--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > I was commenting on the apparent contradiction of talking about > deciding to embark on a program to undo Unity as: > > > > And besides, as Rory notes and Robin has said here many > > > times, he was not acting based on his own will; that was > > > gone. > > In that context: Whose will was gone and who decided to > unmake his state of Unity?
Lawson, we all know what you were saying. Have you not bothered to read Rory's post responding to your question? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/352856 Obviously only Robin is really in a position to speak to this, and he ain't here. > Afterall, the "no will" card was played in response to my challenge about > testing Unity by learning and practicing the TM-Sidhis, so if Robin was > beyond all this stuff about questioning his own Unity in that respect, > howcome he got to decide to un-Unitize his consciousness? > > L > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Really good questions, Lawson. > > > > That isn't a question. It is Lawson restating, in disbelief, what he finds > > unbelievable, but it's not a question. When stated like this it is a > > statement, an opinion. Lawson doesn't buy it, in other words. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: sparaig <LEnglish5@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 4:27 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Meditators > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > Whose will was gone and who decided to unmake his state of Unity? > > > > > > L > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. The teachers at his local TM center were > > > > understandably eager to learn whatever one of their own who > > > > had "made it" had to say. It was like having access to a > > > > second Maharishi. His experience of Unity consciousness > > > > remained perfectly stable; he had no reason to think he > > > > needed to do anything but continue to act in his > > > > enlightened state. > > > > > > > > And besides, as Rory notes and Robin has said here many > > > > times, he was not acting based on his own will; that was > > > > gone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It had to crash. > > > > > This story could probably be an interesting movie though :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
