[FairfieldLife] Re: New Robin Carlsen file uploaded to FairfieldLife

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
> 
Vaj: That's fine, I have plenty.

RESPONSE: post them, Vaj.
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
Vaj: 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.

RESPONSE: What? I thought—I am sure you are wrong about this, Vaj—I had 
convinced everyone at FFL of the truth of my claims to have been in UC. I think 
you must be mistaken. True, Barry may have his doubts, but most everyone here 
at FFL—unless I am reading them incorrectly—has made it very clear that my 
Unity Consciousness was the real deal. Did I think any of them had the faintest 
doubt about this, I would have stopped posting. This comes as a revelation to 
me, Vaj. I would ask you to think very carefully before coming out with 
something as startling and unanticipated as this. 
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
Vaj: 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.

RESPONSE: Ah, I think you may have touched a nerve here, Vaj. Finally. If you 
are referring to Gary (and I hardly think it could be anyone else), then, yes, 
Gary was a faithful and generous person when it came to my seminars—I recall 
especially meeting with him and Marilynn in a Manhattan hotel after giving a 
seminar: that was our best contact ever. When I went to extremes and started to 
turn on those I loved most—and then went over to the Catholic Church—Gary was 
nonplussed and felt betrayed—a very natural and appropriate response. He came 
to DC to attempt to resolve the issue of this destabilization of his 
world—based upon the breakup of the whole Robin Carlsen enterprise. He came 
armed with my astrology chart—as if in reading this to me he could get closure 
on this whole business by proving that my chart explained me. I resisted (as 
you know). I wish I could have been as unconfused and coherent—in some profound 
sense—as I feel that I am now in comparison to what I was then. And I ask you 
to pass on my sincere best wishes to Gary and his family. I have nothing but 
the most positive memories of him and Marilynn. Good people. I know there are 
others who, as you say are "carrying" "the sense of woundedness". I wounded 
others; I wounded myself. But it is a very complex story and neither Gary's 
experience nor mine will be the last word on all this.

Yours, maybe.
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
Vaj:  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.

RESPONSE: Apart from attempting to provide some evidence for your claim to know 
me, what, pray tell, was the purpose of posting that photo? It seemed harmless 
enough; but once you started commenting on the psychological state of the 
persons in the photo, once you began to interact with Barry, once you brought 
in names of persons who now have nothing to do with me, you were, surely you 
were, Vaj, linking my recent posts to myself in my past life such as to take 
something off the sting of my demand that you tell the truth. Now don't try to 
psychologize me; you are a neophyte in this realm. And you still evince not a 
inkling of understanding or intuition such as to make me even consider you have 
any idea of the person that I am—or even the person that I was. It is all this 
Walter Mitty thing again—but in this instance, with a sense of revenging 
yourself.
> 
Vaj:  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.

RESPONSE: This is just plain silly, Vaj. We are talking about major issues 
here, and your qualification to pronounce upon my TM-Maharishi-Unity 
Consciousnes-post-Unity Consciousness self is fatally compromised by your 
insisting you are a TM initiator. But, Vaj, perhaps you will wear me out, as I 
believe this line of conversation is conforming to the law of diminishing 
returns. Get outside of your concepts; deal with your experience of me—since 
you can't call upon any personal memories, how about just taking me on as a 
person here at FFL? That's why I deluged you with sharp, pointed, germane 
references in all those Ted Hughes-Wallace Stevens-Blaise Pascal posts.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
Vaj: 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.

RESPONSE: You are the victim—unconsciously it would seem—of an idee fixe, Vaj. 
This is all boilerplate. Your philosophy, Vaj, deprives you of the Ted Hughes 
vision of the world. A philosophy to be valid, must test itself against 
everything else in reality—every other philosophy. What you tell me here 
doesn't connect to what life is about in this current conversation we are 
having.
> 

Vaj: 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.

RESPONSE: Here once again, Vaj, you reveal your virginity when it comes to 
TM—and my seminars. There is nothing more that I can say. The TM-Maharishi 
past—if you only knew—cannot simply be left behind. Barry hasn't even begun to 
leave this same past behind, else he would not feel the need to be so bitter 
and hostile and cynical. Freedom from the past implies a kind of 
disinterestedness and objectivity. I don't think any of us at FFL have acquired 
this perfectly. I haven't. Only you have—because TM and Maharishi never 
happened to you.
> 
> > 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.
> >
Vaj: 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.

RESPONSE: You weren't on that mountain with me. I am saying that the magnitude 
of the change and the cataclysmic effect upon my consciousness, upon my heart, 
upon my mind, upon my soul went far beyond the LSD experience. Once I entered 
into Unity Consciousness and reread the Science of Being and Art of Living I 
recognized Maharishi was describing my experience. [There is a specific passage 
in that book to which I am referring; I wish I had access to it now, but I 
don't.)
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
Vaj: 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.

RESPONSE: You don't know Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Whatever he was, he was the 
most beguiling, brilliant, charming, powerful, and authoritative human being I 
have ever met. And had you been initiated into TM and then attended a Teacher 
Training Course in the early seventies, you would have realized something not 
dissimilar to Peter in the presence of Christ.
Even though I happen to view Maharishi, under the aspect of eternity, as the 
enemy of my soul.[I have posted about this, but it seems it never went in, 
Vaj.] There are assumptions here in your response, Vaj, which lack any 
foundation—and they are said a priori. I would really like to have a discussion 
with you about Maharishi—but you preclude this with this inexplicable claim to 
be a TM initiator. Look: I came clean about the Lady Gaga marriage thing; I 
will come clean—to be an example to you—about the "wild dates". There was only 
one wild date—no more. But I can't and won't discuss that here. I have a 
video—however I would never consider letting anyone see it. Just know, though, 
Vaj, that if Lady Gaga denies knowing me, that I can prove her a liar. But I 
won't. Because that would not be fair to her. Actually that one date was not 
quite as wild as I have implied. Heck, Vaj: *I don't even know Lady Gaga at 
all!*

Whew. Did that feel good, levelling with you on this score, Vaj. Why don't you 
try it?
> 
> > 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.
> >
> 
Vaj: LOL. Or at least Vancouver Island. ;-)

RESPONSE: Again the Walter Mitty touch: trying to use information to impress 
others with its specificity. All archival, not personal. 
> 
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
Vaj: 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.

RESPONSE: Bullshit. (I feel merciful in this moment, so I am not going to use 
anything but that one word euphemism.)
> 
> > 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'.
> >
> 
Vaj: Actually I insisted on privately emailing them. You refused. So in  
> all honesty, this was not my preference.

RESPONSE: It will get more serious than this when you have to die, Vaj: that's 
where the BS ends. Why not end it right now, Vaj—at least with respect to this 
whole business of TM, Maharishi, and myself? Look: will a little love help? I 
am going to pray to the Good Lord tonight. I hope it helps. 
> 
> > 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?
> >
Vaj: I believe I do Robin.

RESPONSE: And I trust that Barry Wright who has remained scrupulously silent 
and passive in the face of every kind of challenge I have posed to him, will 
respect this admonition, since your posting that photo precipitated a response 
that he otherwise would not dream of making. He finally got off on all this, 
and suddenly was speaking all about Robin Carlsen—and others. What caused him 
to change his spots? The opportunity to exploit a situation which was slanted 
against me. Barry couldn't help himself. And then after reading my first 
response he did sort of a clever backing away. I hope you don't encourage him 
in his pusillanimity, Vaj: he never fired a shot while I faced him. But here he 
thought he could fire away from some protected barrier. Fine. But let's make 
sure when it comes to me, he makes me the only target. I am appalled at his 
obtuseness in all this.

All that said, you have a good day there, Vaj. I hope we understand each other 
now.
>