Dear Barry, I think, contrary to what I would have expected, you have raised some significant points here. I am not sure how I would go about answering you. I have had, up until reading your post today, a certain way of seeing myself and the world. Perhaps in some sense, that has been altered by reading--three times now--your post. I don't think, though, it is fair to expect me to respond in full--I mean immediately. There is a lot to digest here--not to mention allow myself to even think might be true. I just don't believe you have a right to criticize me like this. Why should I accept the judgment of someone who has never met me? You have never been friendly towards me; why should I believe you have anything to tell me, Barry? If any of what you have said here is actually true, it is only unconsciously so; I did not set out--as far as I know--to get a following. But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it. Thanks anyway, Barry; but I really don't see how I can do anything more than just say: "I will think hard about all that you have said to me, but it will be very hard to accept that it is true".
Please give my best to Curtis. Robin --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Dear Robin, > > For some reason, possibly the result of reading about compassion and > deciding to subject myself to one of your rants *out* of compassion, I > actually read the post below. Taking you at your word in this rant and > in others, about your willingness to see yourself from points of view > other than your own, I'm curious as to how you'll react to a few > unrequested observations: > > 1. As many have pointed out, how does this letter to Raunchy *not* fit > into the category of "trolling for TMers" in hopes of still attracting > adoration, if not actual followers? Who else would CARE about what you > felt and continue to feel for Maharishi? > > 2. Also as many have pointed out, for all your claims of challenging > past assumptions, there seems to be one that you have never challenged, > and continue to assert (again, only to TMers, the only group for which > this claim would have any caveat or meaning) -- that you were once in > Unity Consciousness as defined by MMY. Have you *ever* entertained the > notion that you were just experiencing a bout of psychosis that you > *interpreted* as a state that would be pleasing to the guy you had a > man-crush on (Maharishi)? > > 3. Also, have you ever considered the possibility that all of the flashy > experiences you attribute to having in Maharishi's presence are simply > the result *OF* having a rather severe man-crush on him? This is a > question that anyone reading that you have spent the last 25 years of > your life living with a guy who seems to have a similar man-crush on you > might ask. Just sayin'... > > 4. Have you ever pondered the *extraordinary* ramifications of stating > that "my perception of a matter concerning myself was incorrect" > happened for the *first* time in your life at a rather advanced age? > That statement is pretty much a self-diagnosis of a person whose entire > life to that point had been spent under the influence of Narcissistic > Personality Disorder. I would assert that no one *not* suffering from > NPD could have possibly reached such an age without encountering a few > things about himself or herself that they'd been incorrect about. > > 5. Have you ever considered the possibility that one of the reasons you > still claim to hold Maharishi to be so important and so powerful is that > you're still trying to butter up the only possible audience for your > narcissistic ramblings about yourself and your borrowed philosophy -- > TMers or former TMers? > > 6. Have you ever considered the possibility that you *projected* onto > him all of the experiences you claim came *from* Maharishi, and that one > of the reasons you did this is just to avoid dealing with the > possibility that you had an enormous man-crush on him? You admit that > the love you felt for him was the "highest love you'd ever experienced," > but don't seem to deal with the ramifications of that. What's up with > that? Are you saying that your love for him was "higher" than your love > for your wife? Adoring a "holy man" to that degree is OK, but adoring > just another man isn't? > > I'm penning these questions NOT because I'm seeking to discuss or argue > them with you. Don't embarrass yourself by pretending that I've entered > into one of your "confrontations" and must "do battle" with you. That > isn't going to happen, so don't get your hopes up. :-) > > I'm just passing them along to see if you are capable of realizing that > there are other ways of seeing you and your story than the ways you see > it...and, dare I say it...want to see it. My original impression of you > remains intact -- I see *no change* in your behavior as reported "back > in the day" and your behavior today. It's still the same syndrome of > "trolling for followers" by first praising the guy *they* have a crush > on too (MMY), and then asserting your superiority to him. All of which > falls completely within the diagnosis of someone struggling with > lifelong Narcissistic Personality Disorder. None of this is a "lie" on > my part, or in any way intended as an attempt to "get" you. This is how > I really see you. Live with it. > > If others are impressed by your stories, that is their business. I just > thought it might be interesting for you to hear from someone who isn't. > That's all. Do with the feedback what you will. I'm outa here... > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > wrote: > > > > Dear raunchydog, > > > > I had plenty of the "elegantly styled Giorgio Armani" when I was in > Unity Consciousness, raunchy. The spell I was under was so powerful and > convincing: I was unconquerable and undefeatable in every sense because > of what Maharishi had bestowed upon me on that mountain--this is how I > interpreted my experience of becoming enlightened; that it was through > Maharishi's grace that this was happening to me. I felt, quite apart > from the practising of TM (and extras), that my devotion to Maharishi > was the critical element in this gratuitous transformation of my > consciousness and person. > > > > Once I turned towards Catholicism (nearly ten years after Arosa) my > enlightenment became problematic--metaphysically: it was not a state of > consciousness or 'style of functioning' that was permissible according > to the philosopy of Thomas Aquinas, and according to the whole Catholic > conception of the individual human being in relation to the Fall, sin, > good and evil, heaven and hell, grace, the Virgin Mary, the Saints, the > sacraments: Either Hinduism (and Maharishi) were right; or else > Catholicism (and Christ) were right. These were mutually exclusive > truths--if understood in their uncompromised form (pre-Vatican II; the > Gita and Vedic philosophy). What is reality? There were two different > and incompatible metaphysics here: Maharishi and Christ. > > > > Before I turned towards the Church--based upon a single experience of > receiving a consecrated Host while I was sick, giving a seminar in > Manhattan--authority was rooted in my own consciousness; after this, I > had no authority--which is to say, the truths of Roman > Catholicism--thus, Christ--supplanted the sense of the infallibility of > my enlightenment. The whole enterprise began to come apart--and while > this was unravelling I became increasingly judgmental and categorical in > my response to the persons who were closest to me. > > > > The real turning point, however, raunchy, came when my best friend > (although he was not at this time) demonstrated to me that my perception > of a matter concerning myself was incorrect, and that his perception of > me was the objective one. I had never experienced anything like this in > my life: someone proving they knew me better than I knew myself. At that > moment--even though I had begun to challenge my enlightenment > intellectually and religiously (via Catholicism and the breakdown of the > trustworthiness of my authority)--my inner and outer world literally > collapsed. My enlightenment--which required that I was always in contact > with more truth than anyone non-enlightened--was fundamentally refuted. > The vertiginous experience of this was like nothing that had ever > happened to me not just since my enlightenment, but even in the whole > span of my life. > > > > My friend, who subsequently came to live with me (because of his > remarkable and inspired insight into me), began a process of showing me > how, in ten thousand different ways, I had got it all wrong, and this > process of confrontation, analysis, revelation, humiliation, and > treatment (I applied the treatment, the remedy myself: I 'operated' on > myself) has continued over the course of the past twenty-five years. > > > > There was suffering in contacting the pain of my delusions, my > distortions, my infirmities; there was suffering in the realization of > how deceived and wrong I was in my fundamental assumptions about myself; > there was suffering in the humiliation and disgrace of being proven to > have been mistaken in my judgments of other persons; there was suffering > in rooting out the causes of my blindness, my naivete, my being > deceived, my inappropriate engagement with hopeless causes; and finally, > there was suffering that was entailed in performing 'operations' on > myself. My friend through his challenges to me was causing me to remake > myself, raunchy. > > > > Now my love for Maharishi was of course the highest love I had ever > known, and my experiences with TM--and all the techniques added to that > (like the Two Week Extension--unbelievably sublime that was)--the six > sets of asanas and pranayama I did every day under personal instructions > from Maharishi himself at the end of my ATR--took me to places I never > dreamed were possible, and finally, to the state of consciousness > Maharishi has described in *The Science of Being and the Art of > Living*and elsewhere. Everything that Maharishi has said Unity would be > like, raunchy, came true for me personally. And for those who were > initiators and knew me, they could have no doubt once they spent time > with me, that I was indeed in Unity--this was something demonstrable by > the way my intelligence and sensitivity and behaviour manifested > themselves: it was never a matter of belief that I was enlightened. > Enlightenment in my case became something that had to prove itself in > every moment. And it did. And until the last fifteen months or so of the > ten year period when I was in Unity, it was the supreme and > extraordinary adventure of our lives. > > > > Everyone stayed with the whole enterprise of my enlightenment because > each person knew he or she was deriving benefit from what was happening > through my enlightenment. Our lives became a live metaphysical > theatre--and the seminars themselves were the formal and concentrated > focus of what was actually going on every day outside of the seminar. > There was nothing to compare to it, raunchy. But it started to come > apart when I became convinced of the polarized idea of people either > being good or not good--in some irrevocable way. And then Catholicism, > and then the devastating truth of my friend's indictment of my lack of > self-knowledge, lack of self-objectivity. And, as has been described > here on FFL, Ann Woelfle had something to do with this too. :-) > > > > So I went into seclusion far away from the scene of my disgrace and > ignominy and shame, even as I made a living as a substitute teacher (no > one knew of my past obviously). Those twenty-five years crushed me, put > me on my knees, and made me often despair about even my sanity, or my > capacity to endure the suffering and violence. But I crossed a threshold > of change in April of this year, and things have been very different > since then, even as I continue to find there are things about me which I > need to change. > > > > I could, it is true, surrender myself to my TM-Maharishi past, and > become totally consumed by that mystical context--and as you rightly > point out, or imply: to do so would undo all of what I have achieved in > these twenty-five years. So I treat all things TM and Maharishi as > anathema. But this does not mean denying what was true, most profoundly > true for me: that Maharishi was like the Son of God come onto the > earth--like Christ--and that he raised me up and transformed me and > strengthened me and loved me and filled me with his grace and his own > enlightened mind and heart. I have come to recognize a higher truth than > Maharishi, but I shall never, as long as I remain in this world, ever > experience the kind of ecstasy and love and exhilaration and power and > energy that I experienced in the presence of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, > raunchy. > > > > I don't believe anyone has truly taken the measure of who Maharishi > really was--I mean whatever intelligence is behind this entire creation, > that intelligence knows who Maharishi was, and is; that intelligence > gave to Maharishi a personality and consciousness and majesty which > exceeds manifoldly anyone who has existed in my lifetime--even though it > appears you had to do Transcendental Meditation to realize this. There > are things about Maharishi--and of course myself--that I still do not > know, raunchy. But I do know this: He was the most significant human > being who was alive while I was alive, and my memories of being with him > are memories of being with something higher than the gods and and the > archangels. EXPERIENTIALLY, that is. Objectively, I have have been > forced to conclude that Maharishi did not possess either the personal or > even impersonal integrity to justify what he claimed to be and what he > claimed as his purpose in this life. > > > > The suffering (coming out of my enlightenment) has been the most real > experience of my life--but there were antecedent causes for my being > susceptible to the mystical sources of power and influence which go to > make a person enlightened. I am still tracking down and overcoming these > causes, raunchy. But despite this, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi will never be > anything less than I knew him to be. > > > > I thank you for your extremely generous and thoughtful comments here, > raunchy. Reading your post took me completely by surprise. It was a > response that I was so far from expecting. And it has had an effect on > me which you surely would have anticipated when you wrote these kind and > loving words about me. > > > > Deeply appreciative of what you have given to me here, raunchydog, > > Robin > > >
