lamb to the slaughter Jason, time to round up all those fierce warriors of yours...
________________________________ From: Jason <jedi_sp...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:33 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Saniel Bonder in Fairfield visits > "But that does not mean that you are wrong. You may very well have diagnosed me perfectly--but I doubt it." Robin, it's these kind of statements that worry me. You sometimes imply that you 'were' enlightened and sometimes you imply that you were passing yourself as enlightened. Sometimes the contradictions come in the same sentence or paragraph. I seriously doubt if it's possible for anyone to get enlightened by this "love" for another man, even if it happens to be Maharishi. --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > >
