No, that is most definitely not what I told Seraphita. I told her my family heritage was Presbyterian but that I did not have a religious upbringing. I also told her I was not a believer. So I'm wondering where you got the impression that I was a "devout Christian."
I remember another time when you thought I was a "conservative Catholic" because you had misread something someone else had said. I read Howatch's novels because my sister recommended them as good reads, not because of any religious affinity. And in any case, one more time, my beliefs have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO, as Ann has explained to you so clearly, with this discussion about Robin. I know you were hoping to somehow use my religious beliefs in your continuing attempts to denigrate Robin, but you won't be doing that, sorry to disappoint. << Ann, actually I think this is where you and Judy go off track! Judy once told Seraph that she was raised Presbyterian. Judy has mentioned reading the ecclesiastical novels of Susan Howatch. In light of the current topic of God human union, I wanted to know what Judy thought as well as what she thought Robin thought. >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:33 PM, "awoelflebater@..." <awoelflebater@...> wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: Judy, what your beliefs have to do with this discussion is that you're the person with whom I'm having the discussion! Here is where Barry and you go off track. Just because Judy is trying to explain how ROBIN felt and what he believes it doesn't have anything necessarily to do with what Judy personally feels about all of this. All she is doing is defining and trying to clarify Robin's position and beliefs because she actually understands them well. But don't confuse her beliefs with his or assume because she happens to understand what he was saying all those months that he posted here that she agrees with any, some or all of it. She is merely "translating". 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? Is this where the evil forces come in? 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?! 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. >> >>
