--- In [email protected], "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > Hey, back to square one for me. This is as Clintonesque as > it gets.
Oh, I think it could get more Clintonesque, actually. It's certainly along the same general lines, as I've said from the start. But the situation and motivation, of course, are very different. I'm afraid you'll have to read the letter, or at least to have read my posts in this discussion, for this to be clear, so you may just have to stay at square one and be none the wiser. > "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 > > >
