My goodness you've had a busy week, Judy. Time to holster that gun,
dontcha think?  You've gone into overtime shooting down lies and
bloopers, and whoppers, and ooopsies like we haven't seen in a long
time.  I'd say you're 49 for 49 for uncovering Barry's lies, my lies,
Share's lies, Susan's lies, Xeno's lies.  Oh, and some good mind reading
as pertains to the schism book.

I hope Robin appreciates the extra work.

Who's this last bullet gonna be for?

--- In, "authfriend" wrote:
> First and second, more bloopers from our little Stevie.
> Third, Maharishi and Robin.
> 348918
> Ooooopsie, Stevie, I suspect Ann was referring to the
> assertion that you carefully snipped, most likely because
> by the time you wrote this you realized your error.
> --- In, "Ann" awoelflebater@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In, "seventhray27"
> wrote:
> (snip)
> > > glad for the clarification Jim and for letting us know how
> > > "above board" and "honorable" you are for bringing a family
> > > member's suicide into the discussion here.
> >
> > Get the timeline and the events here straight Steve. Go back
> > and have a look. Read what Barry has had to say about Jim and
> > Jim's brother now and many posts ago and then draw some
> > reasonable conclusions. Figure out which bandwagon you want
> > to leap on before you do so.
> DrD did not bring Barry's brother's suicide into the
> discussion here. Barry did (post #348743).
> 348875
> --- In, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@
> >
> > Quite interesting. I know others will say why even bother with
> > something over thirty years old, but some of this (beginning on page
> > 289) directly contradicts many of Robin's avowed claims. Sad really.
> Gee, Stevie, I guess I need to repeat what I told you
> awhile back: It would be in your best interests not
> even to *try* to understand the controversies that go
> on here, let alone comment on them, because you almost
> invariably get them wrong.
> It's partly because you can't be bothered to read the
> posts with attention, but even if you did, I'm very
> dubious you would have anything but confusion to
> contribute.
> > Judy always trots out the article of faith that Maharishi secretly
> > supported Robin. Sort of blows that up, doesn't it?
> Judy has only *speculated* to that effect. See how you
> got that wrong?
> And no, the book chapter doesn't "blow that up" in any
> case. You might want to look up the word "secretly" in
> Mr. Dictionary.
> 348930
> --- In, "sparaig" LEnglish5@ wrote:
> >
> > As understand it, MMY said that Robin Carlson's experiences of
> > Unity (book says "Cosmic Consciousness") were valid and asked
> > him to describe them.
> Actually Robin described his experiences to Maharishi, who
> then said they were valid. And they were most definitely
> both talking about Unity, not just CC.
> > Robin took this as a personal declaration of his own full
> > enlightenment and, like others have done, refused to "go and
> > be viable in society," but instead got full of himself.
> Actually he went and became quite "viable in society," thank
> you very much. When the course he was on was over, he went
> back to Canada to teach and supported himself doing so for
> some years. And until things began to go wrong seven or so
> years later, his students (mostly TM initiators) were
> extremely enthusiastic about what he taught them.
> > MMY not wanting to comment in public on Robin's enlightenment
> > is no more significant than him not wanting to comment on MY
> > enlightenment: it's not his place to micromanage arbitrary
> > people's states of consciousness.
> Well, that's true, at least publicly. He did comment on it
> during the course Robin was on, even asked him to wait for
> a few days to describe it until the video cameras were up
> and running so they could get his comments on tape. (Who
> knows where that tape is now...)
> But the larger point is that Robin never got any signals
> that Maharishi disapproved of what he was doing until his
> campaign at MIU--and Maharishi had been keeping close tabs
> on him after he set up shop in Canada. His whole teaching
> gig was based on the assumption (Robin's and his students')
> that he was in Unity.
> It's mysterious, to say the least, why Maharishi wouldn't
> have sent word that Robin should stop claiming he was in
> Unity if Maharishi didn't think he *was* in Unity,
> especially given that Robin was working with all these TM
> initiators. Why wasn't Maharishi concerned about the
> "purity of the teaching" his own initiators were getting
> if it was coming from someone he thought was deluded or
> lying?
> (Lawson, I can't help myself. How many times have you read
> the name "Carlsen" and yet still keep spelling it "Carlson"?)

Reply via email to