Can you just imagine how horrified Barry's bosses on this new job in Paris are going to be when they realize how his mind has deteriorated?
I mean, he's always suffered from the delusion of thinking he can understand something someone has written without actually reading it; and he's always had the problem of not being able to tell the difference between a discussion about (a) *what* someone said and (b) a discussion about whether what someone said is *true*. Pretty elementary, but he just doesn't get it. Now, however, he's into inventing biographical details that are hilariously factually inaccurate, mocking what he's invented thinking it's real, and convincing himself he's really devastated his target. (All this while the actual details are right there in the person's posts for everybody to read.) As Sal Sunshine would say, it would be sad if it weren't so funny. Navashok, be prepared, Barry's going to need some of your expert fluffing toot sweet. And it looks like you'll have to accompany him to Paris, so get your bags packed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Internet argument poker: "I'll see your supposed expert > (Maharishi) and raise you two Robin posts. Now go do your > remedial reading of the Robinsez Sutras so that you're > worthy of arguing with me about a subject that neither > of us has any personal experience with or knowledge of." :-) > > I don't know about anyone else, but the very concept of > someone quoting Robin Carlsen as a credible source about > ANYTHING just made my morning, and started it off with a > hearty laugh. Invoking "Robinsez" is even more hilarious > than invoking "Maharishisez." > > Here's my whole take on the Robin Thang. He had some minor > experience on a course that, given the size of his ego and > the demands of his NPD, he felt compelled to turn into a > MAJOR experience. He had no earthly idea what the experiences > he was having *were*, but knew that 1) he had to interpret > them as the topmost, #1, Highest Possible Experience in the > TM world, and 2) it had to be higher than the experiences > claimed by his wife at the time (mere CC), so he settled on > Unity. If Maharishi had been talking about Brahman Conscious- > ness then, he would have called what he was experiencing BC. > > End of story. The fact that anyone actually *believes* any > of his posturing about what he experienced blows my mind and > makes me roll my eyes, probably the same reaction Maharishi > had when Robin tried to run the same number on him. He > probably told Robin, "Something good is happening," and Robin > then went forth throughout the land proclaiming, "Maharishi > confirmed I'm in Unity." And the saddest part? People in and > around the TM movement actually believed it, and some believe > it even now. [insert eyeroll here] > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > Lawson, before we continue, please reread Robin's posts > > to you (both on this page): > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 > > > > We're talking at cross-purposes because you didn't read > > or don't remember what he wrote. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I neve said anything at all EVER about performing siddhis in > > > > > response to a skeptical demand (unless you mean one's own > > > > > internal skepticism). > > > > > > > > Either would be problematic according to Robin's experience > > > > and understanding. > > > > > > > > > What I said was: > > > > > > > > > > My own corollary is that if you have been practicing TM and > > > > > the TM-Sidhis program regularly every day and start to believe > > > > > that you are in Unity, you can consult your own personal > > > > > history with the TM-Sidhis to falsify your own beliefs: if > > > > > you haven't been floating regularly during Yogic Flying, you > > > > > certainly haven't suddenly attained "full enlightenment." > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you keep missing this is very interesting. > > > > > > > > I haven't missed it, Lawson. You haven't understood what > > > > Robin wrote about it. > > > > > > > > > Robin never learned the TM-Sidhis, and therefore presumably > > > > > never practiced them, so it doesn't apply to him, unless he > > > > > had some concern that perhaps his experience of Unity was > > > > > incomplete and wanted to test it by learning them for that > > > > > purpose. > > > > > > > > He didn't have any such concern. > > > > > > > > > Ironically, Robin has indicated that he has had EXTREME > > > > > skepticism concerning Unity his own, or anyone else's, and > > > > > that skepticism appears to center around Unity being a real > > > > > perception, rather than merely some kind of hallucination. > > > > > > > > Lawson, he's very clear about what he thinks is the nature > > > > of Unity consciousness ("skepticism" isn't the right term; > > > > he's quite convinced). I don't know what you have in mind > > > > by "centers around." He believes Unity is a *real state* > > > > but that it does not reflect Ultimate Reality; the conviction > > > > one has in Unity that the state *does* reflect Ultimate > > > > Reality is the "hallucination," according to Robin, a cosmic > > > > delusion, a deception. The state itself is real, the loss of > > > > individual will is real, etc., etc. > > > > > > But is it really real, or is it merely a mere change of perception? Unity > > > is said to be such that, unlike other states of consciousness, one CAN > > > affect external reality because external and internal really ARE the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By most people's definition of real vs hallucination, testing > > > > > his own ability to perform the siddhis would have laid that > > > > > skepticism to rest -if the universe does what he wants, one > > > > > might have some inkling that the universe and he really ARE > > > > > one at some level, but he was never inclined to do this > > > > > > > > You have not understood what he told you, Lawson. First of > > > > all, again, he was never and is not now skeptical that he > > > > was in Unity. > > > > > > He was and IS skeptical about the nature of Unity. MMY was pointing out > > > that one has a way of testing whether or not what one is "in" is "really" > > > the "real" Unity. His skepticism concerns whether or not Unity is real, > > > period. MMY's test was to show whether or not the Unity is really real > > > thing. Robin has never conducted that test. The fact that he never > > > believed there was a need is immaterial to my point: Robin has had a way > > > to prove or disprove whether or not his Unity is the real deal and he > > > hasn't availed himself. > > > > > > > > > > > Second, if one is in Unity, one does what the universe > > > > wants, not the reverse. That's why it made no sense, > > > > according to Robin, for Maharishi to suggest that the > > > > ability to levitate is a "test" of whether one is in > > > > Unity. > > > > > > I side-stepped Robin's objection quite nicely by pointing out that one > > > could trace their own historical growth towards really real Unity by > > > whether or not they had floated at some point during their practice of > > > the TM-Sidhis. This last test doesn't apply specifically to Robin because > > > he never learned the TM-Sidhis, or if he did, even second-hand, he won't > > > report whether or not he ever floated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > despite MMY's own statements concerning this topic that > > > > > appear to have been directed directly at Robin. > > > > > > > > I have no idea why you imagine they were directed at Robin. > > > > > > What I heard was that MMY said "this will test certain people's > > > assumptions about whether or not they are enlightened." Sounds like a > > > reference to Robin, to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin's own explanation that Unity means that he only does > > > > > what the universe wants him to is somewhat tautological: if > > > > > he is skeptical that the state really IS real, he has had, > > > > > according to MMY, the means to validate/invalidate his > > > > > skepticism but from what he says, the universe apparently > > > > > didn't want him to make up his mind and instead obsess over > > > > > it for the past quarter century. > > > > > > > > This is so tangled in confusion I don't know where to start. > > > > > > > > Robin was never and is not now skeptical that he was in > > > > Unity consciousness. There was and is no doubt in his mind. > > > > What he "obsessed about" for a time was whether (as noted) > > > > Unity was a state that represented "a perfect correspondence > > > > with reality," as he put it in that and other posts. > > > > > > > > > > That is what I meant by "really real." He was and is concerned that Unity > > > isn't really real: it doesn't have a perfect correspondence with reality. > > > > > > > Once he had decided that it did not, he began the process > > > > of "de-enlightening" himself. That's what took a quarter > > > > of a century. > > > > > > > > > > Funny that he has been able to choose to begin the process to > > > de-enlighten himself but was never able to choose to test his own > > > enlightenment via MMY's test of full performance of the TM-Sidhis. > > > Apparently he, and you, believe that the universe wanted him to > > > de-enlighten himself. > > > > > > The obvious alternative, that he was never fully enlightened, just can't > > > sink in. > > > > > > Mind you, I am not asserting anything about whether or not floating is > > > possible, only that Robin has had a test available for 25 years that he > > > never used, that could, at least according to Robin's teacher, have > > > resolved Robin's concerns, either way. > > > > > > Again: he never used the test. It is curious that he presents the > > > argument that the universe never wanted him to use the test, but that > > > eventually he (or the universe) apparently eventually *decided* that he > > > should work to de-enlighten himself from something he had never fully > > > tested in the first place, because he was convinced that the state wasn't > > > really real, but just a deception/hallucination. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obviously I can't vouch for any of this. (And we don't > > > > even know exactly what Maharishi said; it might make a > > > > significant difference if we did.) But I would suggest > > > > you go back and read Robin's post (two of them, actually, > > > > on this page) and see if you can straighten out your > > > > confusion about what he's said: > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/312523 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You still haven't understood what I have said, even now I am guessing. > > > > > > > > > L > > > > > >
