This is a good discussion, so against my better judgment :-) I'll weigh in on it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Opinions and/or possible insights interspersed below: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@> > wrote: > > > > Hey Share, > > > > I enjoyed your response here. You realize of course that Judy and > > perhaps Robin are going to issue a rebuttal, point by point to > > everything you are saying. Well Judy may be running short on > > posts. > > And you realize of course that your points will be thoroughly > > discredited, at least in their mind. > > > > But your response here is the Kali side of Share that I am so > > impressed with. Rather mild in this case, but effective > > nonetheless. > > > > Here's something I've been thinking about. > > > > I like Robin. I think he is a gifted writer. But wouldn't you > > expect someone who claims to have come off the cult leader > > persona, and who is vehement in this claim to come off a > > little differently? > > Perhaps come off differently in his *actions* but perhaps not > necessarily in his *writing*...and the only thing we currently > have that tell us anything about who he is today are his *words*. This is a good point. I have made a similar one in the recent past that I think is relevant -- that most of the people on this forum only *know* about words. They *never* spent any appreciable amount of time around Maharishi or any other spiritual teacher, and as a result place a great deal of importance *on* words. Words are the only way they've ever learned *anything* in a spiritual context, and and they've actually come to believe that they can learn things *from* words that they really can't. But there is another aspect to this that relates more to what laughinggull said. In my opinion -- and please bear in mind that when *I* use those three words I really mean them, not like others here who spout opinion and claim it as truth -- *IF* Robin has changed in any significant way in these last 25 years, he hasn't changed his writing style to reflect it. IMO he is a *lazy* writer, falling into the same ruts while writing FFL posts that he fell into while writing his earlier interminable rants as a wannabee spiritual teacher. THAT, in fact, was the thing that first "blew his cover" on TM-Free. People recognized his corpulent, completely self-obsessed *style*, even though he (as I understand) hadn't revealed who he was. > > I mean, keep in mind that Robin saw fit to write what was, > > I believe, a forty page letter to Curtis, insisting that > > Curtis address some issues that Robin deemed to be essential. I would suggest that THIS is an *action* that reveals a great deal about present-day Robin. It's NOT as if what he did with Curtis -- *demanding* that he plow his way through page after page of invective and self-serving justifications -- was unique; he's done it with MANY people here. This leads me to ask, "How exactly is this *action*, this *behavior* any different than when he was equally demand- ing of his cult students, and in fact dragged them up on a physical stage to endure his flagellation? The only thing that seems to have changed IMO is that he shifted from a physical stage to a virtual one, re-enacted in cyberspace. The same bullying, the same *demanding*, and the same overriding sense of *entitlement* are still present. THIS is the primary behavior that makes me believe that nothing has changed from the "old Robin" to the "new Robin." He's still the same bullying cult leader, or trying to be. The only difference is that this time he has run into a few people who refuse to fall for it. > > Does that make any sense? I mean Curtis indicated that > > he didn't really care to discuss the matter further. > > And yet Robin pressed on, again and again. A forty > > pager, a 20 pager, 10 pagers. Just the sheer *volume* is an affront to the senses. WHO in their right mind would feel that he has the right to subject people to *literally* novel-length diatribes and then 1) expect them to actually read them, and 2) expect them to respond and get into one of his "confrontations" with him, point by point? I'll tell you WHO -- someone still suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. > It's not really my "cup of tea" which is why I don't > generally read what he writes. Tell me about it. :-) For me it's not just about the florid prose and the oppressive style, but an overriding icky feeling I get when in the presence of someone who has an overweaning sense of *entitlement*. Robin DOESN'T RESPECT his readers. He doesn't respect them enough to allow them to withdraw from one of his harrangues when they want to, and he doesn't respect them enough to fucking EDIT, and find ways to spew his crap in fewer words. > (But I have occasionally uncovered a gem...well, maybe > not a gem but a zirconia...in my in scanning some of > his shorter posts.) I have not. I have been *consistently* underwhelmed. > But that's the "nature of the beast" (i.e. a public forum) > in which we have all *chosen* to participate. What anyone > writes here can be read and responded to, read and not > responded to, or completely ignored (i.e. not read). See, THIS is what Robin -- IMO still lost in his NPD haze -- doesn't understand. It is difficult for him to even *conceive* of the last two possibilities you list above. It's more like, "*I* wrote it...*of course* have to read it and respond to it." > However, what anyone writes comes with a responsibility > of not slandering a person, and the right of anyone to > respond in defense. Not to mention the right to NOT respond to slander, and to just ignore the slanderer as if he (or she) didn't exist. That doesn't "map" to Robin's universe; IMO he doesn't even get the possibility of such a thing happening. He can only envision people reacting the way *he* would react -- "If someone challenges my world view, I *have* to react and bat them down and make them see things the right way...*my* way." I don't think he can comprehend people who have no need to do that. And again, this is a classic symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. > > And this is the pattern with Robin. A pattern of bringing > > to most every discussion a template which attempts to > > discern if one is acting from a level of truth which is > > aligned with reality, or with ones' first person ontology. Yet another classic symptom of NPD. Robin's definition of "truth" seems to be "How I see things." > > I mean who communicates like this? Does this seem normal? Does it even seem SANE? > > And does this not resemble the little we know about the WTS? It's *exactly* the same act. > > According to at least three people who were there, Bill, > > Brahmi, and LK, it does resemble that time. > > In his *writing* alone and not necessarily in his *actions*. I hope that I've made this point sufficiently. We do NOT have only his writing with which to judge Robin. We have the ways that he *treats* people, and the ways that he makes *demands* of them. These are all actions. > Wouldn't it be interesting to hear from someone who has > actually been around him for a period of time over the > last couple of years who could really *see* who he is > today? Only if one is interested in Robin to start with. :-) > (I'm beginning to understand the aphorism "actions speak > louder than words".) There is no doubt that he is one of > the more "colorful" characters that I've come across in > my life... Here is where my experience dancing around the spiritual smorgasbord may give me a different perspective. I find Robin Carlsen one of the most ORDINARY people I've ever run across. I've seen cookie-cutter copies of him in half a dozen other spiritual movements. And ANY of the other cookies were more interesting. For one thing, most of them were capable of coming up with their *own ideas*. > ...and I might enjoy sitting down with him more as a > "person of interest" but I think I would not want to > sit down with him regularly. But then again, I try to > keep an open mind about such things. I'd certainly have a beer with the guy, but I wouldn't turn my back on him. > > But evidently Raunchy doesn't see it that way. Nor Judy > > or Ravi I assume. Duh. Robin's act is *their* act. Like attracts like. > I'm beginning to understand where they're coming from. It's > in defense of someone who is being unfairly judged but what > he *writes* alone and not necessarily his *actions* in real > life. I disagree. They like Robin because he's better at being an abuser than they are, and they're gone enough to actually respect that and want to be around it. > > But inspite of this, Robin says he is reformed. That he > > has spent 25 years reforming himself. This is one reason that I have posted some of the things I have about NPD. The condition is rarely successfully treated by professionals, and almost *never* successfully self-treated. > > ...but all we have to go, is his word, because > > his actions don't indicate this, at least to me. Absolutely. > "... but all we have to go (on), is his word..." That > exactly right, his *word* (i.e. his writing). I hope I've made the point that we have a great deal more than that to "go on." We have the demands that he has consistently made on others, the abuse he's heaped upon them when they failed to react the way he wanted them to, and the hissy fits he's thrown when someone says something that *really* pushes one of his hot buttons. I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone could have witnessed these things and not considered them "actions." > "...his actions don't indicate this..." What actions? We > can't see his *actions* unless we're in his presence for > a significant period of time. Nonsense. We see them in the *intent* that lies beneath every post, and the *demands* these posts make of others. > I was hung up on the same thing until someone pointed out > to me that writing style can remain the same even though > a person may be different inside. I, for one, am willing > to give him the benefit of a doubt until he proves > otherwise (i.e. does some *actions* that would impact > me in a negative way). And you are free to do just that. Unlike some on this forum, I'm not trying to convince you (or anyone) that there is one and only one "right" way to view Robin. I'm just presenting the way *I* see him. For me, he has *never* acted in such a way that urges me to give him the benefit of a doubt in terms of "having changed." > > Perhaps he is the cult leader version of a dry drunk. Best line of the whole discussion. :-) > > He still demonstrates some of the behaviors of a cult leader, > > but at his core, he is not. My OPINION is that he still demonstrates not some but *many* of the behaviors of a cult leader, because at his core, he still is one. Nothing has changed. > > But like I said, I like him quite a lot, and I enjoy his > > participation here. > > > > That's my take And now you have mine...
