Those claiming "enlightenment" should be able to offer comparative proof based upon something other than their own subjectivity or "my guru/former guru sez".
However, not only Robin but you also seem willfully uninformed about the subject as described by the texts of traditional advaita. Thus you ask - What good would it (have done/now do) to examine his experiences in light of other descriptions. "Other descriptions" are incidental since they are experiential and can not possibly self-certify knowledge. He might have compared his actual situation with knowledge in Vedanta and realized that no process of experience could ever be liberation nor could it ever give liberation or some so-called "enlightenment". Were he was not indulging in self-delusion, he might have tried to find out more. Then again he was not taught more - nor apparently was he interested in learning more. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" emptybill@ wrote: > > > > Yep, went back and read posts 312097 and 299555. > > > > I pointed out to the "Muni of Monte Cassino" (a number of times) > > that none of the descriptions of his purported "Unity Consciousness" > > conform to Shankara's explanations - whether in the BrahmaSutraBhasya, > > UpanishadBhasya or BhagavadGitaBhasya. > > > > Such "grand enlightenment" appears to have been Robin's own > > neo-Advaitic epiphanies later aggrandized and grafted upon Maharishi's > > explanations. > > Nuh-uh. Maharishi's teaching was where he first encountered > explanations of enlightenment. > > > Maharishi's descriptions themselves are a form of > > neo-yogic advaita and Robin was unwilling to tacitly match his own > > purported "enlightenment" with the explanations of traditional > > advaita. > > Right. He was a disciple of Maharishi. > > > He wouldn't even continue a conversation bringing it up for > > consideration. > > > > This unwillingness was, for me, a clue to Robin's delusive > > self-absorption . > > Actually it was completely irrelevant. Think about it for > a minute. What good would it have done him at this point to > consider matching his experience with that of other > descriptions? What good would it have done him back then, > for that matter? > > You've really never made any sense on this topic, empty. >
