"According to the passage in Jay Latham's book quoted on FFL some
years back (which is self-reported by Latham just as Robin self
reports his experiences), Latham told Maharishi on a course
thatthe whole thing of TC, CC, GC, and UC was a lie, and
Maharishi seemed to agree with him on those points, saying that
BC, Brahman Consciousness, was the only reality, and that its
dawning, in what he reports as Maharishi's words 'knocks you flat
on your back' and that it takes some time to begin to function in
BC."
Well said. It seems obvious that UC cannot be a full state of
enlightenment, although it is seen as the pinnacle of the seven
states, because we still identify with a self. UC is everything,
*in terms of the self*. There is still false ownership going on -
very subtle, but it creates a boundary between whoever we sense
ourselves to be, in UC, and what simply is.
Latham is reporting an accurate experience, that BC is not really
an SOC, like any of the others are, but more a deeply intuitive
knowing, incorporating all permutations of the identified seven
states.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <anartaxius@...>
<mailto:anartaxius@...> wrote :
According to the passage in Jay Latham's book quoted on FFL some
years back (which is self-reported by Latham just as Robin self
reports his experiences), Latham told Maharishi on a course that
the whole thing of TC, CC, GC, and UC was a lie, and Maharishi
seemed to agree with him on those points, saying that BC, Brahman
Consciousness, was the only reality, and that its dawning, in
what he reports as Maharishi's words 'knocks you flat on your
back' and that it takes some time to begin to function in BC. I
am not always sure Maharishi is entirely consistent in describing
these end states of enlightenment because it is not really
possible to do this. For example on one tape I heard years ago,
he talked of the absolute in unity being on the level of
knowledge (rather than experience like a state). That is you
don't feel, it, see it, etc., but somehow you know it is there.
Because experience is always changing, does it even make sense
that enlightenment is a state of experience? It always seems
implied in the movement that enlightenment is some kind of
continuous state of experience. On the other hand, if
enlightenment is a particular kind of knowledge you have about
experience, enlightenment does not have to be some kind of
continuous experience, is rather a perspective one has about all
kinds of experiences. In relation to what Latham reported, BC
would not be an experience, the transition to BC would be an
experience in which the perspective one has about experience
'permanently' shifts, that is, how the mind interprets experience
in general, not what the experience is. So before this shift, you
interpret experience in certain ways, and after the shift, 'you'
interpret experience a different way, but the experiences are
basically the same, nothing is changed otherwise. This is the
seeing the rope as a snake and then seeing the rope as a rope
kind of thing. It is on the level of knowledge about the
experience. Until this, all this talk about states of
consciousness is basically a scheme that presents enlightenment
in terms of samsara, but these states are basically a description
based in illusion or delusion, TC, CC, GC, UC are all just seeing
a snake when only a rope is there; these states are a lie, and
enlightenment is an all together different animal.
We have Robin, who said everything was just as Maharishi said,
and Latham, who said that all those states were basically untrue
as far as enlightenment was concerned, Maharishi agreeing.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <authfriend@...>
<mailto:authfriend@...> wrote :
P.S.: According to Robin, his experience was not that he "fell
out of Unity," but rather that he deliberately pulled himself out
of it and back to waking state during the 25 years /after/ he
realized things had gone badly wrong. He never said anything
about the Unity experience having gone away until he decided it
was responsible for what had happened and set out to rid himself
of it (a long, exceedingly torturous process, according to him).
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <authfriend@...>
<mailto:authfriend@...> wrote :
No, we can't be sure of that. Robin was something of a special
case in many respects. Again, we simply aren't in a position to
say what was going on with him.
And as I just told you--and you have convenienly ignored--he
never used the term "fully enlightened" to describe his state in
his FFL posts, nor did he attribute it to Maharishi.
Finally, there's no evidence that he stopped meditating until
after things had fallen apart and he realized something was badly
wrong. I told you that too, and you've ignored it as well. There
doesn't seem to have been a "CC" stage for him in any case--his
experience at Arosa was that of the sudden dawning of Unity
consciousness (as described by Maharishi) without going through
the intermediate stages.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>, <LEnglish5@...>
<mailto:LEnglish5@...> wrote :
Gee, if he's not enlightened now, then we can be sure he wasn't
"fully enlightened" back then, either, eh?
And as I said, Maharishi asking him to describe his legitimate
Unity experiences says nothing about whether Robin would CONTINUE
to have Unity experiences tomorrow or whatever.
Maharishi made it explicit over and over again that meditation
was vital during the awakening of CC, and by extension, as long
as there was growth to be had along the CC axis, that meditation
would always be useful or even necessary for further growth along
that axis.
And my impression of Robin is that he always had a bit of waking
state ego that was constantly trying to get approval from
Maharishi. Of course, the same could be said of Maharishi and
Gurudev.
L
