--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > 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.
As you know Robin doesn't agree that this is a valid test (and also that there was never and is not now any question in his mind that he was in Unity exactly as Unity is described by Maharishi). It seems irrelevant to me to complain that he didn't do a test he thinks would have been invalid when he had no doubts about his state anyway. > 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. Lawson, the thing is that Maharishi's purported test is not consistent with his own description of Unity. > 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. If you read Robin's post, you know why he would say the phrase "decision to float" makes no sense in light of the nature of Unity. If you're going to claim he wasn't in Unity, you need to deal with his explanation on this point. > 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. No, that has nothing at all to do with his reasons. He's explained what his reasons were, over and over. As far as Robin was (and still is) concerned, he had *become* the mountain. (The difference between the way you've used the "mountain" metaphor and the way I just used it is, I suspect, indicative of something you're missing about the nature of Unity consciousness as Maharishi defines it, which is also the source of the problem with the ability to levitate as a "test" of Unity.) > 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). Problem is, if years (in Robin's case 10 years) of the stable experience of a state of consciousness is not the same as being 100 percent in that state of consciousness, nobody can ever be said to be 100 percent in a higher state no matter how long they've been in it, because they might come out of it tomorrow. It's arguable whether Maharishi ever explicitly confirmed Robin's Unity, but for seven years he never expressed any doubts about it--and he followed Robin's doings very closely, including sending aides to observe Robin in action where he was teaching. He also, according to Peter Sutphen, told Bevan Morris to leave Robin alone while he and his followers were pulling their stunts at MIU. Bevan ignored that instruction and took Robin to court to make him get out of Dodge. It wasn't until Robin had his lawyers demand that Maharishi confirm Robin's enlightenment, and his right to teach his own version of the TM-Sidhis, in an affidavit to be read in court, that Maharishi denied Robin's enlightenment. What Robin was asking at that point was effectively to become co-leader of the TMO with Maharishi and to be free to teach according to his own lights. There was *no doubt in Robin's mind* when he asked for the confirmation that Maharishi would provide it. It seems obvious in retrospect that Maharishi would *not* have provided it even if he had been sure Robin was in Unity. But that's another whole kettle of fish. > 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). Robin has said he got help with the de-enlightenment process. He hasn't been explicit about where it came from, but if you read between the lines, it was--he believes--from sources that were more powerful than the forces that brought about his Unity in the first place. Remember that as far as he's concerned, "the Universe" as it appears to the person in Unity is not the real thing but a deception perpetrated by the Vedic gods. Again, obviously I can't vouch for any of this. But if you're going to make a solid case for Robin not being in Unity, you have to deal with what he says about his own experience and thinking, or at the very least not get it *wrong* and then try to use your incorrect understanding in your argument, which is what you have been doing.
