[FairfieldLife] The Robin Carlsen Cult on Fairfield Life
Yesterday I posted, after an attempt by two Robin Carlsen cultists to bring him up again and clarify what he believed as only they can: And on this forum, only two people believe him. Fascinating that they turn out to be the two gullible women who became his cult followers. One signed on to his delusions here, the other 30 years ago, and then *again* here, which should tell you a little about *her* sanity. As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone else considers him a nut case. Some were entertained by his insanity and his ramblings and considered him a harmless nutcase, and others felt differently. But only two people seem to have taken him seriously. And they continue to defend him to this day like the hard-core cultists they've become. Go figure... One of the cultists replied: Oh, by the way, Barry, there was no cult to be a follower of on FFL. That's just part of your fantasy. Let's examine this, shall we. In the time since my original post suggesting that Ann and Judy are Robin cultists, they have made the following number of posts about him or mentioning him. J: 1 1 1 1 1 -- (25 posts total) A: 1 1 1 -- (15 posts total) In these 40 posts, the two people who claim that there is no Robin cult have spent their Saturday night 1) defending him, 2) claiming to be the experts on What He Said And What He Meant By It (as if what he said was some kind of sacred teaching), 3) trying to lure people into arguing with them so that they could keep talking about their cult leader Robin, and 4) trying to demonize anyone who speaks ill of him (you know...the way cultists *always* tend to do about their cult leaders). I rest my case. They are cultists, and they've proved it. Now let's look at the issue of whether Robin was trying to be a cult leader here on Fairfield Life (even though he failed miserably and succeeded in finding only two cultists to follow him). I think we need look no further than his Last Tantrum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340466 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340466 In his last post to Fairfield Life, Robin Carlsen basically declared an ultimatum. He pronounced that he was only interested in discussing one topic -- his continuing diatribes against Curtis. Nothing else, he declared, was worthy of his participation. He basically set himself up (again) in the position of Narcissistic Personality Disordered cult leader, and tried to make the rules. If no one played by them, he would leave. And leave he did, when no one was the least bit interested in his -- get this -- OVER 13,000 WORD MANIFESTO. That's how long that last post was, when you include the four posts that he *demanded* that everyone read before they were worthy of interacting with him further. What a fuckin' loon. What a cult nut case. Now try to imagine what nut cases the two women who became -- and remain -- his cult followers must be to continue following him. It pretty much boggles the mind.
[FairfieldLife] GURUDEV POOJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfYxlmWiFFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfYxlmWiFFk
[FairfieldLife] RE: Adaptive pitch test!
May I propose a cordial contest: Adaptive pitch (AP), those who still do TM vs. those who don't anymore or never have? My result for AP was 0,685 Hz...
[FairfieldLife] RE: Iranian Warships Sailing to the US?
Don't worry, surely the Americans soon will find an excuse to start another war. They'll loose but that's not the point. Obama needs to win a war, the economy desperately needs another war. It will happen.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Adaptive pitch test!
0,688 is exceptional :-) I did 1,25 which is still very good :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Iranian Warships Sailing to the US?
Don't worry, the Americans will soon find a reason to start another war. Obama needs a war to win (he won't) and the capitalists desperately needs another war to save the economy. It will probably happen sooner rather than later.
[FairfieldLife] RE: The earliest holiday destination
Cool! But what a shame they only got one of the footprints up before they got washed away. I wonder what they were like, whether they were actually pioneering creatures and seeking out new lands or just spreading out like animals do when the tribe gets too big and kicks out the young un's to start a life somewhere else. They must have been versatile though to survive as far away from where they evolved. Or were they solely coastal dwellers and followed the coast only as they spread out, utilising the same hunting techniques everywhere? They would have spread faster then and would have got to Norfolk from Kenya a lot quicker and with less brain power required. Questions, questions, that we may never know the answer to... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote: When mankind first left the African birthplace of our race millennia ago where did they head to first? Fair England has that honour. This green and pleasant land was an irresistible draw to our common ancestors. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26025763 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26025763
[FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
I will try to make this my last comment on the nonentity who was Robin Carlsen today, because there seems to be a lingering misconception on this forum about what his teaching and his cult were all about. I have my own opinion on the subject, and will state it -- as what it is: OPINION. I do so because I think that we can pin down the *essence* of who he was, and to do so helps to explain those who chose to raise him up on an unrealistic pedestal and continue to do so. I think that the essence of Robin Carlsen's appeal can be stated in three words: Narcissistic Personality Disorder. In one word: Confrontation. The classic DSM-IV definition of NPD lists several traits, *all* of which Robin displayed both back in the day as a cult leader, and in his short drive-bys here on FFL. But one of them that seems to me to be most key to his (disordered) personality is confrontation. The person with NPD tends to see things from a solipsistic point of view. These individuals are so locked into the supposed importance of self -- *their* self -- that they feel the compulsive need to prove that they're as important as they believe they are. It's their way or the highway. You either do things their way -- according to their rules -- or they cease dealing with you. Nowhere is this to be seen more definitively than in his Last Tantrum, the 13,000+ word megalomaniacal post that he *demanded* everyone read to be worthy of interacting with him further. But it was what he was *after* in that Last Tantrum that is the subject of this rap. He wanted a *confrontation*. He *didn't like it* that Curtis didn't respond to the 12,000-word four posts in which he ranted obsessively about Curtis And Everything That Was Wrong With Him. He *didn't like it* that no one else seemed interested in his continuing diatribes against Curtis. What he wanted -- and stated clearly in the Last Tantrum -- was for someone (anyone) to respond to him and ARGUE WITH HIM. This is classic NPD because in these arguments the narcissist always wins, at least in his or her own mind. The whole confrontation routine is TO PROVE THEIR SUPERIORITY, and how in control of the situation they are. Curtis didn't go for it, and neither did anyone else, so Robin ran off with his tail between his legs, running away *BECAUSE* he rightly perceived that he wasn't ever going to be able to draw anyone into his confrontation routines here again. Now let's look at his two cult followers. Do either of them tend to try (over and over and over and over and over and...) to suck people into Confrontations with them? Do they have a proven history of being able to turn almost everything into an affront of some kind, or a nitpicky point that simply MUST be debated? Duh. You all know who I'm talking about. And you all know their histories, and their samskaric tendencies. Their whole ACT is built around trying to provoke conflict, TO PROVE THEIR SUPERIORITY. *NO WONDER* they were impressed by Robin. *NO WONDER* they became his cult followers. He personified everything they wanted to be. Which is, of course, a Narcissistic Personality Disorder poster child. Both of these individuals have more than a touch of NPD going for them IMO, and so what they saw and appreciated in Robin was his ability to do *their* act, only better. He was *good* at starting arguments, and then *demanding* that people participate in them and get into a face-to-face confrontation with him until (presumably) he declared himself the winner. Robin's act was their act, only magnified. Thus they projected charisma and greatness onto someone who had neither of those qualities, and they continue to do so. It's been OVER TEN MONTHS since Robin Carlsen posted here, and yet rarely a week goes by in which these two Squeaky Fromme wannabees don't find a way to bring up his name here so that they can explain What He Really Believed. That *alone* is cult behavior. But now add to it *how* they try to bring up his name and his teachings here. They do it by trying to provoke Confrontations. What they're looking for is for people to ARGUE WITH THEM, so they can PROVE THEIR SUPERIORITY, and of course in the process prove his. Confrontation. And an inability to interact with people in any other way, or at least in no other way that is satisfying and pleasing to them. In other words, behavior that is otherwise known as one of the primary indicators of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I think it's silly. Both in Robin Carlsem, and in his two followers. It's nothing but ego, blown up to unrealistic proportions by the bad brain chemicals that cause NPD. I post this as brain food for those who still fall for Robin's Confrontation act, now being performed *in his name* on FFL by his two cult followers. Don't. They're trying to suck you into their world, which is not really sane.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Robin Carlsen Cult on Fairfield Life
Earlier I said that I'd try to make my second post about Robin Carlsen my last here on FFL today. And I did try, but foreseeing a bunch of retorts from the two cultists asserting that *I* am the one obsessing about him, not them, I'll post for the record (and for those for whom the Yahoo Search engine no longer works well) the total number of posts mentioning Robin made by the three people in question since he left FFL back on April 13, 2013: Barry: 138 Ann: 329 Judy: 544 25 of Judy's posts about Robin and 15 of Ann's were made in the 16 hours since I last posted about him yesterday. I rest my case. I now allow them to react, predicting in advance that they will do so by attempting to force the very Confrontations with other posters that I suggested was their -- and Robin's -- M.O.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy's Marketing
Obviously you are living in some sort of Alice -in-Wonderland dream world to ask such questions - I am not anti-TM, only a realist. I merely put together a timeline of what M and the TMO has sold and when they did it. Its always been about the money. And I have created an updated version - look for it on other web pages soon. On Sun, 2/9/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy's Marketing To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, February 9, 2014, 4:07 AM Dear MJ, you seem jealous of the Maharishi in publishing this time-line of yours and the color commentary in it. The guy (Maharishi) evidently was incredibly successful in his life. At the least in leading and creating large changes in culture in a lot of ways the Maharishi was also quite evidently the extraordinary revolutionary and spiritual teacher in his time. And you, some guy from South Carolina want to pull him down. Seems more like you are hard riding him trying your level best to run and break him down and everyone else associated with him. Are you really anti-TM or is it you are just jealous of Maharishi? -Buck
[FairfieldLife] RE: Adaptive pitch test!
About the same time when I learned TM, bought a Japanese Strat-copy, which learned to tune by listening to the interference beat. I guess that's improved my ears quite a lot... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29#Binaural_beats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29#Binaural_beats
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Judy I'm going by MY OWN sense of what Robin said, and using logic. Thus if he said that enlightenment per se is a delusion and he was enlightened. Then he is saying, according to logic, that he was deluded. And I think he went even further than that, saying he was under the control of outside and malevolent forces. Given this I think it's inaccurate for anyone to use phrases like genuine enlightenment and enlightened days with reference to Robin during that time. On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:14 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Missed this earlier... He didn't say his enlightenment was a delusion. He said enlightenment per se, although very real and genuine, is a delusion. You've been told this now five or six times between Ann and me, so now when you say it, it's a lie, because you know otherwise. You are attacking Robin by lying about what he said. Shame on you. You're as morally smelly as Stevie. It's true, Judy, my intention is not to analyze what Robin wrote. My intention is to say that I think your phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with regards to Robin are inaccurate given that he said his enlightenment was a delusion. I don't think it is attacking of someone to refer to what they themselves said. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:35 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Again, Share, your question is incoherent. Robin never said enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong, for example. You made that up. I'm telling you, this whole topic is over your head. Your intention is not to understand what Robin wrote but rather to find yet another way to beat up on him in his absence, and I'm just not going to play that mug's game. Do you understand? Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion, then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right or wrong? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please. Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate? What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? He said his experience of union with God was a delusion. Is this where the evil forces come in? I don't know what come in means in this context. My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God. But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on enlightenment?! Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that are incoherent. I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can be no ontological union between God and human? Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Judy, do you think Robin thinks ALL forms of realization, awakening, enlightenment, etc. in ALL traditions are a delusion? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Absolutely correct. He was insistent that enlightenment is a real state of consciousness, and that he was in this state for 10-plus years. What he says he came to realize is that the state itself is delusional--the experience of being one with God, the identification with Self rather than self, and so on, everything Maharishi describes, is a trick, a seduction engineered by dark forces that do not have the welfare of human beings at heart. It's all very real--including the special powers, the mastery of nature--but it leads away from God. And that, of course, is why he spent 25 years attempting--apparently successfully--to break the unholy spell and pull himself out of that state back into ordinary consciousness. He made these points over and over in his posts. How
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
You are a funny lady Judy. As I said before, I'll let you run with your fantasies and delusions. It would not be in your best interest, at least in the short term, to disabuse you of them. Everything eventually comes out in the wash. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: She is in the know. On this point, as it happens, so am I. Of course neither of us is going to tell you anything about Robin's private life that he didn't divulge here; what are you, nuts? Ironically, though, as I told you before, he'd already written a number of times about his friend who called him out on his stuff. But, hmmm, you didn't remember that, did you? So much for your great memory, eh? And that sure as heck isn't how you described the post. If that was what you'd said, I wouldn't have objected, because we already knew that. It was the daily confessional with a friend he met almost every day at Starbuck's that was off the wall. That's where you were mistaken, and it's not a discrepancy you can just paper over, much as you'd like to, especially when you insisted on it after I told you he'd never said that. And you most certainly do operate that way. You did it in this very discussion, and you've done it dozens of times before, when you get asked for proof or examples of some claim you've made and refuse to provide it. If Barry hadn't dug this post up for you, that's how you'd have operated in this case as well. But even so, when Ann asked you to explain how you could claim your description matched the post, you refused to say. You know who else did it? Your hero, Curtis. And your favorite helpless damsel, Share, has done it. Vaj used to do it, big-time. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it isn't. All three people above used it as an illegitimate weapon against folks they were having conflicts with. Curtis's example was especially reprehensible. Anne, you are saying, Trust me, because I know what is going on. I'm not going to tell you anything about it, but I'm in the know Well, I don't operate that way, and I don't know many who do. So as they say, and I don't mean this in an impolite way, but put up, or shut up. There is really no other way to say it. As for being willing to admit a mistake. I need to be shown where I was mistaken, other than, You are mistaken ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, This post was over a year old. In the body of the post at some point by one of the participants is mentioned Starbucks. Now if you wish to fault me over this detail, or any other detail, no problem. But I stand by the my overall point that Robin had a friend that appeared to call him out on his stuff. My apologies that I indicated the setting was at Starbucks, or that I called it a confessional. But I feel my recollection was close enough to what I originally indicated. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another. I know more about Robin past and present than anyone here and I know of whom he speaks when you mistakenly thought he meant some guy at Starbucks. It's fine, but why is it so hard for some of you here at FFL to admit you made a mistake? I, frankly, don't give a crap because I know who and what he was referring to that you got so badly wrong. But what is the deal with not being able to admit you made a mistake about this? This is a rhetorical question, BTW, I don't really need to know the answer to this but you might. Now if others wish to make a federal case out of it,be my guest. But you may have to try me in absentia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the record. Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty good. My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to predate his participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no daily confessional. My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, feelings. I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams of
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Yes Judy. Whatever you say Judy. Appeal to Authority is a card you play everyday here. Only you call it, Appeal to My Authority. Basically a big joke. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: No, go look up the fallacy of appeal to authority. You don't know what you're talking about, no surprise. You are wrong not because Ann is an authority, but because, duh, you got it wrong, and the evidence is on the record in the posts in this exchange plus Robin's post from December 2012. No meeting a friend almost every day at Starbuck's. No daily confessional. Wrong. That's not in his post. You said it was. You got it wrong. And you have something else very badly wrong in this post. Robin did address Ann directly a number of times. Among other things, they had a long, fascinating multi-post exchange about a number of different topics related to enlightenment and Robin's group. Ask Barry to find it for you. So much for your wonderful memory, again. What a lamer you are. Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.! Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, I Am An Authority on this Subject Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed authorityness is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Adaptive pitch test!
Well, obviously there is no correlation between spiritual enlightenment and pitch-sensitivity. Listen to Maharishi sing the puja. He was simply tone deaf. No wonder he was not a bhajan singing kind of saint. Ours likely would have been an entirely different spiritual regeneration movement had he also led singing. Quite evidently though living as experiencing the totality of the Unified Field in the human physiology is something independent of pitch-sensitivity. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] RE: Adaptive pitch test!
Many Indians sing the Poja that way, I suppose they are all tone deaf ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Black Hats and White Hats
...without permission from your carrier, is still a crime. It's difficult to find another issue that has such overwhelming and bipartisan support, and it's difficult to understand why Congress still refuses to act. 'One Year Later, Unlocking Your Phone Is Still A Crime' http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/08/one-year-later-unlocking-your-phone-is-still-a-crime/ On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: The Darkside Hacker Kevin Mitnick, known as the Darkside Hacker, was at one time the most-wanted computer criminal in the United States. Law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone. One state attorney told the judge that Mitnick could somehow dial into the NORAD modem via a payphone from prison and communicate with the modem by whistling to launch nuclear missiles. According to Douglas, Mitnick managed to hack into some of the country's most powerful -- and seemingly impenetrable agencies such as the DMV, SSA, and the FBI, and large companies, including PacBell, Motorola, Nokia, and DEC. Using social engineering and conning employees into giving him private information and maneuvering through layers of security. Using hacker techniques and social engineering Mitnick gained access to data that no one else could. The 2012 graphic novel Wizzywig by Ed Piskor is a close allusion to the story of Mitnick, with the main character's name replaced with Kevin Phenicle. The novel parallels the entire story of Mitnick under the codename Boingthump, from his early days of phone phreaking. Think your information and your computer is secure? You can yourself a lot of trouble by just sending your IP address and password to Kevin Mitnick at 2245 N. Green Valley Parkway, Suite 411, Henderson, NV. LoL! Work cited: 'Hacker Culture' by Thomas Douglas University of Minnesota Press pp. xxiv See More: 'Hackers' Directed by Iain Softley Starring Jonny Lee Miller, Angelina Jolie, Renoly Santiago, Matthew Lillard, Lorraine Bracco and Fisher Stevens. [image: Inline image 1] Read more: 'The Hacker Manifesto' http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=7id=3mode=txt 'Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution' by Steven Levy 'The Art of Deception' by Kevin Mitnick 'The Art of Intrusion: The Real Stories Behind the Exploits of Hackers, Intruders Deceivers' by Kevin Mitnick 'Ghost in the Wires: My Adventures as the World's Most Wanted Hacker' by Kevin Mitnick Foreword by Steve Wozniak On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Massive Hacker Attack! According to SpiderLabs, ...'123456' was the most widely used password and 'password', '123,' and '11' were also among the top entries. Three of the most used passwords are 'password', 'sex' and 'god', not particularly in that order. Admins love to use 'god' as their password- it gives them a feeling of power. So, let's review some password protocols: 1. Do not use the same password for all your online activities. 2. Use a seven word combination of letters, numbers, and symbols for your password with at least one letter in caps. 3. Do NOT write down your password down on a Post-it note and affix it to your computer monitor. 4. Never reveal your password to anyone, including your significant other. 5. Change you password frequently - at least once a month, in order to be on the safe side. 6. DO IT NOW - don't wait until tomorrow to change your password. Two million passwords for social media and email accounts have been released online by hackers, IT security experts have discovered. Metro UK: http://metro.co.uk/two-million-facebook-gmail-and-twitter-passwords-stolenhttp://metro.co.uk/2013/12/05/two-million-facebook-gmail-and-twitter-passwords-stolen-by-criminal-gang-4216332/ On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: The programmer is God and Hackers are the prophets of Information Technology. So, if you are a hacker, it would be evil to not share your data and your code with the rest of the world, to save mankind from ignorance - a moral imperative for the hacker. The hacker's world view is libertarian- they believe that powerful individuals are taking over the Internet and controlling our thoughts through the media, violating our privacy. All the while posting reams of information about themselves. Go figure. Because he knows the power of the technology he has mastered, he knows how distressingly fragile the barrier is between freedom and censorship--it's a simple matter of who writes the code. Underlying it all was the hacker belief that the world could be perfected if enough of us tapped society's vast reserves of knowledge and put it to proper use. Read more: 'So Open It Hurts' What the Internet did to Aaron Swartz New Republic: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ala5v77 On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 8:36 PM,
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Country Chuckles
The quickest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. - Will Rogers On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, and some days you are the imploding space between the two! On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:46 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield.- Will Rogers On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.- Will Rogers On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: If you drink, don't park; accidents cause people. - Will Rogers On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Hey Richard, I just found out that Will Rogers was Native American or what the Canadians call First Nations. What a wonderful thinker he was. Thanks so much for posting these. On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 8:51 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. - Will Rogers On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Don't squat with your spurs on.- Will Rogers On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: If you lend someone $20, and never see that person again, it was probably worth it. - Will Rogers On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day. - Will Rogers On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: LOL, Richard, thanks, hope you have a good week... On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:10 PM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. - Will Rogers On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. - Will Rogers On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:26 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. - Will Rogers On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without your help.- Will Rogers On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Another great Will Rogers quote, Richard, thanks On Friday, January 31, 2014 7:51 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.- Will Rogers On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com wrote: Wonderful, LOL, thanks Richard. Thanks to Will too (-: On Friday, January 31, 2014 9:22 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Never test the depth of the water with both feet. - Will Rogers On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted.- Will Rogers On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it. - Will Rogers On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: In case you are worried about what is going to become of the younger generation, it is going to grow up and start worrying about the younger generation. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.- Will Rogers On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: On 1/7/2014 6:01 PM, Richard Williams wrote: The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and a leaky tire. - Will Rogers
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Ann and I have both explained to you, several times each, that YOUR OWN sense of what Robin said, and your use of what you call logic, are seriously flawed. It appears you are intellectually incapable of grasping that explanation. You haven't addressed it at all, even to disagree with it; you simply continue to reiterate your own misunderstanding as if Ann and I had never said a word. There is no contradiction between genuine enlightenment and delusion, according to Robin. There is no such thing as nondeluded enlightenment. It's a very real state created and controlled by malevolent forces for the purpose of denying human beings their chance of salvation (to use Christian terminology). The delusion is that the state is the divine pinnacle of human development. Ann suggested you go back and review Robin's own posts to see where you've gone wrong. You've refused to do that. You are not arguing in good faith and obviously have no intention of doing so. I'm therefore declaring this discussion at an end. Shame on you. You have once again exhibited your true colors. Judy I'm going by MY OWN sense of what Robin said, and using logic. Thus if he said that enlightenment per se is a delusion and he was enlightened. Then he is saying, according to logic, that he was deluded. And I think he went even further than that, saying he was under the control of outside and malevolent forces. Given this I think it's inaccurate for anyone to use phrases like genuine enlightenment and enlightened days with reference to Robin during that time. On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:14 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Missed this earlier... He didn't say his enlightenment was a delusion. He said enlightenment per se, although very real and genuine, is a delusion. You've been told this now five or six times between Ann and me, so now when you say it, it's a lie, because you know otherwise. You are attacking Robin by lying about what he said. Shame on you. You're as morally smelly as Stevie. It's true, Judy, my intention is not to analyze what Robin wrote. My intention is to say that I think your phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with regards to Robin are inaccurate given that he said his enlightenment was a delusion. I don't think it is attacking of someone to refer to what they themselves said. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:35 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Again, Share, your question is incoherent. Robin never said enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong, for example. You made that up. I'm telling you, this whole topic is over your head. Your intention is not to understand what Robin wrote but rather to find yet another way to beat up on him in his absence, and I'm just not going to play that mug's game. Do you understand? Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion, then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right or wrong? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please. Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate? What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? He said his experience of union with God was a delusion. Is this where the evil forces come in? I don't know what come in means in this context. My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God. But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on enlightenment?! Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that are incoherent. I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can be no ontological union between God and human? Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Unfortunately, even if someone were holding a gun to your head, you would be utterly unable to come up with any fantasies and delusions on my part. You are a funny lady Judy. As I said before, I'll let you run with your fantasies and delusions. It would not be in your best interest, at least in the short term, to disabuse you of them. Everything eventually comes out in the wash. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: She is in the know. On this point, as it happens, so am I. Of course neither of us is going to tell you anything about Robin's private life that he didn't divulge here; what are you, nuts? Ironically, though, as I told you before, he'd already written a number of times about his friend who called him out on his stuff. But, hmmm, you didn't remember that, did you? So much for your great memory, eh? And that sure as heck isn't how you described the post. If that was what you'd said, I wouldn't have objected, because we already knew that. It was the daily confessional with a friend he met almost every day at Starbuck's that was off the wall. That's where you were mistaken, and it's not a discrepancy you can just paper over, much as you'd like to, especially when you insisted on it after I told you he'd never said that. And you most certainly do operate that way. You did it in this very discussion, and you've done it dozens of times before, when you get asked for proof or examples of some claim you've made and refuse to provide it. If Barry hadn't dug this post up for you, that's how you'd have operated in this case as well. But even so, when Ann asked you to explain how you could claim your description matched the post, you refused to say. You know who else did it? Your hero, Curtis. And your favorite helpless damsel, Share, has done it. Vaj used to do it, big-time. Sometimes it's warranted, sometimes it isn't. All three people above used it as an illegitimate weapon against folks they were having conflicts with. Curtis's example was especially reprehensible. Anne, you are saying, Trust me, because I know what is going on. I'm not going to tell you anything about it, but I'm in the know Well, I don't operate that way, and I don't know many who do. So as they say, and I don't mean this in an impolite way, but put up, or shut up. There is really no other way to say it. As for being willing to admit a mistake. I need to be shown where I was mistaken, other than, You are mistaken ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, This post was over a year old. In the body of the post at some point by one of the participants is mentioned Starbucks. Now if you wish to fault me over this detail, or any other detail, no problem. But I stand by the my overall point that Robin had a friend that appeared to call him out on his stuff. My apologies that I indicated the setting was at Starbucks, or that I called it a confessional. But I feel my recollection was close enough to what I originally indicated. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another. I know more about Robin past and present than anyone here and I know of whom he speaks when you mistakenly thought he meant some guy at Starbucks. It's fine, but why is it so hard for some of you here at FFL to admit you made a mistake? I, frankly, don't give a crap because I know who and what he was referring to that you got so badly wrong. But what is the deal with not being able to admit you made a mistake about this? This is a rhetorical question, BTW, I don't really need to know the answer to this but you might. Now if others wish to make a federal case out of it,be my guest. But you may have to try me in absentia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the record. Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty good. My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to predate his participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no daily confessional. My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, feelings. I would say this was a couple months before he stopped
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
He can't even acknowledge he got it wrong about Robin never having addressed Ann directly, a matter of facts on the record. What a moral midget. Life must really be a terrifying experience for him. Yes Judy. Whatever you say Judy. Appeal to Authority is a card you play everyday here. Only you call it, Appeal to My Authority. Basically a big joke. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: No, go look up the fallacy of appeal to authority. You don't know what you're talking about, no surprise. You are wrong not because Ann is an authority, but because, duh, you got it wrong, and the evidence is on the record in the posts in this exchange plus Robin's post from December 2012. No meeting a friend almost every day at Starbuck's. No daily confessional. Wrong. That's not in his post. You said it was. You got it wrong. And you have something else very badly wrong in this post. Robin did address Ann directly a number of times. Among other things, they had a long, fascinating multi-post exchange about a number of different topics related to enlightenment and Robin's group. Ask Barry to find it for you. So much for your wonderful memory, again. What a lamer you are. Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.! Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, I Am An Authority on this Subject Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed authorityness is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 12:15 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: I believe Robin was sincere in what he said Except of course when Robin was posting a parody. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Iranian Warships Sailing to the US?
Now that the USA has gotten out of the full scale wars of the Bush era, there are US Marine Corps amphibious troop ships sitting unused at anchor that could readily be lent to the UN for peace-keeping meditations. I feel we should occupy at least one of those ships and steam out for world peace using them as meditating platforms to launch coherence landings in to these incredibly incoherent places around the world. We need a few good meditators. One Percent Meditating for World Peace! It is time, -Buck
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 12:32 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Obviously there is a certain amount of delusion involved if Robin thought that his enlightenment consisted of his union with God. Indian philosophy doesn't have anything to do with union with the Purusha - it's the prakriti that is the delusion and it is always separate from the Purusha. Everyone who has practiced TM and yoga knows this. Robin's , and now Judy's, definition of enlightenment, does not agree with any Indian system that I know of. Apparently neither one of them is very well-read in Indian philosophy. In none of the orthodox Six Systems of Indian philosophy do we find anywhere that enlightenment is considered a union with God. So, I wonder where they got this idea? Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Robin Carlsen Cult on Fairfield Life
This series of posts from Barry is so obviously off-the-wall insane I'm not even going to try to address them. They're evidence of desperately serious psychopathology and fanatical obsession that have completely taken over his mind. I won't even call them full of lies, because he's so far gone he genuinely believes what he writes. So let's just say they're full of...uh...inaccuracies. Or better, delusions and hallucinations. I'll just point out the delusion he starts with: Neither Ann nor I brought up Robin. This series of discussions began with Michael Jackson claiming that Maharishi had declared Robin and Andy Rhymer to be enlightened. And it all goes downhill from there. Oh, one bit of inside info from my private communications with Robin: Robin's last post was his attempt to wrap up the argument Curtis had forced on him and get out of FFL for good. He was sick of the place. He neither expected nor wanted Curtis or anyone else to respond, contrary to Barry's convoluted fantasies.
[FairfieldLife] Radical Peace-Making and Iranian Warships Sailing to the US
Now that the USA has gotten out of the full scale wars of the Bush era, there are US Marine Corps amphibious troop ships sitting unused at anchor that could readily be lent to the UN for peace-keeping meditations. I feel we should occupy at least one of those ships and steam out for world peace using them as meditating platforms to launch coherence landings in to these incredibly incoherent places around the world. We need a few good meditators. One Percent Meditating for World Peace! It is time, -Buck jr_esq writes: One wonders about the current leadership of Iran. He appears to be intent on intimidating the US military forces. But they don't have the firepower to shoot it out with the US. Or, it could be just a bluff. http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-warships-sailing-towards-u-agency-214302042--finance.html http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-warships-sailing-towards-u-agency-214302042--finance.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, you are saying, Trust me, because I know what is going on. I'm not going to tell you anything about it, but I'm in the know No I'm not. I am saying the post you retrieved from the archives has nothing to do with your memory of what Robin said. It is just that I know who he is talking about in that post and what his relationship is to that person. There is no mystery or in the know. Just read what he wrote to see the discrepancy then simply read what I wrote and put one and one together and you have the fact that you were mistaken. Well, I don't operate that way, and I don't know many who do. So as they say, and I don't mean this in an impolite way, but put up, or shut up. There is really no other way to say it. There is nothing to put up. I said it all. Any more details about any of it is up to Robin to give you, not me. But you have the basic facts: he doesn't go to Starbucks to make confessions to strangers. He has a friend who he talks to and has helped him for a very long time, a friend who knows him well. Simple, straightforward. As for being willing to admit a mistake. I need to be shown where I was mistaken, other than, You are mistaken ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, This post was over a year old. In the body of the post at some point by one of the participants is mentioned Starbucks. Now if you wish to fault me over this detail, or any other detail, no problem. But I stand by the my overall point that Robin had a friend that appeared to call him out on his stuff. My apologies that I indicated the setting was at Starbucks, or that I called it a confessional. But I feel my recollection was close enough to what I originally indicated. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another. I know more about Robin past and present than anyone here and I know of whom he speaks when you mistakenly thought he meant some guy at Starbucks. It's fine, but why is it so hard for some of you here at FFL to admit you made a mistake? I, frankly, don't give a crap because I know who and what he was referring to that you got so badly wrong. But what is the deal with not being able to admit you made a mistake about this? This is a rhetorical question, BTW, I don't really need to know the answer to this but you might. Now if others wish to make a federal case out of it,be my guest. But you may have to try me in absentia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the record. Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty good. My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to predate his participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no daily confessional. My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, feelings. I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams of quotes notwithstanding. Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's?? Robin never said anything remotely like that. Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly espousing a pseudo-humility. Sorta my take on the whole thing. On the other hand, we do have the missing years when he was substitute teaching. Could get some checks in the humility column for that. And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at Starbucks. Do I have that right?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 12:46 PM, Share Long wrote: Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? Apparently, Share, this is what Robin believed - that he had achieved union with God, which was delusional. It is delusional in the sense that he thought it was true, and delusional in that TM or yoga does not teach union with God. So, I would say that not only was Robin delusional about TM and yoga, he was also delusional to think that the Ruhollah Khomeini was a prophet and that joining the Catholic Church would enable him to see God. Robin failed to demonstrate the basic principles of TM and yoga. He also failed on this discussion group to explain why he wrote all those books about the Imam. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Bhagavad-Gita VI:27 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/8/2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Obviously there is a certain amount of delusion involved if Robin thought that his enlightenment consisted of his union with God. Indian philosophy doesn't have anything to do with union with the Purusha - it's the prakriti that is the delusion and it is always separate from the Purusha. Everyone who has practiced TM and yoga knows this. Robin's , and now Judy's, definition of enlightenment, does not agree with any Indian system that I know of. Apparently neither one of them is very well-read in Indian philosophy. In none of the orthodox Six Systems of Indian philosophy do we find anywhere that enlightenment is considered a union with God. So, I wonder where they got this idea? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: No, go look up the fallacy of appeal to authority. You don't know what you're talking about, no surprise. You are wrong not because Ann is an authority, but because, duh, you got it wrong, and the evidence is on the record in the posts in this exchange plus Robin's post from December 2012. No meeting a friend almost every day at Starbuck's. No daily confessional. Wrong. That's not in his post. You said it was. You got it wrong. And you have something else very badly wrong in this post. Robin did address Ann directly a number of times. Among other things, they had a long, fascinating multi-post exchange about a number of different topics related to enlightenment and Robin's group. Ask Barry to find it for you. So much for your wonderful memory, again. What a lamer you are. Thanks Judy, again you said everything that needs to be said and better than I could have said it. In addition, I simply don't go back to find old posts, especially now with Neo, because I don't know how to and I can't be bothered to figure it out. But I know you are more than adept at this so, in a pinch, I can always rely on you to back it all up. Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.! Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, I Am An Authority on this Subject Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed authorityness is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 12:53 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. So, it looks like we are agreed: Robin's experience of a union with God' was delusional. And, Robin did not understand the basics of TM or yoga. Robin was delusional and he posted parodies. Maybe his belief in union with God was a parody - because he knew that TM or yoga didn't have anything to do with a union with God. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy I'm going by MY OWN sense of what Robin said, and using logic. Thus if he said that enlightenment per se is a delusion and he was enlightened. Then he is saying, according to logic, that he was deluded. And I think he went even further than that, saying he was under the control of outside and malevolent forces. Given this I think it's inaccurate for anyone to use phrases like genuine enlightenment and enlightened days with reference to Robin during that time. Share, do yourself a favor and don't try using logic. In your case, that is just asking to get it very, very wrong. And as far as your sense that is even trickier. But one thing for sure, you do have a whopper of a set of blinkers and are stubborn as hell. You might have made a great racing mule - you got the personality and the equipment for it. On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:14 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Missed this earlier... He didn't say his enlightenment was a delusion. He said enlightenment per se, although very real and genuine, is a delusion. You've been told this now five or six times between Ann and me, so now when you say it, it's a lie, because you know otherwise. You are attacking Robin by lying about what he said. Shame on you. You're as morally smelly as Stevie. It's true, Judy, my intention is not to analyze what Robin wrote. My intention is to say that I think your phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with regards to Robin are inaccurate given that he said his enlightenment was a delusion. I don't think it is attacking of someone to refer to what they themselves said. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:35 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Again, Share, your question is incoherent. Robin never said enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong, for example. You made that up. I'm telling you, this whole topic is over your head. Your intention is not to understand what Robin wrote but rather to find yet another way to beat up on him in his absence, and I'm just not going to play that mug's game. Do you understand? Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion, then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right or wrong? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please. Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate? What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? He said his experience of union with God was a delusion. Is this where the evil forces come in? I don't know what come in means in this context. My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God. But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on enlightenment?! Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that are incoherent. I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can be no ontological union between God and human? Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Judy, do you think Robin thinks ALL forms of realization, awakening, enlightenment, etc. in ALL traditions are a delusion? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Absolutely correct. He was insistent that enlightenment is a real state of consciousness, and that he was in this state for 10-plus years. What he says he came to realize is that the state itself is delusional--the experience of being one with God, the identification with Self rather than self, and so on,
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
FWIW, Robin said this passage from Science of Being and the Art of Living perfectly described his experience of enlightenment: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 1:21 PM, Share Long wrote: My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God. Actually, no - union with God isn't mentioned in the Upanishads and not in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. Of the Six Systems of Hinduism, only one system is theistic. According to Patanjali, raja yoga has nothing to do with union with the gods, but has everything to do with *isolation* from prakriti, that is, the 'cessation of the fluctuations of the mind-stuff'. The enlightenment tradition in India does not support a notion that one can become united with Ishvara.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 2:58 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: God knows he said a lot in his time at FFL so you won't lack for reading material. Can anyone on this forum point out where Robin posted to FFL that he believed that enlightenment consisted of being united with God. If he did, he is delusional because that is not what being enlightened is, at least according to MMY and Patanjali. Thanks for all your help in understanding Robin's delusion, Ann.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/8/2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Obviously there is a certain amount of delusion involved if Robin thought that his enlightenment consisted of his union with God. Indian philosophy doesn't have anything to do with union with the Purusha - it's the prakriti that is the delusion and it is always separate from the Purusha. Everyone who has practiced TM and yoga knows this. Robin's , and now Judy's, definition of enlightenment, does not agree with any Indian system that I know of. Apparently neither one of them is very well-read in Indian philosophy. In none of the orthodox Six Systems of Indian philosophy do we find anywhere that enlightenment is considered a union with God. So, I wonder where they got this idea? Go figure. Another person mistaking Judy's explanation of how Robin felt for what Judy herself believes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 5:20 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly espousing a pseudo-humility. Could anyone on this forum point out where Robin demonstrated any knowledge about Indian Vedanta or Yoga other than basic TM practice and TMer lingo? Apparently Robin was not very well-read in the Hindu scriptures.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Robin Carlsen Cult on Fairfield Life
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: This series of posts from Barry is so obviously off-the-wall insane I'm not even going to try to address them. They're evidence of desperately serious psychopathology and fanatical obsession that have completely taken over his mind. I won't even call them full of lies, because he's so far gone he genuinely believes what he writes. So let's just say they're full of...uh...inaccuracies. Or better, delusions and hallucinations. I'll just point out the delusion he starts with: Neither Ann nor I brought up Robin. This series of discussions began with Michael Jackson claiming that Maharishi had declared Robin and Andy Rhymer to be enlightened. And it all goes downhill from there. Oh, one bit of inside info from my private communications with Robin: Robin's last post was his attempt to wrap up the argument Curtis had forced on him and get out of FFL for good. He was sick of the place. He neither expected nor wanted Curtis or anyone else to respond, contrary to Barry's convoluted fantasies. Well, for once I'm ahead of you on this one, Judy, I didn't even give Bawwy's posts a cursory glance. He is so predictable, unpleasant and basically what I would categorize as a spiritual and mental imbecile that I couldn't possibly learn anything new that he hasn't already said hundreds of times. Remember, this is a person who spends his entire life tooting his own horn when he isn't sitting glued to the TV set. Now, other than as a perfect example of how not to live one's life, what in the world does someone like this have to offer other than trivialities and diatribe born of frustration, boredom and supreme disappointment in his very existence? Answer: Pretty much nothing I am interested in aligning myself with. Bawwy is poisonous and he lives to breed dissension that springs from lying and manipulation. Pretty damning opinions on my end but I truly believe everything I have written here. Until he can prove that he is not who he consistently demonstrates he is here at FFL my mind is made up about Bawwy. I don't like him even enough to feel sorry for him but others are, no doubt, capable of greater empathy than me.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
So, you say I am mistaken about where he might have met with his friend, but you don't say where the meetings or get togethers might have taken place. For all we know it was Starbucks. You say that I am mistaken that it was not a confessional, but you don't say what it was. All you say is, I am an authority in this matter, and we know that Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. I am afraid at this point, my dear, we are stuck with two competing versions of what might have happened. I have surmised something from his statements. You say I am wrong, Now funnily enough, there is probably someone who is reading all this, (hint, hint), who could clear everything up - stand up guy that he is. What is the term - MIA? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, you are saying, Trust me, because I know what is going on. I'm not going to tell you anything about it, but I'm in the know No I'm not. I am saying the post you retrieved from the archives has nothing to do with your memory of what Robin said. It is just that I know who he is talking about in that post and what his relationship is to that person. There is no mystery or in the know. Just read what he wrote to see the discrepancy then simply read what I wrote and put one and one together and you have the fact that you were mistaken. Well, I don't operate that way, and I don't know many who do. So as they say, and I don't mean this in an impolite way, but put up, or shut up. There is really no other way to say it. There is nothing to put up. I said it all. Any more details about any of it is up to Robin to give you, not me. But you have the basic facts: he doesn't go to Starbucks to make confessions to strangers. He has a friend who he talks to and has helped him for a very long time, a friend who knows him well. Simple, straightforward. As for being willing to admit a mistake. I need to be shown where I was mistaken, other than, You are mistaken ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, This post was over a year old. In the body of the post at some point by one of the participants is mentioned Starbucks. Now if you wish to fault me over this detail, or any other detail, no problem. But I stand by the my overall point that Robin had a friend that appeared to call him out on his stuff. My apologies that I indicated the setting was at Starbucks, or that I called it a confessional. But I feel my recollection was close enough to what I originally indicated. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another. I know more about Robin past and present than anyone here and I know of whom he speaks when you mistakenly thought he meant some guy at Starbucks. It's fine, but why is it so hard for some of you here at FFL to admit you made a mistake? I, frankly, don't give a crap because I know who and what he was referring to that you got so badly wrong. But what is the deal with not being able to admit you made a mistake about this? This is a rhetorical question, BTW, I don't really need to know the answer to this but you might. Now if others wish to make a federal case out of it,be my guest. But you may have to try me in absentia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the record. Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty good. My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to predate his participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no daily confessional. My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, feelings. I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams of quotes notwithstanding. Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's?? Robin never said anything remotely like that. Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/8/2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. So, it looks like we are agreed: Robin's experience of a union with God' was delusional. And, Robin did not understand the basics of TM or yoga. Robin was delusional and he posted parodies. Maybe his belief in union with God was a parody - because he knew that TM or yoga didn't have anything to do with a union with God. Go figure. I'll tell you where we're all agreed, and this goes for Ricky, Sharon, Stevie, Bawwy - Robin can certainly get a rise out of you all. He seems to be able to, in absentia, inspire you all to exhibit the fascinating qualities of: mulishness ignorance lack of logic desire to troll gang mentality inability to stay objective or focused mean-spiritedness indefatigable desire to obfuscate the subjects being discussed This should make a fascinating study for those eminent scholars lurking here. If they had any sense they would be studying the field of failed pseudo spiritual seekers who are not established in silence. What a din in here - and all from trying to explain to Share about Robin's opinion of enlightenment. And does anyone still wonder how wars get started? This lot is as aggressive as any I have seen anywhere and this is supposedly a forum for mature, spiritually-minded old practitioners of various contemplative and meditative practices. If anything proves that decades of meditation and the ongoing study of great masters amounts to nothing these four at FFL have and, I daresay, will continue to do so. Just watch.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 8:26 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: Do you think it may have run mostly in one direction, though? The parody Robin posted about Judy was very revealing - why would Robin do that if they were such good friends. It's sort of like Robin throwing Judy under the bus. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] A Unified Field-Based Income
How much is really enough essentially to be able to meditate freely/ What would be Basic Living in Switzerland to just be a meditator? The USA. China. Brazil. Greenland. South Africa. To have a standard of enough time and income to meditate standard in the working day. Twice a day. A Universal Income “Switzerland, one of the world's wealthiest countries, is engaged in an intense process of soul searching - about money.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Actually I'm not adept at finding stuff via Neo's advanced search feature; it's horrendously designed and fundamentally crippled. So I'm afraid you can't count on me to find stuff. I may get lucky, but it's a crapshoot. I suggested Barry retrieve your long exchange with Robin because he still has access to the Classic advanced search. Stevie doesn't appear ready to acknowledge his gigantic goof on that point; he may need to have his nose rubbed in it. Thanks Judy, again you said everything that needs to be said and better than I could have said it. In addition, I simply don't go back to find old posts, especially now with Neo, because I don't know how to and I can't be bothered to figure it out. But I know you are more than adept at this so, in a pinch, I can always rely on you to back it all up. Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.! Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, I Am An Authority on this Subject Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed authorityness is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Iranian Warships Sailing to the US?
Avert the danger! Before it arises! I wish I could find a copy of that song - always felt inspired by it. On Sun, 2/9/14, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: Iranian Warships Sailing to the US? To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, February 9, 2014, 2:29 PM Now that the USA has gotten out of the full scale wars of the Bush era, there are US Marine Corps amphibious troop ships sitting unused at anchor that could readily be lent to the UN for peace-keeping meditations. I feel we should occupy at least one of those ships and steam out for world peace using them as meditating platforms to launch coherence landings in to these incredibly incoherent places around the world. We need a few good meditators. One Percent Meditating for World Peace! It is time, -Buck
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Boy, I'll say. Her logic and her sense had me pegged as a devout Christian, if you can wrap your mind around that idiocy. And she has yet to acknowledge that huge goof. She and Stevie are quite a pair, aren't they? Share, do yourself a favor and don't try using logic. In your case, that is just asking to get it very, very wrong. And as far as your sense that is even trickier. But one thing for sure, you do have a whopper of a set of blinkers and are stubborn as hell. You might have made a great racing mule - you got the personality and the equipment for it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Ann, I was responding to what Judy said that Robin said about the nature of enlightenment. This is a forum about that, among other topics. Judy used the phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with regards to Robin. Then she presented Robin's idea that enlightenment, including his, reached via Eastern systems are delusional because ontolgical union with God and human is not possible. However, I don't think Robin's GENERAL conclusions about enlightenment reached via Eastern systems are valid exactly because he said HIS enlightenment was a delusion! Thus any conclusion he reached about enlightenment in general, lacks validity. On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:10 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/8/2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... wrote: Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. So, it looks like we are agreed: Robin's experience of a union with God' was delusional. And, Robin did not understand the basics of TM or yoga. Robin was delusional and he posted parodies. Maybe his belief in union with God was a parody - because he knew that TM or yoga didn't have anything to do with a union with God. Go figure. I'll tell you where we're all agreed, and this goes for Ricky, Sharon, Stevie, Bawwy - Robin can certainly get a rise out of you all. He seems to be able to, in absentia, inspire you all to exhibit the fascinating qualities of: mulishness ignorance lack of logic desire to troll gang mentality inability to stay objective or focused mean-spiritedness indefatigable desire to obfuscate the subjects being discussed This should make a fascinating study for those eminent scholars lurking here. If they had any sense they would be studying the field of failed pseudo spiritual seekers who are not established in silence. What a din in here - and all from trying to explain to Share about Robin's opinion of enlightenment. And does anyone still wonder how wars get started? This lot is as aggressive as any I have seen anywhere and this is supposedly a forum for mature, spiritually-minded old practitioners of various contemplative and meditative practices. If anything proves that decades of meditation and the ongoing study of great masters amounts to nothing these four at FFL have and, I daresay, will continue to do so. Just watch.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Um, after suddenly being thrust into what seemed to be Unity Consciousness on that mountain, and then having Maharishi apparently confirm it, why would Robin need to study the Scriptures? He was living them. (See my post with the SBAL quote.) he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly espousing a pseudo-humility. Could anyone on this forum point out where Robin demonstrated any knowledge about Indian Vedanta or Yoga other than basic TM practice and TMer lingo? Apparently Robin was not very well-read in the Hindu scriptures.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/8/2014 9:21 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Neither Eastern Orthodox nor Western Christianity permit the view that humans can become ontologically one with God. That remains the seperative divide between Eastern and Western religions. What Eastern Orthodox philosophy supports the notion that humans can ontologically be one with God? 1. Vedanta 2. Yoga 3. Mimamsa 4. Samkhya 5. Nyaya 6. Vaisheshika
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Sharelogic. As hopeless as Barrylogic, Stevielogic, and Rickylogic. Ann, I was responding to what Judy said that Robin said about the nature of enlightenment. This is a forum about that, among other topics. Judy used the phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with regards to Robin. Then she presented Robin's idea that enlightenment, including his, reached via Eastern systems are delusional because ontolgical union with God and human is not possible. However, I don't think Robin's GENERAL conclusions about enlightenment reached via Eastern systems are valid exactly because he said HIS enlightenment was a delusion! Thus any conclusion he reached about enlightenment in general, lacks validity. On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:10 AM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/8/2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. So, it looks like we are agreed: Robin's experience of a union with God' was delusional. And, Robin did not understand the basics of TM or yoga. Robin was delusional and he posted parodies. Maybe his belief in union with God was a parody - because he knew that TM or yoga didn't have anything to do with a union with God. Go figure. I'll tell you where we're all agreed, and this goes for Ricky, Sharon, Stevie, Bawwy - Robin can certainly get a rise out of you all. He seems to be able to, in absentia, inspire you all to exhibit the fascinating qualities of: mulishness ignorance lack of logic desire to troll gang mentality inability to stay objective or focused mean-spiritedness indefatigable desire to obfuscate the subjects being discussed This should make a fascinating study for those eminent scholars lurking here. If they had any sense they would be studying the field of failed pseudo spiritual seekers who are not established in silence. What a din in here - and all from trying to explain to Share about Robin's opinion of enlightenment. And does anyone still wonder how wars get started? This lot is as aggressive as any I have seen anywhere and this is supposedly a forum for mature, spiritually-minded old practitioners of various contemplative and meditative practices. If anything proves that decades of meditation and the ongoing study of great masters amounts to nothing these four at FFL have and, I daresay, will continue to do so. Just watch.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
It's called having fun, Richard. The most fun either of us ever had on FFL, in fact. We had a wonderful time throwing each other under the bus. And then an even better time laughing privately at the few gullible fools who thought we were serious. Do you think it may have run mostly in one direction, though? The parody Robin posted about Judy was very revealing - why would Robin do that if they were such good friends. It's sort of like Robin throwing Judy under the bus. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
The purpose of studying scriptures is to integrate one's experience of enlightenment more completely. Also to smooth the process which I understand can be quite jarring. On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:38 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Um, after suddenly being thrust into what seemed to be Unity Consciousness on that mountain, and then having Maharishi apparently confirm it, why would Robin need to study the Scriptures? He was living them. (See my post with the SBAL quote.) he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly espousing a pseudo-humility. Could anyone on this forum point out where Robin demonstrated any knowledge about Indian Vedanta or Yoga other than basic TM practice and TMer lingo? Apparently Robin was not very well-read in the Hindu scriptures.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Robin has, as I've already pointed out, described all this in his posts. There was nothing new in the post Stevie misremembered. And obviously, as I also pointed out, Ann is not going to reveal any additional specific details of Robin's private life that he may have mentioned to her but not written about in his public posts, nor am I. But we both can tell you he wasn't meeting a friend in Starbuck's for confessionals every day. And if your memory wasn't crippled, you'd know that too, because (again: as I said) he'd already written about his interactions with his friend a number of times. You are way, WAY off-base with this, Stevie. Robin is not reading FFL, by the way. So, are you just going to keep on ignoring your whopping goof about Robin never having addressed Ann directly? So, you say I am mistaken about where he might have met with his friend, but you don't say where the meetings or get togethers might have taken place. For all we know it was Starbucks. You say that I am mistaken that it was not a confessional, but you don't say what it was. All you say is, I am an authority in this matter, and we know that Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. I am afraid at this point, my dear, we are stuck with two competing versions of what might have happened. I have surmised something from his statements. You say I am wrong, Now funnily enough, there is probably someone who is reading all this, (hint, hint), who could clear everything up - stand up guy that he is. What is the term - MIA? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, you are saying, Trust me, because I know what is going on. I'm not going to tell you anything about it, but I'm in the know No I'm not. I am saying the post you retrieved from the archives has nothing to do with your memory of what Robin said. It is just that I know who he is talking about in that post and what his relationship is to that person. There is no mystery or in the know. Just read what he wrote to see the discrepancy then simply read what I wrote and put one and one together and you have the fact that you were mistaken. Well, I don't operate that way, and I don't know many who do. So as they say, and I don't mean this in an impolite way, but put up, or shut up. There is really no other way to say it. There is nothing to put up. I said it all. Any more details about any of it is up to Robin to give you, not me. But you have the basic facts: he doesn't go to Starbucks to make confessions to strangers. He has a friend who he talks to and has helped him for a very long time, a friend who knows him well. Simple, straightforward. As for being willing to admit a mistake. I need to be shown where I was mistaken, other than, You are mistaken ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, This post was over a year old. In the body of the post at some point by one of the participants is mentioned Starbucks. Now if you wish to fault me over this detail, or any other detail, no problem. But I stand by the my overall point that Robin had a friend that appeared to call him out on his stuff. My apologies that I indicated the setting was at Starbucks, or that I called it a confessional. But I feel my recollection was close enough to what I originally indicated. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another. I know more about Robin past and present than anyone here and I know of whom he speaks when you mistakenly thought he meant some guy at Starbucks. It's fine, but why is it so hard for some of you here at FFL to admit you made a mistake? I, frankly, don't give a crap because I know who and what he was referring to that you got so badly wrong. But what is the deal with not being able to admit you made a mistake about this? This is a rhetorical question, BTW, I don't really need to know the answer to this but you might. Now if others wish to make a federal case out of it,be my guest. But you may have to try me in absentia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the record. Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty good. My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to predate his participation here. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You've got
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Richard, about UC being unity with God: in the Gita Maharishi writes that at a certain point it is between the devotee and God whether they become one or stay two so that there can be that flow of devotion. It is from this and many Maharishi tapes that I got the idea that UC means union with God. It is also union with everything, in my understanding. And I will temporarily agree with you that God is Purusha rather than Prakriti until I think about it a bit more (-: On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:45 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/8/2014 9:21 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Neither Eastern Orthodox nor Western Christianity permit the view that humans can become ontologically one with God. That remains the seperative divide between Eastern and Western religions. What Eastern Orthodox philosophy supports the notion that humans can ontologically be one with God? 1. Vedanta 2. Yoga 3. Mimamsa 4. Samkhya 5. Nyaya 6. Vaisheshika
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Robin Carlsen Cult on Fairfield Life
On 2/9/2014 8:29 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: And it all goes downhill from there. This thread started out with a fib told by that guy in South Corolina that took over a dead man's name for an alias. So, it was pretty much downhill from the beginning. Now we find out that Robin believed that TM enlightenment was a union with God. So, I guess we can understand how the conversation went downhill, since Robin's enlightenment was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what MMY was teaching. Thanks for posting this information - it helps me understand why Robin wrote all those books about the Muslim cleric and then joined the Catholic Church. Apparently, Robin believed he had become God. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Ann, it was enough of an event to ride the Vancouver buses with all those jolly people attending the 2010 Olympics! I'm with you about Neo and the archives so I probably won't be doing any searches. And in any case, I was replying to what Judy said the the internal lack of logic with what Robin said, according to her. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:48 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, I suggest you go back to how this topic began. Judy threw out the phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with reference to Robin. I said I thought those phrases were inaccurate given that Robin himself called his enlightenment a delusion. That is how this discussion began. I am not fighting with you Share. I was attempting to clarify something. It has become evident that this is a hot button topic for you - Robin I mean. Sorry, I didn't realize how deep this went. BTW I don't have TV hookup so I don't watch the Olympics, was in Vancouver during the 2010 games! Lucky you, but it sounds as if you didn't attend any of the events. You should have come and visited Vancouver Island. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:58 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion, then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right or wrong? Share, it would be best, if you really are interested in any of this, to go back and re-read what Robin himself actually wrote, God knows he said a lot in his time at FFL so you won't lack for reading material. Instead of using Judy as the translator look it up for yourself.That way you can decide on your own how you feel about what he said and you can take your time with itif you really want to. On another note, do you watch the Olympics and if so do you prefer the summer or winter version? What is your favorite winter sport event to watch? Favorite summer event? Strangely, I don't watch much TV let alone sports events but I do really enjoy the Olympics and also Wimbledon. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please. Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate? What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? He said his experience of union with God was a delusion. Is this where the evil forces come in? I don't know what come in means in this context. My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God. But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on enlightenment?! Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that are incoherent. I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can be no ontological union between God and human? Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Judy, do you think Robin thinks ALL forms of realization, awakening, enlightenment, etc. in ALL traditions are a delusion? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Absolutely correct. He was insistent that enlightenment is a real state of consciousness, and that he was in this state for 10-plus years. What he says he came to realize is that the state itself is delusional--the experience of being one with God, the identification with Self rather than self, and so on, everything Maharishi describes, is a trick, a seduction engineered by dark forces that do not have the welfare of human beings at heart. It's all very real--including the special
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Robin Carlsen Cult on Fairfield Life
On 2/9/2014 9:02 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't like him even enough to feel sorry for him but others are, no doubt, capable of greater empathy than me. If Robin believed that MMY taught that enlightenment was a union with God you've got to go figure that Robin really missed the message given out by MMY: Purusha and prakriti are eternally separate. How could anyone miss this? In a previous thread, we discussed the Transcendental Person mentioned in the Upanishads in some detail. How is the prakriti going to merge and be in union with the Purusha, the Transcendental Person? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
On 2/9/2014 4:45 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: /*He *didn't like it* that Curtis didn't respond to the 12,000-word four posts in which he ranted obsessively about Curtis And Everything That Was Wrong With Him. He *didn't like it* that no one else seemed interested in his continuing diatribes against Curtis. What he wanted -- and stated clearly in the Last Tantrum -- was for someone (anyone) to respond to him and ARGUE WITH HIM. */ I read Robin's posts as they came in and at the time I wondered to myself why I wasn't finding them of much interest in them. I didn't see any of the key words I'd be interested in replying to such as Yoga, Vedanta, or the Upanishads. Now it dawns on me - Robin didn't know very much about these subjects. So, I wonder why Robin would want to dialog with Curtis who holds a B.S. in Philosophy from MUM. Go figure. Which brings up a few questions: 1. Was Robin Carlsen a TM Teacher and what course did he attend to get certified to teach TM? 2. Did Robin Carlsen complete any courses at MUM, and if so, which ones? 3. Was Robin so delusional that he actually believed he was in union with God or is this something Judy and Ann made up?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 10:00 AM, Share Long wrote: in the Gita Maharishi writes that at a certain point it is between the devotee and God whether they become one or stay two so that there can be that flow of devotion. The key word here is devotion, Share. Robin's main problem may have been his belief that he could become God with TM practice. I hope this isn't what he was teaching! Apparently Robin got confused about TM and what MMY was about. This is really surprising in Robin's case - apparently he never even read the Bhagavad Gita to the end - the BG is all about Bhakti Yoga. I'm pretty sure that the BG teaches service and devotion to God Krishna, not that we can become God ourselves using yoga techniques. Patanjali's Yoga is concerned with isolation of the Purusha and the prakriti, not a union with the Godhead - Ishvara. If I could become God Krishna, I could have 16,000 wives and make love with a married cow girl named Radha under an Autumn moon. In India you can find people that like to dress up in saris like Radha, so they can copulate with Krishna and do the Rasa Dance with him. This doesn't work out very well in practice - one Swami who used to live down here got convicted of child molestation for thinking he was God Krishna. In fact, this is the kind of thinking that can get people in big trouble. If Robin believed himself to be God for ten years, then he was probably delusional - and delusional about TM as well. Certainly he was mis-informed about Indian Yoga and Vedanta principles. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Iranian Warships Sailing to the US?
The mouse that roared? On 02/08/2014 09:35 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote: One wonders about the current leadership of Iran. He appears to be intent on intimidating the US military forces. But they don't have the firepower to shoot it out with the US. Or, it could be just a bluff. http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-warships-sailing-towards-u-agency-214302042--finance.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy Enlightened?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/9/2014 10:00 AM, Share Long wrote: in the Gita Maharishi writes that at a certain point it is between the devotee and God whether they become one or stay two so that there can be that flow of devotion. The key word here is devotion, Share. Robin's main problem may have been his belief that he could become God with TM practice. I hope this isn't what he was teaching! Apparently Robin got confused about TM and what MMY was about. This is really surprising in Robin's case - apparently he never even read the Bhagavad Gita to the end - the BG is all about Bhakti Yoga. I'm pretty sure that the BG teaches service and devotion to God Krishna, not that we can become God ourselves using yoga techniques. Patanjali's Yoga is concerned with isolation of the Purusha and the prakriti, not a union with the Godhead - Ishvara. If I could become God Krishna, I could have 16,000 wives and make love with a married cow girl named Radha under an Autumn moon. In India you can find people that like to dress up in saris like Radha, so they can copulate with Krishna and do the Rasa Dance with him. This doesn't work out very well in practice - one Swami who used to live down here got convicted of child molestation for thinking he was God Krishna. In fact, this is the kind of thinking that can get people in big trouble. If Robin believed himself to be God for ten years, then he was probably delusional - and delusional about TM as well. Certainly he was mis-informed about Indian Yoga and Vedanta principles. Go figure. I'd say you were correct. But, as you might want to know, he did not.
[FairfieldLife] Daa Doo Raam Raam Raam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqgtsai2aKY BTW, Raam is also a good mantra for calming vata, so make a bhajan out of the song.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/9/2014 4:45 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: He *didn't like it* that Curtis didn't respond to the 12,000-word four posts in which he ranted obsessively about Curtis And Everything That Was Wrong With Him. He *didn't like it* that no one else seemed interested in his continuing diatribes against Curtis. What he wanted -- and stated clearly in the Last Tantrum -- was for someone (anyone) to respond to him and ARGUE WITH HIM. I read Robin's posts as they came in and at the time I wondered to myself why I wasn't finding them of much interest in them. I didn't see any of the key words I'd be interested in replying to such as Yoga, Vedanta, or the Upanishads. Now it dawns on me - Robin didn't know very much about these subjects. So, I wonder why Robin would want to dialog with Curtis who holds a B.S. in Philosophy from MUM. Go figure. Which brings up a few questions: 1. Was Robin Carlsen a TM Teacher and what course did he attend to get certified to teach TM? 2. Did Robin Carlsen complete any courses at MUM, and if so, which ones? 3. Was Robin so delusional that he actually believed he was in union with God or is this something Judy and Ann made up? So true about bringing up some questions, here are mine: 1. Does Ricky think this question will be taken seriously by anyone? 2. Does Ricky eat Weeatbix for breakfast? 3. Does Ricky actually read anyone's posts or just make up stuff based on things he reads on his Weetabix box?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Music for Yoga and Meditation
Music for deep relaxation and integration of body and mind: [image: Inline image 1] Vijay Ghate (tabla), Pandit Hariprasad Chaurasia (bansuri), Darshan Kumari (tampura), Jean-Christophe Bonnafous (bansuri). Photo by Burkhard Meißner, MERU. http://www.maharishi.co.uk/gv/about-maharishi-gandharva-veda.htm Pandit Hariprasad Chaurasia on Bansuri: Sunset Melody (Raga Marwa) - Vol 9 No 5 http://youtu.be/HDcUvUfMs-M Late Night Melody (Raga Shudh Vasanta) - Vol 16 No 8 http://youtu.be/RCd9pMlb03s http://www.maharishi-gandharva-veda.de/ Notes on the bamboo flute: The flute, along with the drum, may have been man's fist musical instrument. Apparently Neandertals used the flute at least 43,000 years ago. The pan flute was used in Greece from the 7th century B.C., and spread to other parts of Europe and to South Asia with the Sanskrit speaking people before 1500 B.C. The origin of Indian music appears historically to be from Vedas, according to most occidental scholars. The wooden flute, or in India the 'Bansuri', was probably invented over 3,500 years ago. The Samaveda is considered to be Veda of music. A string instrument called Van was also used, along with the Venu. Source: 'String Instruments in Sama Veda' By Dr. lalmani Misra http://tinyurl.com/o4tfme On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Pundit Sir pundits...@gmail.com wrote: Hariprasad Chaurasia [image: Inline image 1] Flying Beyond - Improvisations on Bamboo Flute http://youtu.be/0hMF7btkFUQ Hariprasad Chaurasia - banuri Emam and Rik Masterson - tampura Music for deep relaxation and integration of body and mind: http://www.maharishi-gandharva-veda.de/ About the Bansuri: Bamboo flute (Bansuri) is considered to be the original musical instrument, and is noted for being closest to the human singing voice. The richness from the fine nuances of pitch is accomplished by a subtle blowing technique and by partially covering the seven to eight finger holes. Each flute can only play in one scale. About the Artist: Pandit Hari Prasad Chaurasia (born 1938) is an Bansuri master of India. In 1981, in recognition of his outstanding contribution to music, he was given the National Indian Award of the Sangeet Natak Academy in New Delhi. In 1990, Hari Prasad Chaurasia received the Gaurav Puraskar (one of the most prestigious awards) from the State Government of Maharashtra, India. He also received from the President of India, the coveted Padmabhushan award. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hariprasad_Chaurasia On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Kimio Eto - Koto [image: Inline image 1] Ryoan-ji Zen Garden, Japan Yuki No Genso http://youtu.be/J7ezuG1ul2c Koto Flute - Kimio Eto and Bud Shank 1963 http://youtu.be/kTLDZVJcF7A [image: Inline image 2] Sound of the Koto: The Music of Japan by Kimio Eto Vinyl album 33 1/3 RPM The koto is a traditional Japanese stringed musical instrument, similar to the Chinese zheng, the Mongolian yatga, the Korean gayageum and the Vietnamese ðàn tranh. The koto is the national instrument of Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koto_%28instrument%29 On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: Ravi Shankar [image: Inline image 3] 'Festival of Indian Music' - Romantic Ragas http://youtu.be/uzKhb0ypdjA [image: Inline image 2] Ravi Shankar Ali Akbar Khan V.G. Jog Pandit Jasraj Shivkumar Sharma Hariprasad Chaurasia Sultan Khan Alla Rakha Zakir Hussain 'Music of India' http://youtu.be/-f1DNyngKVY [image: Inline image 4] 'Chants Of India' http://youtu.be/bg8uoepX4OI [image: Inline image 6] This CD is unlike anything you might ever hear. It is not so much the music of Shankar or Harrison or anyone else - it is the music of the Gods, manifested through Shankar and the talent surrounding him. - Amazon review Ravi Shankar - Performer George Harrison - Performer Angel Records - Audio CD 'Shankar Family Friends' http://youtu.be/euqihRrbtSQ [image: Inline image 5] Dark Horse Records, 33 1/3 RPM vinyl SP-22002 1973 Note: (This album is very rare and out-of-print; my copy is in near mint condition and transferred to cassette tape for listing. Not availableon Audio CD- New on vinyl: $499.00). Ravi Shankar, KBE often referred to by the title Pandit, was an Indian musician and composer who played the sitar. He has been described as the best-known contemporary Indian musician. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Richard Williams pundits...@gmail.comwrote: [image: Inline image 1] George Harrison - Wonderwall Music http://youtu.be/UllxxMkG7uI All of the tracks were composed by Harrison, and it was the first official solo album by a Beatle. It was the first album release on the newly formed Apple Records, appearing in November 1968, a few weeks before The Beatles (White Album). It
[FairfieldLife] TV review: Ray Donovan
I want to write this to thank those on this forum who recommended this series. I've just binge-watched my way through the first season, and I see what you were raving about. It's a drama about a dysfunctional family. But then, so were Macbeth and Hamlet. And no, of course the language of this series is not Shakespearean, and the closest it gets to iambic pentameter is the Irish Southie accent spoken by many of its characters, but the drama is often right up there with Shakespeare's, as is its sense of what constitutes a human tragedy. This is a Big Budget Production. Not so much in terms of sets or CGI, but in terms of what kinds of talent the creators were willing to hire, to play both the primary parts and the shorter guest slots. The former consist of Liev Shrieber (Best Actor Golden Globe nominee for this show) and Jon Voight (former Oscar winner and Best Actor Golden Globe winner for this show). They are ably assisted in the regular cast roles by Paula Malcomson, Steven Bauer, Eddie Marshan, Dash Mihok, Peter Jacobson, and Elliot Gould. Shorter appearances have been made (and never wasted) by James Woods, Rosanna Arquette, Denise Crosby, and many others. And not a penny of this investment in talent is wasted. They are given great lines to speak, great characters to fill with life, and an opportunity to create great TV. To a man or woman, they seem to have taken this opportunity and run with it. The action takes place in the uber-brightness of L.A. But it's often dark, ranging from Catholic priest child abuse to murder. Ray Donovan (Schreiver) is a fixer, catering to very rich and famous Hollywood people to make their problems go away. If you wake up with a dead hooker in the bed with you, Ray is the guy to call. He can handle *anything*. Except his own family, especially when his father (Voight) shows up. It's a damned good series, and I look forward to the next season of it. Rated not for Buck, and maybe not for some of the aging flower children here.
[FairfieldLife] Universe Full of Life
There's current speculation that life might have evolved before humans existed on earth. IMO, it's also possible that humanoids existed throughout the universe before humans on earth evolved. This may be due to the phenomenon called the holographic principle of the universe. IOW, we are just a small reflection that is a common phenomenon throughout the universe. http://news.yahoo.com/video/universe-full-life-090614348.html http://news.yahoo.com/video/universe-full-life-090614348.html Or, it could be that the quantum wave function that created the Big Bang already had the information necessary to create humans throughout the universe when the right conditions are met in planets of suns in any galaxy. If so, how many of those humanoid civilizations have evolved into the the highest state of consciousness or dimension?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
On 2/9/2014 11:18 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Which brings up a few questions: 1. Was Robin Carlsen a TM Teacher and what course did he attend to get certified to teach TM? 2. Did Robin Carlsen complete any courses at MUM, and if so, which ones? 3. Was Robin so delusional that he actually believed he was in union with God or is this something Judy and Ann made up? So true about bringing up some questions, here are mine: 1. Does Ricky think this question will be taken seriously by anyone? 2. Does Ricky eat Weeatbix for breakfast? 3. Does Ricky actually read anyone's posts or just make up stuff based on things he reads on his Weetabix box? So, you who know more about Robin than anyone else on this forum, don't know if Robin was a TM Teacher or not, or what if any courses he took at MUM, or if he actually thought he was in union with God. So, I will assume that Robin was not a TM teacher and performed no TM initiations in Fairfield; and like some others who post here, Robin was living in Fairfield but was enrolled in no courses at MUM; and that Ann and Judy made up the part about Robin believing that he was unionized with God. Nobody could be so delusional as to actually believe that the goal of TM practice was to be in union with God! Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy Enlightened?
On 2/9/2014 11:10 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: In fact, this is the kind of thinking that can get people in big trouble. If Robin believed himself to be God for ten years, then he was probably delusional - and delusional about TM as well. Certainly he was mis-informed about Indian Yoga and Vedanta principles. Go figure. I'd say you were correct. But, as you might want to know, he did not. So, Robin did not believe he had become enlightened in union with God; Robin did not think he was God. Robin taught that TM was a way to become enlightened and be in union with God, but not God Himself. Is that what TM is all about - union with God? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/9/2014 11:18 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: Which brings up a few questions: 1. Was Robin Carlsen a TM Teacher and what course did he attend to get certified to teach TM? 2. Did Robin Carlsen complete any courses at MUM, and if so, which ones? 3. Was Robin so delusional that he actually believed he was in union with God or is this something Judy and Ann made up? So true about bringing up some questions, here are mine: 1. Does Ricky think this question will be taken seriously by anyone? 2. Does Ricky eat Weeatbix for breakfast? 3. Does Ricky actually read anyone's posts or just make up stuff based on things he reads on his Weetabix box? So, you who know more about Robin than anyone else on this forum, don't know if Robin was a TM Teacher or not, or what if any courses he took at MUM, or if he actually thought he was in union with God. So, I will assume that Robin was not a TM teacher and performed no TM initiations in Fairfield; and like some others who post here, Robin was living in Fairfield but was enrolled in no courses at MUM; and that Ann and Judy made up the part about Robin believing that he was unionized with God. Nobody could be so delusional as to actually believe that the goal of TM practice was to be in union with God! Go figure. Go re-read your cereal box, Ricky.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
In case anybody missed what I wrote earlier: Oh, one bit of inside info from my private communications with Robin: Robin's last post was his attempt to wrap up the argument Curtis had forced on him and get out of FFL for good. He was sick of the place. He neither expected nor wanted Curtis or anyone else to respond, contrary to Barry's convoluted fantasies. Adding: Nor did he say in his post that he wanted anyone to respond to him and argue with him, merely that if they read the posts and wanted to comment, he would read the comments and if possible respond to them. Plus which, the four posts reproduced the exchange between him and Curtis; they weren't just Robin ranting. As far as Robin was concerned, he'd said everything he had to say. And he knew nobody would read the posts. He simply wanted it all on the record. IOW, what Barry writes quoted here is just one of the delusionary fantasies in his series of posts demonizing Robin this morning. Here's a link to the post if anyone wants to check: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/340466 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/340466 He *didn't like it* that Curtis didn't respond to the 12,000-word four posts in which he ranted obsessively about Curtis And Everything That Was Wrong With Him. He *didn't like it* that no one else seemed interested in his continuing diatribes against Curtis. What he wanted -- and stated clearly in the Last Tantrum -- was for someone (anyone) to respond to him and ARGUE WITH HIM.
[FairfieldLife] RE: TV review: Ray Donovan
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: Barry wrote: I've just binge-watched my way through the first season My point exactly. Watches TV, writes about himself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
Robin was a TM teacher. He never took any MIU courses, nor did he ever live in Fairfield, except for staying there when he visited with his group in 1983.. See my post quoting SBAL for what Robin said his experience was of Unity Consciousness. He wrote other posts about his experiences, but it's too difficult to dig them up with Neo's dysfunctional search feature, so the SBAL quote will have to do. Which brings up a few questions: 1. Was Robin Carlsen a TM Teacher and what course did he attend to get certified to teach TM? 2. Did Robin Carlsen complete any courses at MUM, and if so, which ones? 3. Was Robin so delusional that he actually believed he was in union with God or is this something Judy and Ann made up? So true about bringing up some questions, here are mine: 1. Does Ricky think this question will be taken seriously by anyone? 2. Does Ricky eat Weeatbix for breakfast? 3. Does Ricky actually read anyone's posts or just make up stuff based on things he reads on his Weetabix box? So, you who know more about Robin than anyone else on this forum, don't know if Robin was a TM Teacher or not, or what if any courses he took at MUM, or if he actually thought he was in union with God. So, I will assume that Robin was not a TM teacher and performed no TM initiations in Fairfield; and like some others who post here, Robin was living in Fairfield but was enrolled in no courses at MUM; and that Ann and Judy made up the part about Robin believing that he was unionized with God. Nobody could be so delusional as to actually believe that the goal of TM practice was to be in union with God! Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 10:48 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Do you have something to say relevant to what I wrote? The separative divide between Eastern and Western orthodox religions is that the Western orthodox religion teaches that a man became God in the person of Jesus Christ. Eastern orthodox religions do not teach this and even denies it. So, where did Robin get the idea from - not from MMY.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Universe Full of Life
Only ignorant religious dopes and very vain scientists would believe that the existence of a humanoid species began and only exists on earth. Nature is always replicating itself and nature is not limited just to planet earth. On 02/09/2014 09:28 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote: There's current speculation that life might have evolved before humans existed on earth. IMO, it's also possible that humanoids existed throughout the universe before humans on earth evolved. This may be due to the phenomenon called the holographic principle of the universe. IOW, we are just a small reflection that is a common phenomenon throughout the universe. http://news.yahoo.com/video/universe-full-life-090614348.html Or, it could be that the quantum wave function that created the Big Bang already had the information necessary to create humans throughout the universe when the right conditions are met in planets of suns in any galaxy. If so, how many of those humanoid civilizations have evolved into the the highest state of consciousness or dimension?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 9:49 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: It's called having fun, Richard. The most fun either of us ever had on FFL, in fact. We had a wonderful time throwing each other under the bus. And then an even better time laughing privately at the few gullible fools who thought we were serious. It sounds like a trap or a trick posting. It also sounds unfair to claim private conversations with Robin just to prove that you know him better than we do. But, it was kind of funny watching Robin throw you under the bus. The only problem with this kind of trap post is that people took Robin seriously - now we find out it was a parody and he was just having fun with us. So, Robin posted some fibs and had fun doing it at your expense. Now, you're claiming that Robin thought being enlightened was a unionizing with God. This is a trap, right? Robin believed no such thing - it was just a parody. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I was addressing Share, not you, Richard. But Eastern Orthodox Christianity, of course, affirms that God became man in Jesus Christ, just as Western Christianity does. Your question makes no sense, BTW. Of course Robin didn't get the idea that man became God in Jesus Christ from Maharishi, nor did anyone ever suggest he did. You seem to be rather confused. Do you have something to say relevant to what I wrote? The separative divide between Eastern and Western orthodox religions is that the Western orthodox religion teaches that a man became God in the person of Jesus Christ. Eastern orthodox religions do not teach this and even denies it. So, where did Robin get the idea from - not from MMY.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 9:44 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Sharelogic. As hopeless as Barrylogic, Stevielogic, and Rickylogic. Versus your logic that you think Robin believed his enlightenment was a union with God? Nobody believes that unless they are delusional. Where exactly, did Robin equate being enlightened with being in a union with God?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Universe Full of Life
Um, John, this isn't a speculation, it's well-documented fact. Did you miswrite? There's current speculation that life might have evolved before humans existed on earth.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: It's called having fun, Richard. The most fun either of us ever had on FFL, in fact. We had a wonderful time throwing each other under the bus. And then an even better time laughing privately at the few gullible fools who thought we were serious. I would say you and Robin definitely scored way bigger by having had this little fun on FFL than you both either dreamed. I mean, look at the mileage you two have had with this. No one can stop bringing it up and talking about it and trying to use it to prove Robin actually disliked you and was serious. Neither of you could have predicted its longevity and the fact that it evidently qualifies as one of the Hall of Famer posts. Good on you both; I'd say the whole joke/skit worked better than either of you imagined. In fact, he said to me in a private email before I started posting to FFL on a regular basis that one of the highlights of his time there was this little charade you two had done and that I should be sure to read it because he thought it was probably the most fun he had had at FFL and that I should be sure not to take it seriously because he thought the world of you and you were just smart enough and quick enough to have perfectly played your part. He was still laughing about it every time he would bring it up to me, which was more than once. Do you think it may have run mostly in one direction, though? The parody Robin posted about Judy was very revealing - why would Robin do that if they were such good friends. It's sort of like Robin throwing Judy under the bus. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy Enlightened?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/9/2014 11:10 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: In fact, this is the kind of thinking that can get people in big trouble. If Robin believed himself to be God for ten years, then he was probably delusional - and delusional about TM as well. Certainly he was mis-informed about Indian Yoga and Vedanta principles. Go figure. I'd say you were correct. But, as you might want to know, he did not. So, Robin did not believe he had become enlightened in union with God; Robin did not think he was God. Robin taught that TM was a way to become enlightened and be in union with God, but not God Himself. Is that what TM is all about - union with God? Go figure. I don't think about this stuff much, let alone argue about it. I don't wonder what state of consciousness anyone is in because there is only one state: the state of dealing with one's human condition. You seem to worry/concern yourself with how others experience the world as it relates to knowledge you've read about in books written by those you have never, and will never, meet. But it is obvious to me that none of this has benefited you in the slightest nor does it appear to have helped a few others here who still remain arrogant, stubborn, closed minded, mean-spirited and TV addicted. I prefer to actually live life, do stuff, you know get out of the house. Now because you seem to be so fascinated with Robin why don't you and Share go back and make a book out of all of his posts after having resurrected them from the bowels of FFL instead of bothering Judy (and me) with your purposefully inane questions? She seems to understand what Robin believed so doesn't appear to require any more workouts trying to explain it to those who aren't interested but merely bored and looking for something to waste their time with. Better still, go to your local library and check out a few more books on Eastern vs Western religious philosophies; there must be something in there you haven't had the opportunity to argue with Empty about yet.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 9:38 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Um, after suddenly being thrust into what seemed to be Unity Consciousness on that mountain, and then having Maharishi apparently confirm it, why would Robin need to study the Scriptures? He was living them. Because, it's not prudent to just take someone's word for it - it would be also good to look it up in the dictionary or in the scriptures and to get a second opinion. If Robin had done that, he might have realized a lot sooner that he and MMY were both delusional. It might be a good time to review MMY's definition of the states of consciousness: Waking consciousness Deep sleep Dreaming Transcendental consciousness Cosmic consciousness God consciousness Unity consciousness http://www.globalcountry.org/wp/personal-enlightenment/
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Essence of the Robin Carlsen Cult
On 2/9/2014 11:40 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: Go re-read your cereal box, Ricky. My cereal box doesn't say anything about Robin Carlsen being a TM Teacher or having initiated anyone into TM, or if Robin completed any courses at MUM. That's your job as an informant, Ann. But, I've seen nothing to indicate that Robin ever worked at the TM Center in Fairfield - his name is not on the list of teachers. So, what TTC did Robin attend? It's a really simple question.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Universe Full of Life
I've been speculating such things since before I could walk John. There may have been/are/will be other humanoids but not humans. There are so many ways that life can evolve the chances of two identical things appearing are vanishingly small. But there could be similarities, we can expect eyes where an animal has evolved near a light source. Having senses near some sort of central processing unit for more rapid coordination makes sense. Limbs seem very likely. But there will be as many different ways for aliens to make use of these given's as there has been for life on earth. And even if you get a humanoid body plan why would it walk upright? Only one animal on earth in over a billion years of sophisticated life has chosen this path. And all this assumes that a cell like the one in my post yesterday gets itself together and provides what life needs to become so varied and complex. Or maybe there are a billion different ways of doing it. But forget all this holographic universe stuff, it doesn't apply here and is wildly speculative and solves nothing cosmologically anyway. It doesn't mean we might have duplicates elsewhere. But what of the vedic idea that the human body plan is a mirror of some ultimate creation, the ved itself? I'll just get off the floor and stitch my sides up. You can tell I'm not a creationist ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: There's current speculation that life might have evolved before humans existed on earth. IMO, it's also possible that humanoids existed throughout the universe before humans on earth evolved. This may be due to the phenomenon called the holographic principle of the universe. IOW, we are just a small reflection that is a common phenomenon throughout the universe. http://news.yahoo.com/video/universe-full-life-090614348.html http://news.yahoo.com/video/universe-full-life-090614348.html Or, it could be that the quantum wave function that created the Big Bang already had the information necessary to create humans throughout the universe when the right conditions are met in planets of suns in any galaxy. If so, how many of those humanoid civilizations have evolved into the the highest state of consciousness or dimension?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy Enlightened?
Thanks for posting this. If Robin rebuked this, and was able to shed it after some years, it sounds like he didn't get very far, with his integration, of universal existence. Perhaps he got confused, being immersed in that sort of language, and those specific ideas, all the time, and was looking for a way to break the context of what he apparently felt trapped by. I don't know. But, the experience of universal existence, when integrated, simply provides a full view, and experience of life, including what is known as death, and all that is beneath the obvious manifestation, commonly perceived by most of us. 200% of life. It can be described beautifully, as Maharishi has done in the passage you quoted, but when it gets right down to it, life goes on by putting one foot in front of the other. Someone perceptive like Robin, no doubt began to glimpse the 100% of inner life, that is so well hidden these days, but without recognizing that such perception, only has value when it becomes a seamless component of life. Better luck on his next attempt. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: FWIW, Robin said this passage from Science of Being and the Art of Living perfectly described his experience of enlightenment: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
you'll have to come up with something other than, I am the authority on this matter Put your sniffing out skills on this, and see what you can come up with. I'll wait ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Robin has, as I've already pointed out, described all this in his posts. There was nothing new in the post Stevie misremembered. And obviously, as I also pointed out, Ann is not going to reveal any additional specific details of Robin's private life that he may have mentioned to her but not written about in his public posts, nor am I. But we both can tell you he wasn't meeting a friend in Starbuck's for confessionals every day. And if your memory wasn't crippled, you'd know that too, because (again: as I said) he'd already written about his interactions with his friend a number of times. You are way, WAY off-base with this, Stevie. Robin is not reading FFL, by the way. So, are you just going to keep on ignoring your whopping goof about Robin never having addressed Ann directly? So, you say I am mistaken about where he might have met with his friend, but you don't say where the meetings or get togethers might have taken place. For all we know it was Starbucks. You say that I am mistaken that it was not a confessional, but you don't say what it was. All you say is, I am an authority in this matter, and we know that Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. I am afraid at this point, my dear, we are stuck with two competing versions of what might have happened. I have surmised something from his statements. You say I am wrong, Now funnily enough, there is probably someone who is reading all this, (hint, hint), who could clear everything up - stand up guy that he is. What is the term - MIA? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, you are saying, Trust me, because I know what is going on. I'm not going to tell you anything about it, but I'm in the know No I'm not. I am saying the post you retrieved from the archives has nothing to do with your memory of what Robin said. It is just that I know who he is talking about in that post and what his relationship is to that person. There is no mystery or in the know. Just read what he wrote to see the discrepancy then simply read what I wrote and put one and one together and you have the fact that you were mistaken. Well, I don't operate that way, and I don't know many who do. So as they say, and I don't mean this in an impolite way, but put up, or shut up. There is really no other way to say it. There is nothing to put up. I said it all. Any more details about any of it is up to Robin to give you, not me. But you have the basic facts: he doesn't go to Starbucks to make confessions to strangers. He has a friend who he talks to and has helped him for a very long time, a friend who knows him well. Simple, straightforward. As for being willing to admit a mistake. I need to be shown where I was mistaken, other than, You are mistaken ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Anne, This post was over a year old. In the body of the post at some point by one of the participants is mentioned Starbucks. Now if you wish to fault me over this detail, or any other detail, no problem. But I stand by the my overall point that Robin had a friend that appeared to call him out on his stuff. My apologies that I indicated the setting was at Starbucks, or that I called it a confessional. But I feel my recollection was close enough to what I originally indicated. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another. I know more about Robin past and present than anyone here and I know of whom he speaks when you mistakenly thought he meant some guy at Starbucks. It's fine, but why is it so hard for some of you here at FFL to admit you made a mistake? I, frankly, don't give a crap because I know who and what he was referring to that you got so badly wrong. But what is the deal with not being able to admit you made a mistake about this? This is a rhetorical question, BTW, I don't really need to know the answer to this but you might. Now if others wish to make a federal case out of it,be my guest. But you may have to try me in absentia. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is. If he said it, it will be there in the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Share, Judy's MO has always been the same. When someone upends her supposed authority about something, as you have done many times, she simply resorts to personal attacks. It is called fallacy ad hominem. When it comes to fallacies, it looks like she's got the market cornered. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, it was enough of an event to ride the Vancouver buses with all those jolly people attending the 2010 Olympics! I'm with you about Neo and the archives so I probably won't be doing any searches. And in any case, I was replying to what Judy said the the internal lack of logic with what Robin said, according to her. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:48 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, I suggest you go back to how this topic began. Judy threw out the phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with reference to Robin. I said I thought those phrases were inaccurate given that Robin himself called his enlightenment a delusion. That is how this discussion began. I am not fighting with you Share. I was attempting to clarify something. It has become evident that this is a hot button topic for you - Robin I mean. Sorry, I didn't realize how deep this went. BTW I don't have TV hookup so I don't watch the Olympics, was in Vancouver during the 2010 games! Lucky you, but it sounds as if you didn't attend any of the events. You should have come and visited Vancouver Island. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:58 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion, then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right or wrong? Share, it would be best, if you really are interested in any of this, to go back and re-read what Robin himself actually wrote, God knows he said a lot in his time at FFL so you won't lack for reading material. Instead of using Judy as the translator look it up for yourself. That way you can decide on your own how you feel about what he said and you can take your time with it if you really want to. On another note, do you watch the Olympics and if so do you prefer the summer or winter version? What is your favorite winter sport event to watch? Favorite summer event? Strangely, I don't watch much TV let alone sports events but I do really enjoy the Olympics and also Wimbledon. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please. Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate? What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? He said his experience of union with God was a delusion. Is this where the evil forces come in? I don't know what come in means in this context. My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God. But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on enlightenment?! Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that are incoherent. I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can be no ontological union between God and human? Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Judy, do you think Robin thinks ALL forms of realization, awakening, enlightenment, etc. in ALL traditions are a delusion? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Absolutely correct. He was insistent that enlightenment is a real state of consciousness,
[FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy Enlightened?
Well, you can check with Ann, but from what he's said, after his enlightenment he was very busy doing stuff and wasn't immersed in that language or those ideas. He was living them and didn't sit around pondering what was going on. It wasn't until he got involved with Catholicism years later that he had to think about where he was at and what it meant in order to reconcile Maharishi's teaching with Catholic teaching. And then when his group fell apart not long after that, of course he had to rethink everything. But my impression is that for some years he was just sailing along, doing what came naturally--as you say, putting one foot in front of the other. As far as he was concerned, his integration was complete. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Thanks for posting this. If Robin rebuked this, and was able to shed it after some years, it sounds like he didn't get very far, with his integration, of universal existence. Perhaps he got confused, being immersed in that sort of language, and those specific ideas, all the time, and was looking for a way to break the context of what he apparently felt trapped by. I don't know. But, the experience of universal existence, when integrated, simply provides a full view, and experience of life, including what is known as death, and all that is beneath the obvious manifestation, commonly perceived by most of us. 200% of life. It can be described beautifully, as Maharishi has done in the passage you quoted, but when it gets right down to it, life goes on by putting one foot in front of the other. Someone perceptive like Robin, no doubt began to glimpse the 100% of inner life, that is so well hidden these days, but without recognizing that such perception, only has value when it becomes a seamless component of life. Better luck on his next attempt. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: FWIW, Robin said this passage from Science of Being and the Art of Living perfectly described his experience of enlightenment: The Lord speaks through him, the omnipresent cosmic life gains expression in his activity, the omniscient is expressed in the limitations of the man's individual personality, the cosmic intelligence finds expression in his individual mind, the thought of cosmic life is materialized in his process of thinking, the immutable silence of eternal Being finds expression in the man's thought, speech and action. The man's eyes behold the purpose of God, his ears hear the music of cosmic life, his hands hold onto cosmic intentions, his feet set the cosmic life in motion; he walks on earth, yet walks in the destiny of heaven; he sees, yet sees the glory of God; he hears, yet hears the silence; he speaks, yet speaks the word of God; he speaks, yet speaks the intention of God; he speaks and draws out the purpose of cosmic life; he speaks and gives expression to the cosmic purpose; he speaks yet his words speak eternal Being. The man is the living expression of the omnipresent, omniscient, cosmic existence. Here is he who can speak for God, here is he who can speak for the cosmic law, here is he who acts for God, here is the image of God on earth. His life is the stream of cosmic Being. His individual life stream is a tidal wave of the eternal ocean of cosmic Being, a wave which holds within itself the entire ocean of cosmic life. He is the expression of the inexpressible eternal Being. He moves in the ever immovable status of the Absolute; his activity of relative existence expresses the eternal silence of the Absolute. In the radiance of his relative life, the Absolute finds in him an expression of its Being. Angels and gods enjoy his being on earth, and the earth and heavens enjoy the existence of the bliss of eternal Being embodied in the form of man. The formless appears in form, the silence becomes vibrant, the inexpressible is expressed in a personality, and the cosmic life is breathed by the individual. This is how, when the breath of the individual becomes the impulse of eternal life, the individuality breathes universal existence, and then is gained the fulfillment of life.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Actually, Ann, I don't recall anyone having tried to use it to claim Robin was serious recently except Richard, who's just trolling. Before that, the last folks to do it, way back when but months after the posts themselves, were Curtis and Vaj (and Curtis surely knew otherwise; he thought he could make me believe Robin was serious--he wasn't aware Robin and I were communicating privately). Unless I'm forgetting things--if so, please remind me! It's called having fun, Richard. The most fun either of us ever had on FFL, in fact. We had a wonderful time throwing each other under the bus. And then an even better time laughing privately at the few gullible fools who thought we were serious. I would say you and Robin definitely scored way bigger by having had this little fun on FFL than you both either dreamed. I mean, look at the mileage you two have had with this. No one can stop bringing it up and talking about it and trying to use it to prove Robin actually disliked you and was serious. Neither of you could have predicted its longevity and the fact that it evidently qualifies as one of the Hall of Famer posts. Good on you both; I'd say the whole joke/skit worked better than either of you imagined. In fact, he said to me in a private email before I started posting to FFL on a regular basis that one of the highlights of his time there was this little charade you two had done and that I should be sure to read it because he thought it was probably the most fun he had had at FFL and that I should be sure not to take it seriously because he thought the world of you and you were just smart enough and quick enough to have perfectly played your part. He was still laughing about it every time he would bring it up to me, which was more than once.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Stevie, you have become a shameless liar in addition to a stupid and obnoxious twerp. Share, Judy's MO has always been the same. When someone upends her supposed authority about something, as you have done many times, she simply resorts to personal attacks. It is called fallacy ad hominem. When it comes to fallacies, it looks like she's got the market cornered. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, it was enough of an event to ride the Vancouver buses with all those jolly people attending the 2010 Olympics! I'm with you about Neo and the archives so I probably won't be doing any searches. And in any case, I was replying to what Judy said the the internal lack of logic with what Robin said, according to her. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:48 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Ann, I suggest you go back to how this topic began. Judy threw out the phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with reference to Robin. I said I thought those phrases were inaccurate given that Robin himself called his enlightenment a delusion. That is how this discussion began. I am not fighting with you Share. I was attempting to clarify something. It has become evident that this is a hot button topic for you - Robin I mean. Sorry, I didn't realize how deep this went. BTW I don't have TV hookup so I don't watch the Olympics, was in Vancouver during the 2010 games! Lucky you, but it sounds as if you didn't attend any of the events. You should have come and visited Vancouver Island. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:58 PM, awoelflebater@... awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion, then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right or wrong? Share, it would be best, if you really are interested in any of this, to go back and re-read what Robin himself actually wrote, God knows he said a lot in his time at FFL so you won't lack for reading material. Instead of using Judy as the translator look it up for yourself. That way you can decide on your own how you feel about what he said and you can take your time with it if you really want to. On another note, do you watch the Olympics and if so do you prefer the summer or winter version? What is your favorite winter sport event to watch? Favorite summer event? Strangely, I don't watch much TV let alone sports events but I do really enjoy the Olympics and also Wimbledon. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please. Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate? What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? He said his experience of union with God was a delusion. Is this where the evil forces come in? I don't know what come in means in this context. My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God. But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on enlightenment?! Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that are incoherent. I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it was a delusion. Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can be no ontological union between God and human? Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there can be no ontological union between human beings and God. Judy, do you think Robin thinks ALL forms of realization, awakening, enlightenment, etc. in ALL traditions are a delusion? On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:28 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote:
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
What Judy doesn't realize is that I have access to the classic format when I want, with the classic search function. I mentioned once already how this works with me, but evidently she missed it. On the other hand, this supposed collaboration between Barry and me is a new twist for her and she seems intent to try to get some mileage out of it. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Actually I'm not adept at finding stuff via Neo's advanced search feature; it's horrendously designed and fundamentally crippled. So I'm afraid you can't count on me to find stuff. I may get lucky, but it's a crapshoot. I suggested Barry retrieve your long exchange with Robin because he still has access to the Classic advanced search. Stevie doesn't appear ready to acknowledge his gigantic goof on that point; he may need to have his nose rubbed in it. Thanks Judy, again you said everything that needs to be said and better than I could have said it. In addition, I simply don't go back to find old posts, especially now with Neo, because I don't know how to and I can't be bothered to figure it out. But I know you are more than adept at this so, in a pinch, I can always rely on you to back it all up. Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.! Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, I Am An Authority on this Subject Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed authorityness is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!!
[FairfieldLife] RE: Radical Peace-Making and Iranian Warships Sailing to the US
Om, I am telling you based on all the hard science that we should all be partnering with the UN peace-keeping forces bringing meditation mediation around these world conflicts. As like Greenpeace does with its ships we should be mobilizing a flotilla of peace-keeping meditators to steam around mediating the cultural tensions of these conflicts. A world peace expeditionary force of the Unified Field able to deploy as squadrons of The United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces to places of conflict around the world. Anchors away! -Buck Now that the USA has gotten out of the full scale wars of the Bush era, there are US Marine Corps amphibious troop ships sitting unused at anchor that could readily be lent to the UN for peace-keeping meditations. I feel we should occupy at least one of those ships and steam out for world peace using them as meditating platforms to launch coherence landings in to these incredibly incoherent places around the world. We need a few good meditators. One Percent Meditating for World Peace! It is time, -Buck jr_esq writes: One wonders about the current leadership of Iran. He appears to be intent on intimidating the US military forces. But they don't have the firepower to shoot it out with the US. Or, it could be just a bluff. http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-warships-sailing-towards-u-agency-214302042--finance.html http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-warships-sailing-towards-u-agency-214302042--finance.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Radical Peace-Making and Iranian Warships Sailing to the US
Go for it Buck! You would organize. Some kayak, some place. Nature would help but you must take the first step.OM On Sunday, February 9, 2014 11:38 AM, dhamiltony...@yahoo.com dhamiltony...@yahoo.com wrote: Om, I am telling you based on all the hard science that we should all be partnering with the UN peace-keeping forces bringing meditation mediation around these world conflicts. As like Greenpeace does with its ships we should be mobilizing a flotilla of peace-keeping meditators to steam around mediating the cultural tensions of these conflicts. A world peace expeditionary force of the Unified Field able to deploy as squadrons of The United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces to places of conflict around the world. Anchors away! -Buck Now that the USA has gotten out of the full scale wars of the Bush era, there are US Marine Corps amphibious troop ships sitting unused at anchor that could readily be lent to the UN for peace-keeping meditations. I feel we should occupy at least one of those ships and steam out for world peace using them as meditating platforms to launch coherence landings in to these incredibly incoherent places around the world. We need a few good meditators. One Percent Meditating for World Peace! It is time, -Buck jr_esq writes: One wonders about the current leadership of Iran. He appears to be intent on intimidating the US military forces. But they don't have the firepower to shoot it out with the US. Or, it could be just a bluff. http://news.yahoo.com/iran-says-warships-sailing-towards-u-agency-214302042--finance.html
[FairfieldLife] RE: Universe Full of Life
Bhairitu, That's the reason Galileo was put on house arrest for the rest of his life when he saw that the Earth revolved around the Sun. For the same reason, Giordano Bruno got burned to the stake for speculating that there could be other humans outside of Earth. He might have also challenged the Church teachings with his knowledge of astrology or syncretism. But it's still true that nobody has ever proved scientifically the existence of humanoids outside of Earth. Where are the aliens who ride these UFOs? How come the SETI program can't detect any evidence of intelligent communication out there?
[FairfieldLife] RE: Marshy Enlightened?
Willy sez: The separative divide between Eastern and Western orthodox religions is that the Western orthodox religion teaches that a man became God in the person of Jesus Christ. Eastern orthodox religions do not teach this and even denies it. This is clearly a misinformed statement. You should have consulted the Orthodox Wiki http://orthodoxwiki.org/Incarnation: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Incarnation Incarnation is the act of clothing with flesh, or the state of being so clothed; the act of taking, or being manifested in, a human body and nature. Used by itself, the word refers to the fact that in Jesus http://orthodoxwiki.org/Jesus, God took on flesh and became man. God http://orthodoxwiki.org/God, the Son, has truly lived and died and risen from the dead in the flesh, as a true human being. Doctrine The Orthodox doctrine of Christ incarnate is: True God and true man, one person in two natures, without separation and without confusion: a single person, but endowed with two wills and two energies. From the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: ... and He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Universe Full of Life
Judy, For me anything that's not scientifically proved is speculation. However, being well-documented doesn't mean that it's scientifically proved.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Universe Full of Life
I'm sorry, you're talking about life existing on earth before human beings?? E.g., bacteria, plants, animals, etc.? That isn't a matter of solid fact, as far as you're concerned? Are you a creationist? Even the Bible describes life existing before Adam and Eve. Judy, For me anything that's not scientifically proved is speculation. However, being well-documented doesn't mean that it's scientifically proved.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Oh, didn't know that. Bully for you. Because I knew you weren't capable of using the Neo search to find it. Barry would be happy to help you (or anybody else) out if it meant you could diss Robin or me or Ann, so it was a logical assumption. What Judy doesn't realize is that I have access to the classic format when I want, with the classic search function. I mentioned once already how this works with me, but evidently she missed it. On the other hand, this supposed collaboration between Barry and me is a new twist for her and she seems intent to try to get some mileage out of it. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Actually I'm not adept at finding stuff via Neo's advanced search feature; it's horrendously designed and fundamentally crippled. So I'm afraid you can't count on me to find stuff. I may get lucky, but it's a crapshoot. I suggested Barry retrieve your long exchange with Robin because he still has access to the Classic advanced search. Stevie doesn't appear ready to acknowledge his gigantic goof on that point; he may need to have his nose rubbed in it. Thanks Judy, again you said everything that needs to be said and better than I could have said it. In addition, I simply don't go back to find old posts, especially now with Neo, because I don't know how to and I can't be bothered to figure it out. But I know you are more than adept at this so, in a pinch, I can always rely on you to back it all up. Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.! Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, I Am An Authority on this Subject Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed authorityness is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Universe Full of Life
As Spock would say, it's perfectly logical. ;-) On 02/09/2014 11:50 AM, jr_...@yahoo.com wrote: Bhairitu, That's the reason Galileo was put on house arrest for the rest of his life when he saw that the Earth revolved around the Sun. For the same reason, Giordano Bruno got burned to the stake for speculating that there could be other humans outside of Earth. He might have also challenged the Church teachings with his knowledge of astrology or syncretism. But it's still true that nobody has ever proved scientifically the existence of humanoids outside of Earth. Where are the aliens who ride these UFOs? How come the SETI program can't detect any evidence of intelligent communication out there?
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Universe Full of Life
Not to mention as I have discussed with some of my scientist friends that life may not necessarily NEED to carbon based either. We may have all kinds of company on this planet that we can't see. AND is person we see actually real (as in terms of being a human like us)? On 02/09/2014 11:06 AM, salyavin808 wrote: I've been speculating such things since before I could walk John. There may have been/are/will be other humanoids but not humans. There are so many ways that life can evolve the chances of two identical things appearing are vanishingly small. But there could be similarities, we can expect eyes where an animal has evolved near a light source. Having senses near some sort of central processing unit for more rapid coordination makes sense. Limbs seem very likely. But there will be as many different ways for aliens to make use of these given's as there has been for life on earth. And even if you get a humanoid body plan why would it walk upright? Only one animal on earth in over a billion years of sophisticated life has chosen this path. And all this assumes that a cell like the one in my post yesterday gets itself together and provides what life needs to become so varied and complex. Or maybe there are a billion different ways of doing it. But forget all this holographic universe stuff, it doesn't apply here and is wildly speculative and solves nothing cosmologically anyway. It doesn't mean we might have duplicates elsewhere. But what of the vedic idea that the human body plan is a mirror of some ultimate creation, the ved itself? I'll just get off the floor and stitch my sides up. You can tell I'm not a creationist ;-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote: There's current speculation that life might have evolved before humans existed on earth. IMO, it's also possible that humanoids existed throughout the universe before humans on earth evolved. This may be due to the phenomenon called the holographic principle of the universe. IOW, we are just a small reflection that is a common phenomenon throughout the universe. http://news.yahoo.com/video/universe-full-life-090614348.html Or, it could be that the quantum wave function that created the Big Bang already had the information necessary to create humans throughout the universe when the right conditions are met in planets of suns in any galaxy. If so, how many of those humanoid civilizations have evolved into the the highest state of consciousness or dimension?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
You're in high form today Judy. Well I suppose you've got something to hang your hat on, even it's being a disagreeable person most of the time. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Oh, didn't know that. Bully for you. Because I knew you weren't capable of using the Neo search to find it. Barry would be happy to help you (or anybody else) out if it meant you could diss Robin or me or Ann, so it was a logical assumption. What Judy doesn't realize is that I have access to the classic format when I want, with the classic search function. I mentioned once already how this works with me, but evidently she missed it. On the other hand, this supposed collaboration between Barry and me is a new twist for her and she seems intent to try to get some mileage out of it. Go figure. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Actually I'm not adept at finding stuff via Neo's advanced search feature; it's horrendously designed and fundamentally crippled. So I'm afraid you can't count on me to find stuff. I may get lucky, but it's a crapshoot. I suggested Barry retrieve your long exchange with Robin because he still has access to the Classic advanced search. Stevie doesn't appear ready to acknowledge his gigantic goof on that point; he may need to have his nose rubbed in it. Thanks Judy, again you said everything that needs to be said and better than I could have said it. In addition, I simply don't go back to find old posts, especially now with Neo, because I don't know how to and I can't be bothered to figure it out. But I know you are more than adept at this so, in a pinch, I can always rely on you to back it all up. Ah, now this is Anne we've come to know. No worries. Anne, read Robin's post. Read the various comments I have made about it. Now, what I am gathering is that you think I am mistaken! Yes, I managed to pick that up.! Now, I've told you why I came to the conclusions I've come to. And you are saying, You're wrong Steve, and I'm right, because I am an authority in this area. That is what I believe is called an Appeal to Authority. And it is a fallacy. You have said nothing to support your position other than, I Am An Authority on this Subject Anne, you may not realize this, but your supposed authorityness is pretty compromised. I mean it is kind of funny that in all the months Robin posted here, he never addressed you directly, once! Yikes!!
[FairfieldLife] RE: The Robin Carlsen Cult on Fairfield Life
Why would any of us still care what you think about Barry? Having paraded it around to everyone, along with Judy, you must consider you personal opinion a prototype for all humanity. Any two consecutive posts by Judy, following a single statement by Barry, is enough for any interlocutor to conclude that you both are obsessed with an
