---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote:
Judy, if Robin thinks that his experience of union with God was a delusion,
then there is no validity to his saying that enlightenment defined as union
with God is wrong because he did not have it! How could he know if it is right
or wrong?
Share, it would be best, if you really are interested in any of this, to go
back and re-read what Robin himself actually wrote, God knows he said a lot in
his time at FFL so you won't lack for reading material. Instead of using Judy
as the "translator" look it up for yourself. That way you can decide on your
own how you feel about what he said and you can take your time with it if you
really want to.
On another note, do you watch the Olympics and if so do you prefer the summer
or winter version? What is your favorite winter sport event to watch? Favorite
summer event? Strangely, I don't watch much TV let alone sports events but I do
really enjoy the Olympics and also Wimbledon.
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote:
We've had this discussion before, Share. Yes, it's inaccurate. Search your
memory. And my beliefs, such as they may be, have nothing whatsoever to do with
this discussion, so just drop that angle of attack, please.
<< Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the
person with whom I'm having the discussion! And I've gotten the impression that
you're a devout Christian. Is that inaccurate?
<< What does it mean that Robin said his union with God was a delusion? >>
He said his experience of union with God was a delusion.
<< Is this where the evil forces come in? >>
I don't know what "come in" means in this context.
<< My point is that Eastern traditions define enlightenment as union with God.
But if Robin wasn't really united with God, then how can he validly comment on
enlightenment?! >>
Share, you're not making any sense at all. I can't respond to questions that
are incoherent.
I suggest you drop out of this discussion altogether. It's way over your head.
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
wrote:
Yes, that's what it means. Me, I haven't a clue. (What do my beliefs have to
do with this?) Yes, Robin's experience was of union with God. He believes it
was a delusion.
<< Judy, does ontological union mean: due to their respective natures, there
can be no union between God and human? And do you also believe that there can
be no ontological union between God and human?
Another question: was Robin saying that he experienced union with God? >>
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:32 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
wrote:
Let me put it this way: He believes all forms of enlightenment, etc., that
entail the experience of union with God are delusionary. His viewpoint is
strictly Judeo-Christian in that regard: God is wholly, immutably Other; there
can be no ontological union between human beings and God.
<< Judy, do you think Robin thinks ALL forms of realization, awakening,
enlightenment, etc. in ALL traditions are a delusion? >>
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:28 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
wrote:
Absolutely correct. He was insistent that enlightenment is a real state of
consciousness, and that he was in this state for 10-plus years. What he says he
came to realize is that the state itself is delusional--the experience of being
one with God, the identification with Self rather than self, and so on,
everything Maharishi describes, is a trick, a seduction engineered by dark
forces that do not have the welfare of human beings at heart. It's all very
real--including the special powers, the mastery of nature--but it leads away
from God.
And that, of course, is why he spent 25 years attempting--apparently
successfully--to break the unholy spell and pull himself out of that state back
into ordinary consciousness.
He made these points over and over in his posts. How anyone could read those
posts and come away with the notion that he was saying he was deluded to think
he was enlightened is just beyond me. People understand what they want to
understand, I guess.
Whether one finds Robin's analysis convincing or not, it's what he believed on
the basis of extraordinarily painful experience, and should not be
misrepresented or denigrated.
<< Judy, Robin himself called his alleged enlightenment a delusion. So I think
it's inaccurate to use the phrase "enlightened days."
Here is the important point Share: Robin believes "true enlightenment" to be a
delusion, an illusion. It is not that he is saying he wasn't enlightened in the
sense that MMY or others who understand the kind of enlightenment the East
embraces, it is that that state is a delusional state. Here is the crux: it is
not that he believes himself to have been delusional to think he was
enlightened, he would still maintain that he was enlightened, it is just that
enlightenment is not something he feels is a positive state to be in. >>
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. >> >>