Hey Robin, It took some bravery and guts to write what you did below. It was written in your signature Baroque style, but you dealt with some difficult old events.
I feel confused in my own response. On the one hand, I think you went through a terribly disorienting process when you experienced your "Enlightenment" in Arosa. It sounds as if your brain/nervous system got pushed into a state that must have been a wild mix of religion and spirituality, intense energy, huge confidence in your state and abilities. Combine that with your already devoted involvement with a belief system like TM, and you were primed for unusual times. The usual checks and balances on our behavior in society were not there for you - you were part of a small subset of spiritual seekers - out of the mainstream. Not part of a grounded, traditional community that might have gotten you back to the structure of the requirements of daily living. I know that the TMO made some efforts to curtail your activities, but I know they did not know how to handle your situation, and you did not have the personal guidance of Maharishi. Perhaps no one could have changed it. And you were around loads of eager seekers who had the means and time and mindset to suspend material concerns and go for for anything that would have given them spiritual growth. So you found followers and played out your experiences with them. On the other hand, your followers found you and played out their hopes under your belief system. From what little I know, it sounds very intense for everyone. Certainly some who were involved seem to look back with amazement and fascination, still. Others might have gotten hurt. I know you then moved on to Catholicism with, again, great certainty and intensity of belief - all probably a carryover from your Enlightenment changes. And then you moved on from that, too. I am not sure where you stand now. It sounds as if you like to write about it all to put it in its place. I wonder if there is any way of finding the stability and simplicity of how you were before all this "enlightenment" happened? For all I know, that could be what you are aiming for. I am just thinking out loud here........... but I can't morally judge you on this one. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > How Robin Struck PeopleAnd Lied About it: An Open Letter to Barry Wright > > > Dear Barry Wright, > > It is true that before I ever gave an official seminar I did, in fact, apply > in a more Western sense, the Zen Roshi method of shocking someonethat is, I > did on occasion, strike someone physically. Vaj said there was a video of my > acting in this way. I know that no such tape exists. And if it did (as Vaj > claims) it would be a simple matter of contradicting my avowal here. You will > naturally ask: But Robin, by denying that you did in fact strike someone > during a seminar, you are in effect implyingsurely you know thisthat you > *never* struck anyone. This was your intent, right, Robin? > > It was not, Barry. For me to have on the one hand denied this accusation > knowing it was falseif it had been true, Vaj would be able to convince me > very easily of thisand yet, then and there, admitted that I did engage in > this practise, or rather *had* engaged in this practise, would mean > disclosing something about me which would tend to be interpreted in an entire > vacuum of understanding of just what the context of this metaphysical theatre > was. I chose, since you are so hostile and prejudiced, to withhold admitting > that in fact I had struck peopleon rare occasionsinside the other, more > intimate and personal context of what chronologically preceded the formal > seminars. When almost all the persons who were convinced of my enlightenment > lived in the same residence. By itself, separated from the spiritual context > within which it is practised, the Zen Roshi's blow would seem primitive and > brutal and outrageous. But we must assume even Leonard Cohen accepted that > this was part of the spiritual methodology to which he was subjugating > himself in having determined he had a real Teacher. Now what I did resembled > not at all what is the classic Zen Flesh Zen Bones move. See if you can stay > with me while I try to explain the context within which this act did in fact > occur. Inside a seminar setting, however, it was never necessary or > appropriate. At least this is my sincere and I believe truthful recollection. > > Now my purported enlightenment, as I came to understand it, Barry, came about > through not just my own efforts, and my devotion to the Master (Maharishi > Mahesh Yogi); it was effected by the Vedic gods, these impulses of Creative > Intelligence, the devas. This was shown to me in the form of a revelation > once I realized that my enlightenment could not be compatible with the > description of the universe and the human soul as taught to me by Thomas > Aquinas and my learning of the Catholic catechism. It was not that > Catholicism forced this revelation upon me; it was more the tremendous shock > of having the whole context I had created [or had been created *through* me] > since I returned from Switzerland come apart, and eventually disintegrate. > Once I realized that certain invisible beings had had a hand in my ultimate > liberation I immediately realized that these very beings were not beneficent, > were not interested in my happiness. *They had deceived me*. > > From that point on, early in 1987, I became determined to vanquish my > enlightenment, to destroy the biochemical and intellectual basis of my Unity > Consciousness. I knew that if my enlightenment was an hallucination, however > real it was experientially, that my actions flowing from this assumed state > of consciousness, were also flawed, defective, and problematic. And this > included that infrequent instance where I would, seemingly under supernatural > inspiration and authority, strike someone. Why strike someone, Robin? Well, > here we get to the crux of the matter, Barry. > > These same celestial beings who created my enlightenment, and then pretty > much inspired the context out of which I then actedthey evidently knew both > the inherent and unrecognized weaknesses of each individual, as well as what > the Western Tradition represented in terms of individuation of one's > experience through a true existential willingness to allow life to 'make' > one's soul:Also*this is the key point, Barry*these same celestial beings > made me see each human being as existing inside a context where actual fallen > angels warred with the good forces in the universe to take away a human > being's innocence, determined as they were to make an individual a tool of > their purposes by subtly inducing that person to compensate for some weakness > or distortion inside of them *through behaving in a particular mode*.The mode > so chosen was the creation of the fallen angel. Each person's mode was > unique. 'Mode' here representing the inauthentic presentation of themselves. > > The specific pattern of an individual's mode, then, revealed the influence of > these fallen angels (or rather, one specific and unique fallen angel) upon > this person, and it was my evident destiny to interrupt, to challenge, to > confront the fallen angels as they battled with me, and the person's soul for > domination over that person. > > You understand, then, Barry, that the beings who had created my enlightenment > made me actually apprehend each human being who I encountered as being > subject to this fearsome temptation and tyranny. And those who had not passed > through the seminar, or pre-seminar experience, were dupes of this hegemonic > power of these fallen angels. Now, as it happens, almost every person I knew > was a victim to some extent of unwittingly identifying with these fallen > angels, falsely assuming that what the fallen angel insinuated who they were, > and how they had to act, was actually originating in the substance and > integrity of their own individuality. The person, then, never suspected there > was a preternatural conspiracy going on which was the attempt to force a > person to falsify themselves (and each person came to sense this > dissimulation deep from within themselves) such as to cover up and conceal > their weakness, their ultimate flaw. To transcend one's compensatory mode > became the desideratum. > > A seminar and before that the pre-seminar reality, was the process > precipitated inside the context of reading off reality such as to create the > actual metaphysical context within which *all that I have described here > became a physical perception for everyone present*. This meant that the > context was not actually under my control at all. It was a contextI suppose > like TM is subject to the mantras (or what Maharishi refers to earlier in his > history as the Vedic gods)that imposed itself on all of us. Even myself. > What unfolded in front of our eyes was the actual opening up of > creationseeminglyand what I was doing was merely a systematic, mechanical, > and objective process whereby the truth of what was actually the casewith > each individual soul intrinsically subject to this explorationbecoming > intricately and physically revealed before everyone. There were no individual > differences in what we all experienced. It was as clear and unmistakable as a > change in perception effected by hallucinogens, only in this case, what > happened to everyone's consciousness in that room was virtually identical. > Everyone experienced the same thing. Everyone saw, understood, recognized > what I was doing in confronting someone. It all occurred very naturally as it > were, very intelligibly, with ultra metaphysical clarity, and the process > obeyed laws of its own. Far more compelling than even the laws which would > have protected or sustained someone in that state which would presumably not > be susceptible to this kind of context. > > We simply broke open the reality which was there. Once we did, reality took > over and conducted the course of the drama through my enlightened state of > consciousness, and presumed consummated individuation. (As it would turn out, > there was more wrong with me than anyone who "came to the microphone". But no > one got to see this. But I did, during this 25 year ordeal of de-enlightening > myself.) > > Now under the irresistible and inexorable inspiration of this > processconducted by powers beyond myself, but enabled to articulate > themselves through this orchestration of reality through my Unity > Consciousnessthe actual fallen being which had control over a given > personobstructing, inhibiting, interfering with the ability of that person > to truly individuate themselves within the authenticity of who they actually > wereindependent of this fallen angelwould make its presence known, even > coming right out and making itself visible in the face of the person. > > This produced what became the classic state of "having gone cosmic". And a > person in this state was 'seen' unavoidably, choicelessly, in terms of their > unique problem in standing up to the power and influence of the fallen angel > which was attempting to keep them from becoming 'innocent', becoming the > person they actually were destined to be. Separated from that fallen angel. > > If the person seemed so identified with this deceitful representation of > themselves through the malice of this fallen angel that they were in fact > defending or upholding the integrity of themelves in resisting the beneficent > and merciful inspiration of my enlightenmentconsciously as it were, or > unconsciously colluding with the fallen angelI might, on occasion shock that > person out of such an identification. And this took the form sometimes of > striking them. Maybe in total 4 or 5 persons were struck. I hardly think it > was more than this. And this was not something that happened on a regular > basis. It was in extremis. But we shall see if this testimony is contradicted > by someone who was there. > > This was not anger, punishment, retaliation, ritualistic violence. It was an > inspiredand much resisted (I hated it)response in me in order to facilitate > the process whereby a person could experience liberationeven > momentarilyfrom their trance caused by their being identified with the > particular fallen angel which had been chosen somehow to present this > formidable and ultimate existential challenge to this person's soul, and > their whole sense of who they really were. > > Now I have come, in having repudiated and deconstructed my enlightenment, to > see that once I became enlightened on that mountain above Arosa, that my > perception had been played such that I could only apprehend each human being > in terms of this cosmic battle between good and evil. Now I am able to see > each person absolutely on their own, without respect to 'the demonic'. And > therefore I am sorry for all that I did which amounted to being determined by > this hallucination. Which especially included on occasion trying to shock the > person out of his or her identification with the fallen angel which was > tormenting and deceiving them, even if they appeared oblivious to this truth. > > Of course, you will realize from this analysis, that whenever this event > happened, no one so much as winced. Not because they were brainwashed, but > rather became everyone present sensed the intelligence and inspiration > behind this act. The act, then, simply occurred with a complex process which > made itself understood as being inevitable and salutary in the extreme. It > was harrowing, it was exhilarating, it was dangerous, it was mysterious, it > was terrifying. But for everyone present it was very very real. And, I have > to say it: right. > > Although of course everyone realizes in retrospect it was wrong. > > When Vaj first accused me of hitting someone at a seminar, I knew it was not > true. After all, many persons were there for the first time. Had I done what > I was accused of, a majority of those who had never before attended a seminar > would have walked out. I don't remember a single person leaving a seminar. > > It was just not ripe for me to explain all this. I did not deny something I > knew was true. I denied what I was accused of. And knew, probably, eventually > the truth would come out, which might have the appearance of my having at the > very least equivocated on this matter. But my conscience is clear. I never > hesitated for a moment in knowing it was premature of me to on the one hand > deny having done what I was accused of in one contextwhich was true: I did > not strike anyone during a seminarwhile at the same time feeling an > obligation to acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happenon rare > occasionsin a quite different and more intimate context. > > I will leave it to the readers of FFL to determine whether I am morally > culpable in having acted as I have. > > Robin >
