[FairfieldLife] Re: How Robin Struck People-And Lied About It: An Open Letter to Barry Wright

[obbajeeba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0O5h7bxVOA

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote:
>
> 
> I am perplexed.  Who would want to go back to how they were before their
> journey started?  The journey is an adventure, frought with tests and a
> lot of uncertainty that may or may not get clearer as we move along. 
> But usually some things do become clearer, and there are occassional
> milestones that give us some confidence that we are on the right path.
> 
> So, this notion of retreating back to where we once were?  I'm not
> getting that.  Perhaps you can elaborate a little.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Susan, upon reading your response to Robin's open letter I think your
> sensitivity and wisdom shines out particularly in this statement:
> >
> > 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, "Susan" wayback71@ wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 People—And 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
> someone—that 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 implying—surely you know this—that 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 false—if it had been true, Vaj would be
> able to convince me very easily of this—and 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
> people—on rare occasions—inside 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 acted—they
> 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
> context—I 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 creation—seemingly—and what I
> was doing was merely a systematic, mechanical, and objective process
> whereby the truth of what was actually the case—with each individual
> soul intrinsically subject to this exploration—becoming 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
> process—conducted by powers beyond myself, but enabled to articulate
> themselves through this orchestration of reality through my Unity
> Consciousness—the actual fallen being which had control over a given
> person—obstructing, inhibiting, interfering with the ability of that
> person to truly individuate themselves within the authenticity of who
> they actually were—independent of this fallen angel—would 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
> enlightenment—consciously as it were, or unconsciously colluding
> with the fallen angel—I 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 inspired—and much resisted (I hated it)—response in me
> in order to facilitate the process whereby a person could experience
> liberation—even momentarily—from 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 context—which was true: I did not strike anyone
> during a seminar—while at the same time feeling an obligation to
> acknowledge that this indeed did in fact happen—on rare
> occasions—in 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>