Hey, back to square one for me. This is as Clintonesque as it gets. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"
I think that is a perfect comparison. Acquit him if you don't believe oral sex is "sexual relations", and convict him if you think it is. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" wrote: > > This is long but pretty interesting, especially as it > describes Robin's experience with his community of > followers in the earlier days of his group, before he > started giving public seminars. > > I'm reposting it for anyone who is curious as to > whether either Barry or I have misrepresented it as > we have been discussing it in the thread just past. > > > > > Dear Barry Wright, > > It is true that before I ever gave an official seminar I did, in fact, apply in > a more Western sense, the Zen Roshi method of shocking someonethat is, I did on > occasion, strike someone physically. Vaj said there was a video of my acting in > this way. I know that no such tape exists. And if it did (as Vaj claims) it > would be a simple matter of contradicting my avowal here. You will naturally > ask: But Robin, by denying that you did in fact strike someone during a seminar, > you are in effect implyingsurely you know thisthat you *never* struck anyone. > This was your intent, right, Robin? > > It was not, Barry. For me to have on the one hand denied this accusation knowing > it was falseif it had been true, Vaj would be able to convince me very easily > of thisand yet, then and there, admitted that I did engage in this practise, or > rather *had* engaged in this practise, would mean disclosing something about me > which would tend to be interpreted in an entire vacuum of understanding of just > what the context of this metaphysical theatre was. I chose, since you are so > hostile and prejudiced, to withhold admitting that in fact I had struck > peopleon rare occasionsinside the other, more intimate and personal context of > what chronologically preceded the formal seminars. When almost all the persons > who were convinced of my enlightenment lived in the same residence. By itself, > separated from the spiritual context within which it is practised, the Zen > Roshi's blow would seem primitive and brutal and outrageous. But we must assume > even Leonard Cohen accepted that this was part of the spiritual methodology to > which he was subjugating himself in having determined he had a real Teacher. Now > what I did resembled not at all what is the classic Zen Flesh Zen Bones move. > See if you can stay with me while I try to explain the context within which this > act did in fact occur. Inside a seminar setting, however, it was never necessary > or appropriate. At least this is my sincere and I believe truthful recollection. > > Now my purported enlightenment, as I came to understand it, Barry, came about > through not just my own efforts, and my devotion to the Master (Maharishi Mahesh > Yogi); it was effected by the Vedic gods, these impulses of Creative > Intelligence, the devas. This was shown to me in the form of a revelation once I > realized that my enlightenment could not be compatible with the description of > the universe and the human soul as taught to me by Thomas Aquinas and my > learning of the Catholic catechism. It was not that Catholicism forced this > revelation upon me; it was more the tremendous shock of having the whole context > I had created [or had been created *through* me] since I returned from > Switzerland come apart, and eventually disintegrate. Once I realized that > certain invisible beings had had a hand in my ultimate liberation I immediately > realized that these very beings were not beneficent, were not interested in my > happiness. *They had deceived me*. > > From that point on, early in 1987, I became determined to vanquish my > enlightenment, to destroy the biochemical and intellectual basis of my Unity > Consciousness. I knew that if my enlightenment was an hallucination, however > real it was experientially, that my actions flowing from this assumed state of > consciousness, were also flawed, defective, and problematic. And this included > that infrequent instance where I would, seemingly under supernatural inspiration > and authority, strike someone. Why strike someone, Robin? Well, here we get to > the crux of the matter, Barry. > > These same celestial beings who created my enlightenment, and then pretty much > inspired the context out of which I then actedthey evidently knew both the > inherent and unrecognized weaknesses of each individual, as well as what the > Western Tradition represented in terms of individuation of one's experience > through a true existential willingness to allow life to 'make' one's > soul:Also*this is the key point, Barry*these same celestial beings made me > see each human being as existing inside a context where actual fallen angels > warred with the good forces in the universe to take away a human being's > innocence, determined as they were to make an individual a tool of their > purposes by subtly inducing that person to compensate for some weakness or > distortion inside of them *through behaving in a particular mode*.The mode so > chosen was the creation of the fallen angel. Each person's mode was unique. > 'Mode' here representing the inauthentic presentation of themselves. > > The specific pattern of an individual's mode, then, revealed the influence of > these fallen angels (or rather, one specific and unique fallen angel) upon this > person, and it was my evident destiny to interrupt, to challenge, to confront > the fallen angels as they battled with me, and the person's soul for domination > over that person. > > You understand, then, Barry, that the beings who had created my enlightenment > made me actually apprehend each human being who I encountered as being subject > to this fearsome temptation and tyranny. And those who had not passed through > the seminar, or pre-seminar experience, were dupes of this hegemonic power of > these fallen angels. Now, as it happens, almost every person I knew was a victim > to some extent of unwittingly identifying with these fallen angels, falsely > assuming that what the fallen angel insinuated who they were, and how they had > to act, was actually originating in the substance and integrity of their own > individuality. The person, then, never suspected there was a preternatural > conspiracy going on which was the attempt to force a person to falsify > themselves (and each person came to sense this dissimulation deep from within > themselves) such as to cover up and conceal their weakness, their ultimate flaw. > To transcend one's compensatory mode became the desideratum. > > A seminar and before that the pre-seminar reality, was the process precipitated > inside the context of reading off reality such as to create the actual > metaphysical context within which *all that I have described here became a > physical perception for everyone present*. This meant that the context was not > actually under my control at all. It was a contextI suppose like TM is subject > to the mantras (or what Maharishi refers to earlier in his history as the Vedic > gods)that imposed itself on all of us. Even myself. What unfolded in front of > our eyes was the actual opening up of creationseeminglyand what I was doing > was merely a systematic, mechanical, and objective process whereby the truth of > what was actually the casewith each individual soul intrinsically subject to > this explorationbecoming intricately and physically revealed before everyone. > There were no individual differences in what we all experienced. It was as clear > and unmistakable as a change in perception effected by hallucinogens, only in > this case, what happened to everyone's consciousness in that room was virtually > identical. Everyone experienced the same thing. Everyone saw, understood, > recognized what I was doing in confronting someone. It all occurred very > naturally as it were, very intelligibly, with ultra metaphysical clarity, and > the process obeyed laws of its own. Far more compelling than even the laws which > would have protected or sustained someone in that state which would presumably > not be susceptible to this kind of context. > > We simply broke open the reality which was there. Once we did, reality took over > and conducted the course of the drama through my enlightened state of > consciousness, and presumed consummated individuation. (As it would turn out, > there was more wrong with me than anyone who "came to the microphone". But no > one got to see this. But I did, during this 25 year ordeal of de-enlightening > myself.) > > Now under the irresistible and inexorable inspiration of this processconducted > by powers beyond myself, but enabled to articulate themselves through this > orchestration of reality through my Unity Consciousnessthe actual fallen being > which had control over a given personobstructing, inhibiting, interfering with > the ability of that person to truly individuate themselves within the > authenticity of who they actually wereindependent of this fallen angelwould > make its presence known, even coming right out and making itself visible in the > face of the person. > > This produced what became the classic state of "having gone cosmic". And a > person in this state was 'seen' unavoidably, choicelessly, in terms of their > unique problem in standing up to the power and influence of the fallen angel > which was attempting to keep them from becoming 'innocent', becoming the person > they actually were destined to be. Separated from that fallen angel. > > If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of > themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact > defending or upholding the integrity of themelves in resisting the beneficent > and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or > unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that > person out of such an identification. And this took the form sometimes of > striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were struck. I hardly think it was > more than this. And this was not something that happened on a regular basis. It > was in extremis. But we shall see if this testimony is contradicted by someone > who was there. > > This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was an > inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me in order to facilitate > the process whereby a person could experience liberationeven momentarilyfrom > their trance caused by their being identified with the particular fallen angel > which had been chosen somehow to present this formidable and ultimate > existential challenge to this person's soul, and their whole sense of who they > really were. > > Now I have come, in having repudiated and deconstructed my enlightenment, to see > that once I became enlightened on that mountain above Arosa, that my perception > had been played such that I could only apprehend each human being in terms of > this cosmic battle between good and evil. Now I am able to see each person > absolutely on their own, without respect to 'the demonic'. And therefore I am > sorry for all that I did which amounted to being determined by this > hallucination. Which especially included on occasion trying to shock the person > out of his or her identification with the fallen angel which was tormenting and > deceiving them, even if they appeared oblivious to this truth. > > Of course, you will realize from this analysis, that whenever this event > happened, no one so much as winced. Not because they were brainwashed, but > rather became everyone present sensed the intelligence and inspiration behind > this act. The act, then, simply occurred with a complex process which made > itself understood as being inevitable and salutary in the extreme. It was > harrowing, it was exhilarating, it was dangerous, it was mysterious, it was > terrifying. But for everyone present it was very very real. And, I have to say > it: right. > > Although of course everyone realizes in retrospect it was wrong. > > When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not > true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what I > was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar > would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. > > It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I knew > was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually the > truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the very > least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never hesitated > for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand deny having > done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did not strike > anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an obligation to > acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare occasionsin a quite > different and more intimate context. > > I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally culpable > in having acted as I have. > > Robin >
