---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Judy I'm going by MY OWN sense of what Robin said, and using logic. Thus if he
said that enlightenment per se is a delusion and he was enlightened. Then he is
saying, according to logic, that he was deluded. And I think he went even
further than that, saying he was under the control of outside and malevolent
forces. Given this I think it's inaccurate for anyone to use phrases like
genuine enlightenment and enlightened days with reference to Robin during that
time.
Share, do yourself a favor and don't try using logic. In your case, that is
just asking to get it very, very wrong. And as far as your "sense" that is even
trickier. But one thing for sure, you do have a whopper of a set of blinkers
and are stubborn as hell. You might have made a great racing mule - you got the
personality and the equipment for it.
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:14 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote:
Missed this earlier...
He didn't say his enlightenment was a delusion. He said enlightenment per se,
although very real and genuine, is a delusion. You've been told this now five
or six times between Ann and me, so now when you say it, it's a lie, because
you know otherwise.
You are attacking Robin by lying about what he said. Shame on you. You're as
morally smelly as Stevie.
<< It's true, Judy, my intention is not to analyze what Robin wrote. My
intention is to say that I think your phrases enlightened days and genuine
enlightenment with regards to Robin are inaccurate given that he said his
enlightenment was a delusion. I don't think it is attacking of someone to refer
to what they themselves said. >>
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:35 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote:
Again, Share, your question is incoherent. Robin never said "enlightenment
defined as union with God is wrong," for example. You made that up. I'm telling
you, this whole topic is over your head. Your intention is not to understand
what Robin wrote but rather to find yet another way to beat up on him in his
absence, and I'm just not going to play that mug's game. Do you understand?
<< Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion,
then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union
with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right
or wrong? >>
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote:
We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your
memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with
this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please.
<< Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the
person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that
you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate?
<< What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? >>
He said his experience of union with God was a delusion.
<< Is this where the evil forces come in? >>
I don't know what "come in" means in this context.
<< My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God.
But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on
enlightenment?! >>
Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that
are incoherent.
I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head.
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
wrote:
Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to
do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it
was a delusion.
<< Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there
can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can
be no ontological union between God and human?
Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? >>
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
wrote:
Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that
entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is
strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there
can be no ontological union between human beings and God.
<< Judy, do you think Robin thinks ALL forms of realization, awakening,
enlightenment, etc. in ALL traditions are a delusion? >>
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:28 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
wrote:
Absolutely correct. He was insistent that enlightenment is a real state of
consciousness, and that he was in this state for 10-plus years. What he says he
came to realize is that the state itself is delusional--the experience of being
one with God, the identification with Self rather than self, and so on,
everything Maharishi describes, is a trick, a seduction engineered by dark
forces that do not have the welfare of human beings at heart. It's all very
real--including the special powers, the mastery of nature--but it leads away
from God.
And that, of course, is why he spent 25 years attempting--apparently
successfully--to break the unholy spell and pull himself out of that state back
into ordinary consciousness.
He made these points over and over in his posts. How anyone could read those
posts and come away with the notion that he was saying he was deluded to think
he was enlightened is just beyond me. People understand what they want to
understand, I guess.
Whether one finds Robin's analysis convincing or not, it's what he believed on
the basis of extraordinarily painful experience, and should not be
misrepresented or denigrated.
<< Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think
it's inaccurate to use the phrase "enlightened days."
Here is the important point Share: Robin believes "true enlightenment" to be a
delusion, an illusion. It is not that he is saying he wasn't enlightened in the
sense that MMY or others who understand the kind of enlightenment the East
embraces, it is that that state is a delusional state. Here is the crux: it is
not that he believes himself to have been delusional to think he was
enlightened, he would still maintain that he was enlightened, it is just that
enlightenment is not something he feels is a positive state to be in. >>
On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:04 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote:
Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days
anyway.
<< What's "NPS," and how were you in a position to think Robin had it,
whatever it is?
<< As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had
classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the
time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to
be enlightened or not. >> >>
