--- 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.

M: It would have done no good, you were not looking for that kind of feedback 
and you were managing your life OK, right?  And I am not saying that I know 
that your altered state was pathological, I don't.  It may have been some state 
of mind that we should study more and might be super useful.  I am making an 
appeal that the traditional understanding is probably not the best we can do.

R: I don't think you know quite what you are saying here; your agenda is other 
than what it is you are writing about.


M: This is an odd accusation.  My agenda was to convey the thoughts about the 
topic I did, is something unclear to you?  What agenda are you referring to and 
how do you know I have it? I have made this point about the issues with the 
higher states model long before you showed up.  It is what I am trying to 
figure out about how we can find states of mind that are useful while not 
falling into the assumptions of the traditional model.

R:
 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.

M: I believe you are referring to the human condition, we all have this issue.  
What in particular am I missing?  I am writing in the context of my own 
experience of different states of consciousness through Maharishi's programs.

R: 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.

M: I've still got a bit of Blue Rabbit inside joke reluctance to accept any of 
this at face value Robin, but I am always open to friendly interactions with 
anyone here, no matter what has gone down in the past.  My interactions with 
the good Dr. should serve as proof of that.

When you arrived here I was interested to understand how you mentally put 
together you world view now.  You have had an undeniably unique experience and 
I respect the degree you have been wiling to discuss it openly here.  I have 
determined that you still maintain more of the traditional perspective about  
your state while "enlightened" than I can about my own experiences. 

I see a value in understanding these state shifts that goes beyond the 
skeptical stereotype.  I didn't go as far as you into whatever state it was you 
were in, but I went as far as my little rounding mind could take me.  Certainly 
enough to know that humans have a more complete menu of options than we are 
taking advantage of and people who claim to have made a radical mental shift 
are probably not making it up.

We construct our reality through our mental presuppositional filters.  I am 
proposing that the spiritual model has skewed our perspective on something that 
might be really interesting.  But as long as it goes through the highly 
figurative language of traditional spirituality, we will not reach the kind of 
understanding that a less presumption based view might provide.  I am coming to 
the conclusion that it might be the language of the arts that is the bridge, 
but haven't figured out the details.  I know we can do better.  

I hope you get that I am not tying to use this discussion as a veiled form of 
"Robin was crazy".  But I also realize that so far you have described your 
experience only though a highly spiritual world view, where the details of your 
subjective experience of entities was accepted.  I am not sure that is the most 
reasonable conclusion, but it is much easier from outside to see that.  I have 
my own reference experience to understand how compelling these can be.

People on FFL have mostly viewed your experience though the assumptions of 
spiritual practices and particularly Maharishi's model.  I do not believe he 
deserves that kind of respect.  I think he was winging the whole thing with a 
hodge-podge of traditional understandings, and when you really needed him to 
step up and become responsible for your state, he abandoned you and betrayed 
your trust.  And how he handled you should have conveyed to all of us that he 
was not gunna be there for us if we actually achieved the states he was 
describing.  He was as usual irresponsible about how he cared for you when you 
needed him.  It was unforgivable and fairly typical of the movement's cruelty.  
I never saw a person who proclaimed that they were enlightened not get 
jettisoned from the movement.  The clear message was sit down. keep paying, and 
shut up.

I hope this gives you some more perspective that I hope allays your fears that 
I am on a hidden agenda. 






> 
> --- 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
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to