--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > --beyond the bounds of what is expected, usual, normal, > > or appropriate > > > > There's also the Crazy Wisdom tradition, as you most > > likely know; and the Advahuts zarzari talks about. > > I find it funny you quote me (indirectly I know), where I > just had criticized you for your alignment with Ravi (and > Robin!).
You find it funny why, exactly? > No, I don't think Ravi is an Avadhut I didn't say he was, zarzari. I was just pointing out to Xeno that people can mean many different things by the word "mad," not all of them negative. <snip> > This is a verse following II 55, where Maharishis commentary > occurs, that there are no OUTWARD signs of the enlightenment > of a person. But that doesn't mean that one is asked to > bestow the title of enlightenment onto about anyone who > demands so. It doesn't mean that one should throw all attempts > of discrimination overboard. Right. And since I don't bestow the title of enlightenment onto anyone who demands it, this is relevant to my position how? <snip> > So, if you say, that Avadhutas can react crazy, and can > react abusive, it certainly doesn't mean, that if you > react crazy and abusive, that you are an Avadhuta! And > it doesn't mean that someone who claims enlightenment, > and reacts crazy is an Avadhuta! <snark> Gosh, really?? <end snark> Why are you directing this rather obvious point at me, as if it were something I wasn't aware of? <snip> > What I accuse you of Judy, is not that you have explicitly > confirmed the BIG E of either two candidates, but your quite > obvious double standard in treating people like this. That > is to say, if Ravi throws some junk words in the direction > of TM and MMY, you somehow don't intercept in the same way, > you would do as with Curtis or Barry. And you figure I do this why? Can you think of any other possible reasons why I might do it? Can you think of any reasons that might not involve a double standard? > But Curtis and Barry could be just as enlightened as Ravi > or Robin, according to your statement from the Gita, what > gives? Sure. What gives with what? > It's just the same, we all could be enlightened, I could > be enlightened for that matter (and I even remember that > you once called me out for it, that I, as an enlightened > would argue to you like this would be unfair, lol) Don't recall that. Perhaps in your earlier incarnation here? > And of course, I am totally on Curtis' side in this whole > Ravi affair. Of course you are. > He should be either expelled, or all his abusive allegations > should be deleted, and this should be at least treated as > somebody overposting. Someone making 51 posts must wait for > a week, but he, abusing Curtis in this way gets a pass! I don't believe Curtis has recommended any of the above, actually. > With regard to Robin, I'd like to point out, that Maharishi > said, that an enlightened can only be recognized by someone > being at least in the same state. So, Judy, you brilliant > championeer of logic, when Maharishi declares that Robin is > NOT in unity and never was, (and that is what is publicly > known AFAIK, for former supposed statements we have to trust > Robin), Not necessarily. Some of them may have been made in public to course participants. According to Robin, MMY asked him to describe his experiences to the CPs after Arosa and confirmed him as the "first Governor of the Age of Enlightenment" because he was in Unity. I'd imagine those who were present would remember it, assuming Robin didn't make it all up. > the either Maharishi wasn't enlightened, or Robin > wasn't. Your choice. I think *I* actually said that in one of my discussions with you. <checking the archive> Yes, indeed I did. From #299706, Christmas Day, only a little over two weeks ago: ----- > Robin, for all his > critics of eastern systems, is still attached and in love > with his 'enlightenment' past, you can see this in his posts, > where he makes sure, everyboy gets the point that he was > 'really enlightened', 'really in unity'. (For any TMer this > proves that TM leads in fact to unity as MMY describes). It isn't "as MMY described" if he can throw it all off and become "de-enlightened," going back to mere waking state! This claim is a *challenge* to TMers, not any kind of confirmation. Either Robin never was in Unity, or MMY was very wrong about the whole enchilada--or, I suppose, Robin is still in Unity but thinks he isn't. There's just no way to fit any of these possibilities into the TM model. ----- So I guess I was a "brilliant championeer of logic" even before you were. Could be I even gave you the idea you believe you're challenging me with. (By "whole enchilada," I was referring to MMY's whole system, not just Robin's state of consciousness.) And there's yet another possibility: that MMY was lying, either when he said Robin was in Unity or when he said he wasn't. He'd have had a motive for either, but perhaps a better one for saying Robin wasn't in Unity considering the havoc Robin had created at MIU. It was a quick way to dispose of the pesky lawsuit and get Robin out of the TMO's hair for good. It wouldn't be the first time MMY chucked a TMO star when they began to cause trouble, from what I've heard here and elsewhere. Prior to that point, for years MMY hadn't interfered with what Robin was doing or claiming and had even told Bevan Morris to let him be when he showed up at MIU (this according to Peter Sutphen, who was at MIU on Purusha at the time and says he heard it directly from Bevan). But we'll never know, will we? > But from all, what I observe from you here, it is clear, > that you have never been in the movement. As I've stated here explicitly many times, including to you. Did you have a point to make?
