you wanting a fight here, iranitea? Iranitea1: Me? No! I can't take it up with 7 Robins. Robin2: Good. That's smart of you, iranitea. Right nowyou won't believe itI am a mixture of all seven RobinsIt's quite incredible. Whoa! I just realized: *There aren't seven Robins; there is only one Robin*. That's it, iranitea: through conversation with you from here in Toronto, I have 'integrated' (Is that the right word?) all seven Robins. Wait till I tell my shrink. I see her later this afternoon. I am going to walk over to that couch, lie down, and act out all seven Robins all at once. She'll need more than Sigmund baby after *that*. What do you think, iranitea? Ah, but how I wish for that former seven-selved Robineach separate and distinct. Oh, I get it: *that's* being nostalgic! Well, can't have that. But no, you must keep fighting, iranitea. But the critical point here is to recognize when you are bringing with you more reality and when you are bringing along less reality. How can you tell the difference? Simple: when the subjective iranitea starts to be felt inside of you, that means you are leaving off the quest for truth and trying to preserve the boundaries of the small self. When the subjectivity of iranitea, on the other hand, cooperates somehow with the movement and intention of reality in a given second, and does not stick out and make a spectacle of itself, that means *you are losing contact with the reality which created you*. Get it? First-person ontology is great, but it gets problematic when it comes before the objective feeling for reality. You and Barry are not quite there yet. Almost. But that last thousandth of an inchfrom slightly imperfect first-person ontological fusion with the Perfect First-Person Ontology of the Personal Godto achieve that perfect (well, *almost* perfect) creative inter-facethat's a bummer. At least it has been for me. I am still two without a one. The really Big One, then, iranitea, is to be two in harmony with the One who made you two. I don't think you're quite there yet. Of course there is another way of going at this problem. It originates in the East. There, you try to just knock out the first-person ontology altogether. But since God himself can't do this, it is unlikely all the romantic Hindus on this forum will ever succeed either. We miss you, Curtis. Robin1: Why can't you just be nice and show us you are becoming the Selfinstead of faking us out by displaying so prominently all the earmarks of the little self you are trying to get rid of? Iranitea1: Sorry, I am just trying to make some sense out of you. Robin2: Well, that is a noble aspiration, then, iranitea. Want another postmodern catechistic precept? Whenever there is real psychological not to say metaphysical tension (something, then, beyond mere intellectual conflict), one must look inside oneself to see if one might possibly be contributing to that tension. To find the source of that tensionto stand back and play with that tension, and not become defensive, hostile, self-protective, that is the great game as far as I am concerned, irantea, To seek, that state of grace that Leonard Cohen talks about, so that one has a feeling of grace (however faint) being behind one's words, one's actions in the world. This for me is higher than enlightenment. One's very person becomes a source of grace in the worldfor oneself, unconsciously perhaps for others. Obviously even in my seven states of consciousness I am still working on this. "Trying to make some sense of you"try harder, iranitea. I am a nice guy, willing to give up my opinions, prejudices, ideas, beliefs, for something better. You have to mix up your delivery a little, get some more versatility. Mind me talking like this? We have to both work at the business of being a human being, iranitea. It is very very hard. And, as far as I am concerned, it is supposed to be that way. Robin1: Sucking up to Buck, are you? Yep, I like him. And I support what he is about. Robin2: Tell us in what way you "support what he is about". Does your friend B support what he is about? I think you support Buck because you are unafraid of anything he has to say in opposition to what you believe. Does Buck feel this "support [for] what he is about"? Do you like tigers with real claws, iranitea? I like Buck too, but I doubt I could say with real sincerity: Oh "And I support what he is about". Your most formidable adversary, that is the person you need to feel you can support*in this sense, iranitea*: that your adversary forces from you the best you can be in the service of explaining yourself and arguing for your point of view about truth and reality. Our individual contact with reality is our own, and no one else's. So, any sense of forging alliances around here, is just metaphysically defeating. You can only preserve your integrity, iranitea, by having a clear conscience. Wow. I think I might do better as a Southern Baptist preacherwhat do you think, iranitea? I have missed my calling. I guess that's just a little bit of the unconscious Unity Consciousness nostalgia getting the better of mebut I didn't realize I was seeking disciples when I started to pontificate there. Well, at least I caught myself in the act! And I am proud of *that*. Shouldn't I be, iranitea? Robin1: I am loving and honouring and respecting Buck. Yeah, I could use a transparency make-over. But what about Share Long? Where does she fit into the cosmos? Iranitea1: She just fits fine wherever she may be. Robin2: Well, iranitea, I am trying to see into her soul, to account for her adaptability inside a philosophy which I would have thought did not sufficiently address the more tragic aspect of human existence. "She just fits fine wherever she may be". But iranitea, we must find out just "wherever she may be". It is a question not of wherever she may be but where exactly she *is*. Get it? Is her positivity and lovingness and turn-the-other-cheekness having some influence over you and your colleagues? I think she is aiming at you guys, especially your leader. By the way, for me, iranitea, I figure I can confront my best friendor even myself: I never put party loyalty ahead of getting high on the truth. Iranitea1: I am working on that one as you can see. Robin1: No, iranitea, it all makes perfect sense: Why there are seven Robins, is the same reason why there are 330 millions gods in Hinduism, or, to speak more conservatively: > > There is no second God, nor a third, nor is even a fourth spoken of > There is no fifth God or a sixth nor is even a seventh mentioned. > There is no eighth God, nor a ninth. Nothing is spoken about a tenth even. > This unique power is in itself. That Lord is only one, the only omnipresent. It is one and the only one. > > Atharva Veda 13.4.2 19-20 > Iranitea: Oh, nice, I didn't know that one. What about the trinity? Robin2: Sorry, iranitea. Too glib. You haven't been sensitive or sincere enough to do battle with the Trinitarian idea. In the present ontologically biased universe, Christianity appears almost hokey and sentimental and childishand we get a sense of instant superiority in mocking it, in not taking it seriously. This contempt for Christianity is what LSD and TM and the Sixties and the invasion of the East did to us. But of course that was because the soul of Christianity quite literally went out of the universe well before that. Still, to challenge oneself with Aquinas, or Newman, or Augustine, or even Aristotle: it's beneficial for the mind. And would you mind, for nostalgia reasons, please capitalizing the Trinity? Thanks. I am very serious about that, iranitea. That kept me awake last night, that small 't' at the beginning of that word. After all, for me, The Holy Trinity created iranitea. I am currently memorizing both the Qu-ran and the Rig and Atharva Vedas. Robin1: I am aware, in my seven states of Robin simultaneouslyor as my poor (but very pretty) psychoanalyst puts it: my Multiple Personalityof essentially being "The Lord [as] only one"I am " the one and the only one". I know this by direct experience, iranitea, and you are just trying to bring me back into ignorance and Maya and trying to fuck with my mind. I am enlightened! Don't you know that by now, iranitea? Iranitea1: Now, which Robin is saying this? WHO says that I AM enlightened? Obviously not Robin3 or Robin4, also not Robin-1. It could only be Robin0, Robin2 or Robin5, possibly also RobinR Robin2: There is no Who left in me, iraniteanot after Unity Consciousness. The Robin I am after Unity is the Phantom Waking State Robin. Isn't this obvious?because I am still playing in the universe as the god that I really am. I became the great "I AM" on the mountainand there's no going back to the I am of the little Robin. And I am being honest here, iranitea: This is Brahman speaking to you, but teasing you into believing I am not Brahman. Brahman killed Robin off. The truth is, iranitea, that when Moses asks God his name and God says: I AM WHAT I AM, God is giving us the most important clue to his identity, and *his first-person ontological experience of being God". He is the first Who, the first I Am. And therefore the sense you have of the who that you are, the sense you have of the I am Iraniteathis comes from God. And this is what it means to be created in the image of God. To be a distinct who with a distinct sense of what it means to be an I am. That plus freewill, the image of God *par excellence*. Robin1: Sure I "resort to mysticism" but maybe I don't. Maybe I am just playing at being seven Robins. And maybe I am not. Maybe I created myself*and even created YOU, iranitea*and maybe I did not (probably not, as a matter of fact). Robin1: Enjoy the mystical, iranitea: it's what it's all about after all. Robin1: And in the final analysis what does it matter how we quarrel here on FFL? We are, after all, only the Self. You and me, iranitea: *We are the same*! Iranitea1: Hmmm.. Robin2: Yeah, I knew I landed a big fish with that comment. Glad you caught (which you seem to have) the infinite resonances of that comment. It goes to the truth, after all. We are one, Iranitea. But God, he is other than you, other than me; therefore "We are *not* the same* and never could be and never will be. Because the Who I am who is the Personal God made certain we were, each of us, created with a unique and unrepeatable capacity for subjective first person experiences. Therefore we will always be different, irantea. And what is the proof of that difference? What Marek refers to as the affective violence underneath the rhetoric of some posters here on FFL. But you and me: *We ain't going to be one of these persons, right, iranitea*? Robin1: Life obviously is infinitely innocent and infinitely ironic. Don't you see this, iranitea? Iranitea1: Yes! Robin2: Could you please divide up the proportions of innocence and irony both in my exclamation and in your acquiescence? Thank you. I am not sure which to emphasize, which to de-emphasize. Like right now: I am even wondering how these two elements are breaking in this very moment! Robin1: I am one of the Hindu gods using the universe as my playground. Just like you, iranitea. I see what you are doing! Wink-wink. Robin1: But do the readers here at FFL? Robin1: We won't tell them, iranitea. Robin1: Or will we? Robin2: Will someone shut up this guy, please? This Robin1 guyRobin 5 guyor whatever. This is the Robin All Seven At Once Guy. I am reminded of the words of Henry II about Thomas a Beckett: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest"but at your hands, or B's, iranitea, I could never hope for that martyrdom which reads so beautifully to me nowcoming from that ontologically different universe: ...The wicked knight leapt suddenly upon him, cutting off the top of the crown which the unction of sacred chrism had dedicated to God. Next he received a second blow on the head, but still he stood firm and immovable. At the third blow he fell on his knees and elbows, offering himself a living sacrifice, and saying in a low voice, 'For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death.' But the third knight inflicted a terrible wound as he lay prostrate. By this stroke, the crown of his head was separated from the head in such a way that the blood white with the brain, and the brain no less red from the blood, dyed the floor of the cathedral. The same clerk who had entered with the knights placed his foot on the neck of the holy priest and precious martyr, and, horrible to relate, scattered the brains and blood about the pavements, crying to the others, 'Let us away, knights; this fellow will arise no more. Better than the experience on that mountain I am willing to believe. Still, I reckon death is going to still be infinitely interesting. And I aim to prepare myself for it. Even here on FFL. :-)
