"Grover Smith's more liberal translation of the Heraclitian fragment-'Although there is but one Center, most men live in centers of their own' (251) is among the better interpretations. Heraclitus says there is only one logos or center of intelligence--analogous to the foundational field of existence Maharishi calls pure consciousness or pure intelligence--but people mistakenly see only their own, individual centers. This misunderstanding of the part for the whole is what Vedic Science calls pragya-aparadh--the mistake of the intellect--the mistake of believing that an individual consciousness imbedded in time, rather than an eternal, unified consciousness, is the true nature of existence. Reading the line in this broader sense, that there is a primal state common to everyone, suggests that the relationship between logos and individual wisdom is not adversarial, as Reibetanz has suggested; it is simply that the interconnectedness of such a relationship has been lost."
My dear friend Share, I suppose my irony would somehow create some confusion if I ever said something extreme (when I was being truthful), since many persons can't discriminate between the metaphysics of sincerity versus the metaphysics of irony. But I wish to tell you that soon after reading this post of yours, I meditated on what I should do to come up with a response to your quite formidable challenge to me--in the form of your post. You will not guess what happened. This is not ironic. I actually went into another state of consciousness--and guess what? that state of consciousness was the absolute reverse of Unity Consciousness--and therefore represents a form of prgaya-aparadh *which actually is the truth*. Share, I suddenly found myself enclosed within my own individuality in such a pure way that I realized that all the meaning and purpose of my life would have to come from my own person--and from nothing which was external to me, which includes the entire universe (and of course the Self). The self supplanted the Self. In the same way that one becomes enlightened--only, as it were, a kind of physics of reversal (to Unity Consciousness). This is the first state of awakening, but it already seems I can name this state of consciousness. It is *Western Consciousness One*--I am leaving open the possibility that what I have entered is the equivalent of the realization of the anti-pragya-aparadh state of Cosmic Consciousness--only, as you would guess, it is the obverse of oneness: the experience is that there is a form of individuality that is the cosmic actualization of who you are (even if some of your frailties are still there--as mine certainly are). There is the possibility I am guessing of two more state of Western Consciousness, and these of course would be the equivalent of God Consciousness and then Unity Consciousness (WC2&3). There will be persons reading this who will not believe me. But no matter: I have, since reading your post, Share, entered into another state of consciousness, and it has the fascinating effect of allowing me to extricate myself from my entanglement with you--and, although from very different motives, acting on the counsel of Salyavin (Who turns out to be wiser than I thought--he may have even been the first impetus to this change in my consciousness--my personal consciousness, that is. But you were the decisive and proximate cause. And I am very grateful to you for this, Share. Even as I know there are persons now thinking I am just being Robin-ironic.). I am definitely in another state of consciousness, and the effect of this WC1, Share, is to realize that I need not pursue doggedly and fanatically every single nuance of meaning and truth in my experience of existing as a person inside the universe. And the first issue to drop away to give me evidence of this change in me comes in the form of the spontaneous realization that we can just be friends--no offline correspondence or anything like that. But we can just be reconciled inside the context of FFL--and I thank the Western gods for this (whoever they may be--I think I have a pretty good idea, but stuff like that is secret of course--as you can understand). But it is a great day for me, Share. I am now in a pure state of individuation--which would mean that criticizing anyone---much less 'confronting' someone--is antithetical to the tendencies set up by WC1. You get your ego to keep forever, but it means mechanically detaching yourself from the drama of creation in some significant, even categorical sense. I feel this, and it is a wonder to me, given that until I went into this different state of consciousness I was sucking out the marrow of existential meaning and purpose in every second of my life. And arguing out the truth with everyone. This was a form of ignorance. Now I exist (as it were) as if inside my own universe--and it seems complete, even though I do not feel invincible or anything like I did when I acted out of Unity Consciousness for those Ten Years. You seem from the level of WC1 to be a positive and nice person. So all my troubles and vexations have just disappeared. Knowledge is certainly structured in consciousness, it just that Maharishi (and quite a few others) have got it backwards. The important thing here is not to pay attention to the mere words, but to sense the transformation which has occurred inside the being and consciousness of Robin. We are good, then, you and me, Share. Our quarrel is at an end. And I am happy about this. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Robin you sent me 3 emails on Sept 26 so I don't think of Sept 18 as the > formal ending of our correspondence. I have compiled those with my > replies. Do you think it would be beneficial to post them? In addition, > this is not my total response to you on Sept 18. Do you think it would be > beneficial to post my other reply to you from Sept 18? > > I have read all your posts from today including your reply to Salyavin which > contained the excerpts below: > Robin to Salya: > She said I mentally raped her. Her letters absolutely contradict this. > She continues to discuss and describe me in psychopathological terms--as > if I have been rendered speechless and helpless--that I cannot answer > her. > > Share replies to Robin's comments to Salya: > I used the term psychological rape and I described that as your attributing > thoughts and feelings to me which I did not have. I'm sure my letters also > included responses to those times when you were not doing that. > > I have not thought that you were rendered speechless and helpless, unable to > answer me. I assumed you were choosing that course of action. That of > course is your right just as it is my right to reply to Judy or Emily or > anyone else even if the topic touches on you. > > About your inner state, I was as careful as I was able to be in what I > said. What I remember is that I never talked about demonic possession or > spiritual vampirism or even NPD except once to note what others were > saying. And though aware that it sounded hokey, I limited myself to saying > that I wish complete healing for you and even avoided commenting on your self > meta psychotherapy and or your interactions with Terrence. > > I have never experienced what I have experienced with you. But in > looking back into the archives I see that even at the beginning there was > evidence of what upset me so on Sept 6. Certainly even before Lord Knows > confronted you, I mentioned to you that I felt you were trying to change > me. My understanding now is that during that lull between us I began to do > what Bill Howell calls snapping out of it. Nonetheless I regret how I > replied to you on Sept 6. Certainly I would reply differently now. > > I am not embarrassed by my tender feelings for you. And I remain clear that > they are feelings of friendship. Nor am I flummoxed by conflicting feelings > for you. I continue to want the best for you in spite of all that has > transpired between us.   > > > Thus, my present reply to you remains the same as it was on Nov 18. I wish > more peace and enjoyment for FFL and will act in accord with this intention > the best that I can given my limitations etc. I wish you more peace and > enjoyment too whatever course of action you choose. What this last sentence > means in reference to your posting our offline correspondence is that I wish > you more peace and enjoyment whether you post them or whether you refrain > from posting them. > Share   > > > > ________________________________ > From: Robin Carlsen <maskedzebra@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 11:34 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, author of > CULT > > >  > And here is the formal ending of our correspondence: > > From: Blue Caboose > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:56 PM > Subject: what I wish to tell you now > > Dear Share, > > I wish only for you to know that after everything we have said to each other > that I respect you and love you and want you to be happy and to know whatever > truth God would have you know and understand. I only want you to go to > heaven, whatever that may be, Share. I have played and teased and challenged > and danced and argued with you; but now it is at an end, and I must be quiet > and accept the will of reality in all things. For us, Share, I believe that > means that I must leave you to your life and your very earnest and > sacrificial strivings. Please believe me when I tell you that I want only > your happiness, and in my own way I shall pray for this. It has been a > privilege of a kind to carry on our conversations all these months, but now, > in the writing of this letter, I just want to express only my support for > you. I have a feeling you will find your way in this terrible complexity and > tragedy and beauty and miracle that is human existence in the 21st > century. That is it, Share: I have said all that I have wanted to say, or > need to say. Go safely and know that Robin loves you. > > Robin > > Your response: > > I will miss you. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > Note to reader: Here is an excerpt from one of Share Long's letters to > > Robin: > > > > "Yes, I agree that our correspondence went deep. I wish it could have > > continued deepening. But somehow, beyond a certain level, our hearts and > > souls did not match up. I still care about you and treasure what we > > shared." > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Share Long: > > > > > > > > Would you please state your reasons why you refuse to explain why you > > > > will not answer my question about the desirability of posting our > > > > personal correspondence--correspondence which is no different from the > > > > kind of interactions which take place here on FFL? > > > > > > > > You keep referring to me by name as if I were someone either dead, or > > > > in exile, or mute. You continue to discuss me, Share, and yet you will > > > > not let me show the world exactly what was said between us in those > > > > letters. > > > > > > > > In those letters we both attempted to understand each other. There was > > > > no insinuation of any kind of problem such as to make you say much > > > > later that I had violated you in some way. I find you innocently > > > > treacherous in all that you write about me, and I believe that posting > > > > that correspondence will allow everyone to understand what this matter > > > > is between you and myself. > > > > > > > > I ask that you answer my request sincerely, Share (You must have some > > > > valid reason for ignoring my question: please state it.). Until you do > > > > this I will continue to interpret your allusions to myself as a > > > > deliberate and provocative attempt to engage in a conversation which at > > > > one point I simply deemed pointless--As the record will show, Share, > > > > once I stopped writing to you, you continued to write to me. > > > > > > > > How about it, Share? Shall we put our cards out on the table? > > > > > > > > Robin > > > > > > Here is a letter I wrote to you on September 26, 2012. You might wish to > > > look at your response to that letter. For you have emphatically > > > contradicted yourself in how you acted subsequently to sending that > > > letter to me. > > > > > > > > > Share, > > > > > > I believe that the correspondence between you and myself should be posted > > > on FFL. And I think I will do this. > > > > > > If you have any objections to my doing this, you can state them, and I > > > will consider them carefully before going ahead with this. > > > > > > I feel what passed between us would be of considerable interest to those > > > trying to understanding what is going on right now. > > > > > > Especially after you reposted that post from Steve. That is what > > > motivated me to go ahead and post our correspondence. > > > > > > I have read through that correspondence; I do not believe--taking in all > > > the letters--there is anything of a personal nature at all. > > > > > > So, this is my intention. You can reread the correspondence yourself to > > > see if there are any letters you would omit. > > > > > > I believe, then, Share, that our correspondence could, quite conceivably, > > > taken place on FFL. And unless you give me evidence of a letter which > > > obviously was never intended for anyone but you to see, I will post our > > > correspondence. > > > > > > Robin > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Judy, whatever the quality of Robin's intentions, they would have > > > > > been under the influence of his self proclaimed state of mystical > > > > > hallucination.àYour ignoring, in relation to his intentions, that > > > > > self proclamation of his perpetuates an aspect of hallucination into > > > > > the PRESENT and is not IMO helpful in the present.àThis is what I > > > > > am addressing, the present.àThough I recognize that I've made > > > > > some mistakes about all this and will probably do so again, I will > > > > > continue to address issues if I think it is helpful to do so. à> > > > > àà> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:01 PM > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, > > > > > author of CULT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > à> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > JS, > > > > > > > > > > My name is Judy. > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that what Robin calls the mystical hallucination > > > > > > of his UC could, from the POV of simple logic, give rise to > > > > > > intentions which you describe as the absolute best and purest. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the "POV of simple logic" (yours in particular) > > > > > is adequate to address that highly unusual situation such as > > > > > to be able to determine the nature of Robin's intentions. It's > > > > > the wrong tool for the job. (And in this case, your contorted, > > > > > spiteful personal animus toward Robin, which drives you to > > > > > find his intentions less than good and pure no matter what, > > > > > disqualifies you from having any useful insights into what was > > > > > going on.) > > > > > > > > > > > Logic indicates simply that the intentions at their very > > > > > > inception were based in hallucination. I think calling them, > > > > > > especially in hindsight, the absolute best and purest > > > > > > continues the hallucination in a small but significant > > > > > > amount.àSignificant because that small amount exists in the > > > > > > very core of the larger matter. Thus is useful IMO to be > > > > > > named. > > > > > > > > > > I would not expect you to see things any differently, Share. > > > > > Your propensity to rewrite reality to suit your own needs > > > > > will not permit you to acquire a more subtle understanding > > > > > of the complex metaphysics of what took place with Robin and > > > > > his group. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the whole situation became confusing, agonizing and > > > > > > eventually poignant. Even more reason to immediately name > > > > > > the hallucination or delusion or pragyaparadh when it > > > > > > appears so that unnecessary suffering can be avoided. > > > > > > > > > > And what is it that will do this "naming" for us, Share? > > > > > > > > > > Careful... > > > > > > > > > > > PSàAnd yes again, I thought I was communicating with you and > > > > > > Ann in my posts about Edwin Coppard's ideas.àIf you thought > > > > > > I wasn't, how would you change what I wrote to make it fall > > > > > > within your category of communicating? > > > > > > > > > > Not playing that game with you, Share. I asked a question, you > > > > > answered it. I did not express an opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 8:40 PM > > > > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A Second Open Letter to Bill Howell, > > > > > > author of CULT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ãâà> > > > > > Couple of comments below, Robin. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" > > > > > > <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now since my enlightenment was a mystical hallucination, it > > > > > > > meant that *the context which it gave birth to inside myself*, > > > > > > > that too somewhere, no matter how true the process of > > > > > > > confrontation and individuation appeared to be (and that > > > > > > > process recreated reality, drove everyone into the deepest > > > > > > > place one could ever go--and had ever gone), was untrue. **And > > > > > > > what this meant--in the perspective after The Context was > > > > > > > busted by a greater reality--was that this weakness in each > > > > > > > person was simply what innocently each person had to do in > > > > > > > order to survive as a human being inside the universe given > > > > > > > that they were not perfect--and fallen. In other words, this > > > > > > > salient and ultimate weakness was not to be confronted--not > > > > > > > even to be revealed.** > > > > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > > > > > > > > JS: I don't think you've ever put it quite this way. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wasn't there, of course, but the more you tell us about > > > > > > all this, the more poignant it seems--the hope, the > > > > > > exhilaration, the absolute best and purest of intentions > > > > > > driving it, the huge effort and energy expended, and then > > > > > > the wrenching agony of confusion when it began to self- > > > > > > destruct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
