--- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > He now thinks enlightenment generally is a sort of > > > > > > > cosmic trick furthered by intelligences that do not > > > > > > > have the best interests of human beings at heart. > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words he's raving mad. > > > > > > > > > > As much as I appreciated the fellows sensitivity, graciousness > > > > > and ability to write poetically something obviously went very > > > > > wrong. To me it seemed he was trying to force Maharishi into > > > > > acknowledge his enlightenment, which I personally don't think > > > > > was a very wise thing to do. > > > > > > > > That's exactly what he did, but it was back in *1983*, and > > > > he realizes now it wasn't a very wise thing to do. On the > > > > other hand, at the time he had reason to believe that > > > > Maharishi supported him totallly, and he was flabbergasted > > > > and distressed by Maharishi's response to his demand that > > > > Maharishi certify his enlightenment, which was recorded and > > > > played in court when MIU sued him. Again, he's described > > > > all this in his posts. > > > > > > > > > Someone here, Dr.D ?, suggested he should have waited for > > > > > awhile, stopped and see how things develop, which would have > > > > > been a wise thing to do. Instead he rushed away proclaiming > > > > > all kinds of stuff to people hungry for someone to talk to. > > > > > > > > That's yet another absurd characterization. He didn't "rush > > > > away." He stayed for the rest of the course he was on and > > > > then went home. There was no way he could keep it a secret > > > > that he had become enlightened; Maharishi had asked him to > > > > talk about it to the course participants, and of course the > > > > word got around. > > > > > > There you have it. The "word got around" because they > > > couldn't keep their big mouths shut. I feel sorry for > > > Maharishi having to deal with all these nitwits, these > > > hard knots of ignorance, including myself :-) > > > > Seems to me he coulda told Robin and the rest of the CPs > > to keep their big mouths shut if he wanted to keep it > > quiet. > > > > > What an impossible task he took upon himself, still he > > > managed to pull it through with the support of the Masters > > > of the Holy Tradition. > > > > > > This quote is from 1983, after the events you are referring > > > to. > > > > Which quote? Your Maharishi quote below? > > > > > But somehow I doubt these course participant nor Robin > > > would be able to grasp it's significance. I also had to > > > learn this lesson the hard way: > > > > > > "Matters of Divine significance have to be kept private, in > > > order to fructify" - Maharishi (from notes) > > > > Hard to tell which "matters" he was referring to without > > any context. It doesn't appear that he could have been > > referring to Robin, since he never told Robin to keep it > > private. > > > > Unless he said this after the MIU mess, having realized > > it was a *mistake* not to have told Robin to keep it > > private, and to have had him describe his experience of > > Unity to the course participants. > > > > If that was the case, why didn't the Masters of the Holy > > Tradition give him that guidance when he needed it? Why > > didn't he give *Robin* that guidance when he needed it? > > > > I think you may have put yourself into a box you can't > > get out of, Nabby. > > Oh'yes, and it's quite cosy in here too :-) > > Robin was one of thousands of CP's at the time, he wasn't > as important to Maharishi as you seem to think.
I don't think you're in a position to know that, actually. Seems to me that if Robin had in fact achieved Unity consciousness, he would have been a *very* big deal to Maharishi, exactly because he was the only one of those thousands of CPs who had "made it," ostensibly proving that TM was what Maharishi said it was. After Robin had gone home, Maharishi kept very close tabs on him, even sending aides to Vancouver to check out what he was doing. Robin never heard a discouraging word from him. Maharishi never gave Robin any reason to believe Maharishi didn't endorse his enlightenment, or what he was doing with it, not until the court case in 1983, which put Maharishi between a rock and a hard place. Had Maharishi agreed that Robin was in Unity at that point, the complications would have been enormous. > Why should the quote have anything to do with Robin ? Why indeed? > He said it many many times, before and after 1983, but if > you think he didn't have anything better to do than to > repeat himself to every course every time you are mistaken. > It's one of those things one should be alert to, if you > were not, well then you simply wasn't alert or didn't pay > attention, or worse; didn't want to pay attention because > it suited your ego better to blabla about "divine matters" > to make you feel important. If Robin's Unity consciousness was one of those "divine matters," why did Maharishi have him tell the CPs all about it? Why didn't Maharishi tell him he shouldn't be teaching on the basis of being enlightened when Robin got home? Robin would have done whatever Maharishi told him to do. He was totally sold out to Maharishi as his master. > Regarding why the Holy Tradition didn't instruct Robin what > to do; I asked why the Holy Tradition didn't instruct *Maharishi* what to do. That was in reference to your claim: "What an impossible task he took upon himself, still he managed to pull it through with the support of the Masters of the Holy Tradition." > why don't you innoscently ask Them yourself ? Or ask > Maharishi, he is available too. Cop-out city, Nabby. They aren't available to me. You ask them and let us know what they say, OK? I'll be most interested in how they resolve the contradiction you've set up.
