Heh. I figured all I had to do was to point out how slavishly she's adopted Robin as her cult leader and she'd go batshit crazy. Good to see that the wind-up toy is still functioning. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > Can you just imagine how horrified Barry's bosses on > this new job in Paris are going to be when they > realize how his mind has deteriorated? > > I mean, he's always suffered from the delusion of > thinking he can understand something someone has > written without actually reading it; and he's always > had the problem of not being able to tell the > difference between a discussion about (a) *what* > someone said and (b) a discussion about whether what > someone said is *true*. Pretty elementary, but he > just doesn't get it. > > Now, however, he's into inventing biographical > details that are hilariously factually inaccurate, > mocking what he's invented thinking it's real, and > convincing himself he's really devastated his > target. (All this while the actual details are right > there in the person's posts for everybody to read.) > > As Sal Sunshine would say, it would be sad if it > weren't so funny. > > Navashok, be prepared, Barry's going to need some > of your expert fluffing toot sweet. And it looks > like you'll have to accompany him to Paris, so get > your bags packed. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Internet argument poker: "I'll see your supposed expert > > (Maharishi) and raise you two Robin posts. Now go do your > > remedial reading of the Robinsez Sutras so that you're > > worthy of arguing with me about a subject that neither > > of us has any personal experience with or knowledge of." :-) > > > > I don't know about anyone else, but the very concept of > > someone quoting Robin Carlsen as a credible source about > > ANYTHING just made my morning, and started it off with a > > hearty laugh. Invoking "Robinsez" is even more hilarious > > than invoking "Maharishisez." > > > > Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor > > experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and > > the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a > > MAJOR experience. He had no earthly idea what the experiences > > he was having *were*, but knew that 1) he had to interpret > > them as the topmost, #1, Highest Possible Experience in the > > TM world, and 2) it had to be higher than the experiences > > claimed by his wife at the time (mere CC), so he settled on > > Unity. If Maharishi had been talking about Brahman Conscious- > > ness then, he would have called what he was experiencing BC. > > > > End of story. The fact that anyone actually *believes* any > > of his posturing about what he experienced blows my mind and > > makes me roll my eyes, probably the same reaction Maharishi > > had when Robin tried to run the same number on him. He > > probably told Robin, "Something good is happening," and Robin > > then went forth throughout the land proclaiming, "Maharishi > > confirmed I'm in Unity." And the saddest part? People in and > > around the TM movement actually believed it, and some believe > > it even now. [insert eyeroll here] > > > > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > >
