[FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam

[salyavin808]

 It wouldn't surprise me, they were pretty good at manipulating the facts to 
suit the moment. I remember a Reuters article which was taken up by the BBC on 
how the raam should be avoided by investors as it is a totally unsupported 
currency and only accepted in exchange for lentils at TM centres.
 

 The press officer edited the Reuters release so it looked like the financial 
world was hailing the raam as the greatest thing ever and put the story in the 
UK's TM News magazine. I was shocked at how easily peoples quotes were 
manipulated and told him that the BBC would sue us out of existence if they 
found out but only a few people read it anyway so it doesn't really matter. I 
stopped believing TMO quotes by supposedly disinterested third parties. 
 

 The whole redevelopment thing was rubbish anyway, printing money to give 
people doesn't work as it has to be exchanged for something real at some point.
 

 I did have a 10 raam note though but the wife threw it away because she 
thought it wasn't real money!
 

  I stopped believing TMO quotes by supposedly disinterested third parties 
after that. I had a list of quotes by scientists in my office that I was to use 
on press releases to give them a bit of weight. Would love to have that list 
and recheck it and the original sources.
 

 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I seem to recall that when Marshy and Company first rolled out the raam and 
they were trying to get people to buy it, some minister of the global whatever 
claimed that they had a bunch of gold to back it up, and when they were 
questioned on that they admitted that was not so, but then claimed India was 
backing the raam with its gold which turned out not to be true either. 
 
 Am I remembering correctly, or was that an opium dream I had?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[TurquoiseB]

There is no reason that anyone should be surprised about this. The WHOLE
THING -- meaning "Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment
-- has been a con since Day One. The only reason it "works" is that
people who bought into it early are so ashamed to admit that they were
conned that they keep perpetuating their belief, and thus the whole
stack of cards.

If I'm wrong about this, please show me one -- count them, one -- press
statement or announcement from the TMO saying, "This (insert photo and
name of shill here) is a fully enlightened being, and he got that way by
practicing the TM and/or TM-Sidhi programs."

It's never happened, and it never will. The same way that they'll never
"achieve the numbers" to "prove" the ME. For the believers, it's the
eternal carrot on a string, pursued by the faithful, who are more
committed to the "will to believe" than the "wish to find out." For the
onlookers, there's not even a carrot. It's the promise of a carrot, and
from their point of view the True Believers are furiously chasing a
stick with a string tied to it, and nothing at the end of the string.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808  wrote:
>
>  It wouldn't surprise me, they were pretty good at manipulating the
facts to suit the moment. I remember a Reuters article which was taken
up by the BBC on how the raam should be avoided by investors as it is a
totally unsupported currency and only accepted in exchange for lentils
at TM centres.
>
>  The press officer edited the Reuters release so it looked like the
financial world was hailing the raam as the greatest thing ever and put
the story in the UK's TM News magazine. I was shocked at how easily
peoples quotes were manipulated and told him that the BBC would sue us
out of existence if they found out but only a few people read it anyway
so it doesn't really matter. I stopped believing TMO quotes by
supposedly disinterested third parties.
>
>  The whole redevelopment thing was rubbish anyway, printing money to
give people doesn't work as it has to be exchanged for something real at
some point.
>
>  I did have a 10 raam note though but the wife threw it away because
she thought it wasn't real money!
>
>   I stopped believing TMO quotes by supposedly disinterested third
parties after that. I had a list of quotes by scientists in my office
that I was to use on press releases to give them a bit of weight. Would
love to have that list and recheck it and the original sources.
>
>
>
> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@ wrote:
>
>  I seem to recall that when Marshy and Company first rolled out the
raam and they were trying to get people to buy it, some minister of the
global whatever claimed that they had a bunch of gold to back it up, and
when they were questioned on that they admitted that was not so, but
then claimed India was backing the raam with its gold which turned out
not to be true either.
>
>  Am I remembering correctly, or was that an opium dream I had?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Oh, such an announcement would prove that TM works beyond any shadow of a 
doubt. ;-)
 

 There is no reason that anyone should be surprised about this. The WHOLE THING 
-- meaning "Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment -- has been 
a con since Day One. The only reason it "works" is that people who bought into 
it early are so ashamed to admit that they were conned that they keep 
perpetuating their belief, and thus the whole stack of cards.
 
If I'm wrong about this, please show me one -- count them, one -- press 
statement or announcement from the TMO saying, "This (insert photo and name of 
shill here) is a fully enlightened being, and he got that way by practicing the 
TM and/or TM-Sidhi programs." 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 There is no reason that anyone should be surprised about this. The WHOLE THING 
-- meaning "Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment -- has been 
a con since Day One. The only reason it "works" is that people who bought into 
it early are so ashamed to admit that they were conned that they keep 
perpetuating their belief, and thus the whole stack of cards. 

If I'm wrong about this, please show me one -- count them, one -- press 
statement or announcement from the TMO saying, "This (insert photo and name of 
shill here) is a fully enlightened being, and he got that way by practicing the 
TM and/or TM-Sidhi programs." 

It's never happened, and it never will. The same way that they'll never 
"achieve the numbers" to "prove" the ME. For the believers, it's the eternal 
carrot on a string, pursued by the faithful, who are more committed to the 
"will to believe" than the "wish to find out." For the onlookers, there's not 
even a carrot. It's the promise of a carrot, and from their point of view the 
True Believers are furiously chasing a stick with a string tied to it, and 
nothing at the end of the string.
 

 And who exactly are you preaching to here, Bawwy? What do you think you have 
written here, for the umpteenth time, that "the choir" doesn't already know? 
What have you written that you haven't said, in one form or another, a 
gazillion times? Who, in particular, are you trying to offend now, the "eminent 
scholars" (we know you love the idea of celebrity and fame surrounding your 
sorry ass)? If I'm gonna take the time to read some of your dreck here then do 
try and say something new, won't you, pretty please? BTW, I haven't had any 
dreams of you lately, what gives?

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
>
> It wouldn't surprise me, they were pretty good at manipulating the facts to 
> suit the moment. I remember a Reuters article which was taken up by the BBC 
> on how the raam should be avoided by investors as it is a totally unsupported 
> currency and only accepted in exchange for lentils at TM centres. 
> 
> The press officer edited the Reuters release so it looked like the financial 
> world was hailing the raam as the greatest thing ever and put the story in 
> the UK's TM News magazine. I was shocked at how easily peoples quotes were 
> manipulated and told him that the BBC would sue us out of existence if they 
> found out but only a few people read it anyway so it doesn't really matter. I 
> stopped believing TMO quotes by supposedly disinterested third parties. 
> 
> The whole redevelopment thing was rubbish anyway, printing money to give 
> people doesn't work as it has to be exchanged for something real at some 
> point. 
> 
> I did have a 10 raam note though but the wife threw it away because she 
> thought it wasn't real money! 
> 
> I stopped believing TMO quotes by supposedly disinterested third parties 
> after that. I had a list of quotes by scientists in my office that I was to 
> use on press releases to give them a bit of weight. Would love to have that 
> list and recheck it and the original sources. 
> 
> 
> 
> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@ wrote: 
> 
> I seem to recall that when Marshy and Company first rolled out the raam and 
> they were trying to get people to buy it, some minister of the global 
> whatever claimed that they had a bunch of gold to back it up, and when they 
> were questioned on that they admitted that was not so, but then claimed India 
> was backing the raam with its gold which turned out not to be true either. 
> 
> Am I remembering correctly, or was that an opium dream I had?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

1. Nobody went "batshit crazy" or had their buttons pushed by Barry's posts 
this morning. A couple of us did snicker at him, though. That must be what has 
his panties in a twist.
 2. Only four people (counting Nabby, just now) commented on his posts, not 
five.
 3. There were only seven posts commenting, not 15.
 

 Somebody must be hallucinating again. Go figure.
 

 All that Barry did is make three posts this morning expressing his OPINION. He 
didn't write them to -- or about -- anyone in particular here, he just wrote 
what was on his mind. Above all, he didn't even *mention* any of the five 
people who have gone batshit crazy over these posts, getting their buttons 
pushed and making 15 posts in response to something that was never about them 
in the first place. Somebody must feel threatened. Go figure.  
 
"Hey, doofus, nobody was talking to you. End of story."
- Judy Stein, 13 October 2013

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[nablusoss1008]

His mission in life is that even if one - 1 - person stops TM because of his 
neverending smearcampaign against the only Yogi he ever met (however briefly) - 
then he will feel successful. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Now, wait.  This sort of sounds like a set up.  I say this because you have 
always been a proponent of the "these (supposed) states of consciousness are 
all subjective and can't be proven".  So, why would such a declaration be 
important to you?
 

 I mean, it seems to me, you could immediately jump to the other side, and 
declare how useless it is to make such a declaration.
 

 What am I missing? 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 There is no reason that anyone should be surprised about this. The WHOLE THING 
-- meaning "Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment -- has been 
a con since Day One. The only reason it "works" is that people who bought into 
it early are so ashamed to admit that they were conned that they keep 
perpetuating their belief, and thus the whole stack of cards. 

If I'm wrong about this, please show me one -- count them, one -- press 
statement or announcement from the TMO saying, "This (insert photo and name of 
shill here) is a fully enlightened being, and he got that way by practicing the 
TM and/or TM-Sidhi programs." 

It's never happened, and it never will. The same way that they'll never 
"achieve the numbers" to "prove" the ME. For the believers, it's the eternal 
carrot on a string, pursued by the faithful, who are more committed to the 
"will to believe" than the "wish to find out." For the onlookers, there's not 
even a carrot. It's the promise of a carrot, and from their point of view the 
True Believers are furiously chasing a stick with a string tied to it, and 
nothing at the end of the string.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
>
> It wouldn't surprise me, they were pretty good at manipulating the facts to 
> suit the moment. I remember a Reuters article which was taken up by the BBC 
> on how the raam should be avoided by investors as it is a totally unsupported 
> currency and only accepted in exchange for lentils at TM centres. 
> 
> The press officer edited the Reuters release so it looked like the financial 
> world was hailing the raam as the greatest thing ever and put the story in 
> the UK's TM News magazine. I was shocked at how easily peoples quotes were 
> manipulated and told him that the BBC would sue us out of existence if they 
> found out but only a few people read it anyway so it doesn't really matter. I 
> stopped believing TMO quotes by supposedly disinterested third parties. 
> 
> The whole redevelopment thing was rubbish anyway, printing money to give 
> people doesn't work as it has to be exchanged for something real at some 
> point. 
> 
> I did have a 10 raam note though but the wife threw it away because she 
> thought it wasn't real money! 
> 
> I stopped believing TMO quotes by supposedly disinterested third parties 
> after that. I had a list of quotes by scientists in my office that I was to 
> use on press releases to give them a bit of weight. Would love to have that 
> list and recheck it and the original sources. 
> 
> 
> 
> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mjackson74@ wrote: 
> 
> I seem to recall that when Marshy and Company first rolled out the raam and 
> they were trying to get people to buy it, some minister of the global 
> whatever claimed that they had a bunch of gold to back it up, and when they 
> were questioned on that they admitted that was not so, but then claimed India 
> was backing the raam with its gold which turned out not to be true either. 
> 
> Am I remembering correctly, or was that an opium dream I had?
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nabnuts1008  wrote:
>
> His mission in life is that even if one - 1 - person stops TM because
of his neverending smearcampaign against the only Yogi he ever met
(however briefly) - then he will feel successful.

All that Barry did is make three posts this morning expressing his
OPINION. He didn't write them to -- or about -- anyone in particular
here, he just wrote what was on his mind. Above all, he didn't even
*mention* any of the five people who have gone batshit crazy over these
posts, getting their buttons pushed and making 15 posts in response to
something that was never about them in the first place. Somebody must
feel threatened. Go figure.

"Hey, doofus, nobody was talking to you. End of story."
- Judy Stein, 13 October 2013

:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 It is good for me to remember that Bawwy neither edits, re-reads or evaluates 
his posts - he has said so. This could partly explain why we get this 
regurgitated pablum at frequent intervals. It is all about domination, 
actually. He's the guy in the big Cadillac swerving across two lanes of traffic 
without looking, you know the one.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Barry's memory has always been poor, and he's always recycled his posts, but 
really, the repetition has been getting worse and worse recently.
 

 There is no reason that anyone should be surprised about this. The WHOLE THING 
-- meaning "Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment -- has been 
a con since Day One...[blah blah blah blahdeblah]
 

 And who exactly are you preaching to here, Bawwy? What do you think you have 
written here, for the umpteenth time, that "the choir" doesn't already know? 
What have you written that you haven't said, in one form or another, a 
gazillion times? Who, in particular, are you trying to offend now, the "eminent 
scholars" (we know you love the idea of celebrity and fame surrounding your 
sorry ass)? If I'm gonna take the time to read some of your dreck here then do 
try and say something new, won't you, pretty please? BTW, I haven't had any 
dreams of you lately, what gives?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Barry's memory has always been poor, and he's always recycled his posts, but 
really, the repetition has been getting worse and worse recently.
 

 There is no reason that anyone should be surprised about this. The WHOLE THING 
-- meaning "Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment -- has been 
a con since Day One...[blah blah blah blahdeblah]
 

 And who exactly are you preaching to here, Bawwy? What do you think you have 
written here, for the umpteenth time, that "the choir" doesn't already know? 
What have you written that you haven't said, in one form or another, a 
gazillion times? Who, in particular, are you trying to offend now, the "eminent 
scholars" (we know you love the idea of celebrity and fame surrounding your 
sorry ass)? If I'm gonna take the time to read some of your dreck here then do 
try and say something new, won't you, pretty please? BTW, I haven't had any 
dreams of you lately, what gives?
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> Now, wait.  This sort of sounds like a set up.  I say this because you
have always been a proponent of the "these (supposed) states of
consciousness are all subjective and can't be proven".  So, why would
such a declaration be important to you?

It wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd think it might
be important to Maharishi (who sold this supposed state of consciousness
for close to 50 years) to be able to point to even one of his students
who embodied it. After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think
that the sales pitch was a pile of crap.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

And if he did, people like Barry would be quick to point out that it didn't 
mean a thing and was just part of the scam, as Stevie says  (And heaven help 
the poor person who was said to "embody" enlightenment.)
 

 Barry's smart enough to know what a joke his demand is, but he thinks we're 
too stupid to realize it..
 

 > Now, wait. This sort of sounds like a set up. I say this because you have 
 > always been a proponent of the "these (supposed) states of consciousness are 
 > all subjective and can't be proven". So, why would such a declaration be 
 > important to you?
 

 It wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd think it might be 
important to Maharishi (who sold this supposed state of consciousness for close 
to 50 years) to be able to point to even one of his students who embodied it. 
After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think that the sales pitch was a 
pile of crap. 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Speaking for myself, I never felt I was guaranteed enlightenment.  Yea, I know 
all about cc in 5 - 7 years, but I never put much stock in that,nor did I know 
others who did.  
 

 Perhaps that was the extent of the misrepresentation, it you're looking for a 
"smoking gun", at least as far as the "gaining enlightenment" part.
 

 Otherwise, I think people got involved either for a vision of possibilities, 
or because because they were looking for "something", and this seemed to offer 
some potential.
 

 But as for declaring such and such a person as "enlightened", that would 
appear to be pretty out of place in any tradition I'm familiar with. 
 

 Spiritual growth is a pretty personal matter, not something you're likely to 
crow about.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
 >
> Now, wait. This sort of sounds like a set up. I say this because you have 
> always been a proponent of the "these (supposed) states of consciousness are 
> all subjective and can't be proven". So, why would such a declaration be 
> important to you? 

 It wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd think it might be 
important to Maharishi (who sold this supposed state of consciousness for close 
to 50 years) to be able to point to even one of his students who embodied it. 
After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think that the sales pitch was a 
pile of crap. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Just a follow up.  So, since this declaration would not mean anything to you, I 
assume you are raising the issue for the benefit of others?   

 And yet as soon as the declaration was made, you would declare it as being 
invalid on account that it is referring to an entirely subjective, unverifiable 
state of awareness? 
 

 To me, there seems something out of kilter with this picture.
 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
 >
> Now, wait. This sort of sounds like a set up. I say this because you have 
> always been a proponent of the "these (supposed) states of consciousness are 
> all subjective and can't be proven". So, why would such a declaration be 
> important to you? 

 It wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd think it might be 
important to Maharishi (who sold this supposed state of consciousness for close 
to 50 years) to be able to point to even one of his students who embodied it. 
After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think that the sales pitch was a 
pile of crap. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson  wrote:
>
> M said Robin Carlsen and Andy Rhymer were enlightened.

Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that?
Robin's word is worth nothing, especially when Maharishi said otherwise
when Robin demanded a public statement. Don't know much about Andy
Rhymer.

We know he *hinted* at various people being enlightened, without really
saying so. I would stick such claims in the same category as MMY hinting
(and in fact stating, on tape) that King Tony was celibate and the
ultimate example of brahmacharya while knowing that he had a secret wife
and family, and that he was lying to everyone about his supposed
celibacy every day.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[TurquoiseB]

> Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened
days anyway.

No one was. There *were* no "enlightened days." There was only
Narcissistic Personality Disorder acting itself out.

Or do you believe that he *was* enlightened? Please state your position
for the record. A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. Anything else will
be perceived as the evasion it is.

>  << 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. >> >>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Oh, that's rich, coming from FFL's inveterate liar.
 

 As far as I'm aware, no one here has any basis for thinking Robin was anything 
but completely honest in his posts.
 

 Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that? 
 

 Robin's word is worth nothing

 

 Why is it that the idea that Robin experienced a period of genuine 
enlightenment 30-some years ago so upsets Barry? Barry didn't know him then. 
None of us did, except Ann. Why does Barry care so desperately?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

As if you had the foggiest idea.
 

 Of course, "a simple yes or no" would be meaningless. I have no more basis for 
believing one or the other than you do.
 

 << > Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days 
anyway.
 

 No one was. There *were* no "enlightened days." There was only Narcissistic 
Personality Disorder acting itself out.
 

 Or do you believe that he *was* enlightened? Please state your position for 
the record. A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. Anything else will be 
perceived as the evasion it is. >>
 
 > << 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. >> >>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 > Oh, and of course you were never around Robin during his enlightened days 
 > anyway. 

 No one was. There *were* no "enlightened days." There was only Narcissistic 
Personality Disorder acting itself out. 
 

 Hee, hee, says Bawwy who was over on the other side of the border going gaga 
over Rama at this same time. Not only are you an "expert" on Robin but now 
you're that guy who was bewitched by a (supposedly) levitating drug addict. Now 
why don't you tell us, again, all about how you determine so precisely the 
state of everyone's consciousness, whether you ever set eyes on them or not. 
Snort.

Or do you believe that he *was* enlightened? Please state your position for the 
record. A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. Anything else will be perceived as 
the evasion it is. 
 

 I'll tell you what I think just because you like to read what I write so much, 
hang on every word and write posts especially for my benefit. I don't think 
there is such a thing as enlightenment, it doesn't exist. But I do believe in 
states of desperate ignorance.

 > << 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. >> >>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

I wonder how many more times Barry will need to get shot down in flames before 
it dawns on him that he appears a screeching, babbling idiot.
 

 No one was. There *were* no "enlightened days." There was only Narcissistic 
Personality Disorder acting itself out.
 

 Hee, hee, says Bawwy who was over on the other side of the border going gaga 
over Rama at this same time. Not only are you an "expert" on Robin but now 
you're that guy who was bewitched by a (supposedly) levitating drug addict. Now 
why don't you tell us, again, all about how you determine so precisely the 
state of everyone's consciousness, whether you ever set eyes on them or not. 
Snort.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  awoecultist wrote:
>
> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote:
>  >
>  > 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.

And on this forum, only two people believe him. Fascinating that they
turn out to be the two gullible women who became his cult followers. One
"signed on" to his delusions here, the other 30 years ago, and then
*again* here, which should tell you a little about *her* sanity.

As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone else considers him a nut
case. Some were entertained by his insanity and his ramblings and
considered him a harmless nutcase, and others felt differently. But only
two people seem to have taken him seriously. And they continue to
"defend" him to this day like the hard-core cultists they've become. Go
figure...

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I wonder how many more times Barry will need to get shot down in flames before 
it dawns on him that he appears a screeching, babbling idiot.
 

 Let's sincerely hope never. I speak only for myself but I find reading Bawwy 
to be one of the most hilarious parts of my day. Granted, he's an easy target 
and hitting a bullseye is not challenging with him but he is just so darn 
tempting to take aim at when he stumble bumbles around like he does. I am going 
to go say a few Hail Marys though, because I am a bad, bad girl (perhaps even a 
mean girl) for giving into temptation when it comes to wanting to wallop him.
 

 No one was. There *were* no "enlightened days." There was only Narcissistic 
Personality Disorder acting itself out.
 

 Hee, hee, says Bawwy who was over on the other side of the border going gaga 
over Rama at this same time. Not only are you an "expert" on Robin but now 
you're that guy who was bewitched by a (supposedly) levitating drug addict. Now 
why don't you tell us, again, all about how you determine so precisely the 
state of everyone's consciousness, whether you ever set eyes on them or not. 
Snort.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoecultist wrote:
 >
> ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@ wrote: 
> > 
> > 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. 

 And on this forum, only two people believe him. Fascinating that they turn out 
to be the two gullible women who became his cult followers. One "signed on" to 
his delusions here, the other 30 years ago, and then *again* here, which should 
tell you a little about *her* sanity. 

As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone else considers him a nut case. Some 
were entertained by his insanity and his ramblings and considered him a 
harmless nutcase, and others felt differently. But only two people seem to have 
taken him seriously. And they continue to "defend" him to this day like the 
hard-core cultists they've become. Go figure...
 

 Hey dumbo, since you don't seem to have any reading comprehension I'll say it 
one more time, just for you: I don't think there is any such thing as 
enlightenment. Is Robin a "nutcase"? I have no idea, he certainly acted like 
one at times 30 years ago. Are you a nutcase? I have no idea but you certainly 
act like one all the time currently.
 
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Again we see Barry's perennial confusion between "So-and-so said" and "What 
So-and-so said is true." No matter how many times it's explained to him, he 
simply cannot grasp the distinction, so he makes the same stpid mistake 
over and over.
 

 I believe Robin was sincere in what he said. I haven't any more of clue than 
Barry does, however--as I said earlier today--whether any of it was "true" in 
any real-world sense.
 
 << And on this forum, only two people believe him. Fascinating that they turn 
out to be the two gullible women who became his cult followers. One "signed on" 
to his delusions here, the other 30 years ago, and then *again* here, which 
should tell you a little about *her* sanity.
 
As far as I can tell, pretty much everyone else considers him a nut case. >>
 

 As with so many of Barry's pronouncements, the degree to which he "can tell" 
is exceedingly limited to nonexistent, especially with regard to someone by 
whom he is desperately, pee-in-his-pants threatened. What's truly pathetic is 
that Barry's terror increases the longer Robin is gone from FFL. The more he 
broods, the worse it gets, and the more of a fool he makes of himself trying to 
cut his fantasy monster-Robin down to something he can deal with.
 

 Oh, by the way, Barry, there was no "cult" to be a follower of on FFL. That's 
just part of your fantasy.
 

 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> I am not familiar enough with providers to know if you are able or not
able to access that global.net address.  But evidently Ann uses it, so
perhaps it is more accessible than you think.  Don't know.

I did a test today, logging in from multiple computers served by
multiple Internet services, and the results were consistent. Using one
sequence, if I logged in from either Chrome or Firefox to FFL, I got
Neo. Using another sequence, I got the old classic interface, including
the old Search utilities.

I'm not going to tell Judy what the sequence was because I like to see
her sputter and fume because she can't stalk people using the Yahoo
Search engine.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Translation: Barry knows there's no way I can access Classic.
 

 > I am not familiar enough with providers to know if you are able or not able 
 > to access that global.net address. But evidently Ann uses it, so perhaps it 
 > is more accessible than you think. Don't know.
 

 I did a test today, logging in from multiple computers served by multiple 
Internet services, and the results were consistent. Using one sequence, if I 
logged in from either Chrome or Firefox to FFL, I got Neo. Using another 
sequence, I got the old classic interface, including the old Search utilities. 
 
I'm not going to tell Judy what the sequence was because I like to see her 
sputter and fume because she can't stalk people using the Yahoo Search engine.  
:-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[bhairitu]

Is this the message you were looking for?  If so they may be a little 
confused over AT&T wanting to allow users to continue using "Classic 
Mail."  IOW, nothing to do with Groups.  BTW, to do a search AT&T  has
to be in quotes of the ampersand messes up the search.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/modsandmembers/message/9619



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
>
> Great. I'm really curious.
>
>
>  I don't normally read NBC.com, but I took a look after I saw some of
the complaints. It's worse than the Slate redesign, which up to now has
been the worst mess I've ever seen. Hard to believe anyone could look at
either of them and think, "Boy, this looks so snappy and inviting!" I
wouldn't even want to try to navigate NBC.com. And I thought the Salon
redesign a couple years ago was bad...
>
>
>  << I'll look but I had to go out for a business lunch that I just got
back from and didn't have much of a chance just to try more specific
searches on Google either. I tried one search that landed me in a post a
few month back.  I'll try it on my Windows machine which I just fired
up.
>
>  Have you looked at nbc.com?  It's now worse than NEO. >>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

That's the one. Good work!
 

 Groups might be included in the contract with Yahoo, as well as Mail, even if 
AT&T didn't care much about Groups. At any rate, folks with AT&T addresses 
(SBCGlobal.net) do seem to still have Classic access.
 

 Yes, I did figure out quotes were required. But Neo search still didn't turn 
up this one.
 

 << Is this the message you were looking for?  If so they may be a little 
confused over AT&T wanting to allow users to continue using "Classic Mail."  
IOW, nothing to do with Groups.  BTW, to do a search AT&T has to be in quotes 
of the ampersand messes up the search. 
 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/modsandmembers/message/9619 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/modsandmembers/message/9619  >>
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam

[Richard J. Williams]

On 2/7/2014 1:15 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
>
> I did have a 10 raam note though but the wife threw it away because 
> she thought it wasn't real money!
 >
So, you're not in favor of alternate payment systems like Bitcoin's 
cryptocurrency? Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Richard J. Williams]

On 2/7/2014 1:35 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
*/"Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment -- has been 
a con since Day One./*

>
So, what happened to all the money? Maybe there should be an apology 
posted here by the TurquoiseB,  since he's one of the guys that sold us 
the snake-oil. Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 On 2/7/2014 1:35 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:

 "Maharishi's teaching" and the promise of enlightenment -- has been a con 
since Day One.   >
 So, what happened to all the money? Maybe there should be an apology posted 
here by the TurquoiseB,  since he's one of the guys that sold us the snake-oil. 
Go figure.
 
 I think Bawwy's been watching too many bad cop shows on his altar, the TV set.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam

[Bhairitu]

The TMO could only wish that they had thought up Bitcoin.  And I kick 
myself for ignoring it.


On 02/07/2014 06:25 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


On 2/7/2014 1:15 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
>
> I did have a 10 raam note though but the wife threw it away because
> she thought it wasn't real money!
>
So, you're not in favor of alternate payment systems like Bitcoin's
cryptocurrency? Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Richard J. Williams]

On 2/7/2014 1:35 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
*/The only reason it "works" is that people who bought into it early 
are so ashamed to admit that they were conned that they keep 
perpetuating their belief, and thus the whole stack of cards. /*

>
For most people, TM works as advertised.

So, as a spiritual teacher who "bought in to it early", you should be 
ashamed for trying to turn a simple relaxation technique into a 
religion, handing out all those flyers promising enlightenment in 5-7 
years and putting up all those posters promising instant enlightenment. 
And, and you keep perpetuating a belief system which is like a stack of 
cards? Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam

[Bhairitu]

I'm surprised the DOJ hasn't shut the Raam  down already.  They've been 
doing that with some other alternative coin and currency operations.


On 02/07/2014 10:01 AM, Michael Jackson wrote:


I found it in the Global Good News Archives - the TMO did officially 
claim the raam was gold backed at one point.


On Fri, 2/7/14, Bhairitu  wrote:

Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 5:52 PM





























The TMO could
only wish that they had
thought up Bitcoin.  And I kick myself for ignoring
it.



On 02/07/2014 06:25 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:





On 2/7/2014 1:15 AM, salyavin808 wrote:

>

> I did have a 10 raam note though but the
wife threw
it away because

> she thought it wasn't real money!

>

So, you're not in favor of alternate
payment systems like
Bitcoin's

cryptocurrency? Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam

[Richard J. Williams]

On 2/7/2014 11:52 AM, Bhairitu wrote:
> The TMO could only wish that they had thought up Bitcoin.  And I kick 
> myself for ignoring it. 
 >
We could both be internet billionaires by now! Go figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam

[Bhairitu]

I don't know about being a billionaire but I certainly could have paid 
off this house and then some with a modest investment.


On 02/07/2014 10:55 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:


On 2/7/2014 11:52 AM, Bhairitu wrote:
> The TMO could only wish that they had thought up Bitcoin. And I kick
> myself for ignoring it.
>
We could both be internet billionaires by now! Go figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam

[Michael Jackson]

I found it in the Global Good News Archives - the TMO did officially claim the 
raam was gold backed at one point. 

On Fri, 2/7/14, Bhairitu  wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 5:52 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
   
 The TMO could
 only wish that they had
   thought up Bitcoin.  And I kick myself for ignoring
 it.  
 
   
 
   On 02/07/2014 06:25 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote:
 
 
   
   
   
 On 2/7/2014 1:15 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
 
   >
 
   > I did have a 10 raam note though but the
 wife threw
   it away because 
 
   > she thought it wasn't real money!
 
   >
 
   So, you're not in favor of alternate
 payment systems like
   Bitcoin's 
 
   cryptocurrency? Go figure.
 
 
   
   
   
   
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Richard J. Williams]

On 2/7/2014 4:40 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote:


And yet as soon as the declaration was made, you would declare it as 
being invalid on account that it is referring to an entirely 
subjective, unverifiable state of awareness?

>
What's out of kilter is the  TirquoiseB's claim to being an eyewitness 
to a Rama levitation event, and then declaring that the levitation 
wasn't an enlightenment event. If anyone else were to witness such an 
event they would not only be enlightened the spot, they would proclaim 
the Rama guy to be God. Go figure.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Richard J. Williams]

On 2/7/2014 4:26 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote:

I know all about cc in 5 - 7 years

>
Actually, in over ten years of being a reader on Yahoo Groups and Google 
Grpups, I've never seen any proof that the TMO or MMY ever "promised 
anyone enlightenment in 5-7 years." This is a meme that's been posted on 
the internet for at least fifteen years without any proof. Maybe Barry 
got this phrase mixed up with the World Plan of five years. Go figure.


But, I seriously doubt that MMY ever said such a thing - it's not in any 
MMY book, tape, video, or printed quote that I know of. This was never a 
promise Jerry Jarvis ever made, fer sure and it's not in any TM intro 
lecture that I ever heard. I've got a stack of SIMS literature and 
nowhere does it promise anyone enlightenment.


First of all, it would be non-sensical to promise enlightenment to 
anyone - there were already people who had been TM meditating for over 
five years when the SRM was founded in the USA. And, second according to 
MMY, TM is NOT the cause of enlightenment - it simply provides the ideal 
opportunity for transcending. You are only going to get as much 
enlightenment as you are going to get.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Michael Jackson]

M said Robin Carlsen and Andy Rhymer were enlightened.

On Fri, 2/7/14, steve.sun...@yahoo.com  wrote:

 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 10:26 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   Speaking
 for myself, I never felt I was guaranteed enlightenment.
  Yea, I know all about cc in 5 - 7 years, but I never
 put much stock in that,nor did I know others who did.
  
 Perhaps that was the extent
 of the misrepresentation, it you're looking for a
 "smoking gun", at least as far as the
 "gaining enlightenment" part.
 Otherwise, I think people
 got involved either for a vision of possibilities, or
 because because they were looking for "something",
 and this seemed to offer some potential.
 But as for declaring such
 and such a person as "enlightened", that would
 appear to be pretty out of place in any tradition I'm
 familiar with. 
 Spiritual growth is a pretty
 personal matter, not something you're likely to crow
 about.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 
 --- In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
  >
 > Now, wait.  This sort of sounds like a set up.  I say
 this because you have always been a proponent of the
 "these (supposed) states of consciousness are all
 subjective and can't be proven".  So, why would
 such a declaration be important to you?
 
 
  It
 wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd
 think it might be important to Maharishi (who sold this
 supposed state of consciousness for close to 50 years) to be
 able to point to even one of his students who embodied it.
 After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think
 that the sales pitch was a pile of crap. 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Don't know about Rhymer, but Maharishi didn't make any public announcements 
about Robin's enlightenment. It was to an audience of CPs on (I think) an ATR, 
a comment he made about Robin's own account of what had happened to him a few 
days previously that everyone present, including Robin, took to be Maharishi's 
endorsement of his enlightenment. (Plus which, about seven years later 
Maharishi denied it when Robin forced him to make a recorded deposition in 
Robin's lawsuit against MIU.)
 

 << M said Robin Carlsen and Andy Rhymer were enlightened. >>

 
 On Fri, 2/7/14, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 10:26 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Speaking
 for myself, I never felt I was guaranteed enlightenment.
  Yea, I know all about cc in 5 - 7 years, but I never
 put much stock in that,nor did I know others who did.
  
 Perhaps that was the extent
 of the misrepresentation, it you're looking for a
 "smoking gun", at least as far as the
 "gaining enlightenment" part.
 Otherwise, I think people
 got involved either for a vision of possibilities, or
 because because they were looking for "something",
 and this seemed to offer some potential.
 But as for declaring such
 and such a person as "enlightened", that would
 appear to be pretty out of place in any tradition I'm
 familiar with. 
 Spiritual growth is a pretty
 personal matter, not something you're likely to crow
 about.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

 wrote:
 
 --- In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
 >
 > Now, wait. This sort of sounds like a set up. I say
 this because you have always been a proponent of the
 "these (supposed) states of consciousness are all
 subjective and can't be proven". So, why would
 such a declaration be important to you?
 
 
 It
 wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd
 think it might be important to Maharishi (who sold this
 supposed state of consciousness for close to 50 years) to be
 able to point to even one of his students who embodied it.
 After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think
 that the sales pitch was a pile of crap. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Hey Mike,
 

 Since I know you like this kind of thing, I'll relate a few stories from the 
time I was on the first six month course along with Andy Rhymer, Rick Archer 
and others.  In fact, Andy was in my small group, along with some "108's".  It 
was our responsbility to correspond on Maharishi's behalf with some the other 
teacher's and 108's who were stationed around the world.  I remember getting 
letters from, I believe, Michael Brule, was teaching in Iran and was getting 
harassed by the Shaw's secret service.  I believe it was called the Savak, 
(yes, just checked it, and that is correct).  In fact, I think he was even 
imprisoned for a time.  He was feeling pretty discouraged.
 

 At any rate, I remember Andy describing his experience of doing Puja, and 
describing wave after wave of bliss.  I also remember him describing to 
Maharishi some past life experiences, and saying each previous incarnation was 
displayed as a sort of statue park, during an experience he had.
 

 Probably the best moment was when Andy was talking directly to Maharishi, who 
was there in the room, as he often was, and telling Maharishi that the most 
important part of enlightenment was devotion to the Master.  Maharishi said it 
was the most "natural", and Andy kept insisting that it was the most 
"important". There was a sweet back and forth that when on for a while like 
that.  
 

 As to Andy being, or becoming an alleged pedophile, don't have an answer for 
that.  Edg is on record here saying that he'd remove the alleged part.
 

 If that is a disqualification for being enlightened, I really can't say.  I'm 
not familiar with all the ins and outs of it. But it does seem that many who 
may have done some heavy lifting to get that point, (of enlightenment) will 
sometimes take a funny detour.
 

 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.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 M said Robin Carlsen and Andy Rhymer were enlightened.
 
 On Fri, 2/7/14, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 10:26 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Speaking
 for myself, I never felt I was guaranteed enlightenment.
  Yea, I know all about cc in 5 - 7 years, but I never
 put much stock in that,nor did I know others who did.
  
 Perhaps that was the extent
 of the misrepresentation, it you're looking for a
 "smoking gun", at least as far as the
 "gaining enlightenment" part.
 Otherwise, I think people
 got involved either for a vision of possibilities, or
 because because they were looking for "something",
 and this seemed to offer some potential.
 But as for declaring such
 and such a person as "enlightened", that would
 appear to be pretty out of place in any tradition I'm
 familiar with. 
 Spiritual growth is a pretty
 personal matter, not something you're likely to crow
 about.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

 wrote:
 
 --- In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
 >
 > Now, wait. This sort of sounds like a set up. I say
 this because you have always been a proponent of the
 "these (supposed) states of consciousness are all
 subjective and can't be proven". So, why would
 such a declaration be important to you?
 
 
 It
 wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd
 think it might be important to Maharishi (who sold this
 supposed state of consciousness for close to 50 years) to be
 able to point to even one of his students who embodied it.
 After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think
 that the sales pitch was a pile of crap. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[yifuxero]

Thanks for the clarification.  
 Two points:  (1) are they or anybody "actually" Enlightened?  (or people like 
Sathya Sai Baba, Muktananda, Osho,...etc); and (2)  What is the significance of 
this attainment when coupled with moral turpitude or disturning behavior.
 ...
 Another question when comparing such persons to traditional Christian 
"Saints":  does it not seem there's a big difference between the persons 
mentioned (and others); and some of the so-called Saints in terms of (a) moral 
behavior and (b) demonstration of Sidhis such as levitation and healing.  But I 
hasten to add that demon-possessed persons have been seen to levitate.
 ...
 My conclusion: one must examine a variety of factors, all together; before 
coming to an overall conclusion - lest we become a devotee of somebody like Dr. 
Lenz simply because he can levitate.
 ...
 Besides, in any such discussion, people seem to be premised on a prior but 
questionable conclusion: that MMY is an "authority" on the subject, especially 
when it comes to others and the question of morality.
 .
  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Don't know about Rhymer, but Maharishi didn't make any public announcements 
about Robin's enlightenment. It was to an audience of CPs on (I think) an ATR, 
a comment he made about Robin's own account of what had happened to him a few 
days previously that everyone present, including Robin, took to be Maharishi's 
endorsement of his enlightenment. (Plus which, about seven years later 
Maharishi denied it when Robin forced him to make a recorded deposition in 
Robin's lawsuit against MIU.)
 

 << M said Robin Carlsen and Andy Rhymer were enlightened. >>

 
 On Fri, 2/7/14, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 10:26 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Speaking
 for myself, I never felt I was guaranteed enlightenment.
  Yea, I know all about cc in 5 - 7 years, but I never
 put much stock in that,nor did I know others who did.
  
 Perhaps that was the extent
 of the misrepresentation, it you're looking for a
 "smoking gun", at least as far as the
 "gaining enlightenment" part.
 Otherwise, I think people
 got involved either for a vision of possibilities, or
 because because they were looking for "something",
 and this seemed to offer some potential.
 But as for declaring such
 and such a person as "enlightened", that would
 appear to be pretty out of place in any tradition I'm
 familiar with. 
 Spiritual growth is a pretty
 personal matter, not something you're likely to crow
 about.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

 wrote:
 
 --- In
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
 >
 > Now, wait. This sort of sounds like a set up. I say
 this because you have always been a proponent of the
 "these (supposed) states of consciousness are all
 subjective and can't be proven". So, why would
 such a declaration be important to you?
 
 
 It
 wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But you'd
 think it might be important to Maharishi (who sold this
 supposed state of consciousness for close to 50 years) to be
 able to point to even one of his students who embodied it.
 After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think
 that the sales pitch was a pile of crap. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Michael Jackson]

Thank you for sharing those stories - so what kind of experiences did you have 
on that 1st 6 month course? And did you get the sutra for understanding the 
language of animals? That's the one I always wanted.

On Sat, 2/8/14, steve.sun...@yahoo.com  wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014,
   
   Hey
 Mike,
 Since I know you like this
 kind of thing, I'll relate a few stories from the time I
 was on the first six month course along with Andy Rhymer,
 Rick Archer and others.  In fact, Andy was in my small
 group, along with some "108's".  It was
 our responsbility to correspond on Maharishi's behalf
 with some the other teacher's and 108's who were
 stationed around the world.  I remember getting letters
 from, I believe, Michael Brule, was teaching in Iran and was
 getting harassed by the Shaw's secret service.  I
 believe it was called the Savak, (yes, just checked it, and
 that is correct).  In fact, I think he was even
 imprisoned for a time.  He was feeling pretty
 discouraged.
 At any rate, I remember Andy
 describing his experience of doing Puja, and describing wave
 after wave of bliss.  I also remember him describing to
 Maharishi some past life experiences, and saying each
 previous incarnation was displayed as a sort of statue park,
 during an experience he had.
 Probably the best moment was
 when Andy was talking directly to Maharishi, who was there
 in the room, as he often was, and telling Maharishi that the
 most important part of enlightenment was devotion to the
 Master.  Maharishi said it was the most
 "natural", and Andy kept insisting that it was the
 most "important". There was a sweet back and forth
 that when on for a while like that.  
 As to Andy being, or
 becoming an alleged pedophile, don't have an answer for
 that.  Edg is on record here saying that he'd
 remove the alleged part.
 If that is a
 disqualification for being enlightened, I really can't
 say.  I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of
 it. But it does seem that many who may have done some heavy
 lifting to get that point, (of enlightenment) will sometimes
 take a funny detour.
 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.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 
 M said Robin
 Carlsen and Andy Rhymer were enlightened.
 
 ------------
  On Fri, 2/7/14, steve.sundur@...
 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
 Date: Friday, February 7, 2014, 10:26 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Speaking
 
 for myself, I never felt I was guaranteed enlightenment.
 
  Yea, I know all about cc in 5 - 7 years, but I never
 
 put much stock in that,nor did I know others who did.
 
  
 
 Perhaps that was the extent
 
 of the misrepresentation, it you're looking for a
 
 "smoking gun", at least as far as the
 
 "gaining enlightenment" part.
 
 Otherwise, I think people
 
 got involved either for a vision of possibilities, or
 
 because because they were looking for
 "something",
 
 and this seemed to offer some potential.
 
 But as for declaring such
 
 and such a person as "enlightened", that would
 
 appear to be pretty out of place in any tradition I'm
 
 familiar with. 
 
 Spiritual growth is a pretty
 
 personal matter, not something you're likely to crow
 
 about.
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
 
 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 --- In
 
 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
  wrote:
 
 >
 
 > Now, wait.  This sort of sounds like a set up.  I say
 
 this because you have always been a proponent of the
 
 "these (supposed) states of consciousness are all
 
 subjective and can't be proven".  So, why would
 
 such a declaration be important to you?
 
 
 
 
 
 It
 
 wouldn't be the least bit important to me. But
 you'd
 
 think it might be important to Maharishi (who sold this
 
 supposed state of consciousness for close to 50 years) to
 be
 
 able to point to even one of his students who embodied it.
 
 After all, if he didn't, people might begin to think
 
 that the sales pitch was a pile of crap.
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[dhamiltony2k5]

“TM is NOT the cause of enlightenment - it simply provides the ideal 
opportunity for transcending. You are only going to get as much enlightenment 
as you are going to get.” 
 
 
 Only as much as you are going to get. Nay, now don't take that wrong. But if 
at first you do not succeed in that illumination, then certainly try and try 
again. Enlightenment is something you can cultivate the grace of and that is 
something that some may have to do even with some discipline too. Certainly the 
effective method is in transcending meditation where you can more easily be all 
that you can and should Be, and join then also in the army of field effect 
meditators meditating in group. Certainly always take up quiet time to meditate 
for yourSelf and for others. The science is very clear on this now as so is 
scriptural experience of others before you. Do it regularly. Take the time. 
Even the enlightened then continue to meditate as much for others as for 
themselves in that state of Being. It is a great blessing. Make haste. 
 
 
 "The whole purpose of life is to gain enlightenment. Nothing else is
significant compared to that completely natural, exalted state of consciousness.
So always strive for that. Set your life around that goal. Don't get caught up
in small things, and then it will be yours." 
 - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 
 
 
 Don't kid your Self 
 Yours is a universal Being also.
 Sit up, don't sit back in life.
 Make spiritual haste while you
 got life.
 
 -Buck in the Dome
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 On 2/7/2014 4:26 PM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote:

 I know all about cc in 5 - 7 years >
 Actually, in over ten years of being a reader on Yahoo Groups and Google 
Grpups, I've never seen any proof that the TMO or MMY ever "promised anyone 
enlightenment in 5-7 years." This is a meme that's been posted on the internet 
for at least fifteen years without any proof. Maybe Barry got this phrase mixed 
up with the World Plan of five years. Go figure.
 
 But, I seriously doubt that MMY ever said such a thing - it's not in any MMY 
book, tape, video, or printed quote that I know of. This was never a promise 
Jerry Jarvis ever made, fer sure and it's not in any TM intro lecture that I 
ever heard. I've got a stack of SIMS literature and nowhere does it promise 
anyone enlightenment.
 
 First of all, it would be non-sensical to promise enlightenment to anyone - 
there were already people who had been TM meditating for over five years when 
the SRM was founded in the USA. And, second according to MMY, TM is NOT the 
cause of enlightenment - it simply provides the ideal opportunity for 
transcending. You are only going to get as much enlightenment as you are going 
to get.
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

I was never one for flashy experiences. The hi-light of the course, was, of 
course, all the face time with Maharishi.
 

 There was all kinds of experimentation going on with diet, and enemas, even to 
the point where we had blood withdrawn, for some sort of testing.  
 

 Also, it was during that time that I developed quite a love, yes love, I will 
say for the Upanishads.  We would read those for hours at a time.  I don't 
recall if it was that period, or a different period when I was actually able to 
sit in a full lotus for at least a half hour period of meditation, sometimes 
with my hands in the mudra pose.  I noticed that that had a profound influence 
on purifying my physiology.  Now, I don't like to use buzz words like that, but 
that is the best way I can describe it.  I remember reading later, that the 
full lotus helps to purify, or have a positive effect on the nerves in your 
body.
 

 I did have one flashy experience which I related here before, I believe.  I 
had worked myself into such a devotional frenzy towards Maharishi, that I 
actually had the sensation of my heart melting.  Yes, I suppose it was some 
effect of the heart chakra, but it was the most exquisite feeling, and it felt 
like.. your heart melted.  
 

 Another funny moment, I may have shared here before.  This six months course 
was the worst, the very worst time for householders in the movement.  We were 
getting all this face time with Maharishi, and the householders were feeling 
very bereft.
 

 Well, one afternoon, John Konhaus, (who was, and still is, I believe, married 
to Sarah Konhaus) has us all convene for a meeting, and declared in a very 
strong voice, "Maharishi was VERY embarrassed today"  He said that that a hotel 
owner in a different town called the hotel owner in the hotel we were staying 
in, for a recommendation, and asked what kind of guest we were.  Evidently the 
hotel owner said that the guests in this, (our hotel), "were like pigs".  Oh, 
we got a big kick out of that.
 

 Good times. Good times.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Thank you for sharing those stories - so what kind of experiences did you have 
on that 1st 6 month course? And did you get the sutra for understanding the 
language of animals? That's the one I always wanted.
 
 On Sat, 2/8/14, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014,
 
 Hey
 Mike,
 Since I know you like this
 kind of thing, I'll relate a few stories from the time I
 was on the first six month course along with Andy Rhymer,
 Rick Archer and others.  In fact, Andy was in my small
 group, along with some "108's".  It was
 our responsbility to correspond on Maharishi's behalf
 with some the other teacher's and 108's who were
 stationed around the world.  I remember getting letters
 from, I believe, Michael Brule, was teaching in Iran and was
 getting harassed by the Shaw's secret service.  I
 believe it was called the Savak, (yes, just checked it, and
 that is correct).  In fact, I think he was even
 imprisoned for a time.  He was feeling pretty
 discouraged.
 At any rate, I remember Andy
 describing his experience of doing Puja, and describing wave
 after wave of bliss.  I also remember him describing to
 Maharishi some past life experiences, and saying each
 previous incarnation was displayed as a sort of statue park,
 during an experience he had.
 Probably the best moment was
 when Andy was talking directly to Maharishi, who was there
 in the room, as he often was, and telling Maharishi that the
 most important part of enlightenment was devotion to the
 Master.  Maharishi said it was the most
 "natural", and Andy kept insisting that it was the
 most "important". There was a sweet back and forth
 that when on for a while like that.  
 As to Andy being, or
 becoming an alleged pedophile, don't have an answer for
 that.  Edg is on record here saying that he'd
 remove the alleged part.
 If that is a
 disqualification for being enlightened, I really can't
 say.  I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of
 it. But it does seem that many who may have done some heavy
 lifting to get that point, (of enlightenment) will sometimes
 take a funny detour.
 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.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

 wrote:
 
 M said Robin
 Carlsen and Andy Rhymer were enlightened.
 
 --

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[yifuxero]

Thanks, Buck.  On the "whole purpose of life is En; this is questionable.
 ,

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

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. >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Michael Jackson]

I confess I don't understand that at all - were there only men on that first 
course? How come the householders weren't there and what kind of piggy things 
were you guys doing?

On Sat, 2/8/14, steve.sun...@yahoo.com  wrote:

 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014, 1:13 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
   
   I was
 never one for flashy experiences. The hi-light of the
 course, was, of course, all the face time with
 Maharishi.
 There was all kinds of
 experimentation going on with diet, and enemas, even to the
 point where we had blood withdrawn, for some sort of
 testing.  
 Also, it was during that
 time that I developed quite a love, yes love, I will say for
 the Upanishads.  We would read those for hours at a
 time.  I don't recall if it was that period, or a
 different period when I was actually able to sit in a full
 lotus for at least a half hour period of meditation,
 sometimes with my hands in the mudra pose.  I noticed
 that that had a profound influence on purifying my
 physiology.  Now, I don't like to use buzz words
 like that, but that is the best way I can describe it.
  I remember reading later, that the full lotus helps to
 purify, or have a positive effect on the nerves in your
 body.
 I did have one flashy
 experience which I related here before, I believe.  I
 had worked myself into such a devotional frenzy towards
 Maharishi, that I actually had the sensation of my heart
 melting.  Yes, I suppose it was some effect of the
 heart chakra, but it was the most exquisite feeling, and it
 felt like.. your heart melted.  
 Another funny moment, I may
 have shared here before.  This six months course was
 the worst, the very worst time for householders in the
 movement.  We were getting all this face time with
 Maharishi, and the householders were feeling very
 bereft.
 Well, one afternoon, John
 Konhaus, (who was, and still is, I believe, married to Sarah
 Konhaus) has us all convene for a meeting, and declared in a
 very strong voice, "Maharishi was VERY embarrassed
 today"  He said that that a hotel owner in a
 different town called the hotel owner in the hotel we were
 staying in, for a recommendation, and asked what kind of
 guest we were.  Evidently the hotel owner said that the
 guests in this, (our hotel), "were like pigs".
  Oh, we got a big kick out of that.
 Good times. Good
 times.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 wrote:
 
 Thank you for
 sharing those stories - so what kind of experiences did you
 have on that 1st 6 month course? And did you get the sutra
 for understanding the language of animals? That's the
 one I always wanted.
 
 
  On Sat, 2/8/14, steve.sundur@...
 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
 Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014,
 
 
 
 Hey
 
 Mike,
 
 Since I know you like this
 
 kind of thing, I'll relate a few stories from the time
 I
 
 was on the first six month course along with Andy Rhymer,
 
 Rick Archer and others.  In fact, Andy was in my small
 
 group, along with some "108's".  It was
 
 our responsbility to correspond on Maharishi's behalf
 
 with some the other teacher's and 108's who were
 
 stationed around the world.  I remember getting
 letters
 
 from, I believe, Michael Brule, was teaching in Iran and
 was
 
 getting harassed by the Shaw's secret service.  I
 
 believe it was called the Savak, (yes, just checked it, and
 
 that is correct).  In fact, I think he was even
 
 imprisoned for a time.  He was feeling pretty
 
 discouraged.
 
 At any rate, I remember Andy
 
 describing his experience of doing Puja, and describing
 wave
 
 after wave of bliss.  I also remember him describing
 to
 
 Maharishi some past life experiences, and saying each
 
 previous incarnation was displayed as a sort of statue
 park,
 
 during an experience he had.
 
 Probably the best moment was
 
 when Andy was talking directly to Maharishi, who was there
 
 in the room, as he often was, and telling Maharishi that
 the
 
 most important part of enlightenment was devotion to the
 
 Master.  Maharishi said it was the most
 
 "natural", and Andy kept insisting that it was
 the
 
 most "important". There was a sweet back and
 forth
 
 that when on for a while like that.  
 
 As to Andy being, or
 
 becoming an alleged pedophile, don't have an answer for
 
 that.  Edg is on record here saying that he'd
 
 remove the alleged part.
 
 If that is a
 
 disqualification for being enlightened, I really can't
 
 say.  I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs
 of
 
 it. But it does seem that many who may have done some heavy
 
 lifting to get that point, (of enlightenment) will
 somet

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Yes, only men.  As for "piggy" things.  It was probably the fact we sat on the 
floor in the main lecture hall, which was just a converted common area.  And 
who knows, maybe there was a lot of incense burning in the rooms.  Maybe he got 
whiff of all those enemas or something.  Other than that, I didn't think we 
were that untidy.
 

 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I confess I don't understand that at all - were there only men on that first 
course? How come the householders weren't there and what kind of piggy things 
were you guys doing?
 
 On Sat, 2/8/14, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@...> wrote:
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014, 1:13 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I was
 never one for flashy experiences. The hi-light of the
 course, was, of course, all the face time with
 Maharishi.
 There was all kinds of
 experimentation going on with diet, and enemas, even to the
 point where we had blood withdrawn, for some sort of
 testing.  
 Also, it was during that
 time that I developed quite a love, yes love, I will say for
 the Upanishads.  We would read those for hours at a
 time.  I don't recall if it was that period, or a
 different period when I was actually able to sit in a full
 lotus for at least a half hour period of meditation,
 sometimes with my hands in the mudra pose.  I noticed
 that that had a profound influence on purifying my
 physiology.  Now, I don't like to use buzz words
 like that, but that is the best way I can describe it.
  I remember reading later, that the full lotus helps to
 purify, or have a positive effect on the nerves in your
 body.
 I did have one flashy
 experience which I related here before, I believe.  I
 had worked myself into such a devotional frenzy towards
 Maharishi, that I actually had the sensation of my heart
 melting.  Yes, I suppose it was some effect of the
 heart chakra, but it was the most exquisite feeling, and it
 felt like.. your heart melted.  
 Another funny moment, I may
 have shared here before.  This six months course was
 the worst, the very worst time for householders in the
 movement.  We were getting all this face time with
 Maharishi, and the householders were feeling very
 bereft.
 Well, one afternoon, John
 Konhaus, (who was, and still is, I believe, married to Sarah
 Konhaus) has us all convene for a meeting, and declared in a
 very strong voice, "Maharishi was VERY embarrassed
 today"  He said that that a hotel owner in a
 different town called the hotel owner in the hotel we were
 staying in, for a recommendation, and asked what kind of
 guest we were.  Evidently the hotel owner said that the
 guests in this, (our hotel), "were like pigs".
  Oh, we got a big kick out of that.
 Good times. Good
 times.
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 

 wrote:
 
 Thank you for
 sharing those stories - so what kind of experiences did you
 have on that 1st 6 month course? And did you get the sutra
 for understanding the language of animals? That's the
 one I always wanted.
 
 
 On Sat, 2/8/14, steve.sundur@...
 
 wrote:
 
 
 
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam
 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
 
 Date: Saturday, February 8, 2014,
 
 
 
 Hey
 
 Mike,
 
 Since I know you like this
 
 kind of thing, I'll relate a few stories from the time
 I
 
 was on the first six month course along with Andy Rhymer,
 
 Rick Archer and others.  In fact, Andy was in my small
 
 group, along with some "108's".  It was
 
 our responsbility to correspond on Maharishi's behalf
 
 with some the other teacher's and 108's who were
 
 stationed around the world.  I remember getting
 letters
 
 from, I believe, Michael Brule, was teaching in Iran and
 was
 
 getting harassed by the Shaw's secret service.  I
 
 believe it was called the Savak, (yes, just checked it, and
 
 that is correct).  In fact, I think he was even
 
 imprisoned for a time.  He was feeling pretty
 
 discouraged.
 
 At any rate, I remember Andy
 
 describing his experience of doing Puja, and describing
 wave
 
 after wave of bliss.  I also remember him describing
 to
 
 Maharishi some past life experiences, and saying each
 
 previous incarnation was displayed as a sort of statue
 park,
 
 during an experience he had.
 
 Probably the best moment was
 
 when Andy was talking directly to Maharishi, who was there
 
 in the room, as he often was, and telling Maharishi that
 the
 
 most important part of enlightenment was devotion to the
 
 Master.  Maharishi said it was the most
 
 "natural", and Andy kept insisting that it was
 the
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

 Narcissist Personality Syndrome, ( and excuse me if I got the term wrong, but 
perhaps you can surmise what I intended), and from what I know about it, it 
seemed to describe him.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 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. >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

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, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 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. >> >>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Oh, you mean narcissistic personality disorder.
 

 One wonders exactly how much you could know about it if you can't even get the 
name right. One suspects, in fact, that your only acquaintance with it is from 
Barry's fanatical obsession with NPD on FFL.
 

 But guess what, Stevie-boy? Barry is no more qualified to slap that label on 
someone he knows only from his FFL posts than you are. He uses it as a way to 
demonize people he's threatened by, and he seems to have trained you to do the 
same.
 

 Narcissist Personality Syndrome, ( and excuse me if I got the term wrong, but 
perhaps you can surmise what I intended), and from what I know about it, it 
seemed to describe him.

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 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. >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple 
fact? There was no response from you required.
 

 Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

Judy, Robin himself called that experience a delusion. Thus I think it's 
inaccurate to refer to it as "genuine enlightenment."





On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:48 AM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Oh, that's rich, coming from FFL's inveterate liar.

As far as I'm aware, no one here has any basis for thinking Robin was anything 
but completely honest in his posts.

Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that? 


Robin's word is worth nothing


Why is it that the idea that Robin experienced a period of genuine 
enlightenment 30-some years ago so upsets Barry? Barry didn't know him then. 
None of us did, except Ann. Why does Barry care so desperately?

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

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.
 

 << 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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

See my previous post. You don't know what you're talking about as far as what 
Robin said about this is concerned. You're also confused as to what I said that 
you're commenting on. Read it again, please.
 

 << Judy, Robin himself called that experience a delusion. Thus I think it's 
inaccurate to refer to it as "genuine enlightenment." >>
 

 
 
 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:48 AM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Oh, that's rich, coming from FFL's inveterate liar.
 

 As far as I'm aware, no one here has any basis for thinking Robin was anything 
but completely honest in his posts.
 

 Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that? 
 

 Robin's word is worth nothing

 

 Why is it that the idea that Robin experienced a period of genuine 
enlightenment 30-some years ago so upsets Barry? Barry didn't know him then. 
None of us did, except Ann. Why does Barry care so desperately?


 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Aaaahhh, feel better now Judy? 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Oh, you mean narcissistic personality disorder.
 

 One wonders exactly how much you could know about it if you can't even get the 
name right. One suspects, in fact, that your only acquaintance with it is from 
Barry's fanatical obsession with NPD on FFL.
 

 But guess what, Stevie-boy? Barry is no more qualified to slap that label on 
someone he knows only from his FFL posts than you are. He uses it as a way to 
demonize people he's threatened by, and he seems to have trained you to do the 
same.
 

 Narcissist Personality Syndrome, ( and excuse me if I got the term wrong, but 
perhaps you can surmise what I intended), and from what I know about it, it 
seemed to describe him.

 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 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. >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about.  But, please, proceed 
according to your fancy.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple 
fact? There was no response from you required.
 

 Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to "start silliness" with 
you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin during 
his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that point, 
and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood about 
what I wrote.
 

 << Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about.  But, please, proceed 
according to your fancy. >>
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple 
fact? There was no response from you required.
 

 Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

I am sorry that I did not make it more clear that I've only known Robin from 
the period that he was posting here.  I left FF and MIU shortly before he made 
his big splash there.
 

 I did know one lady with whom I had a bit of a crush, Judy G, who I Iearned 
became involved with Robin's group.  I don't know if Anne or anyone else may 
know what happened to her?
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to "start silliness" 
with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin 
during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that 
point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood 
about what I wrote.
 

 << Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about.  But, please, proceed 
according to your fancy. >>
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple 
fact? There was no response from you required.
 

 Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

No problem. People who didn't follow Robin's posts get confused and think he 
was claiming to be enlightened while he was here, rather than 30-some years 
ago, so it's important to make sure they understand that wasn't the case.
 

 << I am sorry that I did not make it more clear that I've only known Robin 
from the period that he was posting here.  I left FF and MIU shortly before he 
made his big splash there. >>
 

 I did know one lady with whom I had a bit of a crush, Judy G, who I Iearned 
became involved with Robin's group.  I don't know if Anne or anyone else may 
know what happened to her?
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to "start silliness" 
with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin 
during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that 
point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood 
about what I wrote.
 

 << Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about.  But, please, proceed 
according to your fancy. >>
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple 
fact? There was no response from you required.
 

 Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I am sorry that I did not make it more clear that I've only known Robin from 
the period that he was posting here.  I left FF and MIU shortly before he made 
his big splash there.
 

 I did know one lady with whom I had a bit of a crush, Judy G, who I Iearned 
became involved with Robin's group.  I don't know if Anne or anyone else may 
know what happened to her?
 

 I would know if I recognized a Judy G but that is not ringing any bells.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to "start silliness" 
with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin 
during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that 
point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood 
about what I wrote.
 

 << Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about.  But, please, proceed 
according to your fancy. >>
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple 
fact? There was no response from you required.
 

 Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Judy, Robin himself called that experience a delusion. Thus I think it's 
inaccurate to refer to it as "genuine enlightenment."
 

 See my later post about this to you. And I am not saying I agree with Robin 
only that his experience was his experience. As far as I'm concerned there is 
no enlightenment. There are various levels  of perception, understanding, 
knowledge  and realization that human beings can arrive at but I am reluctant 
to embrace the idea that there are levels that can be named like cc, uc etc. I 
believe life to be waaa more complex and nuanced than that. 
 

 
 
 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:48 AM, "authfriend@..."  wrote:
 
   Oh, that's rich, coming from FFL's inveterate liar.
 

 As far as I'm aware, no one here has any basis for thinking Robin was anything 
but completely honest in his posts.
 

 Actually, don't we have only their word on it that Maharishi said that? 
 

 Robin's word is worth nothing

 

 Why is it that the idea that Robin experienced a period of genuine 
enlightenment 30-some years ago so upsets Barry? Barry didn't know him then. 
None of us did, except Ann. Why does Barry care so desperately?


 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

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" 
 wrote:
 
  




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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@..."  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. >> >>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

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, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 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@..."  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. >> >>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 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.
 

 No, he is saying that the state of enlightenment is the state of delusion.

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?!
 

 I am not sure where you are getting the impression that he himself or anyone 
else thinks Robin is special because he became deluded/enlightened. I certainly 
don't. I feel badly for him because he has suffered through so much of it. 
Whether that suffering was self imposed or not I can not judge. But he 
apparently felt it imperative to liberate himself from under the 
delusion/enlightenment he was under so that is his prerogative and his 
business. I neither applaud or condemn him. And like I have said many times 
already I don't believe in a "state" of enlightenment so the whole point is 
rather moot for me.
 

 
 
 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:52 AM, "awoelflebater@..." 
 wrote:
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 
















 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

I can't say as I'm surprised, but no, you aren't getting it, Share. I think 
you're determined not to get it because of your personal animus against Robin, 
which shows up so clearly in your last paragraph.
 

 Here's where your "logic is off": the words "rather than." As far as Robin is 
concerned, there is no such thing as enlightenment that isn't a delusion. If 
you're enlightened, you've been deluded. And that (as I already said) includes 
Maharishi and anyone else who has ever been enlightened.
 

 I doubt that'll help. You're never going to understand where Robin was coming 
from unless you manage to exorcise your personal hatred of him.
 

 You might also want to ask yourself why you're "triggered" by the idea of a 
person being "special" in some sense. I suspect it's because you want to be 
thought of as special but don't seem to be able to make the grade no matter how 
hard you try. (At least "special" in a positive sense.) And the idea that a 
person you loathe and despise might be "special" when you aren't makes you so 
angry you can't see straight. I'd guess Barry has the same problem. 
 

 << 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?! >>
 

 These questions, BTW, make no sense at all just on their face.
 

 
 
 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:52 AM, "awoelflebater@..." 
 wrote:
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 
















 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

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@..."  
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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 
















 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

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, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 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@..."  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@..."  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. >> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 
















 














 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

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? 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, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 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@..."  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@..."  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@..."  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. >> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 
















 














 














 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

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?





On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 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@..."  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@..."  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@..."  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@..."
 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. >> >>

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  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. >> >>

 






 
















 














 














 


 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Again, Share, your question is incoherent. Robin never said "enlightenment 
defined as union with God is wrong," for example. You made that up. I'm telling 
you, this whole topic is over your head. Your intention is not to understand 
what Robin wrote but rather to find yet another way to beat up on him in his 
absence, and I'm just not going to play that mug's game. Do you understand?
 
 << 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? >>
 

 
 
 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, "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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  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 foun

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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@..."  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@..."  
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@..."  
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@..."  
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 
en

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Okay, thank you for feedback.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I am sorry that I did not make it more clear that I've only known Robin from 
the period that he was posting here.  I left FF and MIU shortly before he made 
his big splash there.
 

 I did know one lady with whom I had a bit of a crush, Judy G, who I Iearned 
became involved with Robin's group.  I don't know if Anne or anyone else may 
know what happened to her?
 

 I would know if I recognized a Judy G but that is not ringing any bells.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 That makes two of us. Why did you accuse me of trying to "start silliness" 
with you when all I did was state a simple fact, that you didn't know Robin 
during his enlightened period? Far as I'm aware, there's no argument about that 
point, and I wasn't expecting a response. I have no idea what you misunderstood 
about what I wrote.
 

 << Judy, I have no idea what you are talking about.  But, please, proceed 
according to your fancy. >>
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 I beg your pardon? What exactly is your objection to the statement of a simple 
fact? There was no response from you required.
 

 Judy, go start you silliness with someone else, please.  
 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. >> >>

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
 
  
 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 

 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

You missed the word "ontological."
 

 Quoting me:
 “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.”
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about email, 
in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

My memory is excellent, and I followed Robin's posts more closely than anyone 
here. The two of us were good friends and had extensive email correspondence.
 

 You repeatedly get things wrong that have happened in the past. I never saw 
him say anything like what you imagine. You made the claim, you find the post.
 

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Oh, hilarious. Of course, this doesn't say at all what you claimed, does it, 
now?
 

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672
 

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

Um, I think it's close enough Judy.   But to someone who as a matter of course 
cannot see the forest for the trees, it probably has no semblance.  Kinda, 
sorta seems like you had your eggs in the "e-mails with me basket"  sorry about 
that.
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Oh, hilarious. Of course, this doesn't say at all what you claimed, does it, 
now?
 

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672
 

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

sounds like this one hurt Judy.  kinda has your ire up for some reason.  and 
yikes, I guess I pushed the mother of all buttons, claiming I knew something 
about Robin you didn't.  
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 My memory is excellent, and I followed Robin's posts more closely than anyone 
here. The two of us were good friends and had extensive email correspondence.
 

 You repeatedly get things wrong that have happened in the past. I never saw 
him say anything like what you imagine. You made the claim, you find the post.
 

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

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, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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@..."  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@..."  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@..."  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@..."
 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 enlightene

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[steve.sundur]

and yikes II, this is pretty revealing.  I didn't realize how deep the 
attachment went.  Do you think it may have run mostly in one direction, though? 
 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 My memory is excellent, and I followed Robin's posts more closely than anyone 
here. The two of us were good friends and had extensive email correspondence.
 

 You repeatedly get things wrong that have happened in the past. I never saw 
him say anything like what you imagine. You made the claim, you find the post.
 

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

Ann, I suggest you go back to how this topic began. Judy threw out the phrases 
enlightened days and genuine enlightenment with reference to Robin. I said I 
thought those phrases were inaccurate given that Robin himself called his 
enlightenment a delusion. That is how this discussion began.

BTW I don't have TV hookup so I don't watch the Olympics, was in Vancouver 
during the 2010 games!





On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:58 PM, "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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 itif 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@..."  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@..."  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@..."  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@..."  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 "tr

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[Share Long]

It's true, Judy, my intention is not to analyze what Robin wrote. My intention 
is to say that I think your phrases enlightened days and genuine enlightenment 
with regards to Robin are inaccurate given that he said his enlightenment was a 
delusion. I don't think it is attacking of someone to refer to what they 
themselves said. 





On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:35 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" 
 wrote:
 
  
Again, Share, your question is incoherent. Robin never said "enlightenment 
defined as union with God is wrong," for example. You made that up. I'm telling 
you, this whole topic is over your head. Your intention is not to understand 
what Robin wrote but rather to find yet another way to beat up on him in his 
absence, and I'm just not going to play that mug's game. Do you understand?


<< 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? >>





On Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:34 PM, "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@..."  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@..."  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@..."  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 en

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[awoelflebater]

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672

 

 Interesting to read this again, I don't ever go back and search and re-read 
stuff here. But I don't see anything about any confessionals at Starbucks.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?
 

 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Raam

[authfriend]

Nowhere near, Stevie baby. Here's what you claimed:
 

 "And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at Starbucks."

 

 And:
 

 "My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings."

 

 No "confessional," nothing about his meeting his friend at Starbuck's, nothing 
about confiding thoughts and feelings. I knew he'd never said anything like 
that, and if this is your only evidence (Barry found it for you, I'm guessing), 
I was right.
 

 He did say, many times, that his best friend helped him with his 
de-enlightenment project, so what he said in this post was nothing we didn't 
already know.
 
Nope, not even any forest, let alone any trees. No eggs in the basket, either. 
I was trying to think of what he might have said that you could have 
misinterpreted as you did. But as it turns out, you were far more off even than 
that.
 

 Tell ya what, since you don't know how to make your links clickable, I'll do 
it for you. That way anyone who wants to can easily check the post:
 

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672

 Um, I think it's close enough Judy.   But to someone who as a matter of course 
cannot see the forest for the trees, it probably has no semblance.  Kinda, 
sorta seems like you had your eggs in the "e-mails with me basket"  sorry about 
that.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 Oh, hilarious. Of course, this doesn't say at all what you claimed, does it, 
now?
 

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/328672
 

 Judy, I don't know what the point of arguing about it is.  If he said it, it 
will be there in the record.  Without being too boastful, my memory is pretty 
good.  My impression is that he had nothing to do with e-mails, and seemed to 
predate his participation here.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 You've got something screwy here, Stevie. He may have been talking about 
email, in which case he probably meant with me. But there was no "daily 
confessional."
 

 My recollection is that he did, indeed say that he has a friend he meets with 
most everyday, at Starbucks, (I believe), in whom he confides thoughts, 
feelings.
 

 I would say this was a couple months before he stopped posting.
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:

 emptybill doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to Robin, his reams 
of quotes notwithstanding.
 

 "Daily confessional with his friend at Starbuck's"?? Robin never said anything 
remotely like that.
 

 Both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies have clearly explicated 
the nature of union with God – at least as far as that is possible for humans. 
However, he never appeared interested in learning more - whether about 
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, Yogic Vedanta or Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta. I 
attribute this to a lack of genuine humility although he was constantly 
espousing a pseudo-humility. 
 

 Sorta my take on the whole thing.  On the other hand, we do have the "missing" 
years when he was substitute teaching.  Could get some checks in the humility 
column for that.  And then we have his daily confessional with his friend at 
Starbucks.  Do I have that right?