Susan, I can only repeat: You did not know what Robin was about, because the MIU biggies did not want you to know what he was about. You even let yourself be convinced that he wasn't devoted to Maharishi and his teaching, when that simply was not the case.
You went along with what *they* told you even though they were "protecting" you in the way you yourself have been eloquently objecting to recently. Robin was sui generis and should not be used as an "example" in this context. That would be a travesty, for the reasons I've outlined. There are plenty of others you could have used as examples instead. You made it clear while Robin was here that you didn't trust him because you had trouble following what he wrote, and now you're badmouthing him when he's not around to defend himself. That is not a behavior for which I have much respect. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > > From what I recall, there were 4 reasons MMY forbid looking > > > > > elsewhere: First, to protect people from getting sidetracked > > > > > from the TM path and onto a flashier but less evolutionary > > > > > method. The assumption here was that TMers were in many cases > > > > > unable to discern the difference between the Real Deal and > > > > > lesser and possibly harmful crap (ie Robin Carlson, etc). > > > > > > > > (Carlsen.) > > > > > > > > Wayback, since you are obviously not that familiar with > > > > Robin's "deal," you probably shouldn't use him as an > > > > example. > > > > > > > > Without going into a long dissertation, possibly the most > > > > important thing to know in this context is that according > > > > to Peter Sutphen, Bevan said Maharishi had ordered him, > > > > Bevan, to leave Robin alone when Robin showed up at MIU > > > > with his group. Bevan ignored Maharishi's instruction, > > > > and a big public mess was the result. > > > > > > > > Robin and his followers were completely dedicated to > > > > Maharishi. Maharishi had kept his eye on Robin when he > > > > was teaching in Canada (at that point most of his > > > > group were TM initiators) but never interfered. > > > > > > > > Bottom line, Robin was an anomaly, not an example of > > > > the "lesser and possibly harmful crap" Maharishi wanted > > > > to "protect" TMers from. > > > > > > > I disagree. I was around exactly when Robin was in full cry > > > and while I never went to hear him (and would not have bothered > > > to being at the time a fairly loyal Tm teacher) I heard from > > > others I trusted how odd the whole thing was. Whatever we have > > > heard that MMY supposedly told Bevan, there is more to the > > > story. > > > > Well, when you find out what more there was, do let us > > know. I'm just telling you what Peter said here that > > Bevan told him, and Peter is pretty reliable. Perhaps you > > can straighten it out with him. > > > > And as I mentioned, there's also the fact that while > > Maharishi kept tabs on Robin and his group of TM > > initiators in Canada, Maharishi never interfered, so it > > appears Maharishi didn't think any "protection" was > > required. > > The fact that MMY did not interfere says nothing about whether he felt > Robin's followers needed "protecting." > > > > > It was not benign from what I heard from friends at that very > > > time. People OTP or even somewhat devoted to MMY did NOT go > > > and see or follow Robin. (Whether it is good to be OTP is a > > > whole other discussion). Robin and his group were not > > > considered at all to be devoted to MMY. > > > > That may be, but those doing the considering were simply > > uninformed (or misinformed) on that point. Even after > > Maharishi had to disown Robin in the court case Bevan > > instigated, and Robin and his group had to leave town, > > Robin remained loyal to Maharishi for at least a couple > > of years (not sure of the exact time frame). > > > > What's so ironic about your stance is that Robin came > > to MIU with the *very same beef* you and others have with > > its unreasonable rigidity and blacklisting and > > gatekeeping. He felt MIU was stifling and even distorting > > Maharishi's teaching. There's a case to be made that > > Robin was way ahead of the game, having recognized > > earlier than most others that MIU was shooting itself in > > the foot. > > > > (In fact, one might even make a case that Maharishi > > thought the powers-that-be at MIU needed to be shaken up > > and that Robin was just the person to do it--which could > > be why Maharishi told Bevan to leave Robin alone.) > > > > There are several pieces in the Files section that confirm > > what Robin had in mind. Here's a quote from one of them, > > the text of an ad Robin placed in the Fairfield Ledger > > (it's in the Miscellaneous Writings folder): > > > > "...For the sake of the immaculate wisdom that does flow from the > > transcendent, and from the heart of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, we challenge > > faculty members at MIU to a public debate on the following topic: 'Be it > > resolved that Maharishi International University has begun to define the > > Science of Creative Intelligence--and to live out the Science of Creative > > Intelligence--in a form which violates the sacred springs of meaning and > > feeling of Western civilization, and which furthermore threatens to bring > > about the eventual demise of the Science of Creative Intelligence.'" > > > > *Of course* the Big Deals at MIU would have done their best > > to spread the word that Robin was anathema. *Of course* > > they would have pronounced it OTP for TMers to go hear what > > he had to say. *Of course* they would have portrayed him as > > a threat to the purity of the teaching. > > > > And you believed them--without ever doing any investigating > > on your own. > > It was not at all, for me and most people I knew, a question of investigating > if Robin was accurate. It was a sense of staying away from someone who > seemed unbalanced and maybe even grandiose. Robin may have had some valid > points, but it was enmeshed in a bunch of other hooha. > > Judy, at that time every single teacher of TM was totally clear on the fact > that MMY did not want his teachers to follow anyone else, or to even go and > hear them talk. This was a given. Furthermore, MMY never came out and told > people that Robin was his successor or that he had some special knowledge to > convey or that he was enlightened. It was not officially pronounced by the > TMO. Most people chose therefore to ignore Robin and to consider him very > OTP at best, if not unstable.There might have been a bit of confusion around > Robin's status in the beginning, but the TMO did not give their blessing to > Robin. > > > > In reality, Robin was a threat *to them*--to their fiefdom, > > to their authority. > > > > > In the end, it turned out that Robin's group was pretty > > > dysfunctional, at least in how they related to him. > > > > Yes, in the end, no question about that. Robin went off > > the rails in the final year or so of his group's existence. > > Maybe Ann could say more about this. But that was well > > after Robin's stint at MIU. > > > > > So, I stand by my opinion, that Robin's group was a good > > > example of something other than TM that was not a healthy > > > experience, at least for most people. People have a right > > > to choose to be involved in anything, but let's not sugar > > > coat that particular example. > > > > I'm not "sugar coating" it, I'm saying Robin and his group > > were an anomaly that simply doesn't fit neatly into your > > classification of reasons why Maharishi "forbid looking > > elsewhere." Robin wasn't "elsewhere" in that sense; to the > > contrary. He was "out there," definitely, but he was devoted > > heart and soul to Maharishi and his teaching. > > At that time, given how the TMO and teachers functioned, a true devotee of > MMY and one who was in a balance state would not behave as Robin did - and > that is exactly what warned most people off of him. A true TM teacher > devotee would have broken off and given his own version of the TMO teachings > and SCI Only with MMY"s very clear and overt blessing. No one ever saw that > happen. > Did Robin have some decent ideas? Perhaps. And people were intrigued that > he claimed to have become enlightened and could help others. But I think > MMY"s warnings about other groups and saints definitely included someone like > Robin. He was unusual but he was another example of one of the types of > things that can go wrong (most likely thru no fault of his own if he was > unstable at that time) in the enlightenment game. > > There are others who struck out on their own from MMY - Deepak, and Sri > Sri.MMY did not want people to follow them, either. >
