Fabulous poem.
Could be an eloquent way of stating the concept of "coming full circle", except not really, as to "come full circle" is defined as "returning to the attitude one originally had" and I think T.S. Eliot is saying something very different with the last line, in that the "knowingness" is new and aided by all the understanding and experience garnered through "exploration." ________________________________ From: authfriend <jst...@panix.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 10:53 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: How Robin Struck People-And Lied About It: An Open Letter to Barry Wright --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater <no_reply@...> wrote: > > The operative words here are "stability" and "simplicity". L Having made the odyssey Robin has and still, apparently, is, > coming back to the beginning does not imply some sort of > having gone nowhere. Lots of us come out of the womb better > than we are twenty years subsequent to our birth. All those > mistakes, those transgressions, those trespasses are what we > are all guilty of and finding our way back to an innocence, > a deeper simplicity is very hard in my experience. It is not > a sign of stasis but a real of success after negotiating the > land mines of just living. We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. --T.S. Eliot > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
