Steve, Steve. You are a busy man, as you note. Running a business, raising a family. That's a lot. I have a lot of respect for you. All aspects of a conversation are of value in most cases. I choose to believe in Robin's sincerity on wanting to get this matter settled, as lord knows, he's been dealing with all this for awhile now. Methinks the truth might be too close for comfort for Vaj (either way), but we shall see.
________________________________ From: raunchydog <raunchy...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The argument against Vaj knowing Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > Hey I just read this letter. This sounds pretty fair to me. My > apologies to Robin and also to Judy for making some assumptions that > have been cleared up by this post and letter. Sounds like you are being > sincere in your desire to get to the bottom of it Robin. That would be > cool to get some closure on the matter. > See how easy that was? Just a little bit of homework and you don't set yourself up for a loosing battle. Word to the wise. If you want to stay out of an argument with Judy, be more attentive to reading comprehension. Apologies delivered and accepted. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > wrote: > > > > Note: This is a letter which I wrote to Lord Knows upon receiving the > letter from LN--before I realized he was a lawyer. > > > > I set out the case against accepting the truth of the letter. > > > > Juxtaposed with the letter that the lawyer has written, were he not a > lawyer, the case that I make for Vaj not knowing me and not attending a > seminar seems overwhelming to me. > > > > Once this letter was sent to Lord Knows, however, upon discovering > that this old friend (LN) was a lawyer I decided to accept that I was > really raised by Grizzlies in Alaska. > > > > I should stipulate once again that I would wish to resolve this matter > in a humanly appropriate way, and that Vaj himself can very easily bring > about this satisfactory resolution. > > > > As can any number of persons who knew me at the time that LN alleges > that Vaj knew me. > > > > Jesus Christ! I want it to be true that I knew Vaj. But I will need > evidence which becomes the innocent refutation of the evidence I have > presented in this sixteen point letter to LK. > > > > Robin > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" maskedzebra@ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Lord Knows, > > > > > > Vaj, then, attended a course in Victoria? He was with [lawyer's > name: herein: LN] and Gary Ostlerlund. Vaj has never claimed he knew me > in Victoria. While I trusted LN when I knew him, I can understand his > willingness to testify to something which would have consequences that > might adversely affect me. > > > > > > I will need another witness other than LN to verify the physical > presence of Vaj in Victoria in the summer of 1986. I am profoundly drawn > to the truth of things, and I have no reason--none--to question > someone's claim that he or she knew me, attended a seminar, was > initiated into TM, knew Maharishi, and taught TM. But I am saying that > LN is not telling the truth here. Not because I have any reason to be > harmed by acknowledging that someone knew me that I didn't think knew > me. However here are the facts which contradict LN: > > > > > > 1. Vaj claims he was initiated into TM, that he taught TM, that he > met Maharishi. He has never provided any kind of proof of this, and he > refuses to do so. And everything he says about TM, how it is done, what > the experience is, and what it is to teach TM simply does not accord > with reality. The reality of TM. > > > > > > 2. Vaj says that he came to Washington, DC, and deconstructed my > enlightenment such as to prove to everyone present how false my claims > were and how easy it was to prove that my integrity was an entire > fiction. > > > > > > 3. Vaj has never furnished a single iota of proof that would > demonstrate any personal knowledge of me. If Vaj came to Victoria, how > could it be that I would not have met him, known him, interacted with > him? I remember every person who attended a seminar, and if Vaj was > there at that time, then he must have stayed at one of the houses. He > must have made himself known to many persons other than LN. In your > letter of ten years ago you told me you maintained contact with everyone > from the Ten Years. I would need at least two other persons from that > course to verify what LN has said. Do you know DK, or SP, or MN, or HB, > or BB, or SB, or DM, or DF, or G or MW, or LP? If you are in touch with > any of these persons--or even someone else [there are so many witnesses > to the fact of Vaj having been in Victoria]--I would ask you to > corroborate the word of LN. This should be extraordinarily easy to do, > Lord Knows. > > > > > > 4. The proof that I was not enlightened, and that I knew nothing > about The Personal, is proven by the fact that someone entered into that > intense and dramatic and harrowing experience--in their trust in my > enlightenment--and I didn't even remember them! I must have been > suffering premature and selective Alzheimers. No, since I have no pride > or investment in holding out on acknowledging the fact that VaJ attended > a seminar and knew me personally, I can only believe there is something > very fishy going on here. And I can assure you, Lord Knows, that Vaj has > done his brilliant best to try to persuade me that he does not know me, > was never initiated into TM, and never went on a rounding course, did > not know Maharishi, and certainly never 'confronted' me as he claims. I > do not believe LN is telling the truth. But if he is, I apologize to him > ahead of time. > > > > > > 5. I asked you to give Vaj my personal e-mail address, and to ask > him to write to me personally giving evidence of the truth of the claim > you are making on his behalf. You must provide me some reason why either > you have not told him of this, or why he has not acted upon this. If Vaj > himself will write a personal letter to me giving me some indication of > the kind of proof that he would have that he was with LN and Gary > Osterlund, and that he attended a seminar and that he lived in Victoria, > I will believe him--and I will definitely make public restitution. But > if he is not prepared to do this, then I smell a rat here. > > > > > > 6. Remember, Lord Knows: You must not project onto me that I have > some stake in disproving that someone knew me when he or she said he or > she knew me. What kind of sense would that make? No, there is some > reason why this controversy about the truthfulness of Vaj has become an > issue, and I want to get to the bottom of it. Given LN's understandable > antipathy towards me, it would not seem unreasonable for him to agree to > cooperate in this effort to prove the bona fides of Vaj, if only in some > sense to get some satisfaction and revenge upon Robin Carlsen. I doubt > there is any problem in persuading someone to say what LN has said, when > the cause--forcing Robin into a public apology--appears to be the > mildest of amends for the suffering Robin has wrought in the lives of a > number of human beings. > > > > > > 7. I remember those whom I knew in those Ten Years as if they were > almost family. Each person who was at a seminar in Victoria, was known > to me in a very intimate way. This after all was part of the metaphysic > of my belief system, even of my consciousness. It is just utterly > inconceivable that I would not know someone who was there. And then on > top of this--for no defensible or sane reason--to deny someone their > right to claim to have known me (and in the case of Vaj to have > destroyed my claims to be enlightened). No, there is a big game going on > here, Lord Knows. I believe you know it. > > > > > > 8.Why is it that others are always speaking up on behalf of Vaj, and > he never will speak up on his own behalf?--He has scrupulously refused > to furnish any evidence to back up his claims to know me. and IF HE DID > TRAVEL BY CAR WITH GARY AND LN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BLOW ME OUT OF > THE WATER RIGHT AWAY ON FFL. He chose to argue that he knew me on the > basis of the most vague and unspecific evidence. Whereas he had a > knock-down argument in the form of LN. No, Lord Knows, this does not > pass the smell test. > > > > > > 9. This is so ridiculous and bizarre and absurd that we are even > having this argument. But the context within which this issue is > attempting to be resolved is artificial, contrived, and non-innocent. > Again, I state the obvious: If Vaj lived in Victoria and met me > personally and attended a seminar there are at least three > dozen--minimum--people who could testify to this effect. In fact, I > think you know about fifty persons who, if Vaj was in Victoria, could > attest to this. And this would be the easiest thing in the world for you > to do. Why is this even happening to me? I refuse to believe that Vaj > knows me unless there is something beyond this letter from LN. > > > > > > 10. Finally, what in God's name would make me reluctant to admit > someone attended a course, knew me, confronted me, did TM, taught > TM--when that person did all those things? Tell me, Lord Knows. I feel > my Guardian Angel warning me: Robin do not fall into this trap. And I am > not going to. Something is very amiss here. Someone is lying. I am not > lying by the way, because I sincerely lack any personal memory of this > person whatsoever--and I remember every single person who came to a > seminar, especially if they trraveled all the way to Victoria and > therefore presumably stayed with persons, and interacted with persons > known to me personally, a fact which makes LN's letter simply > superfluous. If Vaj knew me and attended a seminar that is as easy to > prove as where you were born, as what school you attended, as who was > your first girlfriend, as the name of your last dog. That there is > ambiguity, dispute, equivocation over something as stark and simple and > concrete at this, this is suspicious indeed. > > > > > > 11. Let us present this as a hypothetical, Lord Knows: Let us assume > we know nothing about this matter. We imagine a scenario: someone claims > to have done TM, claims to have taught TM, claims to have gone on > rounding courses, claims to have met me, claims to have stayed in > Victoria and attended a seminar, claims to have successfully confronted > me: How easy would this be to prove? As easy, Lord Knows, as determining > what the weather was on a given day. So, then, if I can obtain no > benefit from denying the truth of a given fact in my life, why is this > such a major issue? I would have thought by this time, that this would > have occurred to you: viz: Gee, Robin is having trouble remembering a > guy I knew was on that course in Victoria. Well, let us help him out. > There must be oodles of sources of evidence for this--Why don't we just > get this guy to write to Robin and in that letter he can provide the > obvious tokens of his good faith? Or even let us just get some > persons--who are not hostile to Robin Carlsen--in their neutrality > simply confirm an objective fact: Vaj lived in Victoria, met Robin, > attended a seminar. > > > > > > 12. The strange thing in all this, Lord Knows is that you are acting > as a surrogate to the very witness who can make his own first person > testimony about these facts. Is Vaj deputizing you and LN to speak on > his behalf about a matter which is public knowledge; namely, that Vaj > was seen in the flesh at a Robin Carlsen seminar, and Vaj was seen going > to bed in some house in Victoria where others lived? Would you want > someone acting as a proxy for you in a matter like this, when you, and > you alone, can provide the final credibility about a matter which has > been in dispute now for over a year? > > > > > > 13. If you do not widen the context of your experience, and instead > stick to the literal and specific, not trusting in the larger reality to > support you, Lord Knows, I must doubt your confidence in your evidence. > LN writing a letter twenty-five years ago, that would be unimpeachable > evidence. But LN writing a letter in the present, given the antecedents > here--and his posture towards Robin Carlsen--I would think him somewhat > too Saintly not to cooperate in an enterprise whereby his word about > something became the means to extract from Robin some public confession > of wrongdoing. I will apologize personally and publicly to Vaj when he > takes the matter of his having attended a seminar in Victoria and > knowing me personally as seriously as you are. Takes it into his own > hands, then. > > > > > > 14. I am entirely innocent in this affair, Lord Knows, but that very > innocence is being exploited here. I just want the facts to come out. > But LN's letter--in the absence of any other corroborating proof--will > not do for this controversy what something so much simpler will do: How > can we get Robin to know that Vaj knew Robin and stayed in Victoria and > attended a seminar? I can't think of anything simpler than this. And yet > you do not seem interested in just a freewheeling, open-ended, trusting > process of discovery. And until I sense your willingness to make clear > to me your sincerity and confidence in this matter, I must withhold my > acquiescence in confirming that I know Vaj and that he did travel to > Victoria, and that he did attend a seminar. You with your many contacts > can blow me out of the water with some other more spontaneous and > accessible evidence. > > > > > > 15. The most shocking thing of all to me, Lord Knows, is your lack > of knowing of who the person Robin is. I wish you would know me in a way > that had something to do with my experience of myself after these > twenty-five years. > > > > > > 16. I think, Lord Knows, our face-to-face meeting will clear up all > of this. And after we have spent several hours in each other's company I > feel certain that the issue here that is the subject of your letter will > be resolved, and at that point you and I can determine how we shall > proceed. > > > > > > I understand you have the means to come to Toronto. Surely if this > is true, and you are interested in getting the truth resolved, this is > far and away your best bet. So I am going to leave things there. To meet > with you for four or five hours, that is an infinitely more reliable, > promising, and effectual means of getting to the truth of everything. > > > > > > Don't you agree, Lord Knows? > > > > > > I have nothing to hide. I have nothing to gain from denying the > truth in this matter. I would be delighted to apologize to Vaj. And once > we have met I will happily back you up in your claim to have lived at > Annapurna--I think I will have to confront T about this! > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > > > Robin > > > > > >
