Dear Robin:
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:03 PM, maskedzebra wrote:
Dear Vaj,
I also pooped in my diapers—I will try to get some photos for you.
That's fine, I have plenty.
Just for the record, I consider my Unity Consciousness to be a
perfect hallucination. And the suffering and terror of coming out
from under this preternatural illusion has been the theme of a
significant number of my posts here at FFL.
While I understand you believe you were in Unity Consciousness, I
hope you understand, that is not my belief, nor is it the belief of
anyone else I know.
I was in a state, then, of mystical deceit—Had I now in my de-
enlightened state of consciousness met myself then (the person in
this photo: 1983) I would have done my best to persuade him he was
deceived, and that his pursuit of good and evil in human beings was
not only doomed to failure; it was itself a terrible misreading of
the soul of a human being. And, as it turned out, I discovered over
the course of the last 25 years, that problems I had (the motes in
my eye) were more serious and multiple than any person who, I
subjected to this metaphysical theatre of confrontation.
Thanks for sharing that. I'll share your remarks with others who
would be healed in hearing that - esp. the one person who came along
that night to DC merely because of the sense of woundedness he was
still carrying.
In the metaphorical sense, then (since we are talking about a post-
Monte Cassino universe) I was a great sinner. But you see, Vaj, I
have spent so many hours explaining this before and after Unity
Consciousness business, I am surprised that in posting what you
have posted—causing some salivating in Amsterdam—you have tacitly
implied that I would wish to defend my past from any criticism, and
that there is a real continuum of my beliefs and actions stretching
from 1983 to 2011. This is a misrepresentation of not only the
facts, it is a misrepresentation of my entire philosophy of life.
I don't believe I am implying any such thing. But I do understand you
may be extra sensitive on some of these issues. I would expect that
you'd at least be in some penitential mode to the point where you
were relieved of your own sense of dread.
Having said that, at least on the level of content, there are
statements you've made and continue to make, that could only be
uttered from a TB TM initiator who still was maintaining that true
believer stance - at least in their mind, if not in their heart.
Given your persistence, I'm almost forced to assume the latter (the
heart) as well.
If I were (and I believe I will be in some post-Catholic context)
brought before a divine tribunal to answer for my past, I would not
spend much time attempting to justify myself; I would rather fall
upon the mercy of that court, since I am acutely aware of how blind
and reckless I was—almost unrecognizably so from the moment before
I 'slipped into Unity'.
When I was in a very different state of consciousness, and when
seemingly I was a very different kind of person. (If we are to
judge by my behaviour.)
I was, before 1976, a person who you could not have imagined acting
the part of the enlightened man (that is, in the form in which I did
—about which, by the way, I seemed to have no choice: but this
choicelessness, it originated in culpable weaknesses and
distortions in myself, therefore I am accountable for my actions
even in this state of "spontaneous right action". But you see, Vaj,
I have done my penance these 25 years, and it has been as harrowing
and dark and violent—against myself—as anything that I inflicted on
others.
Of course there was much to the whole enlightenment adventure which
was magical and astonishing and beautiful. But at its core it was
corrupt—because I did not know what infirmities in myself were
being exploited—to make me go into Unity Consciousness—by the
"impulses of creative intelligence". So, I do not look back upon my
actions at that time, with some sense of having done the will of
God. I look back upon myself as having let my original LSD
experience (1966) essentially determine the entire arc of my life
for the next 20 years. But I have, under the inspiration of Thomas
Aquinas—and resources made available to me which are part of the
self-metapsychotherapy I have imposed upon myself—gone a very long
ways to recovering from my romantic affair with the East and with
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
What bothers me in the approach you are now applying to our
conversation is the implication that I am, both personally and
philosophically, in the same existential position that I was when
this photo was taken.
I would assume the opposite, for to not move in some direction, any
direction, would require you to go against the grain of your own
evolution and therefore against grain of the kosmos - or the will of
god. It is only the odd juxtaposition of TM initiator TB-isms that
prevents me from accepting the changes you claim. I hope you can see
that this would be a weird paradox indeed, a temple on sand nowhere
near the spec. of the one that was supposed to be built on stone.
You also seem to lack any appreciation for others who have easily
left the past behind - or integrated it into where they are now,
while taking and making that claim for yourself.
This is a grave misconstruing of the truth about me and about where
things stand in this moment. I would also ask that you respect
those persons from my past who have repudiated me and who are now
living decent and honourable lives, having realized that they, like
me, were deceived about the trust they reposed in the integrity of
myself and in the truth of what emerged from this intense
metaphysical theatre of good and evil.
If I was still passing myself off as enlightened; if I insisted
that all I did under enlightenment was valid and true; if I was
seeking to influence others so that they would submit to me as
their teacher; if I gave the impression that I was proud of what I
did under Unity Consciousness; if somehow I resembled in my outlook
and actions that person in the photo you have posted, then all that
you say about me—since posting this—would be fair game. And I would
certainly have a lot to answer for.
As it is, Vaj, I am responsible—in this forum at least—for what I
have posted. If you can find some attempt in all of these posts of
mine to justify my actions while I was enlightened—such as to frame
the context so as to make your present approach applicable to me—
then I have deceived everyone in writing what I write today.
But I argue that I have been consistent in what I have posted, and
there is not the slightest insinuation that I am prepared to
defend, justify, and vindicate my actions while I was in the state
of Unity Consciousness, a state that came about through an
experience more powerful, and more comprehensive—by far—than that
first LSD experience. 1976 put me in another universe—but for all
that, it appeared to correspond exactly to what Maharishi described
the enlightened man to be in The Science of Being and Art of Living.
Really? That sounds odd to me. I've done LSD and I would never
construe the experiences I had as having anything to do with SBAL at
all. Like cultivation of siddhis, it's just a very pure form of
suffering to me.
And in all his videos. And I told Maharishi straight out that I was
in Unity Consciousness. He did nothing to dissuade me from this
conviction—for it was no mere conviction; it was an objectively
different state of consciousness.
Well then i think you should accept the possibility or even the
certainty (esp. given David Wants to Fly, etc.) that Mahesh was never
in a place to decide that in the first place.
It was only seven years later that, with a gun pointed at his head,
he muttered some words which legally confirmed that he was not
prepared to turn over his kingdom to Canada.
LOL. Or at least Vancouver Island. ;-)
Vaj, if this digging up of my past was confined to myself, I would
deem it part of what I have to go through in order to seek a final
resolution to all these matters of TM, Maharishi, and my
enlightenment. But the attempt top drag in other persons who now
stand apart from this mystical context—dragged in somehow to imply
something reprehensible or inordinate about me—this seems a
violation of their privacy, their lives, and their families.
Please, in your attempts to answer to my challenge to you, give me
the works; but do not impugn the reputation and honour of persons
who have disavowed with total sincerity any positive association
with Robin Carlsen.
Well, unfortunately, since I cannot send you things privately, you
basically forced a situation where i had no choice but to post them
publicly. It's not something I wanted to do.
These latest tactic of yours, Vaj, it is a serous breach of what
any civilized and honest person would understand to be the 'rules
of the game'.
Actually I insisted on privately emailing them. You refused. So in
all honesty, this was not my preference.
You may attack me in any way you choose; but unless you can find
someone who still holds out for the perfection of my actions while
I was enlightened, you must leave all others (who were associated
with me) alone. They are free of me, they have children, they have
their personal dignity. They are entitled—unless they are rabid
apologists for Robin Carlsen—to the sanctity of their autonomy. Do
you understand this, Vaj?
I believe I do Robin.
