Dear Robbie Boy, You made one big goof here. I am correcting you. Note:
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 not losing contact with the reality which created you*. Get it? You left out the "NOT" there, Robin. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > > --- 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. :-) >
