I reread those posts (again) Judy. They don't, in any way, change what I assert.
Robin's ability or inability to float or whatever is marker for what he says it is: his own Unity (can't speak for anyone else's here), by the test that MMY gave subsequently, was not complete and Robin has always had the ability to avail himself of the test. Further, MMY may have failed his own test when he tried it. I am quite willing to agree that by MMY's test, which isn't THAT unusual according to mystical tradition, may have screened out every person who ever lived, or who ever lived, including MMY, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, Shankara, Buddha, Jesus etc. Even so, it is test that he could have used, but didn't. Further, MY understanding is such that if Robin were fully in Unity, he would need no formal technique at all. His decision to float would have been sufficient. No sutra required. This last my be Robin's own reason for deciding that Unity, as a whole, isn't really real: the mountain never came to him regardless of his own intent. But this would only prove MY point: Robin's Unity was never perfect (something which MMY never asserted anyway, as far as I can tell: valid experiences of Unity are not the same as being 100% in Unity, any more than witnessing 24/7 for years at a time are the same as being 100% in CC). Finally, as I have pointed out, Robin's ability to decide to become de-enlightened either means that the Universe wanted him to become de-enlightend or that he never really was in Unity in the first place, assuming that Robin's assertion about free will and Unity is valid (many other possibilities exist as well, of course, but we're talking in terms of black and white logic, both on my part, concerning MMY's test, and on Robin's part concerning the nature of Unity, and your part, etc). L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts > to you (both on this page): > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 > > We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read > or don't remember what he wrote. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in > > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own > > > > internal skepticism). > > > > > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience > > > and understanding. > > > > > > > What I said was: > > > > > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and > > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe > > > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal > > > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if > > > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you > > > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment." > > > > > > > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting. > > > > > > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what > > > Robin wrote about it. > > > > > > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably > > > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he > > > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was > > > > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that > > > > purpose. > > > > > > He didn't have any such concern. > > > > > > > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME > > > > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and > > > > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real > > > > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination. > > > > > > Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature > > > of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term; > > > he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind > > > by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state* > > > but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction > > > one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate > > > Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic > > > delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of > > > individual will is real, etc., etc. > > > > But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity > > is said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN > > affect external reality because external and internal really ARE the same. > > > > > > > > > > > By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing > > > > his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that > > > > skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one > > > > might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE > > > > one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this > > > > > > You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of > > > all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he > > > was in Unity. > > > > He was and IS skeptical about the nature of Unity. MMY was pointing out > > that one has a way of testing whether or not what one is "in" is "really" > > the "real" Unity. His skepticism concerns whether or not Unity is real, > > period. MMY's test was to show whether or not the Unity is really real > > thing. Robin has never conducted that test. The fact that he never believed > > there was a need is immaterial to my point: Robin has had a way to prove or > > disprove whether or not his Unity is the real deal and he hasn't availed > > himself. > > > > > > > > Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe > > > wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense, > > > according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the > > > ability to levitate is a "test" of whether one is in > > > Unity. > > > > I side-stepped Robin's objection quite nicely by pointing out that one > > could trace their own historical growth towards really real Unity by > > whether or not they had floated at some point during their practice of the > > TM-Sidhis. This last test doesn't apply specifically to Robin because he > > never learned the TM-Sidhis, or if he did, even second-hand, he won't > > report whether or not he ever floated. > > > > > > > > > > > despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that > > > > appear to have been directed directly at Robin. > > > > > > I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin. > > > > What I heard was that MMY said "this will test certain people's assumptions > > about whether or not they are enlightened." Sounds like a reference to > > Robin, to me. > > > > > > > > > Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does > > > > what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if > > > > he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had, > > > > according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his > > > > skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently > > > > didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over > > > > it for the past quarter century. > > > > > > This is so tangled in confusion I don't know where to start. > > > > > > Robin was never and is not now skeptical that he was in > > > Unity consciousness. There was and is no doubt in his mind. > > > What he "obsessed about" for a time was whether (as noted) > > > Unity was a state that represented "a perfect correspondence > > > with reality," as he put it in that and other posts. > > > > > > > That is what I meant by "really real." He was and is concerned that Unity > > isn't really real: it doesn't have a perfect correspondence with reality. > > > > > Once he had decided that it did not, he began the process > > > of "de-enlightening" himself. That's what took a quarter > > > of a century. > > > > > > > Funny that he has been able to choose to begin the process to de-enlighten > > himself but was never able to choose to test his own enlightenment via > > MMY's test of full performance of the TM-Sidhis. Apparently he, and you, > > believe that the universe wanted him to de-enlighten himself. > > > > The obvious alternative, that he was never fully enlightened, just can't > > sink in. > > > > Mind you, I am not asserting anything about whether or not floating is > > possible, only that Robin has had a test available for 25 years that he > > never used, that could, at least according to Robin's teacher, have > > resolved Robin's concerns, either way. > > > > Again: he never used the test. It is curious that he presents the argument > > that the universe never wanted him to use the test, but that eventually he > > (or the universe) apparently eventually *decided* that he should work to > > de-enlighten himself from something he had never fully tested in the first > > place, because he was convinced that the state wasn't really real, but just > > a deception/hallucination. > > > > > > > > > Obviously I can't vouch for any of this. (And we don't > > > even know exactly what Maharishi said; it might make a > > > significant difference if we did.) But I would suggest > > > you go back and read Robin's post (two of them, actually, > > > on this page) and see if you can straighten out your > > > confusion about what he's said: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 > > > > > > > > > > You still haven't understood what I have said, even now I am guessing. > > > > > > L > > >