Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 9:45 AM, Richard J. Williams 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 From what I've read, there are no orthodox systems in India that support the notion of union with God. There are numerous gods in Indian mythology such as Krishna and Vishnu; but there is no dualist system that I know of that advocates a union with god or the gods. In Vedanta we have the Brahman, not to be confused with God Brahma, but Brahman is not the Creator God - you can't merge an unreal existence with the real, the this with That, since you are already That. Maybe it's time to review the Six Orthodox Systems of Indian Philosophy: 1. Vedanta Sri-Vaishnavism - Vishisht Advaita Vedanta Tengalai (Southern; Tamil) Bengalai (Northern; Sanskrit) Madhva Vaishnavism - Dvaita Vedanta Bengali Vaishnavism Bheda-bheda Vedanta West Indian or Gujarati Vaishnavism - Shuddh Advaita Smartism - Advaita Vedanta 2. Yoga (Sankhya Dualism) 3. Mimamsa (Vedist Ritualism) 4. Samkhya (Brahmanic Analytical Atheism) 5. Nyaya (Logical Theism) 6. Vaisheshika (Atomic Naturalism) Works cited: Foundations of Hindu Philosophy By Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Philosophical Publishing House 1947 pp. 129-130
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
That's Eastern Orthodox Christianity, dingbat. 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 From what I've read, there are no orthodox systems in India that support the notion of union with God. There are numerous gods in Indian mythology such as Krishna and Vishnu; but there is no dualist system that I know of that advocates a union with god or the gods. In Vedanta we have the Brahman, not to be confused with God Brahma, but Brahman is not the Creator God - you can't merge an unreal existence with the real, the this with That, since you are already That. Maybe it's time to review the Six Orthodox Systems of Indian Philosophy: 1. Vedanta Sri-Vaishnavism - Vishisht Advaita Vedanta Tengalai (Southern; Tamil) Bengalai (Northern; Sanskrit) Madhva Vaishnavism - Dvaita Vedanta Bengali Vaishnavism Bheda-bheda Vedanta West Indian or Gujarati Vaishnavism - Shuddh Advaita Smartism - Advaita Vedanta 2. Yoga (Sankhya Dualism) 3. Mimamsa (Vedist Ritualism) 4. Samkhya (Brahmanic Analytical Atheism) 5. Nyaya (Logical Theism) 6. Vaisheshika (Atomic Naturalism) Works cited: Foundations of Hindu Philosophy By Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Philosophical Publishing House 1947 pp. 129-130
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Richard, I've just been reading a book of Mother Meera. She says: It is the law that the human has to change in order to unite with the Divine. Maybe she doesn't use an orthodox system but I think she's pretty enlightened! She also writes a lot about Paramatman. I wonder how that's different from Brahman. On Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:28 AM, Richard J. Williams pundits...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/9/2014 9:45 AM, Richard J. Williams 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 From what I've read, there are no orthodox systems in India that support the notion of union with God. There are numerous gods in Indian mythology such as Krishna and Vishnu; but there is no dualist system that I know of that advocates a union with god or the gods. In Vedanta we have the Brahman, not to be confused with God Brahma, but Brahman is not the Creator God - you can't merge an unreal existence with the real, the this with That, since you are already That. Maybe it's time to review the Six Orthodox Systems of Indian Philosophy: 1. Vedanta Sri-Vaishnavism - Vishisht Advaita Vedanta Tengalai (Southern; Tamil) Bengalai (Northern; Sanskrit) Madhva Vaishnavism - Dvaita Vedanta Bengali Vaishnavism Bheda-bheda Vedanta West Indian or Gujarati Vaishnavism - Shuddh Advaita Smartism - Advaita Vedanta 2. Yoga (Sankhya Dualism) 3. Mimamsa (Vedist Ritualism) 4. Samkhya (Brahmanic Analytical Atheism) 5. Nyaya (Logical Theism) 6. Vaisheshika (Atomic Naturalism) Works cited: Foundations of Hindu Philosophy By Theos Bernard, Ph.D. Philosophical Publishing House 1947 pp. 129-130
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/13/2014 11:33 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *That's Eastern Orthodox Christianity, dingbat.* Robin was an Advaita Vedantin, dingbat.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature. Now, that is a hoot. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/9/2014 2:07 PM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote: You're in high form today Judy. It looks to me like Judy is working on Sunday again - judging by her response times she hasn't left her desk since six o'clock this morning. It looks like Judy is monitoring all of Steve's messages from her home office. But, it took Judy almost eight hours to get around to calling Steve a liar. It looks like Barry really pushed some buttons again. Go figure. It will perhaps come as a shock to some, but in reading Barry more closely and without the intense bias that has gripped me right from the start when Barry appeared to make himself immune to the effects of my posts, I have concluded that essentially Barry is right. Right not just about Judy; but right about even myself... - Masked Zebra http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/300960
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Actually, your saying it's a hoot is the hoot. Some people who have been switched to Neo are still able to access Classic; others are not. There's no figuring out involved for them; it's simply not possible. It has to do with how Yahoo's servers are set up, and eventually all traces of Classic will go away. If you had a way for all Neo folks to access Classic, quite literally thousands of people would be on their knees in gratitude to you (and nobody would be left using Neo). Now, if you want us to believe you are able to do something the rest of us should be able to do as well, I'm afraid you're going to have to tell us how you're doing it and let us take a shot at it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature. Now, that is a hoot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
No, Judykins, I did not say you could post using the old format, only that you could access it, and use the search engine. Calm down, and read again what I said. Easy does it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Actually, your saying it's a hoot is the hoot. Some people who have been switched to Neo are still able to access Classic; others are not. There's no figuring out involved for them; it's simply not possible. It has to do with how Yahoo's servers are set up, and eventually all traces of Classic will go away. If you had a way for all Neo folks to access Classic, quite literally thousands of people would be on their knees in gratitude to you (and nobody would be left using Neo). Now, if you want us to believe you are able to do something the rest of us should be able to do as well, I'm afraid you're going to have to tell us how you're doing it and let us take a shot at it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature. Now, that is a hoot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Fine, so tell us how we Neo victims should all be able to access Classic and use its search function. We'll try it out and let you know whether it works for us. IOW, put up or shut up. No, Judykins, I did not say you could post using the old format, only that you could access it, and use the search engine. Calm down, and read again what I said. Easy does it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Actually, your saying it's a hoot is the hoot. Some people who have been switched to Neo are still able to access Classic; others are not. There's no figuring out involved for them; it's simply not possible. It has to do with how Yahoo's servers are set up, and eventually all traces of Classic will go away. If you had a way for all Neo folks to access Classic, quite literally thousands of people would be on their knees in gratitude to you (and nobody would be left using Neo). Now, if you want us to believe you are able to do something the rest of us should be able to do as well, I'm afraid you're going to have to tell us how you're doing it and let us take a shot at it. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature. Now, that is a hoot.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/10/2014 6:38 AM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature. It appears that Judy is still using Yahoo Neo and Yahoo Mail from her home office. So, yes it must be very demeaning to get called on being a trickster, lying prick. She probably won't take this very well - but it looks like the truth. Robin is a trickster and he even tricked Judy into joining his cult following. Now that's impressive, you've got to admit!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @sbcglobal.net. When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
try again. it is __ @ s b c g l o b a l . n e t (without the spaces) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I've got an sbcglobal.net email address too. I'm wondering if ATT told Yahoo to roll out Neo to us last as they have already have enough support problems. :-D On 02/10/2014 10:53 AM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @sbcglobal.net. When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
And how is that supposed to help those of us who don't have an s b c g l o b a l . n e t email address? try again. it is __ @ s b c g l o b a l . n e t (without the spaces) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I am not familiar enough with providers to know if you are able or not able to access that global.net address. But evidently Ann uses it, so perhaps it is more accessible than you think. Don't know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: And how is that supposed to help those of us who don't have an s b c g l o b a l . n e t email address? try again. it is __ @ s b c g l o b a l . n e t (without the spaces) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I've been reading the group ModsandMembers, which is a bunch of folks trying to get Yahoo to ditch Neo and bring back Classic. They are most likely going to fail at that. I remember--but can't locate any of the posts via Neo's search--some talk about ATT and how the company insisted on staying with Classic. Can't recall any of the details, though. Bhairitu, if you can access Classic search, do you want to try to locate the posts on ModsandMembers? I've got an sbcglobal.net email address too. I'm wondering if ATT told Yahoo to roll out Neo to us last as they have already have enough support problems. :-D On 02/10/2014 10:53 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
You have to have a consumer account with ATT (e.g., phone) to get an email address. My cell and landline are both with Verizon, so no dice. Just to remind you of your gratuitously nasty (and mistaken) post: Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature. As I said, it's not a matter of figuring out how to access Classic. It's simply not an option. I am not familiar enough with providers to know if you are able or not able to access that global.net address. But evidently Ann uses it, so perhaps it is more accessible than you think. Don't know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: And how is that supposed to help those of us who don't have an s b c g l o b a l . n e t email address? try again. it is __ @ s b c g l o b a l . n e t (without the spaces) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
The back story on SBC Global where I am was Southern Bell took over various regional telecoms including PacBell in my area. Then they changed their name to ATT through acquisition. But the old sbcglobal email address are still used. ATT had Yahoo handle email. I also have two Yahoo email address and accounts too from before ATT did that. The classic interface was sticking around after I would log out on a browser but yesterday that didn't happen and it reverted to Neo at least on Linux. On 02/10/2014 11:46 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I am not familiar enough with providers to know if you are able or not able to access that global.net address. But evidently Ann uses it, so perhaps it is more accessible than you think. Don't know. */I did a test today, logging in from multiple computers served by multiple Internet services, and the results were consistent. Using one sequence, if I logged in from either Chrome or Firefox to FFL, I got Neo. Using another sequence, I got the old classic interface, including the old Search utilities. I'm not going to tell Judy what the sequence was because I like to see her sputter and fume because she can't stalk people using the Yahoo Search engine. :-) /*
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
It's an open group like FFL. You can use Google to search for messages. Did you try that? On 02/10/2014 11:43 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *I've been reading the group ModsandMembers, which is a bunch of folks trying to get Yahoo to ditch Neo and bring back Classic. They are most likely going to fail at that. I remember--but can't locate any of the posts via Neo's search--some talk about ATT and how the company insisted on staying with Classic. Can't recall any of the details, though.* * * *Bhairitu, if you can access Classic search, do you want to try to locate the posts on ModsandMembers?* I've got an sbcglobal.net email address too. I'm wondering if ATT told Yahoo to roll out Neo to us last as they have already have enough support problems. :-D On 02/10/2014 10:53 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Tried it just now, no luck. So you're not going to bother searching the group with Classic? Doesn't matter to me personally, I'm just curious. It's an open group like FFL. You can use Google to search for messages. Did you try that? On 02/10/2014 11:43 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: I've been reading the group ModsandMembers, which is a bunch of folks trying to get Yahoo to ditch Neo and bring back Classic. They are most likely going to fail at that. I remember--but can't locate any of the posts via Neo's search--some talk about ATT and how the company insisted on staying with Classic. Can't recall any of the details, though. Bhairitu, if you can access Classic search, do you want to try to locate the posts on ModsandMembers? I've got an sbcglobal.net email address too. I'm wondering if ATT told Yahoo to roll out Neo to us last as they have already have enough support problems. :-D On 02/10/2014 10:53 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I'll look but I had to go out for a business lunch that I just got back from and didn't have much of a chance just to try more specific searches on Google either. I tried one search that landed me in a post a few month back. I'll try it on my Windows machine which I just fired up. Have you looked at nbc.com? It's now worse than NEO. On 02/10/2014 12:46 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *Tried it just now, no luck. So you're not going to bother searching the group with Classic? Doesn't matter to me personally, I'm just curious.* It's an open group like FFL. You can use Google to search for messages. Did you try that? On 02/10/2014 11:43 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: *I've been reading the group ModsandMembers, which is a bunch of folks trying to get Yahoo to ditch Neo and bring back Classic. They are most likely going to fail at that. I remember--but can't locate any of the posts via Neo's search--some talk about ATT and how the company insisted on staying with Classic. Can't recall any of the details, though.* * * *Bhairitu, if you can access Classic search, do you want to try to locate the posts on ModsandMembers?* I've got an sbcglobal.net email address too. I'm wondering if ATT told Yahoo to roll out Neo to us last as they have already have enough support problems. :-D On 02/10/2014 10:53 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Before lunch I also had found this blog from a related search. Have you seen it? http://modsandmembersblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/ On 02/10/2014 12:46 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *Tried it just now, no luck. So you're not going to bother searching the group with Classic? Doesn't matter to me personally, I'm just curious.* It's an open group like FFL. You can use Google to search for messages. Did you try that? On 02/10/2014 11:43 AM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: *I've been reading the group ModsandMembers, which is a bunch of folks trying to get Yahoo to ditch Neo and bring back Classic. They are most likely going to fail at that. I remember--but can't locate any of the posts via Neo's search--some talk about ATT and how the company insisted on staying with Classic. Can't recall any of the details, though.* * * *Bhairitu, if you can access Classic search, do you want to try to locate the posts on ModsandMembers?* I've got an sbcglobal.net email address too. I'm wondering if ATT told Yahoo to roll out Neo to us last as they have already have enough support problems. :-D On 02/10/2014 10:53 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Yup. It's run by the gal who's heading up the anti-Neo effort on the ModsandMembers Yahoo group. She's tireless, but it's kinda sad, because eventually she's going to have to throw in the towel after all that effort. Before lunch I also had found this blog from a related search. Have you seen it? http://modsandmembersblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/ http://modsandmembersblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Great. I'm really curious. I don't normally read NBC.com, but I took a look after I saw some of the complaints. It's worse than the Slate redesign, which up to now has been the worst mess I've ever seen. Hard to believe anyone could look at either of them and think, Boy, this looks so snappy and inviting! I wouldn't even want to try to navigate NBC.com. And I thought the Salon redesign a couple years ago was bad... I'll look but I had to go out for a business lunch that I just got back from and didn't have much of a chance just to try more specific searches on Google either. I tried one search that landed me in a post a few month back. I'll try it on my Windows machine which I just fired up. Have you looked at nbc.com? It's now worse than NEO.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: I am not familiar enough with providers to know if you are able or not able to access that global.net address. But evidently Ann uses it, so perhaps it is more accessible than you think. Don't know. I do? I don't know diddly squat about computers. All I know is that I use Google chrome on a Mac and access FFL via the internet. I never use Yahoo mail. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: And how is that supposed to help those of us who don't have an s b c g l o b a l . n e t email address? try again. it is __ @ s b c g l o b a l . n e t (without the spaces) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: Sure Judy, glad to oblige. I have an e-mail that I use at work. It is @ When I am logged in under that e-mail address FFL shows up under the old format, and I am able to read posts and use the search engine all as we used to do. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: So Stevie, we're all still waiting for you to tell us how to access Groups Classic and its search feature. Richard, Judy, who loves to demean people can't see to figure out how access the previous classic format and search feature.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 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 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 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] 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] 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?
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: 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] 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,
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!!
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: 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!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
There are far too many disagreeable, dishonest pricks around here these days, as far as I'm concerned. Actually it only takes a few like yourself and Barry and Share and Richard to ruin a forum like FFL. 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!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: There are far too many disagreeable, dishonest pricks around here these days, as far as I'm concerned. You've been saying that forever! Actually it only takes a few like yourself and Barry and Share and Richard to ruin a forum like FFL. I don't think anyone is ruining it, just disagreeing with you. 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!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I think that's the first time I ever said it, actually. And it's not that they disagree with me, it's that they do so disagreeably and prickishly. (Not just with me, others as well.) There are far too many disagreeable, dishonest pricks around here these days, as far as I'm concerned. You've been saying that forever! Actually it only takes a few like yourself and Barry and Share and Richard to ruin a forum like FFL. I don't think anyone is ruining it, just disagreeing with you. 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!!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: 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! Before this time, for sure this was brought up by a number of people but since I don't do the research I can't give you the post numbers. I would say Barry (who always rides on everyone's coattails anyway when it comes to dissension), Ricky and Steve have brought it up. It seems to me it was a couple of months ago when Ricky was on his roll before Christmas, to have the dubious honor of posting 25% of all posts here at FFL. Many have tried to imply Robin disliked you and that long-ago post being the proof of that. The only reason I know it keeps rearing its head is because I am really tired of reading about this as evidence of Robin's enmity toward you and I'd only be bored with it if it had come up at least three or four times. I think some people here need some new material. It's a pity Bob and Robin aren't here any longer to provide it. 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
On 2/9/2014 3:21 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: 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. So, nobody is taking Robin seriously when he threw Judy under the bus - it was just a trap message, a trick posting. If Robin ever comes back to FFL he will have to answer for that trickery. We don't go in real big for that kind of fibbing on FFL - it's the mark of a real prick to troll here just to have some fun and put a joke over on us. It's also a pricky trick to post here and at the same time be sending private emails to Judy and Ann without telling us about it so that they can gang up on Barry and Curtis - it's a trick prick foul trap fib - that's what it was. Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 2:07 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote: You're in high form today Judy. It looks to me like Judy is working on Sunday again - judging by her response times she hasn't left her desk since six o'clock this morning. It looks like Judy is monitoring all of Steve's messages from her home office. But, it took Judy almost eight hours to get around to calling Steve a liar. It looks like Barry really pushed some buttons again. Go figure. It will perhaps come as a shock to some, but in reading Barry more closely and without the intense bias that has gripped me right from the start when Barry appeared to make himself immune to the effects of my posts, I have concluded that essentially Barry is right. Right not just about Judy; but right about even myself... - Masked Zebra http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/300960 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/300960
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 8:47 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Robin said this passage from Science of Being and the Art of Living perfectly described his experience of enlightenment: From what I've read, I'd say that Robin experienced samadhi: saguna Brahman. If Robin had united with God, he would then be a jivanmukti because a person who is liberated and has achieved unity with God should be free and not continue to exist and interact with an unreal perception one has just realized to be a delusion of maya. If Robin was truly free, why wuld he need a verification from MMY? Go figure.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 8:38 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Bhagavad-Gita VI:27 The yogin who is totally free of passion could attain a blissful state where the mind is blissful and tranquil all the time, free from the influence o raja guna. This would hardly describe Robin - at least he didn't describe being enlightened as being a permanent blissful state free from passion. 'The Sunnyside drama : the first three years of enlightenment' by Robin Woodsworth Carlsen Snow Man Press, 1979
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/9/2014 3:21 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: 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. So, nobody is taking Robin seriously when he threw Judy under the bus - it was just a trap message, a trick posting. If Robin ever comes back to FFL he will have to answer for that trickery. We don't go in real big for that kind of fibbing on FFL - it's the mark of a real prick to troll here just to have some fun and put a joke over on us. It's also a pricky trick to post here and at the same time be sending private emails to Judy and Ann without telling us about it so that they can gang up on Barry and Curtis - it's a trick prick foul trap fib - that's what it was. Go figure. You're just feeling icky, not to mention prickly, that Robin pulled a fast one on Ricky and not a bit tickled that you ended up in such a pickle. If you act quickly you can pretend you were sickly and thus missed the tricky schtick.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
On 2/9/2014 10:29 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: it's a trick prick foul trap fib - that's what it was. Go figure. You're just feeling icky, not to mention prickly, that Robin pulled a fast one on Ricky and not a bit tickled that you ended up in such a pickle. If you act quickly you can pretend you were sickly and thus missed the tricky schtick. Let me rephrase that: it's was a trick prick foul trap fib that Robin posted designed to entrap , just like his enlightenment experience that he wrote about - a parody of himself. What Robin didn't write about was that he was sending private emails to Ann and Judy in order to get Barry on a newsgroup. That's pretty tricky, if true. http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/topics/300960
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Raam crap
Must still be a bunch of scorpions over there in Merrye Olde Englande On Sat, 2/8/14, salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Raam crap To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014, 11:50 AM Obviously still a bit of stress in the collective FF consciousness. Something good must be happening... The UK is having the wettest winter for over 100 years with large parts of the west country under water and sea defences crumbling. According to one UK independence party councillor it's punishment from God for legalising gay marriage! Nice to know that correlation equals causation, that ought to make witch hunts a lot easier... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: You laugh, but I say that every winter and six months later it comes true! Jeesuz obviously has his own time schedule in mind for how and when the support of nature should manifest itself. It probably would have sped things up if you'd paid for a Maharishi-brand yagya. :-) Meanwhile here in the Netherlands we're having the mildest winter in decades. It has only dipped below zero (zero Celsius...32 degrees Fahrenheit) a couple of times so far, and there has been only one light sprinkling of snow, just enough to make the streets look like a sacher torte dusted with powdered sugar for a couple of hours before it burned off. I guess this is because I and the other low-lives who live in this land of legal cannabis and prostitution are enjoying the support of nature, right? While those who consider themselves so much more evolved (and thus worthy) are up to their willies and their wonkas in snow and bitching about trudging through it to the magical Woo Woo Domes Of Enlightenment. Go figure. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I like the bit If we think really, really big nature will support. Yep nature is like that, always willing to help us out. It helps if you appeal to the right people in charge of Nature, though. For example, this kid's think big ideas sure happened, didn't they? :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXudpW1l5Mw ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@ wrote: You just gotta read it to believe that anyone could be foolish enough to believe that anyone would ever buy this kind of thinking. I only got through 11 pages. http://www.hiddencures.com/Videos/Raam%20Lecture%202-12-09.pdf
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think it's inaccurate to use the phrase enlightened days. On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:04 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Oh, you mean narcissistic personality disorder. One wonders exactly how much you could know about it if you can't even get the name right. One suspects, in fact, that your only acquaintance with it is from Barry's fanatical obsession with NPD on FFL. But guess what, Stevie-boy? Barry is no more qualified to slap that label on someone he knows only from his FFL posts than you are. He uses it as a way to demonize people he's threatened by, and he seems to have trained you to do the same. Narcissist Personality Syndrome, ( and excuse me if I got the term wrong, but perhaps you can surmise what I intended), and from what I know about it, it seemed to describe him. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple fact? There was no response from you required. Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please. Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Judy, Robin himself called that experience a delusion. Thus I think it's inaccurate to refer to it as genuine enlightenment. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:48 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: Oh, that's rich, coming from FFL's inveterate liar. As far as I'm aware, no one here has any basis for thinking Robin was anything but completely honest in his posts. Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that? Robin's word is worth nothing Why is it that the idea that Robin experienced a period of genuine enlightenment 30-some years ago so upsets Barry? Barry didn't know him then. None of us did, except Ann. Why does Barry care so desperately?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Crazy Raam crap
Ok turq, I admit it! I LOLed at that *up to their willys and wonkas.* If I ever use it, I'll give you a footnote. Maybe! On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:42 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: You laugh, but I say that every winter and six months later it comes true! Jeesuz obviously has his own time schedule in mind for how and when the support of nature should manifest itself. It probably would have sped things up if you'd paid for a Maharishi-brand yagya. :-) Meanwhile here in the Netherlands we're having the mildest winter in decades. It has only dipped below zero (zero Celsius...32 degrees Fahrenheit) a couple of times so far, and there has been only one light sprinkling of snow, just enough to make the streets look like a sacher torte dusted with powdered sugar for a couple of hours before it burned off. I guess this is because I and the other low-lives who live in this land of legal cannabis and prostitution are enjoying the support of nature, right? While those who consider themselves so much more evolved (and thus worthy) are up to their willies and their wonkas in snow and bitching about trudging through it to the magical Woo Woo Domes Of Enlightenment. Go figure. :-) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I like the bit If we think really, really big nature will support. Yep nature is like that, always willing to help us out. It helps if you appeal to the right people in charge of Nature, though. For example, this kid's think big ideas sure happened, didn't they? :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXudpW1l5Mw ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@ wrote: You just gotta read it to believe that anyone could be foolish enough to believe that anyone would ever buy this kind of thinking. I only got through 11 pages. http://www.hiddencures.com/Videos/Raam%20Lecture%202-12-09.pdf
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
You misunderstood him, Share (even as many times as he explained it). He called enlightenment per se a delusion--his, Maharishi's, anybody's. He did not say he was deluded to believe he was enlightened. Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think it's inaccurate to use the phrase enlightened days. On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:04 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
See my previous post. You don't know what you're talking about as far as what Robin said about this is concerned. You're also confused as to what I said that you're commenting on. Read it again, please. Judy, Robin himself called that experience a delusion. Thus I think it's inaccurate to refer to it as genuine enlightenment. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:48 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, that's rich, coming from FFL's inveterate liar. As far as I'm aware, no one here has any basis for thinking Robin was anything but completely honest in his posts. Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that? Robin's word is worth nothing Why is it that the idea that Robin experienced a period of genuine enlightenment 30-some years ago so upsets Barry? Barry didn't know him then. None of us did, except Ann. Why does Barry care so desperately?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Aaaahhh, feel better now Judy? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Oh, you mean narcissistic personality disorder. One wonders exactly how much you could know about it if you can't even get the name right. One suspects, in fact, that your only acquaintance with it is from Barry's fanatical obsession with NPD on FFL. But guess what, Stevie-boy? Barry is no more qualified to slap that label on someone he knows only from his FFL posts than you are. He uses it as a way to demonize people he's threatened by, and he seems to have trained you to do the same. Narcissist Personality Syndrome, ( and excuse me if I got the term wrong, but perhaps you can surmise what I intended), and from what I know about it, it seemed to describe him. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about. But, please, proceed according to your fancy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple fact? There was no response from you required. Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please. Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to start silliness with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood about what I wrote. Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about. But, please, proceed according to your fancy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple fact? There was no response from you required. Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please. Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
I am sorry that I did not make it more clear that I've only known Robin from the period that he was posting here. I left FF and MIU shortly before he made his big splash there. I did know one lady with whom I had a bit of a crush, Judy G, who I Iearned became involved with Robin's group. I don't know if Anne or anyone else may know what happened to her? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to start silliness with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood about what I wrote. Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about. But, please, proceed according to your fancy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple fact? There was no response from you required. Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please. Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
No problem. People who didn't follow Robin's posts get confused and think he was claiming to be enlightened while he was here, rather than 30-some years ago, so it's important to make sure they understand that wasn't the case. I am sorry that I did not make it more clear that I've only known Robin from the period that he was posting here. I left FF and MIU shortly before he made his big splash there. I did know one lady with whom I had a bit of a crush, Judy G, who I Iearned became involved with Robin's group. I don't know if Anne or anyone else may know what happened to her? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to start silliness with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood about what I wrote. Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about. But, please, proceed according to your fancy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple fact? There was no response from you required. Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please. Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think it's inaccurate to use the phrase enlightened days. Here is the important point Share: Robin believes true enlightenment to be a delusion, an illusion. It is not that he is saying he wasn't enlightened in the sense that MMY or others who understand the kind of enlightenment the East embraces, it is that that state is a delusional state. Here is the crux: it is not that he believes himself to have been delusional to think he was enlightened, he would still maintain that he was enlightened, it is just that enlightenment is not something he feels is a positive state to be in. On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:04 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You misunderstood him, Share (even as many times as he explained it). He called enlightenment per se a delusion--his, Maharishi's, anybody's. He did not say he was deluded to believe he was enlightened. OK, just read this now after posting my own description for Share. You managed to state it far more simply and elegantly than I did. I probably just made it sound confusing... Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think it's inaccurate to use the phrase enlightened days. On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:04 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote: I am sorry that I did not make it more clear that I've only known Robin from the period that he was posting here. I left FF and MIU shortly before he made his big splash there. I did know one lady with whom I had a bit of a crush, Judy G, who I Iearned became involved with Robin's group. I don't know if Anne or anyone else may know what happened to her? I would know if I recognized a Judy G but that is not ringing any bells. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to start silliness with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood about what I wrote. Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about. But, please, proceed according to your fancy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple fact? There was no response from you required. Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please. Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote: Judy, Robin himself called that experience a delusion. Thus I think it's inaccurate to refer to it as genuine enlightenment. See my later post about this to you. And I am not saying I agree with Robin only that his experience was his experience. As far as I'm concerned there is no enlightenment. There are various levels of perception, understanding, knowledge and realization that human beings can arrive at but I am reluctant to embrace the idea that there are levels that can be named like cc, uc etc. I believe life to be waaa more complex and nuanced than that. On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:48 AM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, that's rich, coming from FFL's inveterate liar. As far as I'm aware, no one here has any basis for thinking Robin was anything but completely honest in his posts. Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that? Robin's word is worth nothing Why is it that the idea that Robin experienced a period of genuine enlightenment 30-some years ago so upsets Barry? Barry didn't know him then. None of us did, except Ann. Why does Barry care so desperately?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
Judy and Ann, ok, let me try this and tell me if my logic is off and if so, where it is off: Robin said he was enlightened. Robin also said that enlightenment is a delusion. Therefore Robin was saying that he was actually deluded rather than enlightened. I also want to add that I recognize that I'm triggered by all this. I mean, why should Robin get to be special by being enlightened? And then be even more special by getting rid of his enlightenment?! How special does one person have to be?! On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:52 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: You misunderstood him, Share (even as many times as he explained it). He called enlightenment per se a delusion--his, Maharishi's, anybody's. He did not say he was deluded to believe he was enlightened. OK, just read this now after posting my own description for Share. You managed to state it far more simply and elegantly than I did. I probably just made it sound confusing... Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think it's inaccurate to use the phrase enlightened days. On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:04 PM, authfriend@... authfriend@... wrote: Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. What's NPS, and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not.
