Judy and Ann, ok, let me try this and tell me if my logic is off and if so, where it is off: Robin said he was enlightened. Robin also said that enlightenment is a delusion. Therefore Robin was saying that he was actually deluded rather than enlightened.
I also want to add that I recognize that I'm triggered by all this. I mean, why should Robin get to be special by being enlightened? And then be even more special by getting rid of his enlightenment?! How special does one person have to be?! On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:52 AM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote: You misunderstood him, Share (even as many times as he explained it). He called enlightenment per se a delusion--his, Maharishi's, anybody's. He did not say he was deluded to believe he was enlightened. OK, just read this now after posting my own description for Share. You managed to state it far more simply and elegantly than I did. I probably just made it sound confusing... << Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think it's inaccurate to use the phrase "enlightened days." >> On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:04 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days anyway. << What's "NPS," and how were you in a position to think Robin had it, whatever it is? << As for Robin, yes I found him extraordinary in many ways. Whether he had classic NPS, I couldn't say, but it sure seemed that way to me much of the time. But then again, it doesn't register with me much if a person is said to be enlightened or not. >> >>
