Dear Curtis: Have mercy on your poor friend, who has taken me seriously here.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > You stay out of this, Barry. You have no business > > interfering in my relationship with Curtis. What do > > you know about FRIENDSHIP? This is something that > > Curtis and I are working out, and you only make > > things worse. Please, I ask you, Barry: leave us > > alone. I don't try to butt into your friendship > > with Curtis, so go take a long walk off a short pier. > > Fuck off and die, you cultist asshole. :-) > > Seriously, it is an indication of the extent of > your "boundary violation" issues that you don't > see that on a public forum I have *just* as much > right to comment on your *obvious* tactics as > anyone else. You'd *like* to be able to ply those > tactics without anyone commenting on them, as > would those who run similar numbers, but just as > you guys feel free to comment on your version of > what our "motivations" are, we can comment on > yours. What you don't like is that we CAN. > > The bottom line is still the bottom line. If any > of you were as "advanced" or as "evolved" or as > "important" as you like to pretend to be, WHAT > WOULD IT MATTER what anyone said about you? > > But it seems to matter to you a great deal. What > you propose as an explanation of this? > > You HAVE no "relationship" with Curtis. You've > interacted with him a few times on an Internet > forum. The rest is all in your head. *As* were > any ideas of your own "enlightenment* IMO. :-) > You may choose to treat these things as reality. > I prefer to treat them as what they are -- your > fantasy notions of what reality would be if it > just catered to your whims and ego-desires. :-) > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Gawd, he's still trying to rope Curtis into interacting > > > with him. Since abuse hasn't done it, he's trying the > > > honey trap. What a twat. :-) > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You are honest, Curtis. This piece is honest. It is a valid analysis of > > > > the claims of higher states of consciousness. I liked it very much. I > > > > wish I had read it immediately upon coming down from that mountain; it > > > > might have saved me (and others) a lot of grief. I don't think you know > > > > quite what you are saying here; your agenda is other than what it is > > > > you are writing about. Nevertheless it is a clear and cogent critique > > > > of the inadequate scrutiny that is given to enlightenment. I go along > > > > with most of what you say. I think, though, that sometimes you may be > > > > being driven to a certain conclusion before you have entirely studied > > > > all the facts. I could be wrong about this, however. One thing is for > > > > sure: I think you nailed it. There can be no doubt about this. But I > > > > have some faint feeling that I am not, at times, in perfect agreement > > > > with you. Perhaps, though, this will pass. It's good--I think all of it > > > > is good. But somehow there is something missing here--Maybe it's in me. > > > > That could be. I have been known to not quite get what is happening in > > > > the right way. But I think people here in FFL can benefit from your > > > > post--as I have. It seems we almost can make a new beginning > > > > here--assuming I have understood you correctly--and I believe I have. I > > > > am sorry if I have been insensitive to what you were trying to say in > > > > the past; but those days, they seem pretty much over to me. I think we > > > > can just believe in ourselves, without having to get all upset with > > > > either what you say to me, or what I say to you. This seems the very > > > > best way to not have any issues come up between us. I am a man of my > > > > word; and I give it here, Curtis: you are just my happy friend again. > > > > And it feels right to me. But I want this mood to persist throughout > > > > the day. I know it will, but I have not practiced this long enough to > > > > have the confidence I know I will have if by the time tonight comes I > > > > am still in this present state. Which seems pretty normal to me. Now I > > > > am saying perhaps something very subtle here, but I know you, of all > > > > people on FFL, will get it. And that will have to be enough for me. > > > > Thank you very much for writing this, Curtis. It has helped me. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Maharishi: > > > > > > > > > > "Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the > > > > > cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on > > > > > earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Me: What a great writing prompt. This discussion between Nabby and > > > > > Robin is fascinating on many levels but serves as an introduction to > > > > > one of my favorite issues: people who claim to be in some state of > > > > > mind where this statement is true. > > > > > > > > > > The idea that Nabby found something he finds hard to believe, i.e. > > > > > that Robin was really enlightened till he wasn't, is a hoot itself. > > > > > > > > > > The biggest problem I have with the whole traditional interpretation > > > > > of people experiencing states of mind which might be expressed in > > > > > such a grandiose claim, is that there is no real distinction given > > > > > the poetic looseness of the language, between the so called higher > > > > > states and people who are high functioning but suffering from mental > > > > > disorders which manifest in this kind of belief. And there seems to > > > > > be little interest among the enlightened to make sure there is a > > > > > sorting mechanism other than, in Maharishi's case, if you are > > > > > speaking for God please keep your mouth shut, there is only one God > > > > > mouthpiece per movement. > > > > > > > > > > So Robin had his internal shift and was never evaluated to see if > > > > > these experiences were the "real deal" other than a short time in > > > > > casual conversation with Maharishi where very vague poetic terms were > > > > > exchanged. And certainly no one got a psych exam, right? > > > > > > > > > > Until the spiritual community has a way to distinguish this kind of > > > > > claim as the real, real, real, seriously the real deal, even within > > > > > its own system compared to the many versions of this conclusions > > > > > drawn by people suffering from serious mental disturbances, the whole > > > > > thoery of higher states will not be taken seriously in mainstream > > > > > society. Nor should it be. > > > > > > > > > > I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that some styles of mental > > > > > functioning created by years of doing mental techniques might be > > > > > useful. But not on the heels of proclamations like that one > > > > > Maharishi made. We already have too many people making this claim > > > > > while holding an AK or strapped with bombs. > > > > > > > > > > Now Maharishi actually proposed tests that I still think are > > > > > reasonable within the crazy world of his beliefs. That was that the > > > > > sidhis performance was an objective benchmark for higher states. And > > > > > what I like about this is that the claims about enlightenment are so > > > > > over the top, it seems logical that the person would have some > > > > > noticeable difference in how they function. But that was not to be, > > > > > so now we lack such a standard. I would like to see the enlightened > > > > > just showing up with some quality that I find admirable or > > > > > interesting that might support the grandiose traditional claims. > > > > > Instead I see a self-satisfied snorefest in the Batgap interviews. > > > > > > > > > > So we have nothing but the kind of beliefs we see in every religion. > > > > > A guy like Robin says he feels something that could be expressed in > > > > > that sentence at the top. And some people around him say, "hey this > > > > > guy really does seem to be special so I will believe him." But we > > > > > have such a shitty track record with this don't we? > > > > > > > > > > I know what a broad swath this cuts, but here it goes: > > > > > > > > > > When any human makes the claim that he is speaking for God. I call > > > > > bullshit till proven otherwise. And the burden is on the person > > > > > making the claim. I don't know if there really is a God, but I do > > > > > know that people claiming to represent him on earth in any capacity > > > > > are trying to separate their claim to authority from my own. They > > > > > are attempting to assume epistemological higher ground. And we all > > > > > know what to assume does. It makes an ass of ...no wait that can't > > > > > be right, it has something to do with me, or u or...oh hell I just > > > > > had it... > > > > > > > > > > it makes that person a total pain in the ass. > > > > > > > > > > Nailed it! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains > > > > > > expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the > > > > > > limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic > > > > > > intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought > > > > > > of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the > > > > > > immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's > > > > > > thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of > > > > > > God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto > > > > > > cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks > > > > > > on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the > > > > > > glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet > > > > > > speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; > > > > > > he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and > > > > > > gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words > > > > > > speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the > > > > > > omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for > > > > > > the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of > > > > > > God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His > > > > > > individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of > > > > > > cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of > > > > > > cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal > > > > > > Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his > > > > > > activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the > > > > > > Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds > > > > > > in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being > > > > > > on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the > > > > > > bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. > > > > > > > > > > > > "The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the > > > > > > inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is > > > > > > breathed by the individual. > > > > > > > > > > > > "This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the > > > > > > impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal > > > > > > existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life." > > > > > > > > > > > > The Science of Being and Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no exaggeration here; this was my experience on that > > > > > > mountain on Arosa and for ten years after this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you had put a full stop after "Arosa" your story would be > > > > > > fine. > > > > > > It's the following 6 words that creates a confusion that seems > > > > > > to linger on to this day. > > > > > > Last time I suggest you had a checking. This advice still stands. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Nablusoss, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would ask you one question, Nablusoss: What is the context and > > > > > > quality of your experience in making this judgment of my > > > > > > enlightenment? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is purely intuitional. It has nothing to do with details of > > > > > > what you have written. Quite the contrary in fact; many of your > > > > > > descriptions of experiences certainly has the rings of truth to > > > > > > them and are profoundly beautiful. But somewhere there is a > > > > > > shorting, something unhinges. Then this sense of not finding your > > > > > > writing quite fitting was confirmed by others whom I trust. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there is always the matter of who we are. May I suggest your > > > > > > rereading AWB's post where she questions the realness of this > > > > > > differentiation of higher states of consciousness--I mean the > > > > > > paragraph which precedes the one where she addresses a question to > > > > > > myself" > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for caring so deeply about truth of why we are existing > > > > > > inside the universe, nablusoss. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just read your answer to Ann. Again you write very well, and > > > > > > there is no reason to disbelieve any of this. > > > > > > But as you point out: "And then the question will arise in the > > > > > > reader's mind: Given what you have just told us, Robin: How did you > > > > > > get out of this 'cosmic' circumstance? That is something I have not > > > > > > talked about." > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I happen to believe that you had not established permanent > > > > > > enlightenment in the first place, why would I be interested in your > > > > > > de-enlightenment ? Well, perhaps as they say in Germany; "The > > > > > > braking of the rule confirms the rule". I certainly could not say > > > > > > that there are once and for all no exception to a rule, and if you > > > > > > would like to explain how, in your opinion, de-enlightenment was > > > > > > done, I'm sure many would find that interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Nablusoss, > > > > > > > > > > > > Gee. I never knew you hadn't read my post to Ann. Well, that seems > > > > > > to have made a difference. The person nablusoss comes through in > > > > > > what you have just written to me. Nothing to complain about here. > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems I must now explain how I became de-enlightened. Getting > > > > > > enlightened took me approximately eight years; de-enlightenment has > > > > > > taken nearly 10,000 days. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the question, then, I will try to answer [to quote you > > > > > > directly]: "How, in your opinion, de-enlightenment was done?" > > > > > > > > > > > > You will understand, nablusoss, that whereas enlightenment comes > > > > > > about through a means which can be applied by anyone, I could never > > > > > > prescribe my panacea (for de-enlightenment) for anyone other than > > > > > > myself. It is, then, a purely personal ordeal and solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > It certainly is more interesting than how I became enlightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will do this (explain these past twenty-five years and seven > > > > > > months) just as soon as I am ready. This seems imminent. > > > > > > > > > > > > The world waits, Robin. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Glad we're playing in another key, nablusoss. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
