--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jedi_spock" <jedi_spock@...> wrote: > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > I also think Robin does not present a consistent picture > > of his sense of reality, with his constant use of irony > > vacillating between having been in unity or not having > > been. People, if they are to 'pursue' reality need a > > consistent picture of it even if the picture is false. The > > picture is never truth, it is just a signpost that points > > you in, hopefully, a useful direction, and once it has > > served its purpose, the picture is discarded. TM is a > > pointer. It shows one on the basis of experience that > > there is more to experience than what one thinks. > > > > In general the complexity of Robin's speech, I think, > > obscures understanding for most people, and does not > > represent a useful way to teach most people about reality. > > So, what is your understanding of the sentence of Robin's > > I quoted? Because you said 'I suspect this is a manner of > > speaking' in referring to the quote, I would suppose it is > > not entirely clear in your mind either. > > Again, it's this kind of vacillating and contradictions that > he expresses over and over again that worries me. At times > he seems to say simultaneously that he was in Unity and not > in Unity at the same time.
Well the duality is still there even in unity, one can have duality in unity if one wants it - it is not really a thing one can describe. But I get your point. I do not think Robin is making use of paradox as a teaching tool to get us to see beyond the paradox. That is, his thinking (as I am seeing it by surmise), does not see through the paradox, but vacillates, as you say, between the two poles of the paradox which is thus not resolved. As a result, illumination from listening to Robin does not occur, only confusion results that *seems* to have an aura of illumination about it because of his skill in weaving the tangled mess together.
