[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry I forgot to respond to your question about my background since Robin cult

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
> Dear Barry,
> 
> Didn't mean to ignore your question I just forgot, I am 
> getting cross-eyed looking at this screen with all the 
> intensity of the days action with Robin and everything. 
> I would like to answer your question but feel constrained 
> due to certain eyes waiting to pounce on anything at all 
> which they feel they can use against me.

I understand completely.

> This FFL place can make a person paranoid but unfortunately 
> for good reason. Barry would you like to send me a email 
> offline and then once I have your email I will respond to 
> your question. 

Done.
 
> All the best
> Lord Knows

Best to you, too. Good luck, wherever life takes you...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry thank you for your words of affirmation

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
> Dear Barry,
> 
> I have followed this forum in reference almost exclusively 
> to posts connected to Robin and of course in doing that I 
> have read a fair number of your posts. I knew that you went 
> through a profoundly disillusioning experience with the 
> spiritual teacher Rama, so in that, we share in the 
> Brotherhood of Cult Experience. I know from reading your 
> posts that your initiation into this Brotherhood has given 
> you a very keen eye and ear for manipulation. Thank you for 
> your encouragement and words of affirmation about my posting 
> here. It has been intense but enlightening. The odd thing 
> Barry is we knew each other way back on TTC in Calla Millor 
> Mallorca Spain in 1972, we were in the same hotel. I enjoyed 
> you and your wife' Karen's company. How strange to meet you 
> here again in this circumstance in cyberspace.

Indeed. Ex-wife now for many years, but she's still
alive and well, too, living in the Seattle area.
Remember the dynamite?  :-)

> Once again thank you, you and Vaj have been helpful in your 
> encouragement.

No problemo. I think we understood what you were 
trying to do, in terms of trying to let people 
know that they were dealing with someone who is 
far more manipulative and far less sane than 
they thought he was. 

I've often wondered how Robin feels about the fact
that the person sticking up for his sanity is the
woman who has written over 5,000 posts to Fairfield
Life over the years stalking the primary object of 
*her* obsession, moi. You've really gotta admit that 
she and Robin are a love-match made in Heaven.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Does the means form around sattva? Or......

[Duveyoung]

Or is the "like attracts like" "law" actually the "secret dynamic" in play 
here? -- such that this "TM formula for success" is merely this "like attracts 
like" law in disguise, and it would prevail in every circumstance such that 
criminals banding together in common intent also would gain the support of 
nature due, in direct degree, to how much harmony, faith, love, etc. they 
employ such that they are successful criminals

Case in point:  they say that the Demons were exalted beings with great 
real-world-physics abilities, because they were so disciplined about Vedic law 
and earned their powers by dint of an extraordinary exertion to control the 
mind's content by sheer egoic will.  Ask your local career demon how mentally 
hard it is to be one. Wow, eh? 

So, did Old Man Hesh shuck and jive us about this too?  

It wasn't about our goal or guru being weak.  We failed because we were not as 
together as a community -- not as nice to one another as even the Mormons 
practiced.  

If we had bonded and formed a movement that was as "thick as thieves," how much 
more achievement then, eh? Even fucking Scientology outfucking did us.  Fucking 
Esperanto is still being taught today in thousands of classrooms due to that 
movement.  

I mean FUCK! 

But noo, we didn't have any true mafioso-esque powers to get everyone 
really clear about how much they were NOT going to continue to fuck around with 
life and get to the dirty hard work of reprogramming ape by ape by brain by 
brain.

Instead we got more spiritual carpet beggars flooding into our mix than 
post-bellum Mississippi.  Rapists, frauds, cheats, sickos, nutjobs, 
shit-for-brains-mood-making-bliss-ninnies, suck-ups, bureaucrats, mean-shits, 
chameleons, bullshitters, miscreants, and the CIA.

I mean really.  We all saw this from the get go and just pretended TM was so 
powerful that all these mental cases would be psychoanalytically healed by The 
Absofuckinglute.  

Instead, they inherited the movement and the Old Man sent all the gold to 
Girish.

Fuck. 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Witnessing the Witnessor'...

[sparaig]

Sounds kinda counter to everything I have ever heard MMY say...


L



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert  wrote:
>
> When you can become aware of 'witnessing the witnessor' then you will be 
> opening the door to Brahman Consciousness...
> �
> Herein lies the process of this witnessing expanding to include the whole 
> cosmos...
> �
> Just like we are 'remembering the mantra' in TM...
> And, just like we are 'remembering the flavor(feeling of sutra)Sutra...
> Then, just like this, we are remembering the witnessing value of our 
> awareness...
> �
> Whether we are practicing TM or Sutra Practice or Asana Practice or Pranayama 
> Practice, we can remember to remember the witnessing value of our 
> awareness
> �
> 'What we place our attention on grows',...
> �
> Therefore, as we continue the practice of placing our awareness on the 
> witnessing aspect of our awarness, then the ability to maintain the 
> witnessing aspect begins to take hold and grow in our geneal 
> awarnesswhether we happen to be in deep sleep or dreaming or just waking 
> up, we allow this witnessing value of our awareness to maintain itself 
> fully...
> �
> We just need to 'Remember to remember'/ And because we are familiar with 
> Dyhana Shakti, the inward stroke of meditation, we immediately feel the 
> 'seeing within toward that witnessing aspect of our own awareness...
> �
> This witnessing value, begins to realize in time, that it can 'Return to 
> Itself' over and over again and create from it's own nature of 'Beingness'...
> �
> Our 'Beingness' becomes more lively as we practice maintaining our awareness 
> at the very source of thought within, that which is beyond thought, to the 
> witnessing aspect of our own consciousness...
> �
> Jai Guru Dev
>

[FairfieldLife] 'Witnessing the Witnessor'...

[Robert]

When you can become aware of 'witnessing the witnessor' then you will be 
opening the door to Brahman Consciousness...
 
Herein lies the process of this witnessing expanding to include the whole 
cosmos...
 
Just like we are 'remembering the mantra' in TM...
And, just like we are 'remembering the flavor(feeling of sutra)Sutra...
Then, just like this, we are remembering the witnessing value of our 
awareness...
 
Whether we are practicing TM or Sutra Practice or Asana Practice or Pranayama 
Practice, we can remember to remember the witnessing value of our awareness
 
'What we place our attention on grows',...
 
Therefore, as we continue the practice of placing our awareness on the 
witnessing aspect of our awarness, then the ability to maintain the witnessing 
aspect begins to take hold and grow in our geneal awarnesswhether we happen 
to be in deep sleep or dreaming or just waking up, we allow this witnessing 
value of our awareness to maintain itself fully...
 
We just need to 'Remember to remember'/ And because we are familiar with Dyhana 
Shakti, the inward stroke of meditation, we immediately feel the 'seeing within 
toward that witnessing aspect of our own awareness...
 
This witnessing value, begins to realize in time, that it can 'Return to 
Itself' over and over again and create from it's own nature of 'Beingness'...
 
Our 'Beingness' becomes more lively as we practice maintaining our awareness at 
the very source of thought within, that which is beyond thought, to the 
witnessing aspect of our own consciousness...
 
Jai Guru Dev

[FairfieldLife] Susan you are very perceptive

[lordknows888]

Dear Susan,

I enjoyed your posts that touched on my interactions with Robin. You saw the 
generosity 
that I had towards him. In general your comments showed to me a sensitive and 
understanding heart,  thank you Susan

All the best
Lord Knows 

[FairfieldLife] Barry I forgot to respond to your question about my background since Robin cult

[lordknows888]

Dear Barry,

Didn't mean to ignore your question I just forgot, I am getting cross-eyed 
looking at this screen with all the intensity of the days action with Robin and 
everything. I would like to answer your question 
but feel constrained due to certain eyes waiting to pounce on anything at all 
which they feel they can use against me.This FFL place can make a person 
paranoid but unfortunately for good reason. Barry would you like to send me a 
email offline and then once I have your email I will respond to your question. 

All the best
Lord Knows

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry thank you for your words of affirmation

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
> Dear Barry,
> 
> I   have followed this forum in reference almost exclusively to posts 
> connected to Robin and of course in doing that I have read a fair number of 
> your posts.  I knew that you went through a profoundly disillusioning 
> experience  with the spiritual teacher Rama, so in that, we share in the 
> Brotherhood of Cult  Experience. I know from reading your posts that your 
> initiation into this Brotherhood has given you a very keen eye and ear for 
> manipulation.Thank you for your encouragement and words of affirmation about 
> my posting here. It has been intense but enlightening. The odd thing Barry is 
> we knew each other way back on TTC in Calla Millor Mallorca Spain in 1972, we 
> were in the same hotel. I enjoyed you and your wife' Karen's company. How 
> strange to meet you here again in this circumstance in cyberspace.
> Once again thank you, you and Vaj have been helpful in your encouragement.

Michael, you have not listened to a thing I said in my last post to you. Read 
it again please. It is important. 

I also think you should take a moment and reconsider what is going on here and 
why you are posting at the moment. Does it have anything to do with why you 
started (was it just yesterday or the day before?) or have you been carried off 
onto some unprofitable tangent? Just stop for long enough to regroup. See if 
you have achieved anything positive, or are likely to, going along in this 
vein. There is a lot of energy here on this forum that is not healthy and can 
sweep one up into reaction, cruelty, falseness. Please be careful and make sure 
you want to say what you are saying and doing what you want to be doing. Just 
reference off the best part of who you have seen yourself to be, at the truest, 
most loving pinnacles in your life.

You are thanking the wrong people in this post. You don't see it now, and maybe 
in some perverse way something good will come of that, but for now you are 
moving down the wrong road. I have much more to tell you. You will be amazed.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Lord Knows,
> > > > 
> > > > First, congratulations on seeing through Robin's blatantly
> > > > obvious attempt to lure you into another of his "confrontations,"
> > > > a tarbaby that once you interacted with it he would make nigh
> > > > unto difficult to escape from. As you so accurately described 
> > > > w.r.t. his interactions with Curtis, that is exactly what he 
> > > > was trying to do, and you wisely didn't fall for it.
> > > 
> > > Hilarious. Good grief, Barry, do you think nobody sees
> > > through this absurd characterization? Do you think anybody
> > > else here believes Robin should have remained silent in
> > > the face of Lord Knows's vicious post?
> > > 
> > > It was cowardly in the extreme for Lord Knows to make
> > > such accusations in public and then refuse to engage
> > > with Robin, not to mention grossly disingenuous to
> > > defend this refusal as if it were some kind of virtue.
> > > 
> > > But you, Barry, have been guilty of exactly the same
> > > cowardice for years, so I suppose it's understandable
> > > that you would approve of it in somebody else--at least
> > > if their accusations are directed at a person you don't
> > > like.
> > > 
> > > Note the disingenuity in the rest of this post. Barry
> > > professes to want to know what Lord Knows has been doing,
> > > but in fact what he wants to do--and does at considerable
> > > length--is to tout what *he* has been doing as a way of
> > > portraying himself as having superior spiritual insight.
> > > As well, of course, as taking the time to dump on his
> > > critics and Robin's fans here.
> > 
> > Interesting how people interpret the same words differently.
> > I took Barry to be very sincere. I think his interest in Lord
> > Knows and his experiences are very genuine.  I wonder, Judy,
> > if you could read this particular post of Barry's without all
> > the emotional baggage of years of unpleasant interactions
> > with Barry, if you might have a different take on it.
> 
> With regard to the first part of his post, if I had been
> participating here and knew who Robin was, and if I had
> watched the confrontation between Robin and Lord Knows,
> I most certainly would have the same take on Barry's
> twisted interpretation of what was going on even if I
> were seeing a post of Barry's for the very first time.
> 
> Or to look at it another way, if I had been reading Barry's
> posts for as long as I have, even if he had never written
> to me or about me, I would find him to be the same
> viciously sadistic, dishonest, inauthentic, willfully
> obnoxious, vengeful, envious, shallow person.
> 
> It's not the interactions (Barry has been denying that he
> interacts with me for years, as absurd as that claim is),
> it's the kind of person Barry is generally that has
> generated my opinion of him.
> 
> With regard to the second part of his post, if I read
> anybody's post that professed to be "wondering a little"
> about a person and then spent the next six or so paragraphs
> extolling his own great spiritual insight, interspersed
> with insults to people he doesn't like, and only got to
> the actual *question* toward the very end, followed by
> more insults and a lecture on how one *should* deal with
> one's experiences, I would be highly dubious that the
> writer was all that interested in what the person he
> was addressing had to say.
> 
> Given my long experience with Barry's intense focus on
> himself and his very consistent lack of sincerity, it's
> really a slam-dunk to see why he wrote the post.
> 
> In any case, Susan, I've never been greatly impressed
> with your perceptions of the individuals on this forum.

Yes, we tend to gravitate to different people here. And to read the same words 
with very different impressions of them. I am often puzzled by your 
perceptions, too - really astounded, actually.


> So I'm not surprised we have different takes on Barry.

We do, but in this case I was not talking about Barry.  I was talking about 
this particular post.   My point was to read it innocently, without the 
baggage.  You responded above that you think that even if you could do this, 
you would still find it a "twisted interpretation."   We approach it 
differently, that is for sure. 


> 
> 
> > > > Now, if the people whose lives revolve around confrontation
> > > > and argumentation will allow it, I'd like to try to shift the
> > > > tone and the content of interaction with you somewhat. I was
> > > > taken with both the clarity and the compassion of your first
> > > > post and its followups, and find myself wondering a little
> > > > about you and what you've been doing in the Time Since Robin.
> > > > 
> > > > I will *completely* understand if you d

[FairfieldLife] Barry thank you for your words of affirmation

[lordknows888]

Dear Barry,

I   have followed this forum in reference almost exclusively to posts connected 
to Robin and of course in doing that I have read a fair number of your posts.  
I knew that you went through a profoundly disillusioning experience  with the 
spiritual teacher Rama, so in that, we share in the Brotherhood of Cult  
Experience. I know from reading your posts that your initiation into this 
Brotherhood has given you a very keen eye and ear for manipulation.Thank you 
for your encouragement and words of affirmation about my posting here. It has 
been intense but enlightening. The odd thing Barry is we knew each other way 
back on TTC in Calla Millor Mallorca Spain in 1972, we were in the same hotel. 
I enjoyed you and your wife' Karen's company. How strange to meet you here 
again in this circumstance in cyberspace.
Once again thank you, you and Vaj have been helpful in your encouragement.

Re: [FairfieldLife] My apologies Share you are right

[Share Long]

Hi Lord Knows,

Apology accepted and thank you for that.  Actually it was not that part which 
concerned me.  It was your omitting everything else that I had said and which 
more than balanced the idea of having no regrets.  I mentioned making amends 
for example.  I concluded that this is a learning place and that leaders are 
also learning.  I concluded that we therefore best not expect them to be 
perfect.

I'm guessing that you were very triggered by that one sentence of mine.  I 
totally understand as this happens to me too.  Sigh, and the learning simply 
continues.

I do believe that Robin, like all of us, is a mix of positive and negative.  I 
won't speak to what happened so long ago.  But I will encourage you to deal as 
authentically and lovingly and wisely as possible with what is happening now.  
With yourself as you are now.  With Robin as he is now.  Without exposing 
yourself to unnecessary pain.  It's another path to having no regrets (-:   

What I wish for you and me and Robin and everyone is healing that happens 
comfortable and quickly and completely.  
Share

PS  I've been on FFL for less than 3 months.  It has been an amazing catalyst 
for growth.  Sometimes not so comfy.  And there's the blasted posting limit, my 
personal bugaboo.




 From: lordknows888 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 4:38 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] My apologies Share you are right
 

  
Dear Share,

In my mind when i wrote the phrase "Share innocently expressed"  the key word 
was in my mind " innocently" and I thought it would convey all that I intended 
it to mean.I know it wasn't the real import of what you were saying it was 
about how Robin let it pass without comment and more importantly his statement 
to begin with that the people with him gained from the experience. You are 
quite right you did provide more context to your statement which lifted it 
into a deeper fuller context. I should have taken more care and time to do 
justice to the fuller context you developed. I was rushing and should have 
taken more care. My apologies. 


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Lord Knows,
> > > 
> > > First, congratulations on seeing through Robin's blatantly
> > > obvious attempt to lure you into another of his "confrontations,"
> > > a tarbaby that once you interacted with it he would make nigh
> > > unto difficult to escape from. As you so accurately described 
> > > w.r.t. his interactions with Curtis, that is exactly what he 
> > > was trying to do, and you wisely didn't fall for it.
> > 
> > Hilarious. Good grief, Barry, do you think nobody sees
> > through this absurd characterization? Do you think anybody
> > else here believes Robin should have remained silent in
> > the face of Lord Knows's vicious post?
> > 
> > It was cowardly in the extreme for Lord Knows to make
> > such accusations in public and then refuse to engage
> > with Robin, not to mention grossly disingenuous to
> > defend this refusal as if it were some kind of virtue.
> > 
> > But you, Barry, have been guilty of exactly the same
> > cowardice for years, so I suppose it's understandable
> > that you would approve of it in somebody else--at least
> > if their accusations are directed at a person you don't
> > like.
> > 
> > Note the disingenuity in the rest of this post. Barry
> > professes to want to know what Lord Knows has been doing,
> > but in fact what he wants to do--and does at considerable
> > length--is to tout what *he* has been doing as a way of
> > portraying himself as having superior spiritual insight.
> > As well, of course, as taking the time to dump on his
> > critics and Robin's fans here.
> 
> Interesting how people interpret the same words differently.
> I took Barry to be very sincere. I think his interest in Lord
> Knows and his experiences are very genuine.  I wonder, Judy,
> if you could read this particular post of Barry's without all
> the emotional baggage of years of unpleasant interactions
> with Barry, if you might have a different take on it.

With regard to the first part of his post, if I had been
participating here and knew who Robin was, and if I had
watched the confrontation between Robin and Lord Knows,
I most certainly would have the same take on Barry's
twisted interpretation of what was going on even if I
were seeing a post of Barry's for the very first time.

Or to look at it another way, if I had been reading Barry's
posts for as long as I have, even if he had never written
to me or about me, I would find him to be the same
viciously sadistic, dishonest, inauthentic, willfully
obnoxious, vengeful, envious, shallow person.

It's not the interactions (Barry has been denying that he
interacts with me for years, as absurd as that claim is),
it's the kind of person Barry is generally that has
generated my opinion of him.

With regard to the second part of his post, if I read
anybody's post that professed to be "wondering a little"
about a person and then spent the next six or so paragraphs
extolling his own great spiritual insight, interspersed
with insults to people he doesn't like, and only got to
the actual *question* toward the very end, followed by
more insults and a lecture on how one *should* deal with
one's experiences, I would be highly dubious that the
writer was all that interested in what the person he
was addressing had to say.

Given my long experience with Barry's intense focus on
himself and his very consistent lack of sincerity, it's
really a slam-dunk to see why he wrote the post.

In any case, Susan, I've never been greatly impressed
with your perceptions of the individuals on this forum.
So I'm not surprised we have different takes on Barry.


> > > Now, if the people whose lives revolve around confrontation
> > > and argumentation will allow it, I'd like to try to shift the
> > > tone and the content of interaction with you somewhat. I was
> > > taken with both the clarity and the compassion of your first
> > > post and its followups, and find myself wondering a little
> > > about you and what you've been doing in the Time Since Robin.
> > > 
> > > I will *completely* understand if you don't feel like getting
> > > into such stuff, first with an absolute stranger (moi) and
> > > second on a very public forum full of people who will attempt
> > > to turn anything you say into an attempt to "get" you (this
> > > place, FFL, the Funny Farm Lounge).
> > > 
> > > But here's why I'm asking. As you may have surmised, if you
> > > have been lurking here for a while, you may know that I too 
> > > had my run-ins with those of the Narcissistic Personality 
> > > Disorder persuasion. In particular, one Rama - Dr. Frederick 
> > > Lenz. Many of his antics and abuses made Robin's look like 
> > > the amateur wannabee guru poseur behaviors they were. It 
> > > was quite a ride.
> > > 
> > > But, like you, I felt that I learned something from the ride.
> > > I learn

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Poem for Lord Knows in the Desire for Peace Between Us

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Vaj,
> 
> At first I was delighted that you would repost this. You did 
> understand that I am always invoking GMH here, that it is
> almost as if someone else invoked Maharishi. I have not
> identified Thomas Aquinas either--as once I identify my heroes
> they are likely to be tainted by the prejudice against me. :-)
> I don't suppose you thought I would pass this off as my own,
> having created it within about ten minutes after sending that
> last post to Lord knows.

Good GRIEF, is that why Vaj reposted it, to suggest you
had been trying to pass it off as your own? That is truly
amazing. Yes, I'm sure when you write poetry, you're
careful to put the line numbers in every 10th line.

Sheesh.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> >
> > Judy, please.
> 
> She's losing it, Susan, unable to comprehend the
> laughable "unintentional irony" of *her* trying to
> lecture you on what she does so often.

Right, Barry, I'm constantly asserting that I know for
a fact whether someone is enlightened or not.

Jeez, can you make yourself look any more ridiculous?

(Susan, do you get a little glimmer here of what kind
of person you're allying yourself with? He knows I
don't do what I was pointing out to you that you were
doing. How do you excuse that, I wonder?)

> Have compassion. I think she's having a hard time
> watching Robin melt down and go all "time for the
> straight jacket and rubber room" on us.

Robin isn't melting down, sorry. I know you were
hoping he would, but it ain't gonna happen, so you'll
just have to deal with your disappointment.

 Now we
> know why he's consistently refused to acknowledge
> Ann's existence and talk with her -- he doesn't
> deal well with reality, and with people presenting
> a view of either his past or his present that 
> differs from his own.

In case anybody isn't aware of it, Ann is a fan of
Robin, not one of his critics. IOW, Barry's lying.

(Susan, there's another one for you to think about.
Remember when Ann first joined the group and you
thought she might be Robin in diguise?)

Robin, as we've seen in all these posts, doesn't
have any difficulty dealing with views of his past
or his present that differ from his own. He doesn't
like *dishonest* views, however (a distinction Barry
has always had a lot of trouble making).

> Classic NPD. The next step 
> will be storming out in a huff and disappearing 
> for a while, withdrawing into the only thing that
> is important to him, his self.

Dream on, Barry. All that NPD stuff you posted was
very amusing, because virtually none of it applied to
Robin and virtually all of it applied to you. And you
were genuinely oblivious to this.



> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So that makes me realize just how very powerful and charismatic -
> > > > and yes ill but mistaking it for enlightenment - Robin was.
> > > 
> > > "Realize" is the wrong word here, Susan. Try "conjecture."
> > > You are not in a position to "realize" that Robin mistook
> > > anything for enlightenment--25-plus years ago, for pete's
> > > sake, and never yourself having been around him--and neither
> > > are any of the rest of us.
> > > 
> > > You are of course free to conjecture and speculate to your
> > > heart's content. But use the correct verb, please. To
> > > "realize" something is to become aware that it is a fact.
> > > Whether Robin was mistaken about his enlightement is a
> > > fact somewhere out there in the universe, but we don't
> > > have access to that fact and should not pretend we do.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Aug 04 00:00:00 2012
End Date (UTC): Sat Aug 11 00:00:00 2012
357 messages as of (UTC) Thu Aug 09 00:15:04 2012

31 Robert 
30 authfriend 
28 turquoiseb 
27 Share Long 
25 Robin Carlsen 
20 awoelflebater 
18 Vaj 
17 sparaig 
17 cardemaister 
14 nablusoss1008 
14 Bhairitu 
13 Mike Dixon 
10 lordknows888 
 9 merudanda 
 7 Susan 
 7 John 
 6 "Richard J. Williams" 
 5 feste37 
 5 danfriedman2002 
 5 Xenophaneros Anartaxius 
 5 Buck 
 4 raunchydog 
 3 wgm4u 
 3 azgrey 
 3 Yifu 
 3 Rick Archer 
 3 Joe 
 2 merlin 
 2 laughinggull108 
 2 Seraphita 
 2 Mark 
 2 Lord Knows 
 2 Duveyoung 
 2 Alex Stanley 
 1 salyavin808 
 1 oxcart49 
 1 nycnvc 
 1 nelson 
 1 mdixon.6...@yahoo.com
 1 martyboi 
 1 iranitea 
 1 eustace10679 
 1 emptybill 
 1 Dick Mays 
 1 "Dr. Jessie" 

Posters: 45
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Thank you for the poem it is very beautiful. May there be peace between us

[lordknows888]

If there is anything at all to follow in our dialogue may the peace of the 
Blessed Virgin Mary
bring true guidance and clarity to us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> Judy, please.

She's losing it, Susan, unable to comprehend the
laughable "unintentional irony" of *her* trying to
lecture you on what she does so often. 

Have compassion. I think she's having a hard time
watching Robin melt down and go all "time for the
straight jacket and rubber room" on us. Now we
know why he's consistently refused to acknowledge
Ann's existence and talk with her -- he doesn't
deal well with reality, and with people presenting
a view of either his past or his present that 
differs from his own. Classic NPD. The next step 
will be storming out in a huff and disappearing 
for a while, withdrawing into the only thing that
is important to him, his self.

> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > 
> > > So that makes me realize just how very powerful and charismatic -
> > > and yes ill but mistaking it for enlightenment - Robin was.
> > 
> > "Realize" is the wrong word here, Susan. Try "conjecture."
> > You are not in a position to "realize" that Robin mistook
> > anything for enlightenment--25-plus years ago, for pete's
> > sake, and never yourself having been around him--and neither
> > are any of the rest of us.
> > 
> > You are of course free to conjecture and speculate to your
> > heart's content. But use the correct verb, please. To
> > "realize" something is to become aware that it is a fact.
> > Whether Robin was mistaken about his enlightement is a
> > fact somewhere out there in the universe, but we don't
> > have access to that fact and should not pretend we do.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A Poem for Lord Knows in the Desire for Peace Between Us

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Vaj,

At first I was delighted that you would repost this. You did understand that I 
am always invoking GMH here, that it is almost as if someone else invoked 
Maharishi. I have not identified Thomas Aquinas either--as once I identify my 
heroes they are likely to be tainted by the prejudice against me. :-) I don't 
suppose you thought I would pass this off as my own, having created it within 
about ten minutes after sending that last post to Lord knows. Anyway, to have 
the BVM as the medium of our communication this once, it makes me feel positive 
towards you. I wish you well, Vaj, and may the BVM heal us in this affair. 
Thank you. This poem has always meant a great deal to me and I have pored over 
it very very carefully to glean everything that it can give to me. GMH 
furnishes proof here of his personal relationship with the Mother of God. Good 
night to you. And blessings upon your friend Lord Knows.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/122/37.html
> 
> On Aug 8, 2012, at 7:23 PM, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> 
> > The Blessed Virgin compared to the Air we Breathe
> > 
> > Wild air, world-mothering air,  
> > Nestling me everywhere, 
> > That each eyelash or hair   
> > Girdles; goes home betwixt  
> > The fleeciest, frailest-flixed   5
> > Snowflake; that 's fairly mixed 
> > With, riddles, and is rife  
> > In every least thing's life;
> > This needful, never spent,  
> > And nursing element; 10
> > My more than meat and drink,
> > My meal at every wink;  
> > This air, which, by life's law, 
> > My lung must draw and draw  
> > Now but to breathe its praise,   15
> > Minds me in many ways   
> > Of her who not only 
> > Gave God's infinity 
> > Dwindled to infancy 
> > Welcome in womb and breast,  20
> > Birth, milk, and all the rest   
> > But mothers each new grace  
> > That does now reach our race—   
> > Mary Immaculate,
> > Merely a woman, yet  25
> > Whose presence, power is
> > Great as no goddess's   
> > Was deemèd, dreamèd; who
> > This one work has to do—
> > Let all God's glory through, 30
> > God's glory which would go  
> > Through her and from her flow   
> > Off, and no way but so. 
> > 
> > I say that we are wound 
> > With mercy round and round   35
> > As if with air: the same
> > Is Mary, more by name.  
> > She, wild web, wondrous robe,   
> > Mantles the guilty globe,   
> > Since God has let dispense   40
> > Her prayers his providence: 
> > Nay, more than almoner, 
> > The sweet alms' self is her 
> > And men are meant to share  
> > Her life as life does air.   45
> > If I have understood,   
> > She holds high motherhood   
> > Towards all our ghostly good
> > And plays in grace her part 
> > About man's beating heart,   50
> > Laying, like air's fine flood,  
> > The deathdance in his blood;
> > Yet no part but what will   
> > Be Christ our Saviour still.
> > Of her flesh he took flesh:  55
> > He does take fresh and fresh,   
> > Though much the mystery how,
> > Not flesh but spirit now
> > And makes, O marvellous!
> > New Nazareths in us, 60
> > Where she shall yet conceive
> > Him, morning, noon, and eve;
> > New Bethlems, and he born   
> > There, evening, noon, and morn— 
> > Bethlem or Nazareth, 65
> > Men here may draw like breath   
> > More Christ and baffle death;   
> > Who, born so, comes to be   
> > New self and nobler me  
> > In each one and each one 70
> > More makes, when all is done,   
> > Both God's and Mary's Son.  
> > Again, look overhead
> > How air is azurèd;  
> > O how! nay do but stand  75
> > Where you can lift your hand
> > Skywards: rich, rich it laps
> > Round the four fingergaps.  
> > Yet such a sapphire-shot,   
> > Charged, steepèd sky will not80
> > Stain light. Yea, mark you this:
> > It does no prejudice.   
> > The glass-blue days are those   
> > When every colour glows,
> > Each shape and shadow shows. 85
> > Blue be it: this blue heaven
> > The seven or seven times seven  
> > Hued sunbeam will transmit  
> > Perfect, not alter it.  
> > Or if there does some soft,  90
> > On things aloof, aloft, 
> > Bloom breathe, that one breath more 
> > Earth is the fairer for.
> > Whereas did air not make
> > This bath of blue and slake  95
> > His fire, the sun would shake,  
> > A blear and blinding ball   
> > With blackness bound, and all   
> > The thick stars round him roll  
> > Flashing like flecks of coal,100
> > Quartz-fret, or sparks of salt, 
> > In grimy vasty vault.   
> > So God was god of old:  
> > A mother came to mould  
> > Those limbs like ours which are  105
> > What must make our daystar  
> > Much dearer to mank

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
>
> Judy, please.

Please *what*, Susan? Did you not understand what I wrote?


 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> > 
> > > So that makes me realize just how very powerful and charismatic -
> > > and yes ill but mistaking it for enlightenment - Robin was.
> > 
> > "Realize" is the wrong word here, Susan. Try "conjecture."
> > You are not in a position to "realize" that Robin mistook
> > anything for enlightenment--25-plus years ago, for pete's
> > sake, and never yourself having been around him--and neither
> > are any of the rest of us.
> > 
> > You are of course free to conjecture and speculate to your
> > heart's content. But use the correct verb, please. To
> > "realize" something is to become aware that it is a fact.
> > Whether Robin was mistaken about his enlightement is a
> > fact somewhere out there in the universe, but we don't
> > have access to that fact and should not pretend we do.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Susan]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Lord Knows,
> > 
> > First, congratulations on seeing through Robin's blatantly
> > obvious attempt to lure you into another of his "confrontations,"
> > a tarbaby that once you interacted with it he would make nigh
> > unto difficult to escape from. As you so accurately described 
> > w.r.t. his interactions with Curtis, that is exactly what he 
> > was trying to do, and you wisely didn't fall for it.
> 
> Hilarious. Good grief, Barry, do you think nobody sees
> through this absurd characterization? Do you think anybody
> else here believes Robin should have remained silent in
> the face of Lord Knows's vicious post?
> 
> It was cowardly in the extreme for Lord Knows to make
> such accusations in public and then refuse to engage
> with Robin, not to mention grossly disingenuous to
> defend this refusal as if it were some kind of virtue.
> 
> But you, Barry, have been guilty of exactly the same
> cowardice for years, so I suppose it's understandable
> that you would approve of it in somebody else--at least
> if their accusations are directed at a person you don't
> like.
> 
> Note the disingenuity in the rest of this post. Barry
> professes to want to know what Lord Knows has been doing,
> but in fact what he wants to do--and does at considerable
> length--is to tout what *he* has been doing as a way of
> portraying himself as having superior spiritual insight.
> As well, of course, as taking the time to dump on his
> critics and Robin's fans here.

Interesting how people interpret the same words differently.  I took Barry to 
be very sincere. I think his interest in Lord Knows and his experiences are 
very genuine.  I wonder, Judy, if you could read this particular post of 
Barry's without all the emotional baggage of years of unpleasant interactions 
with Barry, if you might have a different take on it.
> 
> > Now, if the people whose lives revolve around confrontation
> > and argumentation will allow it, I'd like to try to shift the
> > tone and the content of interaction with you somewhat. I was
> > taken with both the clarity and the compassion of your first
> > post and its followups, and find myself wondering a little
> > about you and what you've been doing in the Time Since Robin.
> > 
> > I will *completely* understand if you don't feel like getting
> > into such stuff, first with an absolute stranger (moi) and
> > second on a very public forum full of people who will attempt
> > to turn anything you say into an attempt to "get" you (this
> > place, FFL, the Funny Farm Lounge).
> > 
> > But here's why I'm asking. As you may have surmised, if you
> > have been lurking here for a while, you may know that I too 
> > had my run-ins with those of the Narcissistic Personality 
> > Disorder persuasion. In particular, one Rama - Dr. Frederick 
> > Lenz. Many of his antics and abuses made Robin's look like 
> > the amateur wannabee guru poseur behaviors they were. It 
> > was quite a ride.
> > 
> > But, like you, I felt that I learned something from the ride.
> > I learned never to mistake charisma for enlightenment; the
> > former is often an occult thang, driven by the will of the
> > charismatic person (either consciously or subconsciously),
> > and often completely self-serving, which says a lot about
> > the charismatic person still having a lot of self. :-) In
> > my experience enlightenment is a much quieter, softer thing;
> > it doesn't seek to attract attention to its self, because...
> > duh...it no longer has much of a self. It just IS. You 
> > either notice it or you don't, and IF you don't, the 
> > enlightened being Just Doesn't Give A Shit.
> > 
> > It is tempting, after a prolonged interaction with a spir-
> > itual teacher who fits the DSM-IV definitions for NPD and
> > hypomania, to become disillusioned with the spiritual path
> > entirely, and to walk away from the whole thing in disgust.
> > I know quite a few people who did just that after spending
> > some time with Rama. 
> > 
> > Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> > more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> > could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> > I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> > IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> > the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> > or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> > doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> > siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> > instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> > enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> > related in any way. 
> > 
> > One of the things I did "take away" from my experience
> > with him is a reluctance to ever feel as if I *needed*
> > a teacher again in this life to follow a spiritual path.
> > Instead, I kinda invent m

[FairfieldLife] A Poem for Lord Knows in the Desire for Peace Between Us

[Robin Carlsen]

The Blessed Virgin compared to the Air we Breathe
 
Wild air, world-mothering air,  
Nestling me everywhere, 
That each eyelash or hair   
Girdles; goes home betwixt  
The fleeciest, frailest-flixed  5
Snowflake; that 's fairly mixed 
With, riddles, and is rife  
In every least thing's life;
This needful, never spent,  
And nursing element;10
My more than meat and drink,
My meal at every wink;  
This air, which, by life's law, 
My lung must draw and draw  
Now but to breathe its praise,  15
Minds me in many ways   
Of her who not only 
Gave God's infinity 
Dwindled to infancy 
Welcome in womb and breast, 20
Birth, milk, and all the rest   
But mothers each new grace  
That does now reach our race—   
Mary Immaculate,
Merely a woman, yet 25
Whose presence, power is
Great as no goddess's   
Was deemèd, dreamèd; who
This one work has to do—
Let all God's glory through,30
God's glory which would go  
Through her and from her flow   
Off, and no way but so. 
 
I say that we are wound 
With mercy round and round  35
As if with air: the same
Is Mary, more by name.  
She, wild web, wondrous robe,   
Mantles the guilty globe,   
Since God has let dispense  40
Her prayers his providence: 
Nay, more than almoner, 
The sweet alms' self is her 
And men are meant to share  
Her life as life does air.  45
If I have understood,   
She holds high motherhood   
Towards all our ghostly good
And plays in grace her part 
About man's beating heart,  50
Laying, like air's fine flood,  
The deathdance in his blood;
Yet no part but what will   
Be Christ our Saviour still.
Of her flesh he took flesh: 55
He does take fresh and fresh,   
Though much the mystery how,
Not flesh but spirit now
And makes, O marvellous!
New Nazareths in us,60
Where she shall yet conceive
Him, morning, noon, and eve;
New Bethlems, and he born   
There, evening, noon, and morn— 
Bethlem or Nazareth,65
Men here may draw like breath   
More Christ and baffle death;   
Who, born so, comes to be   
New self and nobler me  
In each one and each one70
More makes, when all is done,   
Both God's and Mary's Son.  
Again, look overhead
How air is azurèd;  
O how! nay do but stand 75
Where you can lift your hand
Skywards: rich, rich it laps
Round the four fingergaps.  
Yet such a sapphire-shot,   
Charged, steepèd sky will not   80
Stain light. Yea, mark you this:
It does no prejudice.   
The glass-blue days are those   
When every colour glows,
Each shape and shadow shows.85
Blue be it: this blue heaven
The seven or seven times seven  
Hued sunbeam will transmit  
Perfect, not alter it.  
Or if there does some soft, 90
On things aloof, aloft, 
Bloom breathe, that one breath more 
Earth is the fairer for.
Whereas did air not make
This bath of blue and slake 95
His fire, the sun would shake,  
A blear and blinding ball   
With blackness bound, and all   
The thick stars round him roll  
Flashing like flecks of coal,   100
Quartz-fret, or sparks of salt, 
In grimy vasty vault.   
So God was god of old:  
A mother came to mould  
Those limbs like ours which are 105
What must make our daystar  
Much dearer to mankind; 
Whose glory bare would blind
Or less would win man's mind.   
Through her we may see him  110
Made sweeter, not made dim, 
And her hand leaves his light   
Sifted to suit our sight.   
Be thou then, O thou dear   
Mother, my atmosphere;  115
My happier world, wherein   
To wend and meet no sin;
Above me, round me lie  
Fronting my froward eye 
With sweet and scarless sky;120
Stir in my ears, speak there
Of God's love, O live air,  
Of patience, penance, prayer:   
World-mothering air, air wild,  
Wound with thee, in thee isled, 125
Fold home, fast fold thy child.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[Susan]

Judy, please.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:
> 
> > So that makes me realize just how very powerful and charismatic -
> > and yes ill but mistaking it for enlightenment - Robin was.
> 
> "Realize" is the wrong word here, Susan. Try "conjecture."
> You are not in a position to "realize" that Robin mistook
> anything for enlightenment--25-plus years ago, for pete's
> sake, and never yourself having been around him--and neither
> are any of the rest of us.
> 
> You are of course free to conjecture and speculate to your
> heart's content. But use the correct verb, please. To
> "realize" something is to become aware that it is a fact.
> Whether Robin was mistaken about his enlightement is a
> fact somewhere out there in the universe, but we don't
> have access to that fact and should not pretend we do.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj your words meant a great deal to me. Thank You

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Lord Knows,

You are giving up the fight, then, LK888?

You are not going to post that personal letter? That is too bad. So much would 
become clear if you did that.

Tell me, LK: What *was* it really you were after here? You have so 
inefficiently and contradictorily followed your avowed intention--which I 
thought was to present the truth about those ten years. And the atrocities 
committed by myself. You are satisfied, then, with this conclusion?

Your witnesses will not come to court?

A stunning and shocking revelation all this is to me, Lord Knows.

Still, I shall pray for you. And I mean that. You need my prayers.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
> Robin thank you I wanted closure and you have provided it in spades, I now 
> have no sense that there is something more to understand about you or the 
> whole cult experience, It is crystal clear.Again thank you and I am not being 
> ironic here, not at all. You are disturbed and you continue to play your 
> games, it is that simple, well I am a slow learner but I do keep after it 
> until I get it. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Ah, the real Lord Knows finally make his appearance. I never knew you, Lord 
> > Knows until this post. I take back nothing until you furnish proof of what 
> > one witness has already told me is his knowledge of your lies. Someone who, 
> > then, lived at Annapurna. Let us see your evidence for the truth you lived 
> > at Annapurna, and let us see the evidence that Vaj was on that course. So, 
> > then, this is your game. Well, good luck. Are you trying to bring on my 
> > hallucination again? By provoking me into seeing the world in the mystical 
> > way I did in those ten years? You are a liar, Lord Knows. And you will 
> > continue to lie. You obviously saved your best until now. I would ask you 
> > to post that personal letter I wrote to you. It makes your response here a 
> > foul disgrace.
> > 
> > But perhaps you have come as the avenging angel. That would be something I 
> > would not have expected. I predict, however, your integrity is in the 
> > service of something very different than anything to do with what you, or 
> > other, suffered in those ten years.
> > 
> > I am in shock at your mischief here, Lord Knows. But I suppose we are going 
> > to have to duke it out.
> > 
> > I have a new-found respect for you. I will admit that. But not the respect 
> > you may have been seeking.
> > 
> > You misread me in the most profound way that is possible, Lord Knows.
> > 
> > There are no rules for you.
> > 
> > Robin
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
> > >
> > >   Robin you owe me an apology I did not lie, I did live at Annapurna, and 
> > > Vaj was on the 1983 summer course.
> > > I lived at Annapurna the last 9 months of my time in the cult and I could 
> > > have quite of number of people verify that. Gary Osterlund and my wife 
> > > can verify that Vaj was on that course and some other people who don't 
> > > want there names put onto FFL and so can I. YOU ARE HUFFING AND PUFFING 
> > > Robbie boy but you will not blow my house down. Cool down, you do not 
> > > have the facts, it is just that simple. As for responding to your 
> > > previous posts I don't have to respond to them in order to prove anything 
> > > to you or anybody. My integrity is fully intact, but thanks for being 
> > > concerned about it.I did just a few minutes ago get your private email to 
> > > me and I may chose to respond. I am certainly not afraid to, that is not 
> > > the issue at all.Robin now that you know who I am, you know that I  
> > > requested a face to face meeting with you 10 years ago which you refused, 
> > > in what way does that convey to you that I am afraid of you or anything 
> > > you have to say to me. Also I sent you a very cordial letter in June 2012 
> > > that from your email it becomes clear you refused delivery. In that 
> > > recent letter I sent you I again requested a face to face meeting. There 
> > > is no problem with my courage in regard to encountering you or anything 
> > > you have to say.The Canadian Postal Officials could not tell me the 
> > > reason it was returned, they told me it could be because it was an 
> > > incorrect address. My advice to you Robin is be careful don't overstep 
> > > yourself.Your 
> > > ability to play your game skillfully drops a couple of notches when you 
> > > lose your temper. 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You have lied here, Lord Knows. As you have lied in yours first post. I 
> > > > have written you offline and you are ignoring everything that was said 
> > > > there. Vaj was never on that summer course--you are falsifying your 
> > > > conscience here, LK. This is despicable. You must only use the truth to 
> > > > get to the truth. I am very disappointed. You did not get th

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj your words meant a great deal to me. Thank You

[lordknows888]

Robin thank you I wanted closure and you have provided it in spades, I now have 
no sense that there is something more to understand about you or the whole cult 
experience, It is crystal clear.Again thank you and I am not being ironic here, 
not at all. You are disturbed and you continue to play your games, it is that 
simple, well I am a slow learner but I do keep after it until I get it. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Ah, the real Lord Knows finally make his appearance. I never knew you, Lord 
> Knows until this post. I take back nothing until you furnish proof of what 
> one witness has already told me is his knowledge of your lies. Someone who, 
> then, lived at Annapurna. Let us see your evidence for the truth you lived at 
> Annapurna, and let us see the evidence that Vaj was on that course. So, then, 
> this is your game. Well, good luck. Are you trying to bring on my 
> hallucination again? By provoking me into seeing the world in the mystical 
> way I did in those ten years? You are a liar, Lord Knows. And you will 
> continue to lie. You obviously saved your best until now. I would ask you to 
> post that personal letter I wrote to you. It makes your response here a foul 
> disgrace.
> 
> But perhaps you have come as the avenging angel. That would be something I 
> would not have expected. I predict, however, your integrity is in the service 
> of something very different than anything to do with what you, or other, 
> suffered in those ten years.
> 
> I am in shock at your mischief here, Lord Knows. But I suppose we are going 
> to have to duke it out.
> 
> I have a new-found respect for you. I will admit that. But not the respect 
> you may have been seeking.
> 
> You misread me in the most profound way that is possible, Lord Knows.
> 
> There are no rules for you.
> 
> Robin
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
> >
> >   Robin you owe me an apology I did not lie, I did live at Annapurna, and 
> > Vaj was on the 1983 summer course.
> > I lived at Annapurna the last 9 months of my time in the cult and I could 
> > have quite of number of people verify that. Gary Osterlund and my wife can 
> > verify that Vaj was on that course and some other people who don't want 
> > there names put onto FFL and so can I. YOU ARE HUFFING AND PUFFING Robbie 
> > boy but you will not blow my house down. Cool down, you do not have the 
> > facts, it is just that simple. As for responding to your previous posts I 
> > don't have to respond to them in order to prove anything to you or anybody. 
> > My integrity is fully intact, but thanks for being concerned about it.I did 
> > just a few minutes ago get your private email to me and I may chose to 
> > respond. I am certainly not afraid to, that is not the issue at all.Robin 
> > now that you know who I am, you know that I  requested a face to face 
> > meeting with you 10 years ago which you refused, in what way does that 
> > convey to you that I am afraid of you or anything you have to say to me. 
> > Also I sent you a very cordial letter in June 2012 that from your email it 
> > becomes clear you refused delivery. In that recent letter I sent you I 
> > again requested a face to face meeting. There is no problem with my courage 
> > in regard to encountering you or anything you have to say.The Canadian 
> > Postal Officials could not tell me the reason it was returned, they told me 
> > it could be because it was an incorrect address. My advice to you Robin is 
> > be careful don't overstep yourself.Your 
> > ability to play your game skillfully drops a couple of notches when you 
> > lose your temper. 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > You have lied here, Lord Knows. As you have lied in yours first post. I 
> > > have written you offline and you are ignoring everything that was said 
> > > there. Vaj was never on that summer course--you are falsifying your 
> > > conscience here, LK. This is despicable. You must only use the truth to 
> > > get to the truth. I am very disappointed. You did not get that letter, 
> > > then?
> > > 
> > > You are into a real game here, LK--a game I have never seen you play.
> > > 
> > > No sincerity, then. Shocking this is to me. You have failed utterly to 
> > > take on the truth of what you have challenged me with. You do not deserve 
> > > to be answered, even as I have written you a forthright and friendly and 
> > > revealing letter.
> > > 
> > > Did you not get that letter, LK?
> > > 
> > > You did not live at Annapurna, you were never part of the inner circle. 
> > > Why do you have to cheat to serve the truth, LK?
> > > 
> > > And your falsely credentialing Vaj, that it the worst form of BS.
> > > 
> > > How can you say you care about what is true, LK, when you will lie on 
> > > behalf of the truth'
> > > 
> > > These are two morally incompatible agendas.
> > > 
> > > You would violate your own conscience. A

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Feste,

Thank you for your sympathetic and apposite remarks; however, you should know 
that I was determined to face the issue of those ten years and to deal with the 
challenge that Lord  Knows has laid before me. But Lord Knows has been 
fiendishly selective (and therefore fatally--in a moral sense--disingenuous) in 
his response to my willingness to receive his initial post as a testimony of 
the truth and conviction of his experience. I am appalled that someone who 
professes to be interested in vindicating the truth of what he and his friends 
suffered at my hands would resort to deliberate falsehood--and ignore all five 
of my letters which have meaningfully addressed the very issues he raised in 
his first post. I don't understand someone who acts in this way. Justice and 
truth have their own way of making themselves felt; if a human being falsifies 
evidence in the cause of truth, truth will not go all the way with that person. 
The end here deserves a means which is irreproachably honest. Lord Knows has 
put into jeopardy his sincerity and his honesty in how he has conducted 
himself. I must admit this is not something I would have expected from him. Let 
us see if he can recover here and trust in the innocence of his alleged 
suffering. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Oh, Robin, sometimes I wish you would say to your critics something along the 
> lines of "I am what I am. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself," but I 
> guess that's not your style. Over the last few days I felt like I was a 
> voyeur at some kind of War Crimes Tribunal or at one of those sessions they 
> have in prisons where victims get to confront those who wronged them. It all 
> seems a bit over the top. I would say: Stuff happens. Get used to it. But 
> again, that might be a little blunt for your elegant mind. I'm also reminded 
> of a passage in D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love, where the character Birkin 
> says something like, "For every murder there is a murderee, someone who wants 
> to get murdered." So I think everyone has to take responsibility for the 
> situations they get into rather than being so eager to lay blame and whine 
> about being a victim. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Vaj,
> > 
> > You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your post--and 
> > I can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you have said.
> > 
> > OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having 
> > given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance 
> > you in your spiritual quest.
> > 
> > I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the 
> > truth of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt 
> > about it: Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. Any 
> > disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. So I 
> > don't think there was any need to point this out.
> > 
> > After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch so 
> > that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows of 
> > his righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on FFL--and it 
> > is not a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as Lord Knows 
> > did--uncannily described here in your objective post--The question occurs 
> > to me, Vaj: Why not before this? I wish you had drawn blood before with 
> > your lion-hearted spirit.)
> > 
> > I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is saintly 
> > about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign praise--is your 
> > refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that are directed 
> > towards the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your rather overly 
> > charitable approach to systems of belief which differ from your own. I 
> > think you are the gold standard when it comes to sincerity and 
> > fearlessness. And I envy as well, your serenity and lovableness.
> > 
> > But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost 
> > certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't 
> > think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was 
> > fire blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this so 
> > plain to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my 
> > humiliation in my face.
> > 
> > But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of 
> > your motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of apology 
> > and regret.
> > 
> > I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic 
> > comes onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.
> > 
> > How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my entire 
> > life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in the range 
> > of imb

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj your words meant a great deal to me. Thank You

[Robin Carlsen]

Ah, the real Lord Knows finally make his appearance. I never knew you, Lord 
Knows until this post. I take back nothing until you furnish proof of what one 
witness has already told me is his knowledge of your lies. Someone who, then, 
lived at Annapurna. Let us see your evidence for the truth you lived at 
Annapurna, and let us see the evidence that Vaj was on that course. So, then, 
this is your game. Well, good luck. Are you trying to bring on my hallucination 
again? By provoking me into seeing the world in the mystical way I did in those 
ten years? You are a liar, Lord Knows. And you will continue to lie. You 
obviously saved your best until now. I would ask you to post that personal 
letter I wrote to you. It makes your response here a foul disgrace.

But perhaps you have come as the avenging angel. That would be something I 
would not have expected. I predict, however, your integrity is in the service 
of something very different than anything to do with what you, or other, 
suffered in those ten years.

I am in shock at your mischief here, Lord Knows. But I suppose we are going to 
have to duke it out.

I have a new-found respect for you. I will admit that. But not the respect you 
may have been seeking.

You misread me in the most profound way that is possible, Lord Knows.

There are no rules for you.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
>   Robin you owe me an apology I did not lie, I did live at Annapurna, and Vaj 
> was on the 1983 summer course.
> I lived at Annapurna the last 9 months of my time in the cult and I could 
> have quite of number of people verify that. Gary Osterlund and my wife can 
> verify that Vaj was on that course and some other people who don't want there 
> names put onto FFL and so can I. YOU ARE HUFFING AND PUFFING Robbie boy but 
> you will not blow my house down. Cool down, you do not have the facts, it is 
> just that simple. As for responding to your previous posts I don't have to 
> respond to them in order to prove anything to you or anybody. My integrity is 
> fully intact, but thanks for being concerned about it.I did just a few 
> minutes ago get your private email to me and I may chose to respond. I am 
> certainly not afraid to, that is not the issue at all.Robin now that you know 
> who I am, you know that I  requested a face to face meeting with you 10 years 
> ago which you refused, in what way does that convey to you that I am afraid 
> of you or anything you have to say to me. Also I sent you a very cordial 
> letter in June 2012 that from your email it becomes clear you refused 
> delivery. In that recent letter I sent you I again requested a face to face 
> meeting. There is no problem with my courage in regard to encountering you or 
> anything you have to say.The Canadian Postal Officials could not tell me the 
> reason it was returned, they told me it could be because it was an incorrect 
> address. My advice to you Robin is be careful don't overstep yourself.Your 
> ability to play your game skillfully drops a couple of notches when you lose 
> your temper. 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > You have lied here, Lord Knows. As you have lied in yours first post. I 
> > have written you offline and you are ignoring everything that was said 
> > there. Vaj was never on that summer course--you are falsifying your 
> > conscience here, LK. This is despicable. You must only use the truth to get 
> > to the truth. I am very disappointed. You did not get that letter, then?
> > 
> > You are into a real game here, LK--a game I have never seen you play.
> > 
> > No sincerity, then. Shocking this is to me. You have failed utterly to take 
> > on the truth of what you have challenged me with. You do not deserve to be 
> > answered, even as I have written you a forthright and friendly and 
> > revealing letter.
> > 
> > Did you not get that letter, LK?
> > 
> > You did not live at Annapurna, you were never part of the inner circle. Why 
> > do you have to cheat to serve the truth, LK?
> > 
> > And your falsely credentialing Vaj, that it the worst form of BS.
> > 
> > How can you say you care about what is true, LK, when you will lie on 
> > behalf of the truth'
> > 
> > These are two morally incompatible agendas.
> > 
> > You would violate your own conscience. And you want the readers at FFL to 
> > know about what happened in those ten years.
> > 
> > I say it again, LK: you are  liar.
> > 
> > Robin
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Vaj,
> > > 
> > > Your words written today to Robin  "If the walls of Sunnyside had decided 
> > > to talk, they couldn't have spoken with more honesty and integrity. And 
> > > bravery." ring in my heart and mind not because they are complimentary, 
> > > but because it brings to mind all that happened at Sunnyside, the 
> > > horrific confrontations,  the blood on the floor metaphorically speaking. 
> > 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj your words meant a great deal to me. Thank You

[awoelflebater]

Dear LK, you need to be careful who you ally yourself with here. You need to 
know when you are being used to further somebody's ends, someone else's twisted 
agenda. You are new to this game, all is not as it appears. You and I are 
friends, we have known each other a long time. If you think you were involved 
in something dark and bloody 25 years ago, it has nothing on what some of these 
folks could dish up. 

My advice is to take advantage of what you have been offered with regard to 
private correspondence with Robin and stay clear of others that do not have 
your best interests at heart, who merely find you an unbelievably convenient 
pawn to use to undermine you "former cult leader". They have been looking for 
this opportunity for a long time. I did not provide it and neither should you. 

That is my best advice. You are a good person, it could be very easy to jump on 
an unhealthy, unhelpful, unfruitful band wagon here. I know you value, take 
pride in, your integrity so I advise you not to go where others might like to 
lead you. You have stated that you do not want to get drawn into games, be the 
subject of trickery or bully boy antics. In this case, you need to set your 
sights well past Robin and look toward some others here.

Sincerely,
Ann

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
> Dear Vaj,
> 
> Your words written today to Robin  "If the walls of Sunnyside had decided to 
> talk, they couldn't have spoken with more honesty and integrity. And 
> bravery." ring in my heart and mind not because they are complimentary, but 
> because it brings to mind all that happened at Sunnyside, the horrific 
> confrontations,  the blood on the floor metaphorically speaking. There were a 
> lot of good people that got filleted by Robin there as you know.The fact that 
> there was only one attempted suicide is remarkable. I saw another friend go 
> into a full blown nervous breakdown right in front of me and much much more.I 
> did not by any means go into a full list of all the horror shows that the 
> walls of Sunnyside contain.I feel a lot of deep emotion welling up thinking 
> back on all that. I know there are people on FFL who feel this is all 
> irrelevant, or feel who cares Robin has changed in any case. Robin has not 
> changed this is why it is exactly relevant, and Vaj you are one of the people 
> on FFL who knows this because you did know Robin from the 1983 summer course. 
> This I know to be a fact as do a few others who were part of the cult.I don't 
> think I will be staying around these parts but thank you for your words they 
> are deeply meaningful to me.
> 
> With gratitude
> Lord Knows
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj your words meant a great deal to me. Thank You

[lordknows888]

  Robin you owe me an apology I did not lie, I did live at Annapurna, and Vaj 
was on the 1983 summer course.
I lived at Annapurna the last 9 months of my time in the cult and I could have 
quite of number of people verify that. Gary Osterlund and my wife can verify 
that Vaj was on that course and some other people who don't want there names 
put onto FFL and so can I. YOU ARE HUFFING AND PUFFING Robbie boy but you will 
not blow my house down. Cool down, you do not have the facts, it is just that 
simple. As for responding to your previous posts I don't have to respond to 
them in order to prove anything to you or anybody. My integrity is fully 
intact, but thanks for being concerned about it.I did just a few minutes ago 
get your private email to me and I may chose to respond. I am certainly not 
afraid to, that is not the issue at all.Robin now that you know who I am, you 
know that I  requested a face to face meeting with you 10 years ago which you 
refused, in what way does that convey to you that I am afraid of you or 
anything you have to say to me. Also I sent you a very cordial letter in June 
2012 that from your email it becomes clear you refused delivery. In that recent 
letter I sent you I again requested a face to face meeting. There is no problem 
with my courage in regard to encountering you or anything you have to say.The 
Canadian Postal Officials could not tell me the reason it was returned, they 
told me it could be because it was an incorrect address. My advice to you Robin 
is be careful don't overstep yourself.Your 
ability to play your game skillfully drops a couple of notches when you lose 
your temper. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> You have lied here, Lord Knows. As you have lied in yours first post. I have 
> written you offline and you are ignoring everything that was said there. Vaj 
> was never on that summer course--you are falsifying your conscience here, LK. 
> This is despicable. You must only use the truth to get to the truth. I am 
> very disappointed. You did not get that letter, then?
> 
> You are into a real game here, LK--a game I have never seen you play.
> 
> No sincerity, then. Shocking this is to me. You have failed utterly to take 
> on the truth of what you have challenged me with. You do not deserve to be 
> answered, even as I have written you a forthright and friendly and revealing 
> letter.
> 
> Did you not get that letter, LK?
> 
> You did not live at Annapurna, you were never part of the inner circle. Why 
> do you have to cheat to serve the truth, LK?
> 
> And your falsely credentialing Vaj, that it the worst form of BS.
> 
> How can you say you care about what is true, LK, when you will lie on behalf 
> of the truth'
> 
> These are two morally incompatible agendas.
> 
> You would violate your own conscience. And you want the readers at FFL to 
> know about what happened in those ten years.
> 
> I say it again, LK: you are  liar.
> 
> Robin
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Vaj,
> > 
> > Your words written today to Robin  "If the walls of Sunnyside had decided 
> > to talk, they couldn't have spoken with more honesty and integrity. And 
> > bravery." ring in my heart and mind not because they are complimentary, but 
> > because it brings to mind all that happened at Sunnyside, the horrific 
> > confrontations,  the blood on the floor metaphorically speaking. There were 
> > a lot of good people that got filleted by Robin there as you know.The fact 
> > that there was only one attempted suicide is remarkable. I saw another 
> > friend go into a full blown nervous breakdown right in front of me and much 
> > much more.I did not by any means go into a full list of all the horror 
> > shows that the walls of Sunnyside contain.I feel a lot of deep emotion 
> > welling up thinking back on all that. I know there are people on FFL who 
> > feel this is all irrelevant, or feel who cares Robin has changed in any 
> > case. Robin has not changed this is why it is exactly relevant, and Vaj you 
> > are one of the people on FFL who knows this because you did know Robin from 
> > the 1983 summer course. This I know to be a fact as do a few others who 
> > were part of the cult.I don't think I will be staying around these parts 
> > but thank you for your words they are deeply meaningful to me.
> > 
> > With gratitude
> > Lord Knows
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[feste37]

Thank you, Ann. That's very sweet of you. I had been thinking that I had been a 
little too blunt. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Oh, Robin, sometimes I wish you would say to your critics something along 
> > the lines of "I am what I am. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself," but 
> > I guess that's not your style. Over the last few days I felt like I was a 
> > voyeur at some kind of War Crimes Tribunal or at one of those sessions they 
> > have in prisons where victims get to confront those who wronged them. It 
> > all seems a bit over the top. I would say: Stuff happens. Get used to it. 
> > But again, that might be a little blunt for your elegant mind. I'm also 
> > reminded of a passage in D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love, where the 
> > character Birkin says something like, "For every murder there is a 
> > murderee, someone who wants to get murdered." So I think everyone has to 
> > take responsibility for the situations they get into rather than being so 
> > eager to lay blame and whine about being a victim. 
> 
> Dear Feste, what a wonderful and insightful and deep and forgiving person you 
> seem to be. You know, it is not so much about the subject matter here 
> (Robin's guilt or innocence, enlightenment or delusion) but about the 
> principals that govern our individual lives. Your principals, and maybe not 
> actually that, more like the inclinations, the instincts you have to live the 
> way you evidently do make me feel rejuvenated in some way. Because when faced 
> with so much hardness and anger and gloating ugliness I just sometimes feel 
> oppressed. And then along comes you and I feel that human beings may be 
> alright after all. And I still love your feistiness because it does not 
> appear to damage but to invigorate.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Vaj,
> > > 
> > > You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your 
> > > post--and I can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you 
> > > have said.
> > > 
> > > OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having 
> > > given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance 
> > > you in your spiritual quest.
> > > 
> > > I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the 
> > > truth of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt 
> > > about it: Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. 
> > > Any disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. 
> > > So I don't think there was any need to point this out.
> > > 
> > > After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch 
> > > so that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows 
> > > of his righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on 
> > > FFL--and it is not a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as 
> > > Lord Knows did--uncannily described here in your objective post--The 
> > > question occurs to me, Vaj: Why not before this? I wish you had drawn 
> > > blood before with your lion-hearted spirit.)
> > > 
> > > I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is 
> > > saintly about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign 
> > > praise--is your refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that 
> > > are directed towards the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your 
> > > rather overly charitable approach to systems of belief which differ from 
> > > your own. I think you are the gold standard when it comes to sincerity 
> > > and fearlessness. And I envy as well, your serenity and lovableness.
> > > 
> > > But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost 
> > > certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't 
> > > think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was 
> > > fire blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this 
> > > so plain to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my 
> > > humiliation in my face.
> > > 
> > > But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of 
> > > your motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of 
> > > apology and regret.
> > > 
> > > I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic 
> > > comes onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.
> > > 
> > > How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my 
> > > entire life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in 
> > > the range of imbecile.
> > > 
> > > I would have thought you had objectified this before and would approach 
> > > me, not so much with the fluency and eloquence of your superior wit, but 
> > > with the more healing compassion of your bright

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Dear Lord Knows,
> 
> First, congratulations on seeing through Robin's blatantly
> obvious attempt to lure you into another of his "confrontations,"
> a tarbaby that once you interacted with it he would make nigh
> unto difficult to escape from. As you so accurately described 
> w.r.t. his interactions with Curtis, that is exactly what he 
> was trying to do, and you wisely didn't fall for it.

Hilarious. Good grief, Barry, do you think nobody sees
through this absurd characterization? Do you think anybody
else here believes Robin should have remained silent in
the face of Lord Knows's vicious post?

It was cowardly in the extreme for Lord Knows to make
such accusations in public and then refuse to engage
with Robin, not to mention grossly disingenuous to
defend this refusal as if it were some kind of virtue.

But you, Barry, have been guilty of exactly the same
cowardice for years, so I suppose it's understandable
that you would approve of it in somebody else--at least
if their accusations are directed at a person you don't
like.

Note the disingenuity in the rest of this post. Barry
professes to want to know what Lord Knows has been doing,
but in fact what he wants to do--and does at considerable
length--is to tout what *he* has been doing as a way of
portraying himself as having superior spiritual insight.
As well, of course, as taking the time to dump on his
critics and Robin's fans here.

> Now, if the people whose lives revolve around confrontation
> and argumentation will allow it, I'd like to try to shift the
> tone and the content of interaction with you somewhat. I was
> taken with both the clarity and the compassion of your first
> post and its followups, and find myself wondering a little
> about you and what you've been doing in the Time Since Robin.
> 
> I will *completely* understand if you don't feel like getting
> into such stuff, first with an absolute stranger (moi) and
> second on a very public forum full of people who will attempt
> to turn anything you say into an attempt to "get" you (this
> place, FFL, the Funny Farm Lounge).
> 
> But here's why I'm asking. As you may have surmised, if you
> have been lurking here for a while, you may know that I too 
> had my run-ins with those of the Narcissistic Personality 
> Disorder persuasion. In particular, one Rama - Dr. Frederick 
> Lenz. Many of his antics and abuses made Robin's look like 
> the amateur wannabee guru poseur behaviors they were. It 
> was quite a ride.
> 
> But, like you, I felt that I learned something from the ride.
> I learned never to mistake charisma for enlightenment; the
> former is often an occult thang, driven by the will of the
> charismatic person (either consciously or subconsciously),
> and often completely self-serving, which says a lot about
> the charismatic person still having a lot of self. :-) In
> my experience enlightenment is a much quieter, softer thing;
> it doesn't seek to attract attention to its self, because...
> duh...it no longer has much of a self. It just IS. You 
> either notice it or you don't, and IF you don't, the 
> enlightened being Just Doesn't Give A Shit.
> 
> It is tempting, after a prolonged interaction with a spir-
> itual teacher who fits the DSM-IV definitions for NPD and
> hypomania, to become disillusioned with the spiritual path
> entirely, and to walk away from the whole thing in disgust.
> I know quite a few people who did just that after spending
> some time with Rama. 
> 
> Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> related in any way. 
> 
> One of the things I did "take away" from my experience
> with him is a reluctance to ever feel as if I *needed*
> a teacher again in this life to follow a spiritual path.
> Instead, I kinda invent my own path. Where it leads may
> be in question, but it is my path, and I follow it 
> wherever it leads without feeling that it has to lead 
> anywhere in particular. If I had to describe it, I would
> be unable to do so any better than Lao-tzu: "A good
> traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent upon
> arriving." 
> 
> For me it's the journey that is important, not the goal. 
> I do not seek enlightenment, or even any particular
> experience that most would characterize as "spiritual."
> Instead I just walk, and deal with whatever I find along
> the Way. Interestingly enough, by not seeking spirit

[FairfieldLife] My apologies Share you are right

[lordknows888]

Dear Share,

In my mind when i wrote the phrase "Share innocently expressed"  the key word 
was in my mind " innocently" and I thought it would convey all that I intended 
it to mean.I know it wasn't the real import of what you were saying it was 
about how Robin let it pass without comment and more importantly his statement 
to begin with that the people with him gained from the experience. You are 
quite right you did provide more context to your statement which lifted it 
into a deeper fuller context. I should have taken more care and time to do 
justice to the fuller context you developed. I was rushing and should have 
taken more care. My apologies. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Vaj your words meant a great deal to me. Thank You

[Robin Carlsen]

You have lied here, Lord Knows. As you have lied in yours first post. I have 
written you offline and you are ignoring everything that was said there. Vaj 
was never on that summer course--you are falsifying your conscience here, LK. 
This is despicable. You must only use the truth to get to the truth. I am very 
disappointed. You did not get that letter, then?

You are into a real game here, LK--a game I have never seen you play.

No sincerity, then. Shocking this is to me. You have failed utterly to take on 
the truth of what you have challenged me with. You do not deserve to be 
answered, even as I have written you a forthright and friendly and revealing 
letter.

Did you not get that letter, LK?

You did not live at Annapurna, you were never part of the inner circle. Why do 
you have to cheat to serve the truth, LK?

And your falsely credentialing Vaj, that it the worst form of BS.

How can you say you care about what is true, LK, when you will lie on behalf of 
the truth'

These are two morally incompatible agendas.

You would violate your own conscience. And you want the readers at FFL to know 
about what happened in those ten years.

I say it again, LK: you are  liar.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
> Dear Vaj,
> 
> Your words written today to Robin  "If the walls of Sunnyside had decided to 
> talk, they couldn't have spoken with more honesty and integrity. And 
> bravery." ring in my heart and mind not because they are complimentary, but 
> because it brings to mind all that happened at Sunnyside, the horrific 
> confrontations,  the blood on the floor metaphorically speaking. There were a 
> lot of good people that got filleted by Robin there as you know.The fact that 
> there was only one attempted suicide is remarkable. I saw another friend go 
> into a full blown nervous breakdown right in front of me and much much more.I 
> did not by any means go into a full list of all the horror shows that the 
> walls of Sunnyside contain.I feel a lot of deep emotion welling up thinking 
> back on all that. I know there are people on FFL who feel this is all 
> irrelevant, or feel who cares Robin has changed in any case. Robin has not 
> changed this is why it is exactly relevant, and Vaj you are one of the people 
> on FFL who knows this because you did know Robin from the 1983 summer course. 
> This I know to be a fact as do a few others who were part of the cult.I don't 
> think I will be staying around these parts but thank you for your words they 
> are deeply meaningful to me.
> 
> With gratitude
> Lord Knows
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> > > > more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> > > > could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> > > > I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> > > > IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> > > > the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> > > > or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> > > > doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> > > > siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> > > > instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> > > > enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> > > > related in any way. 
> > > 
> > > IMHO, the siddhis and enlightenment are related to 
> > > each other at least this way:
> > > 
> > > For one to able to abandon the siddhis it seems
> > > almost inevitable to experience at least some
> > > of them. Otherwise, you don't have nothing much
> > > to abandon, have you?
> > 
> > I honestly do not understand what you mean by 
> > "abandon," Card. Do you mean "not be interested
> > in them," or do you mean "not be interested in
> > learning to perform them," or do you mean "not
> > being interested in them once having mastered
> > them," or what?
> 
> I'm not a good writer by any standard, especially
> my "semantic ear" might be way weaker than average,
> even in writing/speaking in my own language.
> The last one of your alternatives is what I mean.

FWIW, "abandon" was exactly the right choice of words,
and your meaning was obvious from the start. Barry had
no need of clarification; he knew what you meant. He
just wanted to make you feel uneasy about your command
of English.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:

> You operate under a false assumption Ann: that I'm interested
> in ANY conversation with R., let alone a "deep" or "truthful"
> one.

Goodness knows it's been obvious from the beginning that
you weren't interested in a "deep" or "truthful"
conversation with Robin (or with anybody else, for that
matter).

But your statement to this effect is plainly false in
another sense. You have been *very much* interested in
having shallow and untruthful conversations with Robin.
There are dozens of them in the archives by now.


> I believe the real issue here is that YOU want (need?) that
> type of conversation - and you're not getting it. Instead
> you're only left with your own skewed disconnect between
> what reality is serving and what you're perceiving.

Translation: Ann nailed Vaj to the wall. Watch him squirm.

[FairfieldLife] Vaj your words meant a great deal to me. Thank You

[lordknows888]

Dear Vaj,

Your words written today to Robin  "If the walls of Sunnyside had decided to 
talk, they couldn't have spoken with more honesty and integrity. And bravery." 
ring in my heart and mind not because they are complimentary, but because it 
brings to mind all that happened at Sunnyside, the horrific confrontations,  
the blood on the floor metaphorically speaking. There were a lot of good people 
that got filleted by Robin there as you know.The fact that there was only one 
attempted suicide is remarkable. I saw another friend go into a full blown 
nervous breakdown right in front of me and much much more.I did not by any 
means go into a full list of all the horror shows that the walls of Sunnyside 
contain.I feel a lot of deep emotion welling up thinking back on all that. I 
know there are people on FFL who feel this is all irrelevant, or feel who cares 
Robin has changed in any case. Robin has not changed this is why it is exactly 
relevant, and Vaj you are one of the people on FFL who knows this because you 
did know Robin from the 1983 summer course. This I know to be a fact as do a 
few others who were part of the cult.I don't think I will be staying around 
these parts but thank you for your words they are deeply meaningful to me.

With gratitude
Lord Knows

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:

>  When I read most especially Share's conclusion "So no need to 
> regret then." it lit a fire in me to overcome my aversion to a 
> public forum and take what apparently would be my one and only 
> opportunity to interact with you. I do not have a personal
> drive to take revenge on you by  defeating and humiliating you.
> It has been over 25 years and I have moved on in my life.There
> was a time a long time ago when I would have had to confess to 
> someone "your damn right I would love to do that" but not now,
> and it was not my motivation when I sent my initial post to FFL.

> My passion was to express something which was closer to the
> truth of how really destructive the cult experiece was, and
> not have it trivialized by such a comment which Share
> innocently expressed.

You claim to have read "100's" of Robin's posts here, but
you don't seem to recall having read the ones that express
the sharpest, most agonized regret for the pain he caused.
Or if you do, that isn't enough for you. You want to make
his regret even more agonizing than it already is, after
he's already spent 25 years atoning.

It wasn't Robin who said "No need for regret, then." Yet
you indict him with Share's phrase. You want readers here
to think of him as an unfeeling monster.

For you to deny that you're out for revenge is blatantly
dishonest. If taking revenge is what you need to do, go
for it. But don't pretend it's something else to try to
make yourself smell better in your own nose.


> I know the impression some people have gotten is that I am
> coming with a bias based on my past association with Robin
> which makes me blind and unable to see who Robin is now.This
> an understandable but incorrect conclusion, I have given it
> long and hard consideration.

That you have given it long and hard consideration does
not rule out continued blindness and inability to see who
Robin is now. You can't even see who *you* are now.

Re: [FairfieldLife] An after thought to most recent post to Robin

[Share Long]

Hi Lord Knows, hmmm, not sure how I feel about my words having lit a fire in 
you, etc.  Especially as you seem to have quickly fallen into one of the bad 
habits here on FFL.  Which is taking one bit of what someone writes and 
ignoring all the other pertinent bits.  For example, please note that I came to 
several conclusions in what I said to Robin in that one excerpt.  I suggested 
making amends if possible.  I suggested living your life as well as possible.  
Ok, these are suggestions not conclusion if one wants to be picky.  But also, I 
concluded that this is a learning place; that even leaders are on a learning 
curve.  I concluded that thus it's best not to expect perfection from them 
either.  I'm interested to know your reactions to those conclusions too. 


Perhaps you want Robin to regret?  If so I'm wondering if you really think his 
feeling regret would truly help you.  
Wishing you any and all that will help you heal most comfortably and quickly.
Share



What Lord Knows snipped:

Share1: I'm glad to hear that people gained rather than lost from association
with you. So no need to regret then. I believe this is a learning place. 
We're here to make mistakes. And learn from them. So make amends if possible
and live your life as well as possible. That's good enough. Also, even leaders
are on a learning curve. Best not to expect perfection from them either.


Lord Knows:  When I read most especially Share's conclusion "So no need to 
regret 
then." it lit a fire in me to overcome my aversion to a public forum and take 
what apparently would be my one and only opportunity to interact 
with you. 



 From: lordknows888 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 2:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] An after thought to most recent post to Robin
 

  
Just a quick note.
The subject line was too long and got chopped.It should have read
Robin what "I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth". 
Way too long but I liked it because it effectively condensed what I was trying 
to convey.

Also I realize I need to explain the last sentence. I have a weakness that I 
have been chided for by a few of my friends. I am ever hopeful and leave a door 
open for things to improve when most people would have long ago thrown in the 
towel. I admit It has caused me some grief in my life, what can I say? Just 
call me Don Quixote.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Oh, Robin, sometimes I wish you would say to your critics something along the 
> lines of "I am what I am. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself," but I 
> guess that's not your style. Over the last few days I felt like I was a 
> voyeur at some kind of War Crimes Tribunal or at one of those sessions they 
> have in prisons where victims get to confront those who wronged them. It all 
> seems a bit over the top. I would say: Stuff happens. Get used to it. But 
> again, that might be a little blunt for your elegant mind. I'm also reminded 
> of a passage in D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love, where the character Birkin 
> says something like, "For every murder there is a murderee, someone who wants 
> to get murdered." So I think everyone has to take responsibility for the 
> situations they get into rather than being so eager to lay blame and whine 
> about being a victim. 

Dear Feste, what a wonderful and insightful and deep and forgiving person you 
seem to be. You know, it is not so much about the subject matter here (Robin's 
guilt or innocence, enlightenment or delusion) but about the principals that 
govern our individual lives. Your principals, and maybe not actually that, more 
like the inclinations, the instincts you have to live the way you evidently do 
make me feel rejuvenated in some way. Because when faced with so much hardness 
and anger and gloating ugliness I just sometimes feel oppressed. And then along 
comes you and I feel that human beings may be alright after all. And I still 
love your feistiness because it does not appear to damage but to invigorate.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Vaj,
> > 
> > You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your post--and 
> > I can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you have said.
> > 
> > OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having 
> > given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance 
> > you in your spiritual quest.
> > 
> > I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the 
> > truth of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt 
> > about it: Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. Any 
> > disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. So I 
> > don't think there was any need to point this out.
> > 
> > After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch so 
> > that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows of 
> > his righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on FFL--and it 
> > is not a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as Lord Knows 
> > did--uncannily described here in your objective post--The question occurs 
> > to me, Vaj: Why not before this? I wish you had drawn blood before with 
> > your lion-hearted spirit.)
> > 
> > I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is saintly 
> > about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign praise--is your 
> > refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that are directed 
> > towards the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your rather overly 
> > charitable approach to systems of belief which differ from your own. I 
> > think you are the gold standard when it comes to sincerity and 
> > fearlessness. And I envy as well, your serenity and lovableness.
> > 
> > But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost 
> > certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't 
> > think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was 
> > fire blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this so 
> > plain to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my 
> > humiliation in my face.
> > 
> > But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of 
> > your motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of apology 
> > and regret.
> > 
> > I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic 
> > comes onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.
> > 
> > How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my entire 
> > life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in the range 
> > of imbecile.
> > 
> > I would have thought you had objectified this before and would approach me, 
> > not so much with the fluency and eloquence of your superior wit, but with 
> > the more healing compassion of your bright and radiant soul.
> > 
> > I have eschewed irony here in the attempt finally to bear my own soul to 
> > you.
> > 
> > I mean once Lord Knows had his say, I couldn't think of anything to say 
> > back to him. And I believe oxcart nailed it in his post to authfriend. That 
> > was almost like a revelation to me.
> > 
> > And do you mind st

[FairfieldLife] An after thought to most recent post to Robin

[lordknows888]

Just a quick note.
The subject line was too long and got chopped.It should have read
Robin what "I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth". 
Way too long but I liked it because it effectively condensed what I was trying 
to convey.

Also I realize I need to explain the last sentence. I have a weakness that I 
have been chided for by a few of my friends. I am ever hopeful and leave a door 
open for things to improve when most people would have long ago thrown in the 
towel. I admit It has caused me some grief in my life, what can I say? Just 
call me Don Quixote.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan"  wrote:

> So that makes me realize just how very powerful and charismatic -
> and yes ill but mistaking it for enlightenment - Robin was.

"Realize" is the wrong word here, Susan. Try "conjecture."
You are not in a position to "realize" that Robin mistook
anything for enlightenment--25-plus years ago, for pete's
sake, and never yourself having been around him--and neither
are any of the rest of us.

You are of course free to conjecture and speculate to your
heart's content. But use the correct verb, please. To
"realize" something is to become aware that it is a fact.
Whether Robin was mistaken about his enlightement is a
fact somewhere out there in the universe, but we don't
have access to that fact and should not pretend we do.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Gotye Parody Laments Loss Of "Obama That I Used To Know"

[turquoiseb]

> Gotye Parody Laments Loss Of "Obama That I Used To Know"
> "Because you won and then you cut me off / Now your speeches 
> never soar as high as unemployment"
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gotye-parody-laments-loss-of-obama-that-i-used-to
>  

This is hilarious, and very well done. 

[FairfieldLife] Gotye Parody Laments Loss Of "Obama That I Used To Know"

[mdixon . 6569]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[Susan]

LordKnows,
I really appreciate your posts here. They sound right on and it has been good 
know how it felt from the inside of the cult. I don't know Robin and was not at 
MIU at the time he began his cult.  And I always wondered just who could 
possibly have been attracted to follow him.  Your posts sound really 
intelligent, heartfelt - and you seem like a good and sensible person. So that 
makes me realize just how very powerful and charismatic - and yes ill but 
mistaking it for enlightenment - Robin was. We were all, in those days, seeing 
life thru the lens of enlightenment experiences, and mistaking special  or odd 
experiences as the Big E was certainly possible within the context of our lives 
and TM culture. Being young makes it all easier to be misled.  And it happens 
in other groups, too.  I read of a Buddhist group years ago that revered the 
odd behavior of one of the long-time devotees.  They thought he was now 
enlightened. He got odder and odder and finally physically ill - and was found 
to have a large and fatal brain tumor that caused his odd behaviors. 

It sounds like those were terrible, mixed up years for Robin, and unfortunately 
others got dragged in and along.  Thank you for speaking out, for being so 
honest, and for confirming things.  

 It can't be pleasant to recall this stuff.  It sounds as if you have been able 
to recover and get clear about that time in your life. If a topic here on Ffld 
interests you, I do hope you will contribute.  and if you ever reply to Barry's 
recent post I will look forward to reading it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lordknows888"  wrote:
>
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> I never wanted to engage with you in a public forum, to me what happened 
> between us was something deeply personal, even though almost all the 
> confrontations were on a stage and videotaped.I tried to contact you 
> personally but I could not, I did not have your address, phone number or 
> email. When I discovered you were on FFL and engaging with people about 
> everything under the sun including most especially
> what happened in the cult I was riveted and began to follow it closely.
> I still did not want to engage with you publicly, it just wasn't the right 
> place to have the kind of interaction I wanted to have. Ann  will confirm 
> that this is true.I was weighing whether or not to push past my aversion to 
> going public with something which for me was very personal and private, when 
> I read the interaction you had with Share one day a few weeks ago on July 
> 27th to be exact.Here is the interchange---
> 
> Robin1: There are a lot of things I regret. If a student at MIU felt, in
> retrospect, they would have rather stayed away from me and completed their
> education at MIU, that would indeed constitute a source of concern for me. But
> what was opened up in their experience, and where most of these persons ended
> up, I doubt anyone who took their chances with me feels on balance they lost
> rather than gained from the experience. But this is a very complex issue. And 
> I
> have no hard data to support this conclusion.
> 
> Share1: I'm glad to hear that people gained rather than lost from association
> with you. So no need to regret then. I believe this is a learning place. 
> We're here to make mistakes. And learn from them. So make amends if possible
> and live your life as well as possible. That's good enough. Also, even leaders
> are on a learning curve. Best not to expect perfection from them either.
>  When I read most especially Share's conclusion "So no need to regret then." 
> it lit a fire in me to overcome my aversion to a public forum and take what 
> apparently would be my one and only opportunity to interact with you. I do 
> not have a personal drive to   take revenge on you by  defeating and 
> humiliating you. It has been over 25 years and I have moved on in my 
> life.There was a time a long time ago when I would have had to confess to 
> someone "your damn right I would love to do that" but not now, and it was not 
> my motivation when I sent my initial post to FFL.My passion was to express 
> something which was closer to the truth of how really destructive the cult 
> experiece was, and not have it trivialized by such a comment which Share 
> innocently
> expressed.So this gives some context to why I started my post with the 
> dramatic and almost tragic event about the attempted suicide.I wanted people 
> on FFL to really feel into the truth of what happened, not have it be "ya, ya 
> we know about his episode as a spiritual teacher and how badly it went". That 
> just does not do it justice at all.
> Robin I have followed you on this forum, I have read 100's of your posts and 
> I had moments when I wondered if maybe you really had changed, but then 
> another post would come and I would see the same old Robin, no essential 
> change.So this whole question of your authentic transformation which is one 
> that I have given a great deal o

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[feste37]

Oh, Robin, sometimes I wish you would say to your critics something along the 
lines of "I am what I am. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself," but I guess 
that's not your style. Over the last few days I felt like I was a voyeur at 
some kind of War Crimes Tribunal or at one of those sessions they have in 
prisons where victims get to confront those who wronged them. It all seems a 
bit over the top. I would say: Stuff happens. Get used to it. But again, that 
might be a little blunt for your elegant mind. I'm also reminded of a passage 
in D. H. Lawrence's Women in Love, where the character Birkin says something 
like, "For every murder there is a murderee, someone who wants to get 
murdered." So I think everyone has to take responsibility for the situations 
they get into rather than being so eager to lay blame and whine about being a 
victim. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Vaj,
> 
> You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your post--and I 
> can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you have said.
> 
> OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having 
> given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance you 
> in your spiritual quest.
> 
> I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the truth 
> of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt about it: 
> Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. Any 
> disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. So I 
> don't think there was any need to point this out.
> 
> After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch so 
> that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows of his 
> righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on FFL--and it is not 
> a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as Lord Knows did--uncannily 
> described here in your objective post--The question occurs to me, Vaj: Why 
> not before this? I wish you had drawn blood before with your lion-hearted 
> spirit.)
> 
> I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is saintly 
> about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign praise--is your 
> refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that are directed towards 
> the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your rather overly charitable 
> approach to systems of belief which differ from your own. I think you are the 
> gold standard when it comes to sincerity and fearlessness. And I envy as 
> well, your serenity and lovableness.
> 
> But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost 
> certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't 
> think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was fire 
> blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this so plain 
> to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my humiliation in 
> my face.
> 
> But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of your 
> motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of apology and 
> regret.
> 
> I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic comes 
> onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.
> 
> How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my entire 
> life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in the range 
> of imbecile.
> 
> I would have thought you had objectified this before and would approach me, 
> not so much with the fluency and eloquence of your superior wit, but with the 
> more healing compassion of your bright and radiant soul.
> 
> I have eschewed irony here in the attempt finally to bear my own soul to you.
> 
> I mean once Lord Knows had his say, I couldn't think of anything to say back 
> to him. And I believe oxcart nailed it in his post to authfriend. That was 
> almost like a revelation to me.
> 
> And do you mind stop gloating, Vaj?
> 
> Affectionately,
> 
> Sri Robino
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Vaj,,
> > >
> > > I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here  
> > > contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you colluding  
> > > with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what  
> > > seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and  
> > > there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too  
> > > much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is.
> > 
> > I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the  
> > web interface instead?
> > 
> > > What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me  
> > > here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally  
> > > off the mark you are in almos

[FairfieldLife] Re: Some facts and background on Robin Carlsen / umasking the zebra

[Robin Carlsen]

Even with something as beautiful and elusive and feathery as this, Merudanda, I 
always have the same final experience: That the soul of Merudanda wants to keep 
secret, hidden, enclosed in her sacrificial love. *She does not become attached 
to a desire to be answered*--never. This is a bright colour of the spirit I 
have never seen I reckon--but perhaps the butterfly is silent, because he has 
no choice about the perfect sound he makes when he alights on a flower. Do you 
exercise--ever--your free choice to become personally intimate to anyone in 
your exquisite aloneness [I will not disturb this with a question mark]. I know 
I am staggering and stumbling around in your perfect white room, uninvited. It 
is just that I don't recognize the hunger in you for the requital of your 
gifts. I am a strange kind of creature myself but not so spontaneous in my 
gently unfolding mortifications of self as you were born to be. I am waiting 
for that one gliding in the sky where I see your curvature of your wings  bent 
towards the earth--where at least one of us is waiting for you to descend 
deeply into our mind. But you are always in the same motionless place where you 
must be (I presume) in order to create the spring every year. May I still crash 
around in your room (I see that now it is blue) and ask inside your heart *What 
do you live on?* For I must believe you live only the music just after the 
first night when the stars were there--and none but you have eyes to see those 
notes. Did you comfort Job in his pain? I will never demand that you obey the 
law of gravity like the rest of us, Merudanda. And your face, you create it 
every day with the eyes that only see each snowflake that has ever fallen.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit (...)?
> Cave...cave
> sit nomen Domini benedictum
> 
> and at a  far and forlorn  beach
> merumaid fluttered with his wings
>   in Job's morning cup
> for the flagrance of a long forlorn flower
> 
> the hand and arm
> who held this empty cup
> holds a kite to surf
>   with stench of sweat
> the boat's in the sky
> 
> 
> and  again
> merumaid fluttered with his wings
> feeling free
>   when carried by the winds
> 
> Iob 1, 21
> Nudus egressus sum
> de utero matris meae
> et nudus revertar illuc...
> sit nomen Domini benedictum
> 
> Thanks for taking the time,...
> good night
> a night in rain storm and lightening
> sleep well,
> too
> ..
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" 
> wrote:
> snip
> He had made me enlightened; I still acted as if he were my Master.
> snip
>

[FairfieldLife] Robin what I really wanted was not a fight but something closer to the truth

[lordknows888]

Dear Robin,

I never wanted to engage with you in a public forum, to me what happened 
between us was something deeply personal, even though almost all the 
confrontations were on a stage and videotaped.I tried to contact you personally 
but I could not, I did not have your address, phone number or email. When I 
discovered you were on FFL and engaging with people about everything under the 
sun including most especially
what happened in the cult I was riveted and began to follow it closely.
I still did not want to engage with you publicly, it just wasn't the right 
place to have the kind of interaction I wanted to have. Ann  will confirm that 
this is true.I was weighing whether or not to push past my aversion to going 
public with something which for me was very personal and private, when I read 
the interaction you had with Share one day a few weeks ago on July 27th to be 
exact.Here is the interchange---

Robin1: There are a lot of things I regret. If a student at MIU felt, in
retrospect, they would have rather stayed away from me and completed their
education at MIU, that would indeed constitute a source of concern for me. But
what was opened up in their experience, and where most of these persons ended
up, I doubt anyone who took their chances with me feels on balance they lost
rather than gained from the experience. But this is a very complex issue. And I
have no hard data to support this conclusion.

Share1: I'm glad to hear that people gained rather than lost from association
with you. So no need to regret then. I believe this is a learning place. 
We're here to make mistakes. And learn from them. So make amends if possible
and live your life as well as possible. That's good enough. Also, even leaders
are on a learning curve. Best not to expect perfection from them either.
 When I read most especially Share's conclusion "So no need to regret then." it 
lit a fire in me to overcome my aversion to a public forum and take what 
apparently would be my one and only opportunity to interact with you. I do not 
have a personal drive to   take revenge on you by  defeating and humiliating 
you. It has been over 25 years and I have moved on in my life.There was a time 
a long time ago when I would have had to confess to someone "your damn right I 
would love to do that" but not now, and it was not my motivation when I sent my 
initial post to FFL.My passion was to express something which was closer to the 
truth of how really destructive the cult experiece was, and not have it 
trivialized by such a comment which Share innocently
expressed.So this gives some context to why I started my post with the dramatic 
and almost tragic event about the attempted suicide.I wanted people on FFL to 
really feel into the truth of what happened, not have it be "ya, ya we know 
about his episode as a spiritual teacher and how badly it went". That just does 
not do it justice at all.
Robin I have followed you on this forum, I have read 100's of your posts and I 
had moments when I wondered if maybe you really had changed, but then another 
post would come and I would see the same old Robin, no essential change.So this 
whole question of your authentic transformation which is one that I have given 
a great deal of thought and study to has occupied me. If my wife was not such a 
patient, loving person she would probably have put earphones on
and told me to short it by myself, preferably quietly and quickly.
I know the impression some people have gotten is that I am coming with a bias 
based on my past association with Robin which makes me blind and unable to see 
who Robin is now.This an understandable but incorrect conclusion, I have given 
it long and hard consideration.
I don't have the final word on you, nor do I want it. I am perfectly clear it 
is not mine to give a final word on you or anybody, but only
just my honest opinion.I would say it is a very well informed opinion given 
only after deep consideration, but still just an opinion of an ordinary 
fallible person.
Robin maybe someday we can have an honest private heart to heart conversation, 
for now I am done. I don't feel the need to say much more on this forum except 
to respond to some individuals whose posts meant a great deal to me. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mitt just can't help himself

[sparaig]

Well, the intertubes were a military invention, just as the interstate highway 
system was, and for precisely the same reason:

to keep the flow of data/goods going during time of war, with minimal 
disruption regardless of which city had been destroyed.


L.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > > "What do you do when everybody's claiming your president 
> > > said something, and you just know he didn't really say 
> > > it, but all the video and all the audio and all the 
> > > transcripts show that he did say it?"
> > >
> authfriend:
> > Nobody, of course, is saying he didn't say the words.
> >
> > But the right-wingers have deliberately taken the words
> > out of context. 
> >
> Not just right-wingers! This is an good example of how 
> "You didn't build that" became "He didn't say that." 
> 
> > They referred not to small businesses themselves but 
> > to the infrastructure without which they couldn't exist 
> > in the first place.
> > 
> You didn't build that - taxpayers did! LoL! But, the big
> problem is that you eventually run out of money, spending
> other people's money.
> 
> "The most obnoxious aspect of Obama's speech isn't even 
> the contempt he expressed for individual accomplishment. 
> It's the crass, sad attempt to appeal to communitarian 
> emotions, even though the small-scale communities where 
> this spirit flourishes are largely populated by the 
> 'bitter clingers' he despises."
> 
> Read more:
> 
> Instapundit:
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/146911/
> 
> > > http://tinyurl.com/7c79njk
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Mitt just can't help himself

[Richard J. Williams]

> > "What do you do when everybody's claiming your president 
> > said something, and you just know he didn't really say 
> > it, but all the video and all the audio and all the 
> > transcripts show that he did say it?"
> >
authfriend:
> Nobody, of course, is saying he didn't say the words.
>
> But the right-wingers have deliberately taken the words
> out of context. 
>
Not just right-wingers! This is an good example of how 
"You didn't build that" became "He didn't say that." 

> They referred not to small businesses themselves but 
> to the infrastructure without which they couldn't exist 
> in the first place.
> 
You didn't build that - taxpayers did! LoL! But, the big
problem is that you eventually run out of money, spending
other people's money.

"The most obnoxious aspect of Obama's speech isn't even 
the contempt he expressed for individual accomplishment. 
It's the crass, sad attempt to appeal to communitarian 
emotions, even though the small-scale communities where 
this spirit flourishes are largely populated by the 
'bitter clingers' he despises."

Read more:

Instapundit:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/146911/

> > http://tinyurl.com/7c79njk

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[raunchydog]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Raunchydog,
> 
> After carefully reading what you have said here, I am re-examining my 
> estimation of the beautifulness of Vaj. You must at least admit that he 
> always wants to impale himself on the truth, that he seeks to answer all his 
> critics, that he has the satisfaction of being true to himself, that he 
> wishes always to do justice to his adversaries,  and that, well, he just is, 
> a swell guy. :-)
> 

Vaj impales himself on the truth, as in "hoisted on his own petard." Nail gun 
to the forehead, he tacks himself to the wall. Boink! Oops. 

> You are challenging my best take on the guy. Well, that means something. I 
> can only say when I wrote in praise of Vaj, it felt so good. Are you somewhat 
> jaundiced here, Raunchydog?
> 
> I think Vaj a splendid and exemplary fellow who always gives me a feeling of 
> joy in my solar plexus--And it is no ordinary joy. It is the joy of knowing 
> heaven is here on the earth. No, for me, Vaj is heaven itself.
> 
> I am just so sorry we have to be so far apart here on this, Raunchydog. 
> 
> We have a Saint amongst us and you are going after him? This doesn't make 
> sense to me, Raunchydog. 
> 
> Vaj just went too far with his TM rounding on ATR, and he, when he came close 
> to Maharishi, felt the breeze to be too cool, and when he ran through me with 
> his white sword in DC, he suffered in sensing the agony of my humiliation.
> 
> No, I think we should be careful here, Raunchydog: Vaj is, after all, doing 
> his very best.
> 
> Hope your granddaughter wins the gold.
> 
> Robin
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
> >
> > Oh, hogwash, Robin. Let't get to the point. A jackal is a coward. He 
> > attacks the wounded, and steals the leavings of flesh from stronger 
> > creatures. His reward for finishing the kill is gloating, an empty 
> > compensation for inadequacy that will never satisfy his hunger. Though his 
> > chops be bloody, his belly full, his spirit remains devoid of  humanity. 
> > That, my friend, is Vaj in a nutshell.   
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Vaj,
> > > 
> > > You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your 
> > > post--and I can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you 
> > > have said.
> > > 
> > > OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having 
> > > given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance 
> > > you in your spiritual quest.
> > > 
> > > I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the 
> > > truth of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt 
> > > about it: Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. 
> > > Any disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. 
> > > So I don't think there was any need to point this out.
> > > 
> > > After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch 
> > > so that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows 
> > > of his righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on 
> > > FFL--and it is not a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as 
> > > Lord Knows did--uncannily described here in your objective post--The 
> > > question occurs to me, Vaj: Why not before this? I wish you had drawn 
> > > blood before with your lion-hearted spirit.)
> > > 
> > > I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is 
> > > saintly about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign 
> > > praise--is your refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that 
> > > are directed towards the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your 
> > > rather overly charitable approach to systems of belief which differ from 
> > > your own. I think you are the gold standard when it comes to sincerity 
> > > and fearlessness. And I envy as well, your serenity and lovableness.
> > > 
> > > But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost 
> > > certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't 
> > > think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was 
> > > fire blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this 
> > > so plain to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my 
> > > humiliation in my face.
> > > 
> > > But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of 
> > > your motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of 
> > > apology and regret.
> > > 
> > > I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic 
> > > comes onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.
> > > 
> > > How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my 
> > > entire life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in 
> > > the range

[FairfieldLife] Francis Bennett: New Interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump - 08/08/2012

[Rick Archer]

 


blog updates from


Buddha at the Gas Pump


   


published 08/08/2012


133. Francis Bennett 

 

Aug 07, 2012 09:58 am | Rick

Francis Bennett entered the Trappist Abbey of Gethsemane in 1981 and in the 
90′s subsequently lived at a “daughter house” of Gethsemane in Monks Corner 
South Carolina. Until recently, he was living in a small urban monastery in 
Montreal Quebec. … Continue reading  

 →

   
133_francis_bennett.mp3 

  62.5 MB

comments 

  | read more 

 

 

 Like 133. Francis Bennett on Facebook   

 Google Plus One Button   

 share on Twitter

   
Elsewhere

·  

 Visit My Blog

·  

 Share This with a friend

·  

 Follow me on Twitter

·  

 RSS feed

   


view email in a browser 

  | 


Regular announcement of new interviews posted at http://batgap.com.

Buddha at the Gas Pump


Add us to your address book 

 

Copyright (C) 2012 Buddha at the Gas Pump All rights reserved.

  
Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

  

 

[FairfieldLife] Celebrating Shri Krishna Janmashtami, Thursday, 9th August 2012, 12:25 Holland time

[merlin]

Shri Krishna Janmashtami
Birthday of Lord Krishna
Thursday, 9th August 2012, 12:25 Holland time
-

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Raunchydog,

After carefully reading what you have said here, I am re-examining my 
estimation of the beautifulness of Vaj. You must at least admit that he always 
wants to impale himself on the truth, that he seeks to answer all his critics, 
that he has the satisfaction of being true to himself, that he wishes always to 
do justice to his adversaries,  and that, well, he just is, a swell guy. :-)

You are challenging my best take on the guy. Well, that means something. I can 
only say when I wrote in praise of Vaj, it felt so good. Are you somewhat 
jaundiced here, Raunchydog?

I think Vaj a splendid and exemplary fellow who always gives me a feeling of 
joy in my solar plexus--And it is no ordinary joy. It is the joy of knowing 
heaven is here on the earth. No, for me, Vaj is heaven itself.

I am just so sorry we have to be so far apart here on this, Raunchydog. 

We have a Saint amongst us and you are going after him? This doesn't make sense 
to me, Raunchydog. 

Vaj just went too far with his TM rounding on ATR, and he, when he came close 
to Maharishi, felt the breeze to be too cool, and when he ran through me with 
his white sword in DC, he suffered in sensing the agony of my humiliation.

No, I think we should be careful here, Raunchydog: Vaj is, after all, doing his 
very best.

Hope your granddaughter wins the gold.

Robin

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog"  wrote:
>
> Oh, hogwash, Robin. Let't get to the point. A jackal is a coward. He attacks 
> the wounded, and steals the leavings of flesh from stronger creatures. His 
> reward for finishing the kill is gloating, an empty compensation for 
> inadequacy that will never satisfy his hunger. Though his chops be bloody, 
> his belly full, his spirit remains devoid of  humanity. That, my friend, is 
> Vaj in a nutshell.   
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Vaj,
> > 
> > You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your post--and 
> > I can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you have said.
> > 
> > OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having 
> > given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance 
> > you in your spiritual quest.
> > 
> > I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the 
> > truth of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt 
> > about it: Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. Any 
> > disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. So I 
> > don't think there was any need to point this out.
> > 
> > After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch so 
> > that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows of 
> > his righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on FFL--and it 
> > is not a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as Lord Knows 
> > did--uncannily described here in your objective post--The question occurs 
> > to me, Vaj: Why not before this? I wish you had drawn blood before with 
> > your lion-hearted spirit.)
> > 
> > I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is saintly 
> > about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign praise--is your 
> > refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that are directed 
> > towards the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your rather overly 
> > charitable approach to systems of belief which differ from your own. I 
> > think you are the gold standard when it comes to sincerity and 
> > fearlessness. And I envy as well, your serenity and lovableness.
> > 
> > But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost 
> > certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't 
> > think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was 
> > fire blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this so 
> > plain to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my 
> > humiliation in my face.
> > 
> > But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of 
> > your motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of apology 
> > and regret.
> > 
> > I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic 
> > comes onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.
> > 
> > How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my entire 
> > life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in the range 
> > of imbecile.
> > 
> > I would have thought you had objectified this before and would approach me, 
> > not so much with the fluency and eloquence of your superior wit, but with 
> > the more healing compassion of your bright and radiant soul.
> > 
> > I have eschewed irony here in the attempt finally to bear my own soul to 
> > you.
> > 
> > I mean once Lord Knows had his say, I couldn't think of

[FairfieldLife] Fw: Guerilla Gardener Plants Joy in Potholes

[Share Long]

Sending just because I love the subject line...maybe (-:


- Forwarded Message -
From: DailyGood.org 
To: sharelon...@yahoo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:05 AM
Subject: Guerilla Gardener Plants Joy in Potholes
 

DailyGood.org 
You're receiving this email because you are a DailyGood subscriber.
Trouble Viewing?  On a mobile? Just click here. Not interested anymore? 
Unsubscribe. 
 
August 8, 2012 a project of ServiceSpace  
  Unexpected intrusions of beauty. This is what life is.

- Saul Bellow -   
Guerilla Gardener Plants Joy in Potholes
They're the bane of cyclists and motorists alike, but one urban gardener has 
grown a fondness for potholes after deciding to spruce up cities around Europe 
by filling them up with miniature flower arrangements. Australian Steve Wheen, 
34, who lives in London, has been using flowers and small-scale objects to 
transform urban potholes for the last three years. The self-styled 'guerrilla 
gardener' has created mini gardens all around his home city but has now decided 
to bring joy to commuters across Europe with his unusual pothole creations. { 
read more }
Submitted by: Deepa Krishnan
Be The Change
Do something to surprise someone with an 'unexpected intrusion of beauty' 
today.  


COMMENT | RATE     


  Related Good News 
Homeless Man Bails out Banker Mystery Knitter's Olympic Masterpiece Wisdom 
>From Alice, Age 108 A Cab Ride I'll Never Forget 
Change Your Life with a Thank-You Note The Body's Grace: A Paralyzed Yoga 
Teacher's Insights 25 Visionaries Changing Your World Pilot Holds Plane for a 
Dying Child   


DailyGood is a volunteer-run initiative that delivers "good news" to 118,618 
subscribers.  There are many ways to help. To unsubscribe, click here.


Other ServiceSpace projects include:
HelpOthers  //  CF Sites  //  KarmaTube  //  Conversations  //  More 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Vaj]

On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:51 AM, awoelflebater wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
>
> > Dear Vaj,,
> >
> > I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here
> > contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you  
colluding

> > with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what
> > seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and
> > there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too
> > much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is.
>
> I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the
> web interface instead?
>
> > What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me
> > here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally
> > off the mark you are in almost everything you say about me--once,
> > that is, you become critical. No one who has ever met me would say
> > the things you say. They represent an imaginative reading of me--
> > and do not in any way whatsoever contain the force and truth of
> > some direct encounter with me. Lord Knows, Lord knows, he does  
know

> > me--after a fashion.
> >
> > But again, Vaj, tell us how you preempted LK888's post to me? I am
> > more curious than anything else.
>
> Simple manipulation of space-time continuum, that's all. By applying
> samyama on certain email servers, and then applying a filtering
> meditation I'm able be digitally omniscient R.
>
> > You do not know me, Vaj. You are being driven by something other
> > than the search for the truth.
>
> Says the always truthful Robin?

Is sarcasm useful here? No, it is not. It merely undermines the  
possibility of a real conversation, a deeper, more truthful one.


You operate under a false assumption Ann: that I'm interested in ANY  
conversation with R., let alone a "deep" or "truthful" one. It's not  
worth having a conversation with someone who is game-playing to the  
extent that R. does - IMO. YMMV.


I believe the real issue here is that YOU want (need?) that type of  
conversation - and you're not getting it. Instead you're only left  
with your own skewed disconnect between what reality is serving and  
what you're perceiving. If you're interesting in playing out  
something similar to what went down before between you two, then I'm  
afraid that's what you'd end up getting, because when it really comes  
down to it, he hasn't changed that much to expect a different outcome.

[FairfieldLife] playing hookey from ff Lounge today

[Share Long]

It's raining here!  Something Worked!  Lord Knows what (-:

I'm off to Iowa City for an appt and shopping for sister's birthday:  Sun in 
Leo gr

Back 2:30 ish Central to face deluge from FFL!


May all ff Loungers have Fun on Farm today.  And Lounge also be lizard free (-:


May get scuffies to match Lounge pjs.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[raunchydog]

Oh, hogwash, Robin. Let't get to the point. A jackal is a coward. He attacks 
the wounded, and steals the leavings of flesh from stronger creatures. His 
reward for finishing the kill is gloating, an empty compensation for inadequacy 
that will never satisfy his hunger. Though his chops be bloody, his belly full, 
his spirit remains devoid of  humanity. That, my friend, is Vaj in a nutshell.  
 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen"  wrote:
>
> Dear Vaj,
> 
> You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your post--and I 
> can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you have said.
> 
> OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having 
> given yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance you 
> in your spiritual quest.
> 
> I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the truth 
> of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt about it: 
> Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. Any 
> disinterested and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. So I 
> don't think there was any need to point this out.
> 
> After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch so 
> that he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows of his 
> righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on FFL--and it is not 
> a pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as Lord Knows did--uncannily 
> described here in your objective post--The question occurs to me, Vaj: Why 
> not before this? I wish you had drawn blood before with your lion-hearted 
> spirit.)
> 
> I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is saintly 
> about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign praise--is your 
> refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that are directed towards 
> the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your rather overly charitable 
> approach to systems of belief which differ from your own. I think you are the 
> gold standard when it comes to sincerity and fearlessness. And I envy as 
> well, your serenity and lovableness.
> 
> But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost 
> certain this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't 
> think of anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was fire 
> blanks at him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this so plain 
> to everyone was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my humiliation in 
> my face.
> 
> But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of your 
> motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of apology and 
> regret.
> 
> I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic comes 
> onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.
> 
> How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my entire 
> life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in the range 
> of imbecile.
> 
> I would have thought you had objectified this before and would approach me, 
> not so much with the fluency and eloquence of your superior wit, but with the 
> more healing compassion of your bright and radiant soul.
> 
> I have eschewed irony here in the attempt finally to bear my own soul to you.
> 
> I mean once Lord Knows had his say, I couldn't think of anything to say back 
> to him. And I believe oxcart nailed it in his post to authfriend. That was 
> almost like a revelation to me.
> 
> And do you mind stop gloating, Vaj?
> 
> Affectionately,
> 
> Sri Robino
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> > 
> > > Dear Vaj,,
> > >
> > > I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here  
> > > contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you colluding  
> > > with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what  
> > > seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and  
> > > there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too  
> > > much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is.
> > 
> > I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the  
> > web interface instead?
> > 
> > > What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me  
> > > here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally  
> > > off the mark you are in almost everything you say about me--once,  
> > > that is, you become critical. No one who has ever met me would say  
> > > the things you say. They represent an imaginative reading of me-- 
> > > and do not in any way whatsoever contain the force and truth of  
> > > some direct encounter with me. Lord Knows, Lord knows, he does know  
> > > me--after a fashion.
> > >
> > > But again, Vaj, tell us how you preempted LK888's post to me? I am  
> > > more curious tha

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> > > > > more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> > > > > could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> > > > > I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> > > > > IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> > > > > the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> > > > > or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> > > > > doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> > > > > siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> > > > > instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> > > > > enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> > > > > related in any way. 
> > > > 
> > > > IMHO, the siddhis and enlightenment are related to 
> > > > each other at least this way:
> > > > 
> > > > For one to able to abandon the siddhis it seems
> > > > almost inevitable to experience at least some
> > > > of them. Otherwise, you don't have nothing much
> > > > to abandon, have you?
> > > 
> > > I honestly do not understand what you mean by 
> > > "abandon," Card. Do you mean "not be interested
> > > in them," or do you mean "not be interested in
> > > learning to perform them," or do you mean "not
> > > being interested in them once having mastered
> > > them," or what?
> > 
> > I'm not a good writer by any standard, especially
> > my "semantic ear" might be way weaker than average,
> > even in writing/speaking in my own language.
> > The last one of your alternatives is what I mean.
> 
> Au contraire, I think that you are an excellent
> writer, given that English is not your native
> language. I have never mastered *any* other 
> language to the extent that you have. 

Why, thanks, but IMO English is a rather easy language,
apart from spelling. At least you don't have to
memorize inflectional/conjucational paradigms as
in e.g. Sanskrit. 

I think my weakest points in English are
choosing the correct preposition and sometimes
not knowing whether to use an article (a/an/the) or
not...And Nabby is by far better than me in writing
*idiomatic* English, IMO. :D

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> 
> > Dear Vaj,,
> >
> > I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here  
> > contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you colluding  
> > with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what  
> > seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and  
> > there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too  
> > much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is.
> 
> I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the  
> web interface instead?
> 
> > What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me  
> > here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally  
> > off the mark you are in almost everything you say about me--once,  
> > that is, you become critical. No one who has ever met me would say  
> > the things you say. They represent an imaginative reading of me-- 
> > and do not in any way whatsoever contain the force and truth of  
> > some direct encounter with me. Lord Knows, Lord knows, he does know  
> > me--after a fashion.
> >
> > But again, Vaj, tell us how you preempted LK888's post to me? I am  
> > more curious than anything else.
> 
> Simple manipulation of space-time continuum, that's all. By applying  
> samyama on certain email servers, and then applying a filtering  
> meditation I'm able be digitally omniscient R.
> 
> > You do not know me, Vaj. You are being driven by something other  
> > than the search for the truth.
> 
> Says the always truthful Robin?

Is sarcasm useful here? No, it is not. It merely undermines the possibility of 
a real conversation, a deeper, more truthful one.
> 
> > And by the way: you must tell your friend, Lord Knows that he  
> > ducked the real fight, and I consider him to be cowardly for doing  
> > so. *That* should compel him to respond to those first three posts,  
> > don't you think?
> 
> Unless of course he thought he scored a knockout - and is back at the  
> hotel drinking champagne

I can assure you he is not. LK is not looking for a KO, not like you Vaj who 
loves to come in and mop up the blood, pick up the pieces and carry them above 
your head like some perverted trophy. You are like a carrion bird, the creature 
who feasts on the road kill and then looks around as if you were the ultimate 
warrior, the brave killer when all you do is scavenge. You actually disgust me. 
And not just in this situation either. Your cruel nature has never been more 
apparent. This, for me, isn't about Robin or LK, it is about you and what and 
who you are. 
> 
> > Especially the third one on free will. Where I have addressed a  
> > very personal question to him, which in avoiding answering, he  
> > damages his credibility fatally.
> 
>  From my POV LK was the first person to truly call you on your sh*t.  
> So therefore LK's post was not only the most revealing post aimed at  
> you ever on FFL, it did so with a certain modicum of respect,  
> something difficult to do in such a charged situation. It was like a  
> small bell rang and everyone listening, no matter how near or how  
> far, heard it loud and clear.
> 
> If the walls of Sunnyside had decided to talk, they couldn't have  
> spoken with more honesty and integrity. And bravery.

What do you know of honesty, integrity and bravery? Just that you don't possess 
any of these things. You are a voyeur and can only imagine what it would be 
like to possess any of these qualities. And if you do embody any of these three 
things you have yet to show me even one.
> 
> > Of course only in my eyes. I am sure he has garnered sympathy from  
> > other quarters. For me, though, when I make a serious accusation  
> > and judgment about someone and that someone responds to me, I look  
> > forward to seizing upon what he or she has said, because if I am  
> > right about what I think of him or her, he or she will just provide  
> > even more proof of my judgment of his or her integrity, his or her  
> > motives.
> >
> > Get your buddy, Lord Knows to come clean and get in the ring. Else  
> > I will say that his not answering that post on free will versus  
> > cosmic will is a tacit admission of defeat: that he cannot, then,  
> > reconcile his judgment of me with taking on the truth of my  
> > experience.
> 
> Like I said, LK is back at the hotel, drinking Dom with Lady Ga Ga  
> and watching reruns of RWC show.

No Vaj, you are badly mistaken. This is your idea of the perfect celebration. 
You are celebrating in a mistaken notion that anything has been "won" or anyone 
"defeated". Look to yourself Vaj, before it's too late.
> 
> 
> > And then there is the post in which I narrate (an excerpt from one  
> > of my books) the actual moment of becoming enlightened. That too  
> > has to be incorporated into this matter.
> >
> > What say you, Vaj: Shall we be courageous and di

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[awoelflebater]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> 
> > Dear Vaj,,
> >
> > I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here  
> > contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you colluding  
> > with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what  
> > seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and  
> > there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too  
> > much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is.
> 
> I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the  
> web interface instead?
> 
> > What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me  
> > here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally  
> > off the mark you are in almost everything you say about me--once,  
> > that is, you become critical. No one who has ever met me would say  
> > the things you say. They represent an imaginative reading of me-- 
> > and do not in any way whatsoever contain the force and truth of  
> > some direct encounter with me. Lord Knows, Lord knows, he does know  
> > me--after a fashion.
> >
> > But again, Vaj, tell us how you preempted LK888's post to me? I am  
> > more curious than anything else.
> 
> Simple manipulation of space-time continuum, that's all. By applying  
> samyama on certain email servers, and then applying a filtering  
> meditation I'm able be digitally omniscient R.
> 
> > You do not know me, Vaj. You are being driven by something other  
> > than the search for the truth.
> 
> Says the always truthful Robin?

Is sarcasm useful here? No, it is not. It merely undermines the possibility of 
a real conversation, a deeper, more truthful one.
> 
> > And by the way: you must tell your friend, Lord Knows that he  
> > ducked the real fight, and I consider him to be cowardly for doing  
> > so. *That* should compel him to respond to those first three posts,  
> > don't you think?
> 
> Unless of course he thought he scored a knockout - and is back at the  
> hotel drinking champagne

I can assure you he is not. LK is not looking for a KO, not like you Vaj who 
loves to come in and mop up the blood, pick up the pieces and carry them above 
your head like some perverted trophy. You are like a carrion bird, the creature 
who feasts on the road kill and then looks around as if you were the ultimate 
warrior, the brave killer when all you do is scavenge. You actually disgust me. 
And not just in this situation either. Your cruel nature has never been more 
apparent. This, for me, isn't about Robin or LK, it is about you and what and 
who you are. 
> 
> > Especially the third one on free will. Where I have addressed a  
> > very personal question to him, which in avoiding answering, he  
> > damages his credibility fatally.
> 
>  From my POV LK was the first person to truly call you on your sh*t.  
> So therefore LK's post was not only the most revealing post aimed at  
> you ever on FFL, it did so with a certain modicum of respect,  
> something difficult to do in such a charged situation. It was like a  
> small bell rang and everyone listening, no matter how near or how  
> far, heard it loud and clear.
> 
> If the walls of Sunnyside had decided to talk, they couldn't have  
> spoken with more honesty and integrity. And bravery.

What do you know of honesty, integrity and bravery? Just that you don't possess 
any of these things. You are a voyeur and can only imagine what it would be 
like to possess any of these qualities. And if you do embody any of these three 
things you have yet to show me even one.
> 
> > Of course only in my eyes. I am sure he has garnered sympathy from  
> > other quarters. For me, though, when I make a serious accusation  
> > and judgment about someone and that someone responds to me, I look  
> > forward to seizing upon what he or she has said, because if I am  
> > right about what I think of him or her, he or she will just provide  
> > even more proof of my judgment of his or her integrity, his or her  
> > motives.
> >
> > Get your buddy, Lord Knows to come clean and get in the ring. Else  
> > I will say that his not answering that post on free will versus  
> > cosmic will is a tacit admission of defeat: that he cannot, then,  
> > reconcile his judgment of me with taking on the truth of my  
> > experience.
> 
> Like I said, LK is back at the hotel, drinking Dom with Lady Ga Ga  
> and watching reruns of RWC show.

No Vaj, you are badly mistaken. This is your idea of the perfect celebration. 
You are celebrating in a mistaken notion that anything has been "won" or anyone 
"defeated". Look to yourself Vaj, before it's too late.
> 
> 
> > And then there is the post in which I narrate (an excerpt from one  
> > of my books) the actual moment of becoming enlightened. That too  
> > has to be incorporated into this matter.
> >
> > What say you, Vaj: Shall we be courageous and di

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Robin Carlsen]

Dear Vaj,

You are a beautiful guy and I love you. I have read and read your post--and I 
can come up with nothing in rebuttal to a single thing you have said.

OK, I was wrong about you; certainly you have the satisfaction of having given 
yourself a clean conscience in all this--which must surely advance you in your 
spiritual quest.

I apologize for my desperation to conceal my doubts and fears as to the truth 
of the testimony of my personal history, and there can be no doubt about it: 
Lord Knows got the better of me in every way in that debate. Any disinterested 
and impartial reader cannot but reach this conclusion. So I don't think there 
was any need to point this out.

After all, Lord Knows is salivating for me to throw just one more punch so that 
he can knock me out for good. (For me I only felt the just blows of his 
righteous fists. But I have a reputation to uphold here on FFL--and it is not a 
pleasant thing to have my honour taken from me as Lord Knows did--uncannily 
described here in your objective post--The question occurs to me, Vaj: Why not 
before this? I wish you had drawn blood before with your lion-hearted spirit.)

I am sorry we have not reconciled about other matters. But what is saintly 
about you--if you will permit me to tempt you with condign praise--is your 
refusal to become engaged with any critical remarks that are directed towards 
the consistency, honesty, and coherence of your rather overly charitable 
approach to systems of belief which differ from your own. I think you are the 
gold standard when it comes to sincerity and fearlessness. And I envy as well, 
your serenity and lovableness.

But to your main point: Yes, Lord Knows triumphed over me--I am almost certain 
this is the unanimous verdict among FFL readers. I just couldn't think of 
anything significant to say. But he had me. All I could do was fire blanks at 
him. He knows he won decisively; I think your making this so plain to everyone 
was utterly unnecessary and an attempt to rub my humiliation in my face.

But perhaps this did me some good. Certainly the nobility and beauty of your 
motivation in this post trumps anything I could say by way of apology and 
regret.

I would only ask you, Vaj, to consider how hard it is when some critic comes 
onto FFL and utterly takes my measure--as Lord Knows has done.

How I screwed up on the double-posts, that pretty much summarizes my entire 
life. I just get it wrong, Vaj. It's like my ontological IQ is in the range of 
imbecile.

I would have thought you had objectified this before and would approach me, not 
so much with the fluency and eloquence of your superior wit, but with the more 
healing compassion of your bright and radiant soul.

I have eschewed irony here in the attempt finally to bear my own soul to you.

I mean once Lord Knows had his say, I couldn't think of anything to say back to 
him. And I believe oxcart nailed it in his post to authfriend. That was almost 
like a revelation to me.

And do you mind stop gloating, Vaj?

Affectionately,

Sri Robino

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:
> 
> > Dear Vaj,,
> >
> > I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here  
> > contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you colluding  
> > with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what  
> > seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and  
> > there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too  
> > much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is.
> 
> I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the  
> web interface instead?
> 
> > What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me  
> > here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally  
> > off the mark you are in almost everything you say about me--once,  
> > that is, you become critical. No one who has ever met me would say  
> > the things you say. They represent an imaginative reading of me-- 
> > and do not in any way whatsoever contain the force and truth of  
> > some direct encounter with me. Lord Knows, Lord knows, he does know  
> > me--after a fashion.
> >
> > But again, Vaj, tell us how you preempted LK888's post to me? I am  
> > more curious than anything else.
> 
> Simple manipulation of space-time continuum, that's all. By applying  
> samyama on certain email servers, and then applying a filtering  
> meditation I'm able be digitally omniscient R.
> 
> > You do not know me, Vaj. You are being driven by something other  
> > than the search for the truth.
> 
> Says the always truthful Robin?
> 
> > And by the way: you must tell your friend, Lord Knows that he  
> > ducked the real fight, and I consider him to be cowardly for doing  
> > so. *That* should compel him to respond to those first three posts,  
> > don't you think?
> 
> Unless of course he thought he scored a knockout - a

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Great Stupa of Tibetan Buddhism, Ketut too (-:

[Robin Carlsen]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long  wrote:

Good morning again, RC

Share:It could be that we are expressing the very wide difference between 
masculine 
and feminine in these matters.  Indeed the practice Marnia Robinson suggests 
seems as if it would be quite challenging for males.  Thus the Taoist practices 
seem more realistic, compassionate and healthy for both masculine and feminine.

Robin: I agree with this, Share. I believe I am naturally ignorant about the 
matter of sexuality as experienced by a woman. What it is like, from the point 
of view of her subjectivity qua woman. So, perhaps, Marnia knows something I 
don't know. She's a woman after all. :-) I only know that I have not met or 
seen any man--in my lifetime, that is--who could 'spiritualize' the sexual act. 
Not that some have not believed they could, maybe even experienced they could; 
but the very notion of there being any counteractive force to male sexuality, 
so as to bring it under control and into submission, well that is just a dream. 
I still don't believe I have met someone who I thought had complete and 
intelligent mastery over their sexuality--either man or woman. Although, again, 
seeing the reality of sexuality in a woman not perfectly integrated into her 
personality and self-will does not mean that I know what a woman's experience 
of sexuality is, or could be. I would say this: most woman are not aware of the 
extent to which their sexuality dominates the attention of a man. 

Share:The other difference I sense we are expressing is that between East and 
West, 
the latter having been much more imbued with the spirit matter split I've 
written about in other posts.  I have turned from the epitome of that resulting 
ignorance, the Catholic Church.  Whereas you seem to be at least intrigued by 
the ideas on  the Church both professes and attempts to enforce.

Robin: All this about the Catholic Church is the result of the absence of 
supernatural grace from the Personal God (the Holy Trinity), Mary, the 
Eucharist, and the Sacraments. I am not "intrigued" by the idea of sexuality as 
understood inside Catholicism: once it could produce Saints, as that story of 
Aquinas proves. Nothing like that can happen now: that grace is gone. And that 
grace is necessary to make the Thomistic truths of that essay in our previous 
conversation live and prove themselves. 

With regard to East versus West, the West bears the burden of the personal 
approach to reality, and even sexuality. No Eastern tract on sexuality is 
likely, if it posits the supreme reality of the Self, to give sufficient regard 
to the realm of personal intimacy and tenderness that is part of the Wester 
tradition of romanic love. I find Eastern spirituality does not have a 
literature which represents even fractionally the profound notion of man-woman 
love that is the centre of meaning for much of Western literature. The only 
form of spirituality which for me would, in the abstract at least, be relevant 
here--to our experience of sexuality in the West--would be a spirituality which 
was imbued with the understanding of the mystique and significance of Man-Woman 
relationships. I doubt Taoism (in its teachings about human sexuality) 
addresses the intimacy--in a personal sense--of the sexual act.

Share: I readily admit that I could be wrong and deluded about all this.  
However, I'm 
willing to take that chance in order to again experience that sex can indeed 
lead one to God.  If only momentarily.

Robin: Well, I can't speak for you of course. But I think the sexual experience 
can be--obviously--experientially wonderful; but that something that powerful 
and overwhelming could actually bring one closer to ultimate reality, that 
seems dubious to me. For instance, in the presence of the reality of death, the 
sexuality act is rendered not just meaningless; it--the idea of 
sexuality--appears to be intrinsically irrelevant. A person who is dying senses 
something --their own death--to have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual 
experience. Which signifies to me that sexuality can't possess any power that 
serves the human soul in its final and most decisive encounter with reality. 
One's personal death.
Share

Share:PS  We have switched places Ghazali and I am cheering for you as you walk 
that 
high wire across Niagara Falls.  Being the Gemini I am I had already integrated 
many divergent points of view of you into my awareness.  So, no surprises.

Robin: Well, the falls turned out to be less than Niagara, since my opponent 
did not want to get up there with me. I was expecting a lot more. Still, it was 
exhilarating in just the right way for awhile there. I like being challenged 
utterly in all that I believe in. Even to the point of having to deal with the 
consequences of my enlightenment  (and you will have read the excerpt from my 
book describing the experience of going into Unity Consciousness). 

That's interesting, your having "already in

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[sparaig]

/me finally understands: FFL is Barry's way of getting in his "20,000 words of 
typing every day" that David (The Trouble with Tribbles) Gerrold used to 
advocate that authors do.


L

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Dear Lord Knows,
> 
> First, congratulations [...]

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hi Ann

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, oxcart49  wrote:
>
> WOW! that is quite a scathing summation Judy about Lord Knows.  I felt that 
> Lord Knows post was excellent and hit the nail directly on the head and 
> countersunk it.  That post basically was 98% accurate, which for some may be 
> difficult to take.
> 


I can't comment to anything else, but Judy's observation on one thing fits with 
mine. I didn't even read the stuff leading up to the comment, but claiming that 
one isn't going to "enter into a dialog" after posting a detailed response 
consisting of a many points in paragraph form, isn't exactly being honest with 
one's self.


L

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Share Long]

Turq:  Siddhis are siddhis and enlightenment is enlightenment and the two have 
nothing to do with each other.
Share:  And therein lies a heap of trouble.  Ideally enlightenment comes 
first.  Otherwise one can be seduced by the Dark Side of the Force (-:
A person can be born with certain channels more clear, certain gifts more 
developed, etc.  Such will become siddhis all by themselves.  


What's key I think is to steer one's course with an intention to live for the 
highest good and happiness of all.  It doesn't guarantee avoiding the Dark Side 
and Evil Emperer.  But it's the best we have.  

PS  Smiley face is for my cute Star Wars reference rather than for the topic.



 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 6:09 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades 
of yesteryear)
 

  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> > more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> > could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> > I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> > IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> > the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> > or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> > doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> > siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> > instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> > enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> > related in any way. 
> 
> IMHO, the siddhis and enlightenment are related to 
> each other at least this way:
> 
> For one to able to abandon the siddhis it seems
> almost inevitable to experience at least some
> of them. Otherwise, you don't have nothing much
> to abandon, have you?

I honestly do not understand what you mean by 
"abandon," Card. Do you mean "not be interested
in them," or do you mean "not be interested in
learning to perform them," or do you mean "not
being interested in them once having mastered
them," or what?

> A bit like, it's easy to not give a shit for 
> having sex, if you are a eunuch, but it's whole another
> thing if your testosterone levels are normal
> or perhaps even above normal?

I honestly think -- having witnessed siddhis 
being performed on a regular basis for over
14 years -- that a lot of it has to do with
their relative rareness in the world. A *lot*
of people are flashed out by the rarity of 
them, and think that either being able to 
witness them or perform them will alter their
lives forever, and in a positive way. Having
been there done that with both, I disagree.

I think that there is a *value* in either 
witnessing or performing siddhis, in that they
allow the seeker to break the boundaries of
what they consider "reality" and what its
constrictions are. But do they transform a 
person or *do anything* for them? I would
have to say, based on my experience and that
of hundreds (nay, thousands) who saw Rama 
perform them, that they don't do diddley-
squat *except* expand one's vision of what
the possibilities of life really are. They
do NOT transform consciousness in any mean-
ingful and lasting way.

> Or, it's easy to abstain from smoking if you've
> never smoked in the first place. Etc, etc...
> 
> As Patañjali puts it:
> 
> tad-vairaagyaad api doSa-biija-kSaye kaivalyam (III 51).
> 
> And
> 
> prasaMkhyaane 'pi akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater
> dharma-meghaH samaadhiH (IV 29).

This means nothing to me. I neither know Sanskrit,
nor care to learn it. And I don't recognize Patanjali
as any kind of "authority."

Try to get this straight -- I am not "knocking" 
siddhis per se, just the 1) worship of them, and
2) the association of them with supposed "higher
states of consciousness." I do not feel that either
is warranted.

First, people can perform siddhis and still be major
assholes and mistreat others. The Rama guy was a 
classic example of this. Second, people can learn
to perform siddhis and NOT be enlightened because
they're a *skill*, a *technique*, NOT in my opinion
any reflection of the state of consciousness of the
person performing them. 

Since meeting Rama, I have met and interacted with
a few people who could *also* perform siddhis 
(although not to the extent he could). Not one of
them claimed to be enlightened. One of them (a 
Yaqui medicine man) didn't even *believe* in the
concept of enlightenment; it had no place in his
world view. 

I'm saying this because a lot of people just make
an instantaneous association between the "perform-
ance of miracles" and godliness or saintliness or
enlightenment. I do not believe that the association
is valid. Siddhis are siddhis and enlightenment is
enlightenment and the two have nothing to do with
each other.


 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> > > > more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> > > > could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> > > > I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> > > > IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> > > > the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> > > > or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> > > > doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> > > > siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> > > > instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> > > > enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> > > > related in any way. 
> > > 
> > > IMHO, the siddhis and enlightenment are related to 
> > > each other at least this way:
> > > 
> > > For one to able to abandon the siddhis it seems
> > > almost inevitable to experience at least some
> > > of them. Otherwise, you don't have nothing much
> > > to abandon, have you?
> > 
> > I honestly do not understand what you mean by 
> > "abandon," Card. Do you mean "not be interested
> > in them," or do you mean "not be interested in
> > learning to perform them," or do you mean "not
> > being interested in them once having mastered
> > them," or what?
> 
> I'm not a good writer by any standard, especially
> my "semantic ear" might be way weaker than average,
> even in writing/speaking in my own language.
> The last one of your alternatives is what I mean.

Au contraire, I think that you are an excellent
writer, given that English is not your native
language. I have never mastered *any* other 
language to the extent that you have. 

> > > A bit like, it's easy to not give a shit for 
> > > having sex, if you are a eunuch, but it's whole another
> > > thing if your testosterone levels are normal
> > > or perhaps even above normal?
> > 
> > I honestly think -- having witnessed siddhis 
> > being performed on a regular basis for over
> > 14 years -- that a lot of it has to do with
> > their relative rareness in the world. A *lot*
> > of people are flashed out by the rarity of 
> > them, and think that either being able to 
> > witness them or perform them will alter their
> > lives forever, and in a positive way. Having
> > been there done that with both, I disagree.
> > 
> > I think that there is a *value* in either 
> > witnessing or performing siddhis, in that they
> > allow the seeker to break the boundaries of
> > what they consider "reality" and what its
> > constrictions are. But do they transform a 
> > person or *do anything* for them? I would
> > have to say, based on my experience and that
> > of hundreds (nay, thousands) who saw Rama 
> > perform them, that they don't do diddley-
> > squat *except* expand one's vision of what
> > the possibilities of life really are. They
> > do NOT transform consciousness in any mean-
> > ingful and lasting way.
> > 
> > > Or, it's easy to abstain from smoking if you've
> > > never smoked in the first place. Etc, etc...
> > > 
> > > As Patañjali puts it:
> > > 
> > > tad-vairaagyaad api doSa-biija-kSaye kaivalyam (III 51).
> > > 
> > > And
> > > 
> > > prasaMkhyaane 'pi akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater
> > > dharma-meghaH samaadhiH (IV 29).
> > 
> > This means nothing to me. I neither know Sanskrit,
> > nor care to learn it. And I don't recognize Patanjali
> > as any kind of "authority."
> 
> I think it's best that everybody checks out their
> favourite translation(s). Those who know some
> Sanskrit can then compare the translation to
> the original.

While I completely understand that you place value
in "scriptures" and what you believe you can learn
from them, I do not. I consider them largely empty
words cluttering up empty pages. The emptiness of
the page IMO probably contains more wisdom than the
words do. 

I completely *understand* that many who have pursued
primarily a TM path are convince of the value of the
intellect and in "book learning," but I am not. For
me, most of the words in most of the spiritual books
considered "scriptures" are as dead as the people
who wrote them, and as useful.

Without the consciousness to be on the same level as
the person who wrote them, they cannot *possibly*
be comprehended or "understood." If you have that
level of consciousness, the words themselves are
superfluous.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Share Long]

Barry wrote:  Others can come away realizing that the only teacher worth 
following is life itself.

My ques:  But since life itself is so huge wouldn't even experience with a 
charlatan be part of that?  Can one EVER be out of the classroom of life itself?




 From: turquoiseb 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 3:57 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades 
of yesteryear)
 

  
Dear Lord Knows,

First, congratulations on seeing through Robin's blatantly
obvious attempt to lure you into another of his "confrontations,"
a tarbaby that once you interacted with it he would make nigh
unto difficult to escape from. As you so accurately described 
w.r.t. his interactions with Curtis, that is exactly what he 
was trying to do, and you wisely didn't fall for it.

Now, if the people whose lives revolve around confrontation
and argumentation will allow it, I'd like to try to shift the
tone and the content of interaction with you somewhat. I was
taken with both the clarity and the compassion of your first
post and its followups, and find myself wondering a little
about you and what you've been doing in the Time Since Robin.

I will *completely* understand if you don't feel like getting
into such stuff, first with an absolute stranger (moi) and
second on a very public forum full of people who will attempt
to turn anything you say into an attempt to "get" you (this
place, FFL, the Funny Farm Lounge).

But here's why I'm asking. As you may have surmised, if you
have been lurking here for a while, you may know that I too 
had my run-ins with those of the Narcissistic Personality 
Disorder persuasion. In particular, one Rama - Dr. Frederick 
Lenz. Many of his antics and abuses made Robin's look like 
the amateur wannabee guru poseur behaviors they were. It 
was quite a ride.

But, like you, I felt that I learned something from the ride.
I learned never to mistake charisma for enlightenment; the
former is often an occult thang, driven by the will of the
charismatic person (either consciously or subconsciously),
and often completely self-serving, which says a lot about
the charismatic person still having a lot of self. :-) In
my experience enlightenment is a much quieter, softer thing;
it doesn't seek to attract attention to its self, because...
duh...it no longer has much of a self. It just IS. You 
either notice it or you don't, and IF you don't, the 
enlightened being Just Doesn't Give A Shit.

It is tempting, after a prolonged interaction with a spir-
itual teacher who fits the DSM-IV definitions for NPD and
hypomania, to become disillusioned with the spiritual path
entirely, and to walk away from the whole thing in disgust.
I know quite a few people who did just that after spending
some time with Rama. 

Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
related in any way. 

One of the things I did "take away" from my experience
with him is a reluctance to ever feel as if I *needed*
a teacher again in this life to follow a spiritual path.
Instead, I kinda invent my own path. Where it leads may
be in question, but it is my path, and I follow it 
wherever it leads without feeling that it has to lead 
anywhere in particular. If I had to describe it, I would
be unable to do so any better than Lao-tzu: "A good
traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent upon
arriving." 

For me it's the journey that is important, not the goal. 
I do not seek enlightenment, or even any particular
experience that most would characterize as "spiritual."
Instead I just walk, and deal with whatever I find along
the Way. Interestingly enough, by not seeking spiritual
experience, I find as much of it these days as I ever
did while studying with Maharishi or Rama or any of the
other teachers I've interacted with. Go figure.

Anyway, I just wanted to go into some of this because 
I'm interested in what your experience might have been
along these lines. It's a powerful thing to realize that
the charismatic teacher you were once overshadowed by
has a bit of a "shadow side," and quite possibly a bit
of a mentally ill side as well. So I'm wondering where
your path took you after dealing with all of that.

Again, I ask this ONLY if you feel like getting into it,
and here, on an open forum in which several people are
likely to pounce on what you say because in their eyes
you've just dissed one of the

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> > >
> > > Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> > > more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> > > could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> > > I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> > > IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> > > the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> > > or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> > > doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> > > siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> > > instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> > > enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> > > related in any way. 
> > 
> > IMHO, the siddhis and enlightenment are related to 
> > each other at least this way:
> > 
> > For one to able to abandon the siddhis it seems
> > almost inevitable to experience at least some
> > of them. Otherwise, you don't have nothing much
> > to abandon, have you?
> 
> I honestly do not understand what you mean by 
> "abandon," Card. Do you mean "not be interested
> in them," or do you mean "not be interested in
> learning to perform them," or do you mean "not
> being interested in them once having mastered
> them," or what?
>

I'm not a good writer by any standard, especially
my "semantic ear" might be way weaker than average,
even in writing/speaking in my own language.
The last one of your alternatives is what I mean.


 
> > A bit like, it's easy to not give a shit for 
> > having sex, if you are a eunuch, but it's whole another
> > thing if your testosterone levels are normal
> > or perhaps even above normal?
> 
> I honestly think -- having witnessed siddhis 
> being performed on a regular basis for over
> 14 years -- that a lot of it has to do with
> their relative rareness in the world. A *lot*
> of people are flashed out by the rarity of 
> them, and think that either being able to 
> witness them or perform them will alter their
> lives forever, and in a positive way. Having
> been there done that with both, I disagree.
> 
> I think that there is a *value* in either 
> witnessing or performing siddhis, in that they
> allow the seeker to break the boundaries of
> what they consider "reality" and what its
> constrictions are. But do they transform a 
> person or *do anything* for them? I would
> have to say, based on my experience and that
> of hundreds (nay, thousands) who saw Rama 
> perform them, that they don't do diddley-
> squat *except* expand one's vision of what
> the possibilities of life really are. They
> do NOT transform consciousness in any mean-
> ingful and lasting way.
> 
> > Or, it's easy to abstain from smoking if you've
> > never smoked in the first place. Etc, etc...
> > 
> > As Patañjali puts it:
> > 
> > tad-vairaagyaad api doSa-biija-kSaye kaivalyam (III 51).
> > 
> > And
> > 
> > prasaMkhyaane 'pi akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater
> > dharma-meghaH samaadhiH (IV 29).
> 
> This means nothing to me. I neither know Sanskrit,
> nor care to learn it. And I don't recognize Patanjali
> as any kind of "authority."

I think it's best that everybody checks out their
favourite translation(s). Those who know some
Sanskrit can then compare the translation to
the original.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[Vaj]

On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Robin Carlsen wrote:


Dear Vaj,,

I am sure you can explain this, but why is it that your post here  
contains what Lord Knows posted 22 minutes later. Are you colluding  
with Lord Knows?--surely you can provide some explanation for what  
seems suspiciously like a joint enterprise. But if I am wrong and  
there is an innocent (I rather think there must be, this is too  
much keystone cops) reason for this, you will tell me what it is.


I'm responding to the email list. I assume you're responding to the  
web interface instead?


What I find staggering and nonplussing is your depiction of me  
here. You have never met me, Vaj, else you would know how fatally  
off the mark you are in almost everything you say about me--once,  
that is, you become critical. No one who has ever met me would say  
the things you say. They represent an imaginative reading of me-- 
and do not in any way whatsoever contain the force and truth of  
some direct encounter with me. Lord Knows, Lord knows, he does know  
me--after a fashion.


But again, Vaj, tell us how you preempted LK888's post to me? I am  
more curious than anything else.


Simple manipulation of space-time continuum, that's all. By applying  
samyama on certain email servers, and then applying a filtering  
meditation I'm able be digitally omniscient R.


You do not know me, Vaj. You are being driven by something other  
than the search for the truth.


Says the always truthful Robin?

And by the way: you must tell your friend, Lord Knows that he  
ducked the real fight, and I consider him to be cowardly for doing  
so. *That* should compel him to respond to those first three posts,  
don't you think?


Unless of course he thought he scored a knockout - and is back at the  
hotel drinking champagne


Especially the third one on free will. Where I have addressed a  
very personal question to him, which in avoiding answering, he  
damages his credibility fatally.


From my POV LK was the first person to truly call you on your sh*t.  
So therefore LK's post was not only the most revealing post aimed at  
you ever on FFL, it did so with a certain modicum of respect,  
something difficult to do in such a charged situation. It was like a  
small bell rang and everyone listening, no matter how near or how  
far, heard it loud and clear.


If the walls of Sunnyside had decided to talk, they couldn't have  
spoken with more honesty and integrity. And bravery.


Of course only in my eyes. I am sure he has garnered sympathy from  
other quarters. For me, though, when I make a serious accusation  
and judgment about someone and that someone responds to me, I look  
forward to seizing upon what he or she has said, because if I am  
right about what I think of him or her, he or she will just provide  
even more proof of my judgment of his or her integrity, his or her  
motives.


Get your buddy, Lord Knows to come clean and get in the ring. Else  
I will say that his not answering that post on free will versus  
cosmic will is a tacit admission of defeat: that he cannot, then,  
reconcile his judgment of me with taking on the truth of my  
experience.


Like I said, LK is back at the hotel, drinking Dom with Lady Ga Ga  
and watching reruns of RWC show.



And then there is the post in which I narrate (an excerpt from one  
of my books) the actual moment of becoming enlightened. That too  
has to be incorporated into this matter.


What say you, Vaj: Shall we be courageous and direct and play by  
the rules of the cosmos?


Whose cosmos?

I think the cosmos of interdependent origination hath already  
spoken. ;-)


I think you should at least be happy that someone has finally  
spoken up about me. But having done so, he or she must now  
demonstrate he or she is prepared to sustain his her her sincerity  
and conviction when, in the service of truth, I have attempted to  
make this issue conform in this discussion to what actually  
happened in those ten years.


Actually, nothing of the kind is required. Of course, you're allowed  
to do the Canadian squirm for as long as you like (as long as it's  
under 50 posts/week). I'm finding this squirm dance is very  
entertaining to watch. It's like watching someone dance in their pain  
- at least they're still dancin'.


Don't worry, I'm working on getting you a disco ball and spotlight...

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
> >
> > Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> > more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> > could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> > I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> > IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> > the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> > or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> > doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> > siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> > instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> > enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> > related in any way. 
> 
> IMHO, the siddhis and enlightenment are related to 
> each other at least this way:
> 
> For one to able to abandon the siddhis it seems
> almost inevitable to experience at least some
> of them. Otherwise, you don't have nothing much
> to abandon, have you?

I honestly do not understand what you mean by 
"abandon," Card. Do you mean "not be interested
in them," or do you mean "not be interested in
learning to perform them," or do you mean "not
being interested in them once having mastered
them," or what?

> A bit like, it's easy to not give a shit for 
> having sex, if you are a eunuch, but it's whole another
> thing if your testosterone levels are normal
> or perhaps even above normal?

I honestly think -- having witnessed siddhis 
being performed on a regular basis for over
14 years -- that a lot of it has to do with
their relative rareness in the world. A *lot*
of people are flashed out by the rarity of 
them, and think that either being able to 
witness them or perform them will alter their
lives forever, and in a positive way. Having
been there done that with both, I disagree.

I think that there is a *value* in either 
witnessing or performing siddhis, in that they
allow the seeker to break the boundaries of
what they consider "reality" and what its
constrictions are. But do they transform a 
person or *do anything* for them? I would
have to say, based on my experience and that
of hundreds (nay, thousands) who saw Rama 
perform them, that they don't do diddley-
squat *except* expand one's vision of what
the possibilities of life really are. They
do NOT transform consciousness in any mean-
ingful and lasting way.

> Or, it's easy to abstain from smoking if you've
> never smoked in the first place. Etc, etc...
> 
> As Patañjali puts it:
> 
> tad-vairaagyaad api doSa-biija-kSaye kaivalyam (III 51).
> 
> And
> 
> prasaMkhyaane 'pi akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater
> dharma-meghaH samaadhiH (IV 29).

This means nothing to me. I neither know Sanskrit,
nor care to learn it. And I don't recognize Patanjali
as any kind of "authority."

Try to get this straight -- I am not "knocking" 
siddhis per se, just the 1) worship of them, and
2) the association of them with supposed "higher
states of consciousness." I do not feel that either
is warranted.

First, people can perform siddhis and still be major
assholes and mistreat others. The Rama guy was a 
classic example of this. Second, people can learn
to perform siddhis and NOT be enlightened because
they're a *skill*, a *technique*, NOT in my opinion
any reflection of the state of consciousness of the
person performing them. 

Since meeting Rama, I have met and interacted with
a few people who could *also* perform siddhis 
(although not to the extent he could). Not one of
them claimed to be enlightened. One of them (a 
Yaqui medicine man) didn't even *believe* in the
concept of enlightenment; it had no place in his
world view. 

I'm saying this because a lot of people just make
an instantaneous association between the "perform-
ance of miracles" and godliness or saintliness or
enlightenment. I do not believe that the association
is valid. Siddhis are siddhis and enlightenment is
enlightenment and the two have nothing to do with
each other.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> Dear Lord Knows,
> 
> First, congratulations on seeing through Robin's blatantly
> obvious attempt to lure you into another of his "confrontations,"
> a tarbaby that once you interacted with it he would make nigh
> unto difficult to escape from. As you so accurately described 
> w.r.t. his interactions with Curtis, that is exactly what he 
> was trying to do, and you wisely didn't fall for it.
> 
> Now, if the people whose lives revolve around confrontation
> and argumentation will allow it, I'd like to try to shift the
> tone and the content of interaction with you somewhat. I was
> taken with both the clarity and the compassion of your first
> post and its followups, and find myself wondering a little
> about you and what you've been doing in the Time Since Robin.
> 
> I will *completely* understand if you don't feel like getting
> into such stuff, first with an absolute stranger (moi) and
> second on a very public forum full of people who will attempt
> to turn anything you say into an attempt to "get" you (this
> place, FFL, the Funny Farm Lounge).
> 
> But here's why I'm asking. As you may have surmised, if you
> have been lurking here for a while, you may know that I too 
> had my run-ins with those of the Narcissistic Personality 
> Disorder persuasion. In particular, one Rama - Dr. Frederick 
> Lenz. Many of his antics and abuses made Robin's look like 
> the amateur wannabee guru poseur behaviors they were. It 
> was quite a ride.
> 
> But, like you, I felt that I learned something from the ride.
> I learned never to mistake charisma for enlightenment; the
> former is often an occult thang, driven by the will of the
> charismatic person (either consciously or subconsciously),
> and often completely self-serving, which says a lot about
> the charismatic person still having a lot of self. :-) In
> my experience enlightenment is a much quieter, softer thing;
> it doesn't seek to attract attention to its self, because...
> duh...it no longer has much of a self. It just IS. You 
> either notice it or you don't, and IF you don't, the 
> enlightened being Just Doesn't Give A Shit.
> 
> It is tempting, after a prolonged interaction with a spir-
> itual teacher who fits the DSM-IV definitions for NPD and
> hypomania, to become disillusioned with the spiritual path
> entirely, and to walk away from the whole thing in disgust.
> I know quite a few people who did just that after spending
> some time with Rama. 
> 
> Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
> more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
> could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
> I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
> IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
> the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
> or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
> doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
> siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
> instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
> enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
> related in any way. 

IMHO, the siddhis and enlightenment are related to 
each other at least this way:

For one to able to abandon the siddhis it seems
almost inevitable to experience at least some
of them. Otherwise, you don't have nothing much
to abandon, have you?

A bit like, it's easy to not give a shit for 
having sex, if you are a eunuch, but it's whole another
thing if your testosterone levels are normal
or perhaps even above normal?

Or, it's easy to abstain from smoking if you've
never smoked in the first place. Etc, etc...

As Patañjali puts it:

tad-vairaagyaad api doSa-biija-kSaye kaivalyam (III 51).

And

prasaMkhyaane 'pi akusiidasya sarvathaa viveka-khyaater
dharma-meghaH samaadhiH (IV 29).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Robin your last post has a double message ((shades of yesteryear)

[turquoiseb]

Dear Lord Knows,

First, congratulations on seeing through Robin's blatantly
obvious attempt to lure you into another of his "confrontations,"
a tarbaby that once you interacted with it he would make nigh
unto difficult to escape from. As you so accurately described 
w.r.t. his interactions with Curtis, that is exactly what he 
was trying to do, and you wisely didn't fall for it.

Now, if the people whose lives revolve around confrontation
and argumentation will allow it, I'd like to try to shift the
tone and the content of interaction with you somewhat. I was
taken with both the clarity and the compassion of your first
post and its followups, and find myself wondering a little
about you and what you've been doing in the Time Since Robin.

I will *completely* understand if you don't feel like getting
into such stuff, first with an absolute stranger (moi) and
second on a very public forum full of people who will attempt
to turn anything you say into an attempt to "get" you (this
place, FFL, the Funny Farm Lounge).

But here's why I'm asking. As you may have surmised, if you
have been lurking here for a while, you may know that I too 
had my run-ins with those of the Narcissistic Personality 
Disorder persuasion. In particular, one Rama - Dr. Frederick 
Lenz. Many of his antics and abuses made Robin's look like 
the amateur wannabee guru poseur behaviors they were. It 
was quite a ride.

But, like you, I felt that I learned something from the ride.
I learned never to mistake charisma for enlightenment; the
former is often an occult thang, driven by the will of the
charismatic person (either consciously or subconsciously),
and often completely self-serving, which says a lot about
the charismatic person still having a lot of self. :-) In
my experience enlightenment is a much quieter, softer thing;
it doesn't seek to attract attention to its self, because...
duh...it no longer has much of a self. It just IS. You 
either notice it or you don't, and IF you don't, the 
enlightened being Just Doesn't Give A Shit.

It is tempting, after a prolonged interaction with a spir-
itual teacher who fits the DSM-IV definitions for NPD and
hypomania, to become disillusioned with the spiritual path
entirely, and to walk away from the whole thing in disgust.
I know quite a few people who did just that after spending
some time with Rama. 

Me, I like to think that I took another path. I am still
more than open to the possibility of enlightenment. (How
could I not be? I've had flashes of it myself.) But what
I no longer accept are the many descriptions of it that
IMHO have nothing to do with What Enlightenment Is. Like
the enlightened person being "perfect," or "omniscient,"
or even "capable of performing siddhis." The last one
doesn't compute *at all*, because Rama could perform
siddhis out the ying-yang, and I don't believe for an
instant that he was fully enlightened. Siddhis and 
enlightenment are apples and oranges in my book, not
related in any way. 

One of the things I did "take away" from my experience
with him is a reluctance to ever feel as if I *needed*
a teacher again in this life to follow a spiritual path.
Instead, I kinda invent my own path. Where it leads may
be in question, but it is my path, and I follow it 
wherever it leads without feeling that it has to lead 
anywhere in particular. If I had to describe it, I would
be unable to do so any better than Lao-tzu: "A good
traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent upon
arriving." 

For me it's the journey that is important, not the goal. 
I do not seek enlightenment, or even any particular
experience that most would characterize as "spiritual."
Instead I just walk, and deal with whatever I find along
the Way. Interestingly enough, by not seeking spiritual
experience, I find as much of it these days as I ever
did while studying with Maharishi or Rama or any of the
other teachers I've interacted with. Go figure.

Anyway, I just wanted to go into some of this because 
I'm interested in what your experience might have been
along these lines. It's a powerful thing to realize that
the charismatic teacher you were once overshadowed by
has a bit of a "shadow side," and quite possibly a bit
of a mentally ill side as well. So I'm wondering where
your path took you after dealing with all of that.

Again, I ask this ONLY if you feel like getting into it,
and here, on an open forum in which several people are
likely to pounce on what you say because in their eyes
you've just dissed one of their heroes and pissed in
the punchbowl of the stuff he was trying to serve up
as soma. :-) But I'm honestly curious. In my life, the
people I can relate to the most are not those who have
been "one-pointed" on a spiritual path, but those who
have recognized that they had doubts, and then rather
than "stuffing" them and pretending that they didn't
exist, *embraced* them and come to their own conclusions
about things. There is a power in that, and it often
results in my experience in help