--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote:
> > Quite obviously Robin had exhausted Maharishis patience. > > Clearly Maharishi gave Robin a chance, trying to let him > > work out his possible enlightenment. Obviously Robin > > misused that trust by his behavior. > > I have no problem with this notion. However, Maharishi > could have easily kept Robin from going overboard by > cautioning him at any point between 1976 and 1982 that > he was getting out of line, and Robin would have obeyed. This is always easy to say in retrospect. I can't give you a clear answer for this either - but I suspect that it is typically Indian. I have seen this in the movement, and I have seen this elsewhere - this sort of non-interference, almost negligence, also the tendency to postpone a hard decision. It may have to do, with a typical Indian inability to be direct and say NO in a clear way. It then leads to a situation, where things cannot be postponed anymore, and have to be stopped the hard way. All the while, he was avoiding to do this. > But instead he waited until Robin had gotten himself into > a big mess, based on his reasonable expectation of > Maharishi's full support because Maharishi *hadn't* told > him to cool it, and then came down on him like a ton of > bricks. That expectation wasn't so reasonable at all. It was based on his internal delusions, and also some sort of self-aggrandizement - the belief only he knew what Maharishi really thought, but folks just wasn't ready yet for it, but he was here to prepare and all the rest of this BS. <snip> > > So why do you speak of Maharishis propensity to betray, and > > not of Robins propensity to betray others, based for example > > on what you could read in the CULT? What makes you give Robin > > so much more credibility than Maharishi? > > For one thing, I've become acquainted with Robin through > FFL, so I'm pretty darn sure he's trustworthy--*now*, at > any rate. I can't speak to how he behaved during his cult > leader days, but given how severely he's denounced his own > behavior back then, I can't help but think he has to have > a great deal of personal integrity, not to mention courage. > Nobody here--including in that book--has criticized him as > harshly as he has criticized himself. So why do you blame me? No, honestly, we surely have different takes on his trustworthiness. He just WAS very manipulative, many here have felt the same. I attribute this to your lack of experience with charismatic leaders, that you fell for it. He did manipulate you quite well I think. But also, I believe he was successful, because he believed in his own tschick. Would Maharishi have been on board here, he might have convinced you as well! So you trust him more than Maharishi. Good to know. > Did Maharishi ever criticize his own behavior, privately > or publicly? Not that I've ever heard. Publicly not, but privately? I'm almost sure he did. But then Maharishi didn't de-enlighten himself, so that he had to renounce everything that he had said before. I must say that I found many of Robin's renouncements of his enlightenment half-hearted. IMO he didn't go all the way. He knew all about enlightenment, and could diagnose anybody about it, and he also know this attentional 'extra' about this all being rubbish and a delusion created by Vedic gods, who were somehow on the wrong site. Now were did this leave you, were did he leave his audience with this? You were always on the wrong side. You were enlightened, well he's gone beyond and tells you it's all an illusion. You weren't enlightened? You havened even reached the basis from where he started. That's why he had to renounce ordinary Catholicism.
