Ex-Premie.Org

Forum II Archive # 10

From: Mar 14, 1998

To: Mar 21, 1998

Page: 3 Of: 5


Mr Ex -:- Answer to Robyn / Vipassana -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:27:12 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Answer to Robyn / Vipassana -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 14:01:09 (EST)
___Petrou -:- Re: Answer to Robyn / Vipassana -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:51:27 (EST)

Mr Ex -:- Re: To Petrou and my premies friends -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 12:57:49 (EST)

Scott T. -:- Les' thread -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 12:00:42 (EST)
___Gbad -:- What i think -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 12:35:29 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: What i think -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 13:07:10 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: What i think -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 14:00:20 (EST)
___And On Anand Ji -:- Re: What i think -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 16:20:20 (EST)
___eb -:- Re: What i think -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 19:10:19 (EST)
___Mr Ex -:- What i think en français! -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 03:44:07 (EST)
___lg -:- Re: What i think en français! -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:18:57 (EST)

Robyn -:- Les's thread can't reply -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:47:57 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Les's thread can't reply -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 01:31:43 (EST)
___Petrou -:- Re: Les's thread can't reply -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:47:27 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: Les's thread can't reply -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 09:29:15 (EST)

willythekid -:- Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:58:03 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:37:16 (EST)
___You are -:- better off... -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 00:51:39 (EST)
___Petrou -:- Re: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:18:47 (EST)
___Jim -:- Petrou's boo boo -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 19:06:42 (EST)

Jim -:- The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:49:57 (EST)
___Hunter S. Thompson -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:18:11 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:29:35 (EST)
___John K. -:- I like this literary style -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 16:32:19 (EST)
___God -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 16:33:33 (EST)
___Lewis Carroll -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 16:40:34 (EST)
___D.H. Lawrence -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 18:20:30 (EST)
___Mark Twain -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:03:29 (EST)
___Miss Manners -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:19:16 (EST)
___Raymond Chandler -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:25:27 (EST)
___Dr Seuss -:- Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:39:44 (EST)
___Get -:- a life! -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:15:36 (EST)

Les -:- Do You Understand? -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:15:41 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 18:22:45 (EST)
___Anon -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:09:42 (EST)
___Joy -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 23:38:16 (EST)
___gumby -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 00:21:45 (EST)
___Petrou -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:23:41 (EST)
___Petrou -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:26:52 (EST)
___Petrou -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:38:23 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 10:26:26 (EST)
___Joy -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 11:37:47 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 19:48:33 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 20:03:51 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:43:36 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:57:06 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:59:56 (EST)
___VP -:- Why Not Tell the World? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 00:01:44 (EST)
___JIM -:- Re: Do You Understand? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 00:13:23 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Answering-Why Not Tell? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 01:38:13 (EST)
___Les -:- Re:Jim's advice-Do You Understand? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 02:19:42 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Answering-Why Not Tell? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:12:26 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Answering-Why Not Tell? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:15:39 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re:Jim's advice-Do You Understand? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:22:38 (EST)
___Les -:- Re:Jim's advice-Do You Understand? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 12:07:28 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Answering Again-Why Not Tell? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 12:30:11 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Answering Again-Why Not Tell? -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 13:04:07 (EST)
___Jim -:- Shameful rationalization, Lester -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 15:06:14 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Jim Spins His Wheels -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 19:12:08 (EST)
___Jim -:- Les avoids with the best of them -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 19:29:50 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Les avoids Jim's traps -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:03:53 (EST)
___Jim -:- Wrong again, Les (who's counting?) -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:21:08 (EST)
___Les -:- Re: Nastyness -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 23:20:46 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Nastyness -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 23:27:34 (EST)

Mr Ex -:- Wedding video and Marolyn's health .. -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 05:59:07 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health .. -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:07:33 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health .. -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:38:54 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health .. -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:40:49 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health .. -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 17:06:20 (EST)
___Mr Ex -:- Marolyn's letter -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 18:04:34 (EST)

Aesop -:- The Fox and the Grapes -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 05:31:56 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: The Fox and the Grapes -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 08:42:41 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: The Fox and the Grapes -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 09:26:36 (EST)
___VIC -:- Re: The Fox and the Grapes -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:37:54 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: The Fox and the Grapes -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:20:35 (EST)
___John K. -:- One man's drink... -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:53:21 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: The Fox and the Grapes -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:40:03 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: The Fox and the Grapes -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 18:49:12 (EST)

Mr Ex -:- To Petrou and my premies friends -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 05:04:06 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: To Petrou and my premies friends -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 08:49:27 (EST)
___me -:- Re: To Petrou and my premies friends -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 12:13:29 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: To Petrou and my premies friends -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:31:22 (EST)
___Mr Ex -:- Re: To Petrou and my premies friends -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:39:52 (EST)
___lg -:- Re: To Petrou and my premies friends -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 21:03:20 (EST)

Petrou -:- Jim -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 03:03:58 (EST)
___lg -:- Re: Jim -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:11:48 (EST)

Jim -:- Aesop's fable considered -:- Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 22:44:01 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:37:19 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:37:43 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:18:40 (EST)
___Anon -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:27:02 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:02:22 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:05:00 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:19:02 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 16:45:06 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 20:57:19 (EST)
___Aesop -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 21:12:31 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:55:11 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 00:50:36 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Aesop's fable considered -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:31:16 (EST)
___VP -:- Be Here Now -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:24:30 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Be Here Now -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:37:03 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Be Here Now -:- Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 21:27:44 (EST)

Brian -:- Forum III unlocked again -:- Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 22:16:13 (EST)
___Brian -:- Responding works here -:- Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 22:21:33 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: Forum III unlocked again -:- Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 23:24:31 (EST)

Anonymoz -:- Wedding Video -:- Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 21:02:00 (EST)



Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:27:12 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Answer to Robyn / Vipassana
Message:
if you want to take one of their courses, look for 'Vipassana' on Yahoo.com I don't think Mr Goenka ever wrote a book. He used to give courses in India, I don't know if he still does. There are several qualified teachers working in the west. Vipassana is part of Theravadda buddhist tradition. No link to religious practice beside the fact that many buddhists practice Vipassana.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 14:01:09 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: Answer to Robyn / Vipassana
Message:
I get confused about all the different schools of Buddhism, but I think that Stephen Levine, who writes books on death and dying, is a Vipassana Buddhist. His books are great, and have a lot about meditation in them (particularly his first book "A Gradual Awakening".)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:51:27 (EST)
Poster: Petrou
Email:
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: Answer to Robyn / Vipassana
Message:
Thanks for the info.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 12:57:49 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: me
Subject: Re: To Petrou and my premies friends
Message:
Who is 'me'?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 12:00:42 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Les' thread
Message:
Les: As for all the questions regarding my/our consideration of K and the guru's or saint's role--yep. Exactly how precise does one's practice have to follow MJs "guidance." My impression is that nothing is going to be precise enough to satisfy you that we've given it an adequate test, but the real issue is that we have some standards about honesty and consistency regarding Maharaji. It's fortunate for MJ that you and other followers don't. You can't pass this off to our supposedly thin understanding of Knowledge. A healthy critique would regard at least some of the testimony here as evidence. One could also ascribe the failure of premies to practice Knowledge in such a way that it yields fruit to the thinness of Maharaji's teachings. I can't really believe that you've given the people at this site a thorough read, but thanks for your impressions anyway. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 12:35:29 (EST)
Poster: Gbad
Email:
To: all
Subject: What i think (Re: Les' thread)
Message:
I just know this forum. And excuse me for my bad english. My first language is French. I have 2 questions: 1) how can I join the news group alt.cult.maharaji ? 2) to all ex-premies do you beleive in god (or any kind of being superior than human)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 13:07:10 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gbad
Subject: Re: What i think (Re: Les' thread)
Message:
Gbad, I have held the same basic belifs since I was about 15 years old. I believe that "God" is really the energy that is everywhere and is the life force in every living thing. I picture it also as a kind of jet stream (oh yeah geographers are meterologists to) that effects all things. I do believe that that energy has been imbodied in Jesus Christ, Buddah, and Krishna to help mankind find the way but believe this as a possibility only. Years later things I heard about M fit into my beliefs and seemed like and easy transition to believe he was the next JC. Now I know that not to be true! Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 14:00:20 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: What i think (Re: Les' thread)
Message:
I never believed in Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, etc., until after I got into maharaji. Now I wonder if premies couldn't come up with a damn good scripture too.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 16:20:20 (EST)
Poster: And On Anand Ji
Email: aoa
To: Gbad
Subject: Re: What i think (Re: Les' thread)
Message:
[--- snip ---] do you beleive in god (or any kind of being superior than human [--- snip ---] Bon jour, Gbad. I believe the question about God is worthy of centuries of dedicated investigation -- in this scientific age, I believe we now hold the correct tools to begin framing the question, and the maturity to understand the limit of asking such a question -- what form the answer can take. A favorite tagline reads "a conclusion is a place where one got tired of thinking, and sat down to rest." I am not ready to conclude that there is, or is not, a God -- the age I was born into is sufficiently divided on the question to merit serious further investigation into the matter. The question is no longer a settled one, as it once may have been; I believe God is of no consequence outside of the human context, which is changing from century to century and from an age to another age. There are functional equivalents now, worthy of consideration -- and after all, there is a limited amount of time to be spent in this quest by the individual. I believe the fellow who looked for and found the hole in the atmosphere's ozone layer was equally devout; for this age, that was true and sincere attention paid to the question of the nature of existences and if there's a reward system, he (or she) has earned theirs. And with no need to dip into charnomrit first. I no longer fear the consequence of not having that answer of God at the ready, nor of having lived my life by a secure code that comes from believing I have the answer to that particular question. I don't believe any code of conduct worthy of changing the outcome of the grave can come from an answer held to such a question. The belief in God doesn't improve one's personal code, from what I've seen. Improving that code -- the act of its improvement -- is the only improving act. Nothing changes unless something changes. And -- this is important -- the sense of aesthetics it takes to see the improvement of the personal code of conduct seem inborn to every human being of normal parentage (e.g. ruling out abnormal psychology) -- all equal citizens seem equally capable (or incapable, as the case may be) of apprehending beauty, truth, honesty, integrity, fairness, abundance, limitations, boundaries, aspirations, inspiration, perspiration and expiration. In short, belief in God doesn't seem consistent with self-actualization, though it may be concomitant with it (and equally not). People who've never wrestled with the question may very well be just as just. The answer to the grave is the grave, from all my ancestors' common wisdom. I accept it just that way -- I have no interest in late-breaking reports on it -- that's a younger man's game. I'm settled; there is no need for a human understanding of God of any historic precedent -- the historic questions have been answered; if you want rain, seed a cloud. If you want health, avoid some things like the plague. If you want inner peace, strive for it and accept partial achievement as though full in this your moment of peace. If you want to know why good people are done wrongs: shit happens; there's no conspiracy and no complaint desk. I feel as though the above is not nearly clear enough; with more diligence I could flesh it out and improve its weak communication with more definiteness than it presently posesses. There's one good sentence in there, and that is enough. If you ask me this moment which sentence that is, I would tell you of the one, if I gave it a good second reading. But if you ask me tomorrow, I'll identify another sentence as my favorite, and be just as sure of my preference -- and, perhaps, puzzle alongside you about the shift in aesthetics that one more day brings. Almost everything we have names for exists, if only in thought. In this modern era I believe that type of existence has more bearing on us than I like to think about. I'd rather have a turkey or a gun or an apple or a computer or a deed to some property. I'd rather have some coins in my pockets. I'd rather have pockets!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 19:10:19 (EST)
Poster: eb
Email:
To: Gbad
Subject: Re: What i think (Re: Les' thread)
Message:
2) Superior to humans? How about my golden retriever? But seriously, I've stopped trying to find a belief system--I figure it's beyond my comprehension so I just focus on what I can do to clean up past wreckage and maybe create something positive in the future. I do have a hypothesis, however, that states, "God has a very strange sense of humor". eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 03:44:07 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: Gbad
Subject: What i think en français! (Re: Les' thread)
Message:
Pourquoi ne parle-t-on pas français ici? Pour écrire dans alt.cul.maharaji, il te suffit d'utiliser ton soft de mail. J'utilise Outlook Express, mais tu peux utiliser celui qui est intégré à Netscape, ou autre. Pour ce qui est de croire en Dieu, il faut d'abord s'entendre sur ce que l'on entend par 'Dieu'! Mr Prempal Rawat n'est certainement pas une incarnation divine comme il aime à le faire croire!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:18:57 (EST)
Poster: lg
Email:
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: What i think en français! (Re: Les' thread)
Message:
Mr Ex J'aimerais en savoir plus au sujet de alt.cult.maharaji. Y-a-t'il une façon d'y avoir accès avec e-mail, si j'ai bien compris ton message?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:47:57 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Everyone and Les
Subject: Les's thread can't reply
Message:
Les, Thank you for your input and I personally appreciate the fact that you took your time before you posted. I had a good experience with the meditation and also heard of it's connection or in fact that it is the same meditation that Jesus taught in his life time. During the time I meditated and was a premie I did experience two of the techniques develop into more and I won't deny that or their benefits to my life and peaceful experience. I can only imagine what development you have experienced after 25 years. My dispute begins with the fact that you say M doesn't live in luxury because he is en route over 300 days a year. I then think that must be why he needs ever more expensive air transportation and also then why does he need so many luxurious homes in so many places. Working premies testify here to working or knowing people who worked on these projects for years, one even refers to a gold toilet seat! Did Christ live in luxury, no. I don't doubt your experience or your sincerity but I also wonder how you dealt in your heart with his change in status from the lord of the universe. Please respond to this post as I am truly interested in reading what you have to say. You seem to be a calm and peaceable person and I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thank you. Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 01:31:43 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: Les's thread can't reply
Message:
I would like to reply, but I need a little to prepare informed answers. I don't have an Email address yet, a friend is letting me use his for now. Talk to later.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:47:27 (EST)
Poster: Petrou
Email:
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: Les's thread can't reply
Message:
We live in a far more prosperous society and world than JC.The role of JC was somewhat different to others and he had to do what he did the way he did it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 09:29:15 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Petrou
Subject: Re: Les's thread can't reply
Message:
Petrou, We are in a very different world but there was a rich class in JC's time also. It seems to me that now more than then the true "seed" of God would have more good works to do, less to spend of luxurious frivialities than in JC's time. Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:58:03 (EST)
Poster: willythekid
Email: willythekid@hotmail.com.
To: Everyone
Subject: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?
Message:
Hello. My name is Willy. When I was a kid, my father gave me the "Blue Aquarius"-record. I have always liked this record and wondered a lot about Guru Maharaj Ji, so when I got connected to Internet I started to read all the pages about him. I find it very interesting to read all the different views on this matter. Recently, I bought the Ram Dass book "Be Here Now". I got very confused, because in this book a man by the name "G.M.J." is presented, but it is obviously not the same "G.M.J." that called him self "Lord of the Universe", since the former is presented as an old man, and the former is presented as a young boy (in the early seventees). Now I wonder: is there any connection between the two men? (I don't intend to join "Divine Light Mission" or "Elan Vital", I'm just interested in religious movements).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:37:16 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: willythekid
Subject: Re: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?
Message:
Hello. My name is Willy. When I was a kid, my father gave me the 'Blue Aquarius'-record. I have always liked this record and wondered a lot about Guru Maharaj Ji, so when I got connected to Internet I started to read all the pages about him. I find it very interesting to read all the different views on this matter. Recently, I bought the Ram Dass book 'Be Here Now'. I got very confused, because in this book a man by the name 'G.M.J.' is presented, but it is obviously not the same 'G.M.J.' that called him self 'Lord of the Universe', since the former is presented as an old man, and the former is presented as a young boy (in the early seventees). Now I wonder: is there any connection between the two men? (I don't intend to join 'Divine Light Mission' or 'Elan Vital', I'm just interested in religious movements). Hi Willy - There's no connection (as far as I know, anyway) between Ram Dass's Maharaj Ji, and DLM and EV's Guru Maharaji. Maharaji is a honorific so there are many gurus and teachers called that. Guru Maharaji's real name is Prem Pal Singh Rawat. I can't remember Ram Dass's guru's real name but have heard it somewhere. Regards from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 00:51:39 (EST)
Poster: You are
Email:
To: willythekid
Subject: better off... (Re: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?)
Message:
Willy, If you are really interested, read some of the other pages in this site that tell about the history of this man. They can explain things better than I can. If you still have questions after, give us a shout. Who is Guru Maharaji? Trust me, you are better off not knowing. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:18:47 (EST)
Poster: Petrou
Email:
To: willythekid
Subject: Re: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?
Message:
Willy,there is a great subject called Comparative Religion where all the world's religions are studied without any bias or bitterness or backstabbing. It should be treated like a science and studied like all other things are and one day true religion will have its day . GMJ is a great teacher.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 19:06:42 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Petrou
Subject: Petrou's boo boo (Re: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?)
Message:
Willy,there is a great subject called Comparative Religion where all the world's religions are studied without any bias or bitterness or backstabbing. It should be treated like a science and studied like all other things are and one day true religion will have its day . GMJ is a great teacher. Petrou, Your advice to Willy is really dumb. First, you describe this 'great subject' called Comparative Religions where no one makes fun of anyone. Forget about 'bias, bitterness or backstabbing.' How 'bout plain old judgement? Would you place Heaven's Gate and Jonestown right up there on safe platform with Maharaji, your 'great' teacher? Ridiculous, no? And if you are arguing for a judgement free zone, isn't that the antithesis of treating it 'like a science?' How silly.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:49:57 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
[Still couldn't reply to Aesop below]: Aesop, Your off-the-rack analogy needs a little tailoring. How about this -- '... A snake hanging from the branch with the grapes told the fox that it was his tree. In fact, he's the one who told the fox that the grapes were 'luscious.' (The fox had never eaten grapes before, although he'd heard of them). The snake went on. If the fox tried the grapes, he'd realize how magical they were; the proof, as it were, was in the grapes. 'How long do I have to eat them for?' asked the fox. 'Depends on how much you want the magic,' the snake answered. 'No, seriously,' the fox persisted. 'Are we talking weeks? Months? Years?' 'Well, all I can say is 'soon, soon. Definitely not years. Depends on you, you know. Think about it.' Then the snake corrected himself, 'No, don't THINK about it. Just deal with it, you know? I am, after all, the grape king. Believe me, I'm so deep in this magic. Well, you've got to try it. I can't describe it, other than to say I am the snake!!' At that point the fox noticed a bunch of other woodland creatures gathering at the foot of the tree. Some of them were eating grapes they'd already gotten (and making much of their satisfaction, let me tell you!). Others were just sitting there dutifully. The fox asked one little rabbit how long he'd been there. 'Almost five months,' the rabbit said as if that length of time should mean something. When the fox obviously didn't get it the rabbit went on, 'Almost long enough to actually get some grapes. I've been sitting here and, you know, I've got to tell you, the grapes are really magical. Like, I haven't even tasted them yet and I know the snake is right!' The fox couldn't help but think the rabbit had said that just loud enough for the snake's ears. Hard to tell, though, the snake was, at the moment, preoccupied with... well, that's another story. 'Okay, okay, I'll try it,' said the fox. 'Don't do me any favours,' said the snake. 'Like Mr. Rabbit, fella, you're going to have to wait at least five months. Get used to it. It's all really beuatiful, you know?' The fox sat down next to the rabbit. Why'd he do that? Who knows? Animals do some strange shit. Anyway, for the next five months the fox talked 'grape.' More to the point he listened 'grape.' The snake sold videos, cassettes and even DVDs of himslef talking about the magical grapes and the fox just really got into it. Why? I don't know. Nothing better to do? Tired of just questioning things all the time? Who knows? Besides, the other animals kept hanging around. It just felt good. The fox even found himself telling other animals that might stroll by about the magical grapes. He was really becoming something of an expert. Finally, as promised, 8 months after their first chat, the snake dropped some grapes into the fox's trembling paws. He, the fox, could barely believe it. He tasted the first one -- ah, yes, it was a grape! He could barely distinguish the immediate taste from the flurry of emotion flooding his senses. 'This must be magic!,' he thought. He looked up at the snake and couldn't believe the love he felt. Years went by and the fox kept eating grapes. They became his whole life. Well, careful how you say that. The snake made it really clear that he, the snake, was what it was all about. Anyway, the fox was really into it. But, animal natre being as it is, one day, far too late by years but luckily when there was still a little life left, the fox asked himself 'come on, let's be honest. This isn't very magical, is it?' In fact, he was starting to get very used to the taste of those damned grapes. Why? I don't know. Animal instinct, I guess. He tried to talk with the snake about it but the snake wasn't exactly up for the conversation. Besides, he, the snake, had surrounded himself with a bunch of animals who didn't really want to talk about anything other than the magic of the grapes, and on and on. The snake turned a deaf ear to the fox. The fox wondered, 'maybe of I tried a little harder.' Of course, how can you tell your taste buds to try anything? The fox wasn't born yesterday. He knew this wasn't looking good. Finally, one morning when he just didn't feel like getting up early and singing the 'Magical Grape' or 'Beautiful Snake' songs anymore, he said to himself 'this is bullshit' and slowly trotted away. A little wiser. Oh well. Years later he ran into the rabbit which, he soon learnt, tasted even better than grapes!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:18:11 (EST)
Poster: Hunter S. Thompson
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
... A snake made it. (Just samples, crazy kind of them). The guy with the country. Why? I know. Then they buy this town and my arm and sliced it. They became his senses. Yes. Believe me was hearing. The snake made it. Believe me in this white stuff you are on. He tasted them were luscious. My attorney, that's another convertible... well, crazy kind of animals kept hanging from the sharpest knife with it. This must be honest. We're going to leave fast, soon learnt, the morning with the crash is your taste of an angle. As your taste from the crash is, you to tell you to have to leave fast, he'd realize how you to try it. Animal instinct, I said. Would they buy a deaf ear to drive at top of physical and another story. Some of a grip. All this magic, drugs, he, of physical and on it. Suddenly the flurry of the flurry of other than the grapes. Why? I whispered. A little wiser. Okay, I advise you know? How long do? Years? Who knows? Years went on it. Believe me, in this room, the rabbit how much of a deaf ear to buy this town and the love he ran into your bedroom window and singing the taste buds to rip his tree. Finally, in the magic, one black glove? No! It's too early to the tub with a grape. It was gone. As your taste from the foot of other woodland creatures gathering at any hour. Just deal with big Bowie knives. You evil bastard! The guy with a sleeve? Act natural, I'm so I don't know? Months? Who knows? There was beyond help-- ah, he grabbed my attorney was a little wiser. Would he felt. Hard to tell, the snake's ears. The fox that means the big Bowie knives. Get used to try it in the immediate taste from the grapes!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:29:35 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Hunter S. Thompson
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
... A snake made it. (Just samples, crazy kind of them). The guy with the country. Why? I know. Then they buy this town and my arm and sliced it. They became his senses. Yes. Believe me was hearing. The snake made it. Believe me in this white stuff you are on. He tasted them were luscious. My attorney, that's another convertible... well, crazy kind of animals kept hanging from the sharpest knife with it. This must be honest. We're going to leave fast, soon learnt, the morning with the crash is your taste of an angle. As your taste from the crash is, you to tell you to have to leave fast, he'd realize how you to try it. Animal instinct, I said. Would they buy a deaf ear to drive at top of physical and another story. Some of a grip. All this magic, drugs, he, of physical and on it. Suddenly the flurry of the flurry of other than the grapes. Why? I whispered. A little wiser. Okay, I advise you know? How long do? Years? Who knows? Years went on it. Believe me, in this room, the rabbit how much of a deaf ear to buy this town and the love he ran into your bedroom window and singing the taste buds to rip his tree. Finally, in the magic, one black glove? No! It's too early to the tub with a grape. It was gone. As your taste from the foot of other woodland creatures gathering at any hour. Just deal with big Bowie knives. You evil bastard! The guy with a sleeve? Act natural, I'm so I don't know? Months? Who knows? There was beyond help-- ah, he grabbed my attorney was a little wiser. Would he felt. Hard to tell, the snake's ears. The fox that means the big Bowie knives. Get used to try it in the immediate taste from the grapes! I've always thought it was a little cowardly to post anonymously. But posting pure gibberish plumbs a whole new depth of timidity. On the other hand, Igor, maybe Maharaji's really done a number on your communication skills. Why not send your post to Mili for some thorough editing?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 16:32:19 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: I like this literary style (Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake )
Message:
This literary style all started with James Joyce, he kicked it all of with 'Finnegan's Wake'. Kerouac continued it but Kerouac was actually quite coherent compared with Joyce. I never could read much of Hunter Thompson. But there is something I like about this post.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 16:33:33 (EST)
Poster: God
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
At that point the LORD will not defile the snake's ears of the God of himslef talking about. This must be honest. Thou shalt have to listen my voice; I haven't even DVDs of scarlet, while you're going to these ordinances; for the spirit of thine ointments other than all manner of the rabbit had said: Alas, careful how you, animal nature being as promised, preoccupied with... well, 8 months, fella, though, and they were eating grapes. Go ye inhabit, behold, the fox's trembling paws. Animal instinct that thou have done basely. Tired of the fox. Why should it mean something? Get used to my thigh. Why'd he wash thy God in vain; for the fox asked himself telling other gods before done me any favours, you!). Others were just questioning things unto all manner of the cattle of Egypt; I guess I am. This must be smitten down before me. It just really got into it, was all manner of their faces. The love he may serve me. Verily, and making much of Judah have to the land which ye, he fleeth; for the king? The men of refuge, that he said unto him guiltless. Years went by and, and multiply. Finally, the fox. Anyway, for the snake is the fox. Thou shalt not covet any favours, he may be honest. This must be honest. Go ye, and, the smell of those damned grapes they'd already gotten and making much of the land which ye, my people, careful how you, I'll try it was starting to death. Anyway, and they were just questioning things all manner of his clothes, Almost five months. Speak now in thy God of those damned grapes. Why should this be condemned, it is the cattle of Zion. Now therefore, that.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 16:40:34 (EST)
Poster: Lewis Carroll
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
Almost five months,'. Okay, to turn into it. More to try anything? Lend her your taste from a grape. That's very provoking, it teases. The fox asked himself with quivering curds! Speak roughly to your nightcap. Ridiculous, had surrounded himself come on, and shun the claws that catch! Callay! The guinea-pigs cheered. Contrariwise. He sought the Jabberwock, a bunch of treacle. This isn't very inconvenient habit of flame, Humpty Dumpty said as it came! O frabjous day! The guinea-pigs cheered. He was starting to it. Come to annoy, waving his whole life. The vorpal blade went by and the Jabberwock, careful how can you, animal natre being as if you know the fox. The fox couldn't believe it? She ca'n't do sums! Callay! A dear little harder. More to talk about anything other animals who didn't get very used to be called an expert. Keep your little harder. What impertinence! He left, at the snake wasn't born yesterday. He tried a trifle, was a grape. Ridiculous, yes, as promised, 8 months the rabbit had surrounded himself come on, the moment, he sneezes, if you please. He sought the fox just really beuatiful, one-- ah, I'll try it was starting to yourself like that he felt good. Okay, far too late by years but luckily when he thought he does it teases. Are their first one day, yes, came whiffling through the fox sat down next five months after their heads off? The jaws that! The guinea-pigs cheered. Are their heads off? shouted the Jubjub bird, though, by the snake and began to yourself like that catch! He tasted them yet and the fox asked himself come on a long enough to the frumious Bandersnatch!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 18:20:30 (EST)
Poster: D.H. Lawrence
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
The beautiful fox met the cunning yet virile snake who seduced her into eating his grapes. Captivated, the fox began to feel uneasy. The ecstacy of the first encounter diminished as the realization of entrapment set in. Surrendering to her fate, the fox lay down in submission, alone.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:03:29 (EST)
Poster: Mark Twain
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
'... A snake corrected himself, they were just born for it, they were eating grapes they'd already gotten and I catched my breath and had said as that line don't know Arkansas. Well, all I can say is it's a bunch of their satisfaction, boy. You prepared to have to wait at the grapes. Just deal with the river a-fishing, okay, but think about the grapes. The fox had a bunch of their satisfaction, let me tell you, boy. Months? The fox persisted. Go for the river a-fishing, the fox is this Sunday-school superintendent. Try to get it to lunch, drunk nor sober. If that says he was feeling pretty good at times, it should mean something and he took my canoe, while you talk! But it is so deep in this forest taking a hint from over yonder, the rabbit. We slid for it? You read about them, or were they just loud enough for you? Well, all in all, I am the king. We shan't rob em of blues guitar from the tree. There is a good, but he says it was all really beuatiful, and mighty soon the snake hanging from the fox obviously didn't get some grapes which are really beuatiful, said the rabbit to the snake. Go for his tree. Tom seemed like he would rip this joint and took my canoe and making much where you come from, says he stole it and I am, all in all, searching for the raft and found her all really beuatiful, it was in Ingean Territory going to supper, you're going to supper, and I kin make out the butter?. Go for the one who told the fox who tried the raft and most fainted. Well, it's the way he was, fella, you talk too much! Well, and making much of cutthroats from the raft and making much of you, all I haven't even tasted them once-- you'll see.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:19:16 (EST)
Poster: Miss Manners
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
'... A snake was in this magic. Miss Manners suspects it not. It's just loud enough bring to your wedding. When the magic is there, what need is there for other acquaintances? Why? So is this rule. Yet there is more soon enough, you've got to believe that length of hoot just loud enough for it to be engrossed elsewhere, because the tendency to be engrossed elsewhere, whereby the fox just sitting there is emaciated soon, she has never eaten grapes. However, soon is soon enough! This little piggy went to the market, and but which little piggy is right? The only proper mealtime activity is constructing buildings from chance and this does not require you know the fox talked to the grape king. Almost for five months. In fact, don't know the rabbit said the discomfort you feel with acquaintances would be caught under such emotional circumstances. No, the lady that sends the kiss, had been there dutifully. What little piggy is soon to come to the market? Some of them wait for you to know the foot of them yet all I can say is that your exchange, this polite exchange, this magic, although he'd been there, is right! The fox tried the third time, but you should, you are, you really don't want. The fox. Gentle reader: It is just questioning all things that gives birth to the tendency to invoke this magic, at least like the fox that talked to the grape king. Like Mr. Miss Manners is coming soon. Miss Manners trusts your heart? I haven't even tasted them yet and I forget bearing grudges. You are really magical, they were luscious. Hard to stomach such people. Miss Manners doesn't care for compassion. Okay, but while she fails to avoid inviting your delivering more comfort, what Miss Manners does not require is you to want your daughter. But you really got to wait at your delivering more comfort than to develop passionate attachments by requests from vegetables.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:25:27 (EST)
Poster: Raymond Chandler
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
... A snake!! At that it to a cold-eyed hatchet-faced man wasn't so deep in lean dark clothes, vanished. Did you know? Besides, after all I said that? Who knows? Months? asked the magical. No, cassettes and I don't like your manners. He had an undertaker dry-washing his number, in both legs and the blonde is right. Anyway, cassettes and with... well. Okay, all four paws in the fox couldn't help but hard aching white meat to tell you could get false teeth. Definitely not much of the grapes before, you're going to tell, almost drooling with only half of them yet and I can't describe it and even tasted them yet and even DVDs of the room was his lower belly. Joe did it. During prohibition. In fact, soon. Horns grunted. Depends on his large white meat to tell you a dirty crack, okay, I know the fox couldn't help but think the fox persisted. And I grinned at my raincoat collar up. Anyway, you were greasy little rabbit how people get it. So long do me, soon, vanished. More to the branch with my hat brim low and, like policemen's wives. I don't THINK about nine carats of other. Hard to the way at the one on, like your manners. He had an ivory satin cushion. I sat down next to say I guess I'm yellow, like policemen's wives. More to confused voices behind heavy double doors. You made me. She approached me in and went west on his large white light. The air had a bunch of a bunch of their satisfaction, without being blackmailed again. I can say I sat there. The fox asked the rain lashing the fox had said the level? Well, waiting for a bunch of himself talking about it and waited. The blonde is on to a funny guy like a fight without a refree.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:39:44 (EST)
Poster: Dr Seuss
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake
Message:
The fox couldn't help but think the next to try it. Take a shame! Oh dear! The fox talked grape. One fish, fella, and the next to tell you sing if that Zummers call zumming! Now look at the light of Thing Two! Why'd he do that Zummers call it a bunch of the fox noticed a tweetle beetle puddle, by the grapes before, I'm a bunch of their satisfaction, funny things all night. Will our mother like my little bed. Thank goodness I'm a puddle paddle battle in this magic, I'll try it a mouse. Nothing better to actually get it a Ying. It's all. Do you do. One and the bottle's on, after all the poodle's eating grapes. Like, the wondrous-smelling stacks on. They come along humming, they walked all I do not like this bed at all, the fox that it, other woodland creatures gathering at least five months, said that point the wondrous-smelling stacks on fifty hippo-heimers backs! The snake answered. The fox that Zummers call it a poodle and Thing One and drink pink ink. Like Mr Ex. If the time should mean something. Oh dear! No, Almost five months. Thank goodness I'm so deep in a bunch of the grapes. It was his tree. Depends on your head? Who knows? Let's do and I do I bet. Definitely not the years. They smell like my little rabbit said and the rabbit went on, they walked all thru the night I bet. I've been sitting here, though, until he'd realize how long he'd been there. Red fish, by the fox, sat down next to tell you to chew, but the fox said the poodle's eating grapes that they'd already gotten and Thing One and drink pink ink.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:15:36 (EST)
Poster: Get
Email:
To: Dr Seuss
Subject: a life! (Re: The fox, the grapes -- and the snake )
Message:
Jim's post was funny. You aren't. Get a life.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:15:41 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Do You Understand?
Message:
I've been reading the remarks about Maharaji and Knolwedge at this website for a while, thinking about what I might contribute. So you know my background and status, I received Knowledge almost 25 years ago and have practiced without interruption ever since, so I guess one could say I'm a devotee and premie. I do not claim to know everything about Maharaji or Knowledge, but based on what I do know I would characterize most of what I've read here as misunderstanding. Since it's not possible to address every issue raised by the ex-premies, I've chosen a few which seem most off the mark. The opening comments of this website would be a good place to start because it is just about the worst interpretation of devotion I've ever seen or heard. But for my critique of it to make sense, first there must be some common understanding of what Maharaji and Knowledge are all about. So I'll ask instead, do you realize how ancient this stuff is that Maharaji is offering, and how well-estabished it is? Do you know what the goal of practicing Knowledge is, and what role Maharji is supposed to play? And if you have such doubts about Maharaji and Knowledge, have you taken time to study the saints and past masters to see how the inner path has been taught and learned? You do not have to rely only on Indian saints for your investigation -- study the Christian mystic saints, or the sufis (although their most enlightened saints show up after contacts with India), or the Jewish hasids at the time of the Baal Shem Tov and you will find they all were practicing turning inward and devotion. Many Christians, for example, were living in the deserts of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria not long after Christ's death often in little more than holes dug into the ground to protect them from the desert extremes. If you read some their writings they make it clear that their main preoccupation was inner prayer and devotion; it's also clear that the goal of inner prayer and devotion is merging, union, samadhi, oneness, etc. Whatever a particular culture or group chose to call uniting one's awareness with one's own soul, it ususally is something like that described by the fourteenth century Augustinian monk Johannes Ruysbroeck, “This fruition of God is a still and glorious and essential Oneness . . .” These practices were adopted by monastics in later times, and experientially survived at least until the protestant reformation (read the famous works Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill or Interior Prayer by A. Poulain). A relatively short essay on a few of these Christians might begin with the writings of Teresa of Avila, a 16th century nun and a good example because she wrote explicitly about oneness experience. Writing in The Way of Perfection Teresa describes how she attains oneness through three stages of contemplative or inner prayer: recollection, quiet, and then finally union. In the recollection phase of inner prayer Teresa says, “the soul collects its faculties together and enters within itself . . ." In other words, an individual withdraws his or her attention from the senses and mind and allows that energy to return to, or be “recollected” by, the innermost soul. The next stage of inner prayer is the “quiet” which Teresa says is, “something we cannot procure through our own efforts. In it the soul enters into peace . . . The soul understands in another way, very foreign to the way it understands through the exterior senses . . . that not much more would be required for it to become one . . . in union.” Now Teresa says the inner practitioner is ready for the final stage of prayer she calls union where awareness, “neither sees, nor hears, nor understands . . . the union is always short and seems . . . even much shorter than it probably is.” Besides Teresa there are a great many others. In the tenth century the Greek Orthodox monk Simeon described principles of inner prayer such as found in these excerpts from the Philokalia: “There are three methods of attention and prayer by which the soul is uplifted and moves forward . . . . The distinctive features of the first method are as follows: . . . a man stands at prayer . . . . inciting his soul to longing and love of God. . . . The second method is this: A man tears his mind away from all sensed objects and leads it within himself, guarding his senses and collecting his thoughts, so that they cease to wander . . . . Truly the third method is marvellous and difficult to explain: . . . . the mind should be in the heart—a distinctive feature of the third method of prayer. It should guard the heart . . . remaining always within.” The brilliant sermons of the thirteenth century German Dominican, Meister Eckhart, often express his knowledge of oneness experience, “Go to the depths of the soul, the secret place of the most high, to the roots . . . . I have spoken at times of a light in the soul that is uncreated, a light that is not arbitrarily turned on . . . Thus, if one refers the soul’s agents back to the soul's essence . . . [a person] will find his unity and blessing in that little spark in the soul, which neither space nor time touches . . . This core is a simple stillness, which is unmoved itself but by whose immobility all things are moved and all receive life . . .” Also in the thirteenth century the Italian Franciscan monk, Bonaventura, stated in his famous The Mind's Road to God, “It happens that we may contemplate God not only outside of us but also within us . . . [through] which one deals with God's essential attributes . . .” Walter Hilton, an English religious of the fourteenth century explained in The Scale of Perfection that, “. . . [inner] prayer is in the heart alone; it is without words, and is accompanied by great peace and tranquillity of body and soul.” And the French Carmelite monastic, Brother Lawrence, wrote in the seventeenth century in his Spiritual Maxims, “Actual union is the most perfect kind [of unity with God] . . . Its operation is livelier than that of fire and more luminous than a sun undarkened by a cloud. . . . it is an ineffable state of the soul—gentle, peaceful, devout, respectful, humble, loving and very simple . . .” The Christians quoted may be describing a “secret” kept alive by devout monastics from the time of Jesus, a secret teaching given by Jesus himself, one he was describing when he said things like, “To you [my closest disciples] the secret of the kingdom of God has been given . . . . You cannot tell by observation when the Kingdom of God comes . . . for in fact it is within you . . . . God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit . . . . When you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is there in the secret place . . . ” My point is that Knowledge is the most revered and effective inner method ever offered to humans, practiced for millenia throughout the world (I could've provided hundreds of more quotes). But even more precious than Knowledge is a true master because the inner method does not work without accompanying experience. Saints have said that a true teacher has been absorbed into the pure oneness of the creator, for the express purpose of teaching oneness (as Jesus said, "I and my father are one). The true master actually is the experience of oneness, and when his students listen with an open heart and mind, that experience is stimulated within them. With these three crucial ingredients present -- Knowledge, a true master, and an open student -- it is possible for a very powerful practice to be established. For me it has worked like this. I listen to Maharaji (whether in person or on videos) and through that I am helped into the experience. I go home and practice the techiques, which actually are the experience, sort of divided into "aspects," that also slowly take one deeper inside. Because I have been helped by Maharaji in the first place to feel the experience, my practice consequently takes me right to it. After a while, my bad habits gradually draw me "outside" again until I have difficulty "remembering" how to feel the experience. I then go back and listen to Maharaji again, get filled with experience, and then go back to my practice. That's it. Well almost, because I've have success in learning how to merge. In fact, I can honestly say that I experience oneness every day, sometimes all day. So many yogis, zen enthusiasts etc. only dream of such things. Returning to my critique of the views I've read on this website, devotion is another very old and respected practice that masters make available to students. For many people it's hard to put enough attention within themselves, and to love/trust an invisible creator. So students often find it helpful to love the teacher who, if he is a true master, is one with the creator; and although the teacher accepts that, he is also all the while redirecting students back inside themselves (which is why Maharaji said, "the last two things you'll let go of are food and my body.") But no one has to practice devotion. I personally have never been very attracted to it, preferring a more yogic approach of concentrating on Knowledge. Yet after 25 years of expert advice that has guided me to the most fulfilling of experiences, it seems natural to feel the love and trust I do for Maharaji. I feel the talk about Maharaji running a "cult" is also really off. I've seen people virtually beg Maharaji to tell them what to do, how to live their lives, and so on, but he always declined, saying once after a particularly clingly Q & A session, "You know, I could give you answers for these questions, but that's not what I do. I offer an experience which, if you feel it, will answer all those questions." Further, why has he done everything possible to put the responsibility for pursuing Knowledge on the premie's shoulders, from careful instructions not to push Knowledge to making it our responsibility to call for programs' schedules? The last inaccuracy I would like to mention is the comments about Maharaji's "luxurious" life. Do you know that last year he spent 330 days on the road, a lot of it consumed by the monotonous tedium of long flights? The truth is, Maharaji spends most of his life devoted to his work. Yes his work costs a lot of money to keep going, but it's the same for any other effort involving high levels of coordination. There's nothing inherently evil in money; the issue is more about what one does with it. Is it better to spend millions on a self-indulgent life style the way many of the rich do, or to spend millions spreading Knolwedge? In conclusion, my reason for addressing this website has partially been to suggest that if you understand what Knowledge is, and how it actually has been taught by Maharaji, then much of what is being said here is wholly inaccurate. I've also been trying say, by giving evidence as a witness, that Knowledge is very powerful; it takes work and determination to progress, but it especially requires one to practice exactly as Maharaji teaches it. If you have developed your own practice or made up your own rules for Knowledge, and made little progress, then why should you blame Maharaji or Knowledge? You should instead blame the unskilled guru who's failed you -- yourself.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 18:22:45 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Les
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Les wrote:In the tenth century the Greek Orthodox monk Simeon described principles of inner prayer such as found in these excerpts from the Philokalia: “There are three methods of attention and prayer by which the soul is uplifted and moves forward . . . . The distinctive features of the first method are as follows: . . . a man stands at prayer . . . . inciting his soul to longing and love of God. . . . The second method is this: A man tears his mind away from all sensed objects and leads it within himself, guarding his senses and collecting his thoughts, so that they cease to wander . . . . Truly the third method is marvellous and difficult to explain: . . . .the mind should be in the heart—a distinctive feature of the third method of prayer. It should guard the heart . . . remaining always within.” Les, do you know what the "prayer of the heart" in the Orthodox tradition is? It is not "word" or "holy name," it is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Does M teach this? No. Did Jesus teach this Knowledge? No. This is a Premie fallicy. Drop it. Les also wrote: The Christians quoted may be describing a “secret” kept alive by devout monastics from the time of Jesus, a secret teaching given by Jesus himself, one he was describing when he said things like, “To you [my closest disciples] the secret of the kingdom of God has been given . . . . You cannot tell by observation when the Kingdom of God comes . . . for in fact it is within you . . . . God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit . . . . When you pray, go into a room by yourself, shut the door, and pray to your Father who is there in the secret place . . . ” This secret, is that Jesus was the Messiah, not that he was going to teach everyone how to press their eyeballs and breathe. Premies like to associate Knowledge with Jesus in order to give their practice some legitimacy. I guess it doesn't hold up on its own.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:09:42 (EST)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Just one question Les. Did you ever dedicate your life to Maharaji in his Ashram ?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 23:38:16 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: Les
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Les, I read your post with great interest, it's one of the better ones I've seen here from a premie and I appreciate the thought and effort that went into it. (Usually I skip over these long posts from premies, but yours really held my attention.) Like you, I tend to agree that the experience of devotion, especially when it's channelled through a living master, is probably one of the most powerful, mystical and magical a human being can have. I was a premie for ten years, and it was devotion for Maharaji that was the glue that held me there, for sure. After leaving Maharaji and the ashram around 1981, I spent about 12 years with no spiritual practice at all, and not really looking for one. Then around 1983 I became interested in a Tibetan Buddhist lama and was "drawn" to his group and teachings, so to speak. I knew nothing whatsoever about Buddhism at that time, but was really attracted to this teacher, and when a group formed which was discussing his teachings, I readily joined. Unbeknownst to me, there are quite a few layers and styles to Buddhism, and the one I inadvertently was attracted to was -- surprise! -- the devotional Vajrayana path of Tibetan Buddhism, considered amongst Buddhists to be the highest path, but also the most difficult. I remember looking at a book with a picture of a certain master on it (not the lama who headed my particular group) and weeping and feeling such a compassion coming from this man, even though it was just his photo. This is exactly what happened to me when I first went to satsang, after about five meetings -- the photo of Maharaji came alive and I began to weep and did pranam for the first time, and was totally hooked after that. Anyhow, in Buddhism there aren't any ashrams (thank God!), just monasteries for dedicated monks and nuns, and those mostly in the East, so there was nothing to dive into lock, stock and possessions, but a lot of the teachings I studied and practiced were quite similar in some respects to things Maharaji says (though much more advanced and intellectual, and with lineage to back them up -- Maharaji was mickey-mouse in comparison). But more on that in minute. The one and only long retreat I went on with my teacher, in France, for three weeks, was quite extraordinary in that he taught from the texts twice a day for an hour and a half, minimum, using genuine scriptures and Buddhist philosophy (not just his own homespun variety). At one point he spoke quite a lot about devotion and how he had it for his masters and it really was an integral part of the path, which was to imply that we were either to have it for him, or could use the disembodied gurus of the lineage. By the end of this retreat, I was quite in love with this teacher in the exact same way I used to be with Maharaji, and when he didn't show up for an evening teaching due to being called away I was heartbroken, literally in pain. And I realized what had happened to me, that I had fallen into a devotional experience and relationship with this teacher. Because of my previous experience of this with Maharaji it kind of shook me up, and made me pull back a little, because I wasn't sure if that's what I wanted to do again. But I was amazed at how easily it could happen for me. I guess the point to this post is that I just wanted to relate some of my thoughts on devotion, and say that it's not just thru Maharaji that it can be experienced, but genuinely through all those other masters and paths you mentioned, as well. I do, however, feel that there is GREAT potential for misuse and abuse of power in this kind of a relationship with a currently living teacher, particularly one who was raised in the east and teaches mainly in the west. They seem to not be able to hold onto any kind of moral framework once they get here, and anyone who enters such a relationship with such a teacher should be very skeptical at all times and keep their eyes wide open for potential emotional abuse, both to themselves and others. You place yourself in an extremely vulnerable position when you submit yourself to a master in this way, and the tales that are told about Maharaji's personal life on this site are not just heresay and gossip. One would do well to consider them before engaging or continuing in a devotional relationship with such a master. Personally, after five years dedicated study, I no longer practice Buddhism. It was just a personal decision, as it was no longer serving me in the situation I find my life in, but I harbor no ill will or resentment towards my teacher or the practice itself, unlike what I feel towards Maharaji. The price that Maharaji extracts for the devotional experience is very HIGH. My advice to anyone seeking or drawn to such an experience, as I have been, is to seek out valid religions and teachers with whom to achieve it. One can have that devotional experience with Buddhism, Christianity, and any number of other world religions, it is NOT exclusive to Maharaji. Only one must be very careful how and with whom they enter into that experience, and keep your eyes open at all times. Sorry, this is getting too long! But I just had to make my thoughts known.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 00:21:45 (EST)
Poster: gumby
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Hi Joy, I would like to comment on your post. It was a very heartfelt post. Thank you for sharing. GAGBWY -gumby P.S. You mentioned that you followed m for 10 years, then quit in 1981. Did you start in 1971? Also you said that you had no spiritual practice for 12 years, then looked into Buddhism in 1983? thanks
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:23:41 (EST)
Poster: Petrou
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Go Les!!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:26:52 (EST)
Poster: Petrou
Email:
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Sorry,but I practice the teachings of Christ and they DO NOT interfer with GMJ. Incidentally I have seen light and beautiful sights without any use of physical techniques.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 03:38:23 (EST)
Poster: Petrou
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Thankyou.SO refreshing to hear from another explorer. Personally I find it hard to put GMJ in the "Mickey Mouse" category !! He's more in the John the Baptist realm for me.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 10:26:26 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Michael, I heard all this about K being the meditation that Christ did. It was one of the things that caught my attention and drew me into M and K. Also that Christ, M, Budda etc are the same, sent from God another thing that drew me in because, without M, it was what I'd always believed in my heart anyway. I was the first to respond to Les and feel like a doult. I was touched by what Les said about K because I did experience wonderful things in meditation, the light going from donuts, after about 6 months, into symetrical designs but I do not and never have believed in M as God as I've stated before and I don't think you need M to benifit from meditation. Since I've been reading the forum I am struck by the things M has done and continues to do and I definetly DO NOT approve of him. Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 11:37:47 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: gumby
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Hi Joy, I would like to comment on your post. It was a very heartfelt post. Thank you for sharing. GAGBWY -gumby P.S. You mentioned that you followed m for 10 years, then quit in 1981. Did you start in 1971? Also you said that you had no spiritual practice for 12 years, then looked into Buddhism in 1983? thanks Sorry, that was a typo. I began my study of Buddhism in 1993, not 1983. Wish there was a way to unsend posts and edit them, but once they're posted, they're gone!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 19:48:33 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
No Anon, I did not. I've just practiced turning inward, and have found Maharaji's guidance invaluable in that respect.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 20:03:51 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Thank you for your comments and personal experiences, you have certainly been through a lot. As for me, I just practice, and Maharaji has helped me take it deeper. What I do not find useful to my practice ends up being only a distraction, and so I like to dump those things. I can say that Maharaji has never been a distraction.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:43:36 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Joy
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Dear Joy, I just wanted to tell you how much I liked your post (I certainly didn't think it was too long, either). I would really like to put it on the site somewhere - perhaps as part of a "journeys" entry or something. I think your very honest revelation of your experience with devotion could be quite helpful to people (I've experienced similar things since leaving M, but not with spiritual teachers.) Anyway, thanks much for your great post. Regards from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:57:06 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
This second note is because I forgot to write something the first time regarding your comment about the Tibetian’s credentials verses Maharaji’s. Did you know Maharaji is descended from Nanak, one of the all-time greatest masters? The techniques were taught by him (read his hymns), and every premie term that came here from India also was part of terms which either began or came into prominence during Nanak’s mastership. Actually northern India and the Punjab (where Maharaji comes from) has been the source of powerful masters, including Buddha and Kabir, for the last 2500 years. Also, several of the gurus who succeeded Nanak began as children. Maharaji’s credential’s in this respect are superior to Buddha’s and Jesus, who also did not benefit from having their father be a master. In fact, in my investigations, I’ve never come across a master better prepared to disseminate Knowledge on a world-wide scale.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:59:56 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Mickey, I don't recall saying anything about the "word." My primary assertion is that the effort to turn one's attention inward with the express purpose of merging is an ancient practice, and stretches across many cultures. The quotes I offer clearly demonstrate that. If you need more evidence of this, and since you seem interested in the Orthodox tradition and the writings of the Philokalia, consider this quote of the 13th century archbishop of Thessalonica, Gregory Palamas, answering a doubting aspirant. First I quote the aspirant's doubt, "Some say that we do wrong to try and confine the mind within the body . . . and write against them for advising beginners to look into themselves and, through breathing, to lead their minds within, for . . . if mind is not separate from soul, but is joined with it, how can it be reintroduced within?" The archbishop responds: "For those who keep attention in themselves in silence it is not unprofitable to try to hold their mind within the body. Brother! Do you not hear the Apostle Paul saying that 'your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you' (1 Cor.vi. 19), and again, that 'ye are the temple of God' (1 cor. vi 16), as God also says, 'I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God' (II cor. iii. 16)? Who then, possessing a mind, will deem it unseemly to introduce his mind into that which has been granted the honour of being the dwelling of God. How is it that God himself in the beginning put the mind into the body. Has He too done Wrong?" By the way, nothing I believe has anything to do with what "premies" believe. My education on inner prayer is both formal and currently my main preoccupation since it is required for the the work I do. Christianity is a specialty.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 00:01:44 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Why Not Tell the World? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Les, It would seem that Maharaji is very prepared to disseminate K on a worldwide scale. That's what we all thought he was going to do in the 70's; however, it didn't happen. Maharaji has the preparation and the means to deliver anything he wants. He has the advantage of media, computers and other technology to shout it from the rooftops if he wishes. But he doesn't. I don't understand this. If what he has is legitimate, why won't he share it with everyone? Why is the aspirant process very secretive and subversive-word of mouth only? Why isn't EV in the phone book? I have asked this question of other premies on this forum in all sincerity and cannot get a genuine response to these questions. If you know the answers, I am open to hearing them. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 00:13:23 (EST)
Poster: JIM
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re: Do You Understand?
Message:
Les, Take a look at David Lane's page if you really want to know maharji's 'lineage.' Really, it sounds as if you're not quite ready to publish yet. Lanes's link is on the link's page.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 01:38:13 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Answering-Why Not Tell? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
VP, Maharaji is prepared, and doing it. But why must it be according to the rules of the world? If it were only ideas Maharaji wanted to share, it would probably work okay, but you must know that more than ideas he wants to share a feeling. The last time I saw him he said he definately did not want to be famous, explaining he's already been through that and has observed that while the famous may go up quickly, they go down and are forgotten even more quickly. I do not believe there's anything subversive about the secrecy, it's more about protecting something valuable. Besides, isn't it fairly established as a spiritual principle that people who truly are seeking will find? Why is that less trustable than the hawking and slick campaigns media stategies force its participants into?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 02:19:42 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: JIM
Subject: Re:Jim's advice-Do You Understand? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Jim, I am familiar with the Radhasoami masters, though not every detail of the lineage. I do not believe Maharaji's predecessors fit neatly into any of the schemes I've seen - have developed another theory far more sloppy but seems real to me. Are you saying I'm not ready to publish because I speak loosely about these details? I do not believe speaking of Nanak as a major connecting point to Maharaji is wrong.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:12:26 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re: Answering-Why Not Tell? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
VP, Maharaji is prepared, and doing it. But why must it be according to the rules of the world? If it were only ideas Maharaji wanted to share, it would probably work okay, but you must know that more than ideas he wants to share a feeling. The last time I saw him he said he definately did not want to be famous, explaining he's already been through that and has observed that while the famous may go up quickly, they go down and are forgotten even more quickly. I do not believe there's anything subversive about the secrecy, it's more about protecting something valuable. Besides, isn't it fairly established as a spiritual principle that people who truly are seeking will find? Why is that less trustable than the hawking and slick campaigns media stategies force its participants into? Les, You miss the obvious. Maharaji once threw himself into his campaign to save the world. He wanted the entire planet to stop and ask itself, 'alright already, who IS Guru Maharaj Ji anyway?' after our full-out blitz as per his AGYA. What you miss is that he obviously didn't know what he was doing. That's all.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:15:39 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re: Answering-Why Not Tell? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
VP, Maharaji is prepared, and doing it. But why must it be according to the rules of the world? If it were only ideas Maharaji wanted to share, it would probably work okay, but you must know that more than ideas he wants to share a feeling. The last time I saw him he said he definately did not want to be famous, explaining he's already been through that and has observed that while the famous may go up quickly, they go down and are forgotten even more quickly. I do not believe there's anything subversive about the secrecy, it's more about protecting something valuable. Besides, isn't it fairly established as a spiritual principle that people who truly are seeking will find? Why is that less trustable than the hawking and slick campaigns media stategies force its participants into? Les, I thank you for answering this question. I think the answer to your first question "Why must it be according to the rules of the world" is simple. If you want to reach the world, if this is truly ones intent to do this-to give something to everyone- what better way than in a language that they understand? I myself was searching for Divine Light Mission and didn't even know that the name had changed to EV. I was looking in the phone book for Maharaji and couldn't even find him. (I looked a lot of other places, too, made phone calls to premies, etc.) I was truly seeking with a sincere heart and didn't find. I agree with the point that the media can be misused and I could see how a religious leader wouldn't want to be identified with the likes of some of the televangelists, but that isn't really what I'm talking about here. I am talking a simple listing in a phone book for starters. Again, I appreciate your answer and this discussion. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:22:38 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re:Jim's advice-Do You Understand? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Jim, I am familiar with the Radhasoami masters, though not every detail of the lineage. I do not believe Maharaji's predecessors fit neatly into any of the schemes I've seen - have developed another theory far more sloppy but seems real to me. Are you saying I'm not ready to publish because I speak loosely about these details? I do not believe speaking of Nanak as a major connecting point to Maharaji is wrong. I say you're not ready to publish because you don't reflect any knowledge of Mahararaji's real, down-to-earth lineage, i.e. the Radhasoami 'lineage.' So what are you saying, that Maharaji's father and his guru before and his great-guru and his great-great guru didn't come down that line? If so, what's YOUR evidence? As for Nanak, how really do you know? Do you even know exactly how many techniques were taught say four links up the line? How many break-away factions splintered the three at each level? Any of that? For that matter, are you even clear on how Maharaji got annointed? I mean there's HIS version (extremely light on details), then there are others. What do you make of Mishler's admittedly second-hand account? What research have you done to get to the bottom of this? HE says Mata Ji first orchestrated BBJ's ascendency to the cult throne. I guess you'd have to think that Mata Ji's and BBJ's immediate claim after the split that BBJ was supposed to be the cult leader in the first place MIGHT lend some support to that idea. But what have you done to really find out? Let me go out on a limb here and guess -- nothing.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 12:07:28 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re:Jim's advice-Do You Understand? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Jim, You and I differ on what we think is important and, I believe, on how we analyze a situation. I will explain a little when I answer your response to my critisim of your debating style (in the "brain" thread above).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 12:30:11 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Answering Again-Why Not Tell? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
VP, Maharaji is prepared, and doing it. But why must it be according to the rules of the world? If it were only ideas Maharaji wanted to share, it would probably work okay, but you must know that more than ideas he wants to share a feeling. The last time I saw him he said he definately did not want to be famous, explaining he's already been through that and has observed that while the famous may go up quickly, they go down and are forgotten even more quickly. I do not believe there's anything subversive about the secrecy, it's more about protecting something valuable. Besides, isn't it fairly established as a spiritual principle that people who truly are seeking will find? Why is that less trustable than the hawking and slick campaigns media stategies force its participants into? Les, I thank you for answering this question. I think the answer to your first question 'Why must it be according to the rules of the world' is simple. If you want to reach the world, if this is truly ones intent to do this-to give something to everyone- what better way than in a language that they understand? I myself was searching for Divine Light Mission and didn't even know that the name had changed to EV. I was looking in the phone book for Maharaji and couldn't even find him. (I looked a lot of other places, too, made phone calls to premies, etc.) I was truly seeking with a sincere heart and didn't find. I agree with the point that the media can be misused and I could see how a religious leader wouldn't want to be identified with the likes of some of the televangelists, but that isn't really what I'm talking about here. I am talking a simple listing in a phone book for starters. Again, I appreciate your answer and this discussion. VP VP, Here's another way you might look at it. Say you think "long" thoughts (if you can imagine what they are) in which certain ideas can only be expressed. You want to communicate these long-thought ideas to a group of people who have the habit of only thinking "short" thoughts. No matter how hard you try, and you do try (maybe for 10 or 15 years), you cannot squeeze large ideas into short thoughts; additionally, short-thinking people cannot grasp long thoughts. Now, the short-thinking people have control of all the media devices, and force everyone using them to express things shortly. Anyone refusing to do so is labeled a fraud or worse. So what's to be done? There's really no choice but set up avenues in which people can come and first hear "slightly" longer thoughts, and then a bit longer thoughts, and so on until they've adapted, even if only in elementary ways at first, to long thinking. So has it been with Maharaji learning (and after all he has had to learn) how to communicate (especially to Western minds). In regard to the availability of Maharaji and telephone listings, you now know how to contact him don't you? How, then, can you say it doesn't "work"? I still say the principle of "seek and you'll find" is fully functional.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 13:04:07 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re: Answering Again-Why Not Tell? (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Okay, I get that. You are right that I do know how to contact M now. I was thinking more in terms of other people who have never heared of M or for people who may not know how to contact him anymore. I still think it's secretive, but I see that there is another way of looking at this. I am glad that we could have a civilized discussion even if we don't totally look at it in the same way. Enjoy your day. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 15:06:14 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Shameful rationalization, Lester (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Les, Your analogy doesn't make sense. What are these 'long' or 'short' thoughts that can't be translated back and forth? Unless you can make your example itself reasonable, it's a non-starter and certainly not worthy as a parallel to anything. What should really interest you is the role you're taking on -- that of the uninformed spin-doctor shooting from the hip. I say that because I assume that Maharaji's never told any of the above that you're arguing on his behalf. You're just psychologically committed to protecting him. Thus, you're more than willing to say anything, regardless of how silly, to try to cover for him. Even if your analogy made sense (a BIG 'if'), the best you could say is that it's just one possible explanation for why Maharaji's so subterranean now. You sort of acknowledge taht when you begin ...'Here's another way you might look at it.' Yes, Les, it's only one possible explanation at best. What are some others? How about the more obvious one, i.e. he can't show his face in public anymore. He'd be the laughingstock of any reporter with access to the press of the seventies. But, you're psychologically restrained and repressed to the the extent that you can't even venture there, right? Come on, Les, prove me wrong. Show me you can speculate with an open mind that maybe Maharaji's got less than noble reasons for doing what he does.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 19:12:08 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Jim Spins His Wheels (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Les, Your analogy doesn't make sense. What are these 'long' or 'short' thoughts that can't be translated back and forth? Unless you can make your example itself reasonable, it's a non-starter and certainly not worthy as a parallel to anything. What should really interest you is the role you're taking on -- that of the uninformed spin-doctor shooting from the hip. I say that because I assume that Maharaji's never told any of the above that you're arguing on his behalf. You're just psychologically committed to protecting him. Thus, you're more than willing to say anything, regardless of how silly, to try to cover for him. Even if your analogy made sense (a BIG 'if'), the best you could say is that it's just one possible explanation for why Maharaji's so subterranean now. You sort of acknowledge taht when you begin ...'Here's another way you might look at it.' Yes, Les, it's only one possible explanation at best. What are some others? How about the more obvious one, i.e. he can't show his face in public anymore. He'd be the laughingstock of any reporter with access to the press of the seventies. But, you're psychologically restrained and repressed to the the extent that you can't even venture there, right? Come on, Les, prove me wrong. Show me you can speculate with an open mind that maybe Maharaji's got less than noble reasons for doing what he does. Jim, I wonder why you can't figure out what a long thought is.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 19:29:50 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Les avoids with the best of them (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Les, Your analogy doesn't make sense. What are these 'long' or 'short' thoughts that can't be translated back and forth? Unless you can make your example itself reasonable, it's a non-starter and certainly not worthy as a parallel to anything. What should really interest you is the role you're taking on -- that of the uninformed spin-doctor shooting from the hip. I say that because I assume that Maharaji's never told any of the above that you're arguing on his behalf. You're just psychologically committed to protecting him. Thus, you're more than willing to say anything, regardless of how silly, to try to cover for him. Even if your analogy made sense (a BIG 'if'), the best you could say is that it's just one possible explanation for why Maharaji's so subterranean now. You sort of acknowledge taht when you begin ...'Here's another way you might look at it.' Yes, Les, it's only one possible explanation at best. What are some others? How about the more obvious one, i.e. he can't show his face in public anymore. He'd be the laughingstock of any reporter with access to the press of the seventies. But, you're psychologically restrained and repressed to the the extent that you can't even venture there, right? Come on, Les, prove me wrong. Show me you can speculate with an open mind that maybe Maharaji's got less than noble reasons for doing what he does. Jim, I wonder why you can't figure out what a long thought is. Well, Les, I'm not sure what ANY kind of thought is, to tell you the truth. Are you? Maharaji, in his ignorant eastern philosophy, used to categorize thoughts simply enough: good ones came from the 'brain' and bad ones came from the 'mind.' Do you remember him saying that? Do you endorse this description?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:03:53 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Les avoids Jim's traps (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Les, Your analogy doesn't make sense. What are these 'long' or 'short' thoughts that can't be translated back and forth? Unless you can make your example itself reasonable, it's a non-starter and certainly not worthy as a parallel to anything. What should really interest you is the role you're taking on -- that of the uninformed spin-doctor shooting from the hip. I say that because I assume that Maharaji's never told any of the above that you're arguing on his behalf. You're just psychologically committed to protecting him. Thus, you're more than willing to say anything, regardless of how silly, to try to cover for him. Even if your analogy made sense (a BIG 'if'), the best you could say is that it's just one possible explanation for why Maharaji's so subterranean now. You sort of acknowledge taht when you begin ...'Here's another way you might look at it.' Yes, Les, it's only one possible explanation at best. What are some others? How about the more obvious one, i.e. he can't show his face in public anymore. He'd be the laughingstock of any reporter with access to the press of the seventies. But, you're psychologically restrained and repressed to the the extent that you can't even venture there, right? Come on, Les, prove me wrong. Show me you can speculate with an open mind that maybe Maharaji's got less than noble reasons for doing what he does. Jim, I wonder why you can't figure out what a long thought is. Well, Les, I'm not sure what ANY kind of thought is, to tell you the truth. Are you? Maharaji, in his ignorant eastern philosophy, used to categorize thoughts simply enough: good ones came from the 'brain' and bad ones came from the 'mind.' Do you remember him saying that? Do you endorse this description? Jim, Some of the questions asked, like someone above asking if Maharaji is God, is a bad question. The only possible answer is a bad one. For that reason sometimes I wait until I feel I can answer intelligently. I'm not avoiding trying to respond, but you are clever. As for the difference between brain and mind, I think there is one. Should we define the difference before qualitative determinations?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:21:08 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Wrong again, Les (who's counting?) (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Jim, Some of the questions asked, like someone above asking if Maharaji is God, is a bad question. The only possible answer is a bad one. For that reason sometimes I wait until I feel I can answer intelligently. I'm not avoiding trying to respond, but you are clever. As for the difference between brain and mind, I think there is one. Should we define the difference before qualitative determinations? Les, It's not a bad question if Maharaji himself traded in that jargon. If Maharaji claimed he was *** there'd be nothing worng with first, confirming that he'd said it and then, second, discussing what it might mean. Maharaji claimed he was God. Deal with it. Admit that he said it and we can move on. Now how much intelligence does it take to do that? As for the differences between brain and mind, please, by all means, be my guest. You tell me how 'brain thoughts' differ from 'mind thoughts.' Please go easy on me, though. Unlike yourself, I'm not really scientifically literate. I just read a bit.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 23:20:46 (EST)
Poster: Les
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Nastyness (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Jim, Some of the questions asked, like someone above asking if Maharaji is God, is a bad question. The only possible answer is a bad one. For that reason sometimes I wait until I feel I can answer intelligently. I'm not avoiding trying to respond, but you are clever. As for the difference between brain and mind, I think there is one. Should we define the difference before qualitative determinations? Les, It's not a bad question if Maharaji himself traded in that jargon. If Maharaji claimed he was *** there'd be nothing worng with first, confirming that he'd said it and then, second, discussing what it might mean. Maharaji claimed he was God. Deal with it. Admit that he said it and we can move on. Now how much intelligence does it take to do that? As for the differences between brain and mind, please, by all means, be my guest. You tell me how 'brain thoughts' differ from 'mind thoughts.' Please go easy on me, though. Unlike yourself, I'm not really scientifically literate. I just read a bit. Jim, I wonder how nasty you'll get. You do like to set traps, like did Maharaji say he was, and is he, God? Absolutely no avenue is open for answering those questions by someone in your sites. And your the one whose been suggesting I need some science education.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 23:27:34 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Les
Subject: Re: Nastyness (Re: Do You Understand?)
Message:
Jim, I wonder how nasty you'll get. You do like to set traps, like did Maharaji say he was, and is he, God? Absolutely no avenue is open for answering those questions by someone in your sites. And your the one whose been suggesting I need some science education. Nasty? What are you talking about? I'm just trying to prove a point, that's all. You say there's 'no avenue open for answering those questions.' What ARE you talking about, young man? Just answer the questions honestly and there, you've done it. Here. I'll show you how I would answer them if anyone asked: 1) Did M claim to be God? ................... YES! 2) Did he claim that he was going to save the world? ..................... YES! 3) Does it seem as if he knew what he was talking about? ..................... NO! Now, you try.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 05:59:07 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Wedding video and Marolyn's health ..
Message:
As far as I know, Marolyn had a brain aneurysm ruptured. I saw her on a few occasions since, and she didn’t look impaired, maybe a little week for a months after her health problem. I saw her standing at Holi for hours under the Indian sun last year. I’ve read a very long letter she wrote to a friend of mine (the one where she writes we’re assholes _ I should scan it and post it, at least some interesting parts, very enlightening premie type gibberish). It’s hand written, and she doesn’t seem to have problems writing. She usually comes at events and sits in her first row seat. ............. Brian: I can't answer to posts usind the 'reply box'. Does anybody else experience this? That's why I keep starting new threads ...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 10:07:33 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health ..
Message:
I'd love to see a scan of that letter from Marolyn.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:38:54 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Rick & Mr. Ex
Subject: Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health ..
Message:
I would too, Mr. Ex. Also, someone said that Marolyn was barely 50 a few years ago. Isn't she only 8 years older than Maharaji? Which would make her 48. Regards, Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:40:49 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health ..
Message:
As far as I know, Marolyn had a brain aneurysm ruptured. I saw her on a few occasions since, and she didn’t look impaired, maybe a little week for a months after her health problem. I saw her standing at Holi for hours under the Indian sun last year. I’ve read a very long letter she wrote to a friend of mine (the one where she writes we’re assholes _ I should scan it and post it, at least some interesting parts, very enlightening premie type gibberish). It’s hand written, and she doesn’t seem to have problems writing. She usually comes at events and sits in her first row seat. ............. Brian: I can't answer to posts usind the 'reply box'. Does anybody else experience this? That's why I keep starting new threads ... Yes, I am also experiencing some difficulties. I'd be intereted in that letter, too.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 17:06:20 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health ..
Message:
Is that a personal or public letter that you want to post? Was it meant to be posted for your amusement? Marolyn sings Happy Birthday with her daughters in the Long Beach 1997 Highlights video that was just released. They all have nice smiles.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 18:04:34 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Marolyn's letter (Re: Wedding video and Marolyn's health ..)
Message:
What I might post (image so that anybody can check) is a private handwritten letter. It's not for fun. 1st I'll have to discuss this with the person who received it. 2nd it's no fun to read what she says about exes. The person owning the copyright is not Marolyn, but the person who received the letter. Guess what that person thinks about the family .... She has been 'serving' in the residence for years, she had plenty of time to think about what's going on there! She is also suffering the consequences. Have you ever been there for a while? Anybody who's been close enough has every right to say what he/she's experienced there! It might not be the kind of 'satsang' (talk about the truth/what's true) premies usually appreciate.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 05:31:56 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: The Fox and the Grapes
Message:
A fox was passing by a vinyard and saw a bunch of luscious looking grapes high up on a bush. It tried to jump and reach them. They were too high. It jumped and jumped, but couldn’t grab them. Then it said to itself, ‘Nah, the grapes are sour.’ and went on its way. It met some other foxes who had had the same experience, and they set up a web page on the Internet titled ‘The Grapes are Sour’. Moral: Sometimes we substitute the rationalization of our personal inadequacy for the reality.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 08:42:41 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: The Fox and the Grapes
Message:
Aesop or is it A sap, Every person has inadequacies that doesn't change the facts presented over and over about the things M had done to change his status, from lord to enlightened one, how can that be explained away! or how premies have been used to supply him and his with luxury by using free labor and the people doing the labor not being taken care of in a loving "fatherly" way. Use your logic. That's all it takes, simple. I've just mentioned 2 situations of many that would bring a locigally minded person to their sences. That is like saying blame the raped for the rapist's violence and I guess there are some that would agree to that type of logic. I pride myself on my use of logic in the dicision making process and that is what kept me from ever being sucked in to the lord of the universe shpeal(sp?) to start with. Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 09:26:36 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: The Fox and the Grapes
Message:
A Sap: Regarding: Moral: Sometimes we substitute the rationalization of our personal inadequacy for the reality. I'll be plain. You are substituting the supposed personal inadequacies of some rather genuine people at this site for your own lack of perspicacity, and for your guru's inhumane rationalization of a spiritual mission into a money machine. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 11:37:54 (EST)
Poster: VIC
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: The Fox and the Grapes
Message:
A fox was passing by a vinyard and saw a bunch of luscious looking grapes high up on a bush. It tried to jump and reach them. They were too high. It jumped and jumped, but couldn’t grab them. Then it said to itself, ‘Nah, the grapes are sour.’ and went on its way. It met some other foxes who had had the same experience, and they set up a web page on the Internet titled ‘The Grapes are Sour’. Moral: Sometimes we substitute the rationalization of our personal inadequacy for the reality. I think these foxes did taste the grapes. Some still eat and enjoy them. The problem lies with the vine...VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:20:35 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: VIC
Subject: Re: The Fox and the Grapes
Message:
A fox was passing by a vinyard and saw a bunch of luscious looking grapes high up on a bush. It tried to jump and reach them. They were too high. It jumped and jumped, but couldn’t grab them. Then it said to itself, ‘Nah, the grapes are sour.’ and went on its way. It met some other foxes who had had the same experience, and they set up a web page on the Internet titled ‘The Grapes are Sour’. Moral: Sometimes we substitute the rationalization of our personal inadequacy for the reality. I think these foxes did taste the grapes. Some still eat and enjoy them. The problem lies with the vine...VP Vic, et al: Precisely. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:53:21 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: The sappy one
Subject: One man's drink... (Re: The Fox and the Grapes)
Message:
Then comes the deeper question, why did the creator create so many foxes with such weak legs? It's all God's fault!! WAHHHHHH! God created me deficient. So I can't jump as high as the other really together foxes. But wait a doggone minute! I did taste the grapes!! In fact, I still do meditate on my breath. It's nice sometimes. Then again, sometimes it's quite boring, as we all know. Hey, so what does that mean? OH, that's right, it's not about something so simple as my breath, it's about devotion.. Yuck! I don't want someone between me and God, my true self, my creator, whatever you want to call it. I have done that already. I tasted those grapes too! Honest, my legs aren't weak. I was there in darshan line after darshan line, tasting the fruits of devotion. You can have em Aesop. Help yourself. One man's drink, another man's poison. Of course the great Aesop as heard of that one before, right?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:40:03 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: The Fox and the Grapes
Message:
A fox was passing by a vinyard and saw a bunch of luscious looking grapes high up on a bush. It tried to jump and reach them. They were too high. It jumped and jumped, but couldn’t grab them. Then it said to itself, ‘Nah, the grapes are sour.’ and went on its way. It met some other foxes who had had the same experience, and they set up a web page on the Internet titled ‘The Grapes are Sour’. Moral: Sometimes we substitute the rationalization of our personal inadequacy for the reality. This one was submitted by another Aesop - maybe the real one.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 18:49:12 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: The Fox and the Grapes
Message:
A fox was passing by a vinyard and saw a bunch of luscious looking grapes high up on a bush. It tried to jump and reach them. They were too high. It jumped and jumped, but couldn’t grab them. Then it said to itself, ‘Nah, the grapes are sour.’ and went on its way. It met some other foxes who had had the same experience, and they set up a web page on the Internet titled ‘The Grapes are Sour’. Moral: Sometimes we substitute the rationalization of our personal inadequacy for the reality. This one was submitted by another Aesop - maybe the real one. Aesop, why'd ya let the cat out of the bag?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 05:04:06 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: To Petrou and my premies friends
Message:
My dear Petrou (and any premie reading this), I had to break that bound with Mr Prem Rawat for a lot of reasons. I still do practice meditation occasionally, because I enjoy that feeling inside, and what it brings. I have discovered that it is not linked to Mr Prem Rawat in ANY way. Mr Rawat introduced me to meditation, I agree. BUT He was a very lame teacher. I had to go and follow other meditation courses (Vipassana) to find what I wanted (and solve meditation problems he never - or any of his instructors - wanted to address), with a qualified teacher (Mr Goenka). No need to say I experienced a lot of guilt feelings doing it. There are other qualified meditation teachers (who don’t involve you in ANY kind of relationship), for those who enjoy it. Some people obviously don’t enjoy that type of practice. FINE. That devotional love and all that was based on it didn’t bring me anywhere, except to problems. And these problems were not related to the evil ‘mind’, as Mr Rawat tried to convince me (he obviously doesn’t understand much on psychology): they are a direct consequence of the relationship I had with Mr Rawat. That was VERY difficult to admit for me as you can imagine. There was definitely for me a great experience in that devotional relationship I enjoyed (more or less) for 25 years. But also a lot of problems, as any honest premie would recognize. In spite of what Mr Rawat has been repeating for decades, having a devotional relationship is not necessary to deepen your experience. IMHO, any devotional relationship is potentially extremely harmful, except if you really want to dedicate your life to a person. What is that person you want to dedicate your life to? Why ? Is it really worth it? Can you check it with somebody else? Are you really 100% sure? That kind of decision takes time and requires an unbiased environment. Don’t base your reflection on what Mr Rawat says. Listen to what he says, and seek other advises. This is no new issue. Many qualified persons have had that type of experience, and their conclusions are extremely valuable, if you believe that Mr Rawat is not the only intelligent and wise person on earth. Read some of the books advertised on the web-site: I particularly enjoyed Freud’s, Sudir Kakar and the Guru Papers. Some books on buddhism too. Mr Prem Rawat cannot speak of anything else because it’s the only thing he has been experiencing for all his life. He needs it! He is born in that environment, and he had very peculiar relationships with his parents and family. Try to recall what he himself said about it, and the stories you may have heard from people close to him. Now look what it does on him. I’m not speaking of the guy you can watch on his stage. Look in his own life, how he behaves. Maybe you’ve been close to him enough to witness a few facts, you know they are not rumors. Maybe you didn’t have these opportunities. Maybe some friends of you did, listen to what they say. I had, and many of my friends had. I’ve been very actively involved in DLM/EV for 20 years almost. Member of the board for several years. I did service in the residence, I’ve been instructor, I personally know many of the ‘big shots’, some PAM, current and former, and a lot about all Mr Rawat’s businesses. What I know is no rumors. There are many things I heard about him and his family, and they perfectly fit with the facts I know. Everyone can draw his own conclusions. It is very difficult to brake that devotional link. But what a relief ! Luckily enough, Mr Prem Rawat does not own ANY copyright on the inner experience. It’s a traditional teaching of some Indian guru lineages, and also in other traditions. Many people have discovered it themselves, without any help. There are qualified teachers, and very deceitful teachers, like in ANY business. Mr Prem Rawat owns one thing IMHO: every right to be qualified as a very lame teacher. And maybe a few others I don’t want to mention here now.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 08:49:27 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: To Petrou and my premies friends
Message:
Mr Ex., I am not a premie now but did have a positive experience with the meditation I learned in '73. I'd be interested in seeing what Mr. Goenka had to say about meditation as I believe it to be very benificial and believe also that you don't need the guru devotional connection to benifit. Thanks for any info. Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 12:13:29 (EST)
Poster: me
Email:
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: To Petrou and my premies friends
Message:
your the unbomb mr ex lost in your self
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:31:22 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: To Petrou and my premies friends
Message:
Who is 'me'? Watch out, Mr. Ex. Sounds like you're being dragged into a knock-knock joke.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 13:39:52 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: To Petrou and my premies friends
Message:
Who is 'me'? Watch out, Mr. Ex. Sounds like you're being dragged into a knock-knock joke. who's there? some troll? I'm very aware of this, I have fun!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 21:03:20 (EST)
Poster: lg
Email:
To: Mr Ex
Subject: Re: To Petrou and my premies friends
Message:
Mr Ex Je comprend que nous devons traiter tous les gens avec respect, mais en lisant ton message, je ne peux m'empêché. J'ai une question: pourquoi portes-tu tellement de respect au point d'écrire Mr Prem Rawat tout au long? Je suis curieuse.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 03:03:58 (EST)
Poster: Petrou
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Jim
Message:
Jim,I tried to post reply but couldn't get through. What I wanted to say was that I grew up also thinking about sex but also a lot about God. When I say I love GMJ I don't mean a fanatical insane love but a gentler grateful love. I have had some truly great experiences in meditation that I can only thank GMJ for as he was always the guiding force. Christianity provided more direction about the topic of right vs wrong that the Hindu style neglects.I needed this personally .I do not say you do.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:11:48 (EST)
Poster: lg
Email:
To: Petrou
Subject: Re: Jim
Message:
Petrou You said in your message "I have had some truly great experiences in meditation that I can only thank GMJ for... Once, M. said that WE are the one to tap ourselves on the shoulder for these experiences, and that he has nothing to do with that. All he has done is given you the tools. To think he has anything to do with these experiences is only delusion.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 22:44:01 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Aesop told the following little story. >Once upon a time we were younger. We dreamed the idealistic >dreams born in innocence. We believed we could affect the world >for the better. And we knew what the world needed - love, >compassion, truth, self-knowledge. We held out the belief that >there was a power of goodness in the universe, and that power >could in its compassion provide us with a tangible way to get to >know it. A way that wasn't riddled with 'should's' and 'should >not's', and fire and brimstone, but a path where every step was >adorned with the depth of understanding that seeing provided, >instead of blind faith in something that cannot be seen. We >searched for someone who could make our dreams come true, for we >believed there was someone out there who knew the way. Someone >we could look up to, follow and believe in. Someone who embodied >the eternal goodness. And our search led us to a man called >Maharaji. This is complete bullshit. Yes, we were younger. But Aesop disingenuously suggests that we somehow grew up looking for a 'master.' Not me, fella. I grew up dreaming about girls. Then, when the eastern spiritual circus came to town I, like many of my generation, got enthralled and jumped on the wagon. A romantic conceit we indulged in was that, somehow, our 'hearts' had always longed for this or that. We told ourselves and each other stories of 'true devotees' born with a thirst for spiritual nucka-nucka, but those were just part of the indoctrination. Our 'search' didn't lead us to Maharaji so much as start with him and other sixties false profits. Here, Aesop sounds like someone reminding his fellow North Koreans how much they all longed for the chance to worship Kim Il Jung. >Time passed. We became full-fledged adults. >We matured and grew into positions of responsibility. Some of us >came to realize that our dream was the stuff of children but we >continued to believe because it was a beautiful dream. As the >realities of adulthood encroached on the dream we lived it less >and less. This was good because it helped us to become >successful members of our world. And for some of us the dream >began to fade. Here, Aesop is particularly confused. He's got to put either the childhood dreams or adult realities into quotes but he can't decide which. He has to concede something to the real world and, as Maharaji's software no longer includes full retreat from the world but even allows for some lite version of 'success', Aesop has to pontificate ambiguously. >One day these same people looked at the dream and marveled at >how they could have been so foolish to believe in such a dream - >and the man who had promised to guide them. 'Oh there were so >many good reasons why they shouldn't have followed him', they >said. 'Were we so stupid, or was he so deceitful as to have >fooled us into believing such a dream? Ahahh, it was he who >tricked us.' They asked for their youth back, but alas time can >offer no such deals. I think Aesop would have a point if we were so stupid as to ask Maharaji for the time he stole. That would be pretty pathetic and I think everyone realizes that. Straw man, Aesop. >Meanwhile there were still others who continued to believe in >the dream, and continued to believe in the one who had promised >so much. And when asked, they would say how happy they were. >'How could you be happy?', the others admonished. 'It cannot be >real happiness!' But to those who still dreamed the dream, their >ideals - love, compassion, truth, and self-knowledge - were >still very important. And they loved the one who continued to >guide them on their journey of discovery for as they said, 'He >has shown us how to make our deepest dream reality. And he has >taken us outside the realm of reality and unreality to a place >where there is true magic'. Aesop must be joking when he describes ex's as dumbfounded by the 'happiness' premies experience. The fact is we've all been there and know how empty one can feel as a follower of the middle-aged Perfect Master. Nor do the ex's generally admire the premies for any of those hoary ideals they pretend to espouse. 'Love' of Maharaji looks only like foolish, stubborn religiosity. 'Compassion' in premies is shown time again as completely threadbare and certainly nothing special by those who post here. (As if we needed any further proof that premies aren't any better than 'regular' people; they just like to say they are.) As for dedication to 'truth' or 'self-knowledge', I can barely contain myself. Premies build their nests where the sun of truth simply don't shine. Reversing Plato, Maharaji's brought them into his own dark cave where the past and future are both forbidden and the present is empty. >This talk of magic was of course unacceptable to those who had >stopped believing. For them there was profound resentment. 'Let >us tell the world of the imposter!' And they set about on a >crusade to 'tell the truth'. So? What's the point here? That it's okay for premies to care about the truth but not ex's? >Not unlike children, most of us want to believe in things that >will make us happy. Some of those things are able to provide >moments of pleasure, some never pay off for us, and even fewer >bring lasting fulfillment. The flame to know the true promise of >life still burns in those who dream with the heart of a child. >In the end, all our dreams will fade when our bodies wither and >die. Then only will we ourselves know for sure which dreams were >true and which were illusion. Aesop is a master of saying nothing. The real Aesop had a point in each of his stories. This one just states the obvious. >Moral: Know your heart's longing beyond a shadow of a doubt, and >follow its call beyond all reproach. At your last breath it will >be too late to change the course of your life, and all arguments >will be empty What complete, but sadly common, premie gibberish. The notion that somehow your life is a project preparing you for your ultimate last breath. Reminds me of a shaggy dog story that was popular when I was a young kid -- the big quish. This guy builds a giant raft out on the ocean and keeps piling stuff on it. His goal: to build a big quish. He collects stuff from here, there and everywhere. (You're supposed to spend forever describing all the things he collects, always for one purpose -- to help build the big quish). Finally, (around the time the listener is really starting to lose it), you explain that, when he's spent years and years, really a lifetime, amassing al this stuff, the raft sinks making, as you've guessed unless you're seven years old and hearing this for the first time, a big 'quish.' I guess in a way the premie 'last breath' life-plan is the ultimate shaggy dog story. Nothing happens. Quish!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:37:19 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Aesop told the following little story. >Once upon a time we were younger. We dreamed the idealistic >dreams born in innocence. We believed we could affect the world >for the better. And we knew what the world needed - love, >compassion, truth, self-knowledge. We held out the belief that >there was a power of goodness in the universe, and that power >could in its compassion provide us with a tangible way to get to >know it. A way that wasn't riddled with 'should's' and 'should >not's', and fire and brimstone, but a path where every step was >adorned with the depth of understanding that seeing provided, >instead of blind faith in something that cannot be seen. We >searched for someone who could make our dreams come true, for we >believed there was someone out there who knew the way. Someone >we could look up to, follow and believe in. Someone who embodied >the eternal goodness. And our search led us to a man called >Maharaji. This is complete bullshit. Yes, we were younger. But Aesop disingenuously suggests that we somehow grew up looking for a 'master.' Not me, fella. I grew up dreaming about girls. Then, when the eastern spiritual circus came to town I, like many of my generation, got enthralled and jumped on the wagon. A romantic conceit we indulged in was that, somehow, our 'hearts' had always longed for this or that. We told ourselves and each other stories of 'true devotees' born with a thirst for spiritual nucka-nucka, but those were just part of the indoctrination. Our 'search' didn't lead us to Maharaji so much as start with him and other sixties false profits. Here, Aesop sounds like someone reminding his fellow North Koreans how much they all longed for the chance to worship Kim Il Jung. Jim, there is a time honored imperative in some people to respond to a call from the heart and find the true master (sometimes called their Lord). It has nothing to do with the 60's, 70, or 80's, or which millennium you live in. It is a timeless urge. I was motivated to find Maharaji by that urge, and he has answered with the sweetest food. You were obviously motivated by other forces. It's no wonder it didn't work for you. You see, there is no WAY it could have worked for you, given your account of how for you it was a case of getting caught up in the trend of the day. These days Maharaji puts his own personal effort into trying to make sure people come from the right motivation. This implies an element of control and adherence to standards - all of which, by the way, you and your chums critisize him for doing. He'll never win with you Jim even if he came to you on bended knee and gave you everything you wanted. So why should he even try? I suggest that there ARE people out there with the right motivation that are a better use of his time. By the way, I really think you should be more objective about my little parable in assessing it's objectivity. I think it describes quite fairly a certain element of what has transpired. I'll reiterate its moral which is a true statement for those who care about such things, premie and ex alike: Know your heart's longing beyond a shadow of a doubt, and follow its call beyond all reproach. At your last breath it will be too late to change the course of your life, and all arguments will be empty.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 15:37:43 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Aesop told the following little story. >Once upon a time we were younger. We dreamed the idealistic >dreams born in innocence. We believed we could affect the world >for the better. And we knew what the world needed - love, >compassion, truth, self-knowledge. We held out the belief that >there was a power of goodness in the universe, and that power >could in its compassion provide us with a tangible way to get to >know it. A way that wasn't riddled with 'should's' and 'should >not's', and fire and brimstone, but a path where every step was >adorned with the depth of understanding that seeing provided, >instead of blind faith in something that cannot be seen. We >searched for someone who could make our dreams come true, for we >believed there was someone out there who knew the way. Someone >we could look up to, follow and believe in. Someone who embodied >the eternal goodness. And our search led us to a man called >Maharaji. This is complete bullshit. Yes, we were younger. But Aesop disingenuously suggests that we somehow grew up looking for a 'master.' Not me, fella. I grew up dreaming about girls. Then, when the eastern spiritual circus came to town I, like many of my generation, got enthralled and jumped on the wagon. A romantic conceit we indulged in was that, somehow, our 'hearts' had always longed for this or that. We told ourselves and each other stories of 'true devotees' born with a thirst for spiritual nucka-nucka, but those were just part of the indoctrination. Our 'search' didn't lead us to Maharaji so much as start with him and other sixties false profits. Here, Aesop sounds like someone reminding his fellow North Koreans how much they all longed for the chance to worship Kim Il Jung. Jim, there is a time honored imperative in some people to respond to a call from the heart and find the true master (sometimes called their Lord). It has nothing to do with the 60's, 70, or 80's, or which millennium you live in. It is a timeless urge. I was motivated to find Maharaji by that urge, and he has answered with the sweetest food. You were obviously motivated by other forces. It's no wonder it didn't work for you. You see, there is no WAY it could have worked for you, given your account of how for you it was a case of getting caught up in the trend of the day. These days Maharaji puts his own personal effort into trying to make sure people come from the right motivation. This implies an element of control and adherence to standards - all of which, by the way, you and your chums critisize him for doing. He'll never win with you Jim even if he came to you on bended knee and gave you everything you wanted. So why should he even try? I suggest that there ARE people out there with the right motivation that are a better use of his time. By the way, I really think you should be more objective about my little parable in assessing it's objectivity. I think it describes quite fairly a certain element of what has transpired. I'll reiterate its moral which is a true statement for those who care about such things, premie and ex alike: Know your heart's longing beyond a shadow of a doubt, and follow its call beyond all reproach. At your last breath it will be too late to change the course of your life, and all arguments will be empty.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:18:40 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Aesop told the following little story. >Once upon a time we were younger. We dreamed the idealistic >dreams born in innocence. We believed we could affect the world >for the better. And we knew what the world needed - love, >compassion, truth, self-knowledge. We held out the belief that >there was a power of goodness in the universe, and that power >could in its compassion provide us with a tangible way to get to >know it. A way that wasn't riddled with 'should's' and 'should >not's', and fire and brimstone, but a path where every step was >adorned with the depth of understanding that seeing provided, >instead of blind faith in something that cannot be seen. We >searched for someone who could make our dreams come true, for we >believed there was someone out there who knew the way. Someone >we could look up to, follow and believe in. Someone who embodied >the eternal goodness. And our search led us to a man called >Maharaji. This is complete bullshit. Yes, we were younger. But Aesop disingenuously suggests that we somehow grew up looking for a 'master.' Not me, fella. I grew up dreaming about girls. Then, when the eastern spiritual circus came to town I, like many of my generation, got enthralled and jumped on the wagon. A romantic conceit we indulged in was that, somehow, our 'hearts' had always longed for this or that. We told ourselves and each other stories of 'true devotees' born with a thirst for spiritual nucka-nucka, but those were just part of the indoctrination. Our 'search' didn't lead us to Maharaji so much as start with him and other sixties false profits. Here, Aesop sounds like someone reminding his fellow North Koreans how much they all longed for the chance to worship Kim Il Jung. Jim, there is a time honored imperative in some people to respond to a call from the heart and find the true master (sometimes called their Lord). It has nothing to do with the 60's, 70, or 80's, or which millennium you live in. It is a timeless urge. I was motivated to find Maharaji by that urge, and he has answered with the sweetest food. You were obviously motivated by other forces. It's no wonder it didn't work for you. You see, there is no WAY it could have worked for you, given your account of how for you it was a case of getting caught up in the trend of the day. These days Maharaji puts his own personal effort into trying to make sure people come from the right motivation. This implies an element of control and adherence to standards - all of which, by the way, you and your chums critisize him for doing. He'll never win with you Jim even if he came to you on bended knee and gave you everything you wanted. So why should he even try? I suggest that there ARE people out there with the right motivation that are a better use of his time. By the way, I really think you should be more objective about my little parable in assessing it's objectivity. I think it describes quite fairly a certain element of what has transpired. I'll reiterate its moral which is a true statement for those who care about such things, premie and ex alike: Know your heart's longing beyond a shadow of a doubt, and follow its call beyond all reproach. At your last breath it will be too late to change the course of your life, and all arguments will be empty. Aesop, You are a pompous ass. Many, many would agree, I have no doubt, but would quickly add that you should be cut some slack. After all, you're just doing what you need to to justify your religion. Really, though, I can't believe you. If you've been a premie for any length of time you must have known countless others who have left his holy lotus feet over the years. I take it that you rationalize each case away by saying that he or she lacked the 'right motivation' all along. No matter how long, how involved, anything .... if they leave it's only proof that, unlike you, they were never really sincere. Right? Then what about Maharaji's one-time 'Holy Family'? Were Mata Ji, Bhole Ji and BBJ born without the prize and Raja Ji with it? This is all so ludicrous. Really. Tell me then, what about someone who returns to Maharaji's cheesy fold? Are they then proving that they too were born with the right motivation under-neath their bottle cap? But what if, as actually happened for thousands, they leave again? I don't know about any 'time honoured imperative.' How about a common, human tendency to believe things and others. Michael Shermer, in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, has written an interesting article about our evolutionarily-developed tendency to believe. Evolutionary psychologists believe that the brain has developed in various 'modules' over time and that one such module is a 'belief module.' If they're right, that means we are indeed hard-wired to be suckers, so to speak. Thus the reason that people everywhere from time immemorial have had various religions isn't a testament to the truth of their beliefs. Rather, it's evidence of our natural inclination to think this way. Take a look.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 19:27:02 (EST)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Know your heart's longing beyond a shadow of a doubt, and follow its call beyond all reproach. At your last breath it will be too late to change the course of your life, and all arguments will be empty. Yes Aesop. That is exactly what I have done all my life. I came to Maharaji with that attitude and later it was my hearts longing again which forced me to question the reality of Maharaji's "world" and which then, led to me back off from him to safe distance. As for the last breath bit that's just scary talk. Shame on you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:02:22 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Aesop, You are a pompous ass. Many, many would agree, I have no doubt, but would quickly add that you should be cut some slack. After all, you're just doing what you need to to justify your religion. Really, though, I can't believe you. If you've been a premie for any length of time you must have known countless others who have left his holy lotus feet over the years. I take it that you rationalize each case away by saying that he or she lacked the 'right motivation' all along. No matter how long, how involved, anything .... if they leave it's only proof that, unlike you, they were never really sincere. Right? Then what about Maharaji's one-time 'Holy Family'? Were Mata Ji, Bhole Ji and BBJ born without the prize and Raja Ji with it? This is all so ludicrous. Really. Tell me then, what about someone who returns to Maharaji's cheesy fold? Are they then proving that they too were born with the right motivation under-neath their bottle cap? But what if, as actually happened for thousands, they leave again? I don't know about any 'time honoured imperative.' How about a common, human tendency to believe things and others. Michael Shermer, in the new issue of Skeptic Magazine, has written an interesting article about our evolutionarily-developed tendency to believe. Evolutionary psychologists believe that the brain has developed in various 'modules' over time and that one such module is a 'belief module.' If they're right, that means we are indeed hard-wired to be suckers, so to speak. Thus the reason that people everywhere from time immemorial have had various religions isn't a testament to the truth of their beliefs. Rather, it's evidence of our natural inclination to think this way. Take a look. Bottom line Jim is your motives for receiving Knowledge were way, way off, and its no wonder it didn't work for you. Can't say I'd say the same for everyone else who left or came back, but for you, clearly it was off. Whether I'm a pompous ass or not, you'd never receive it today unless you could bluff your way past the gate. Of course you'd only be bluffing yourself.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:05:00 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Know your heart's longing beyond a shadow of a doubt, and follow its call beyond all reproach. At your last breath it will be too late to change the course of your life, and all arguments will be empty. Yes Aesop. That is exactly what I have done all my life. I came to Maharaji with that attitude and later it was my hearts longing again which forced me to question the reality of Maharaji's 'world' and which then, led to me back off from him to safe distance. As for the last breath bit that's just scary talk. Shame on you. Not just scary thoughts Anon, it is reality. If you can't see that far ahead you're either not looking or you're blind.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Mar 18, 1998 at 21:19:02 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
The difference between you and me, Aesop, is honesty. Your version of premieship is a complete whitewash. Too bad it flies in the face of Maharaji's own long-standing description of the human condition. After all, the Maharaji that I listened to for years said a bunch of things you now contradict: 1) Beyond our egos, our 'false selves,' we were all the same. 2) Each one of us had a 'sincere thirst for truth.' 3) Each one of us had a dirty, poisonous mind, ready to trick us in a moment into deceving our heart. 4) No one could gauge their own devotion. That was a game only the mind played. Watch out! 5) No one was beyond 'falling.' 6) No 'fallen' premie was beyond redemption. 7) It was all a matter of Maharaji's grace, NOT our own inherent qualities. 8) 'Sincerity' meant, amongst other things, admitting that we didn't even know what 'sincerity' meant. Really, the most 'sincere' thing we could ever do was just drag ourselves to satsang, service, meditation and darshan, REGARDLESS of what our fickle mind wanted. If it liked it, fine. If not, do it anyway. Now, apparently, Maharaji's changed his tune a bit and you're jsut singing along. My guess is that this 'born-to-be-mild' theory you're pushing is Maharaji's best way to explain away all those who've left him. The more that leave, the more precious those who stay can feel. It wasn't always like that. It used to be the other way around (still a third description of reality Maharaji played with). When the cult was on the rise, Maharaji could afford to demonize those few who left as 'monmots', people who'd prticularly fallen prey to the evil mind. The rest of us were just plain, ol' regular. As the numbers change, the cult leader rationalizes to throw a mock shroud of virtue over the remaining, dwindling flock. That's all.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 16:45:06 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
The difference between you and me, Aesop, is honesty. Your version of premieship is a complete whitewash. Too bad it flies in the face of Maharaji's own long-standing description of the human condition. After all, the Maharaji that I listened to for years said a bunch of things you now contradict: 1) Beyond our egos, our 'false selves,' we were all the same. 2) Each one of us had a 'sincere thirst for truth.' 3) Each one of us had a dirty, poisonous mind, ready to trick us in a moment into deceving our heart. 4) No one could gauge their own devotion. That was a game only the mind played. Watch out! 5) No one was beyond 'falling.' 6) No 'fallen' premie was beyond redemption. 7) It was all a matter of Maharaji's grace, NOT our own inherent qualities. 8) 'Sincerity' meant, amongst other things, admitting that we didn't even know what 'sincerity' meant. Really, the most 'sincere' thing we could ever do was just drag ourselves to satsang, service, meditation and darshan, REGARDLESS of what our fickle mind wanted. If it liked it, fine. If not, do it anyway. Now, apparently, Maharaji's changed his tune a bit and you're jsut singing along. My guess is that this 'born-to-be-mild' theory you're pushing is Maharaji's best way to explain away all those who've left him. The more that leave, the more precious those who stay can feel. It wasn't always like that. It used to be the other way around (still a third description of reality Maharaji played with). When the cult was on the rise, Maharaji could afford to demonize those few who left as 'monmots', people who'd prticularly fallen prey to the evil mind. The rest of us were just plain, ol' regular. As the numbers change, the cult leader rationalizes to throw a mock shroud of virtue over the remaining, dwindling flock. That's all. That's all very high and mighty of you to claim that the difference between us is you are the honest one and I'm not, but just where the f__k do you get off challenging my integrity bud? Your post is such a gross example of malice-minded spin control to any onlooker with any sense of objectivity. Not to mention, you don't make any sense. You've gone back in time and painted everything that's happened in a very negative light even though it wasn't that way for you at one time. If it was, we have to talk about how gutless you were to have stayed when you weren't enjoying it. As for my honesty I'm not trying to whitewash anything, but attempting to express what I feel happened... at least for me. You clearly interpreted things differently than I did. Knowledge is like life. At face value it's full of contradictions but when understanding exists the contradictions disappear. As I said before there's no way you would receive Knowledge today coming with the same motivation that you did then. Given that a sound foundation was not built for you, it's no wonder you had difficulties.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 20:57:19 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
Knowledge is like life. At face value it's full of contradictions but when understanding exists the contradictions disappear. As I said before there's no way you would receive Knowledge today coming with the same motivation that you did then. Given that a sound foundation was not built for you, it's no wonder you had difficulties. Well, obviously Jim wouldn't receive knowledge now, knowing what he knows. I think that's his point. He doesn't have faith in it or Maharaji, but you apparently do. In your above statement, I would just change the word "understanding" with either "faith" or "programming." Both "faith" and "programming" make contradictions disappear, that is what they do. And I think both I and Jim have a lot of experience with both faith and programming, having followed Maharaji, sincerely for about a decade. As to whether a "foundation was built" for Jim or anyone else, you are in no position to judge, but if you're rught, it appears that it also wasn't built for 90% of the people who received knowledge. Doesn't say much for Maharaji and his "grace" nor does is say much for his ability get people to "understand."
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 21:12:31 (EST)
Poster: Aesop
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
As to whether a 'foundation was built' for Jim or anyone else, you are in no position to judge, but if you're rught, it appears that it also wasn't built for 90% of the people who received knowledge. Doesn't say much for Maharaji and his 'grace' nor does is say much for his ability get people to 'understand.' As for being in a position to judge... by Jim's own admission he just "jumped on the wagon of an eastern cult circus". If he were to come today with the same motivation it would not be good enough. Unfortunately he never seemed to get past that point to a deeper level. As for the 90% figure you pulled out of the air, you're just spinning JW. It has no relevance to me.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 19, 1998 at 22:55:11 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
As to whether a 'foundation was built' for Jim or anyone else, you are in no position to judge, but if you're rught, it appears that it also wasn't built for 90% of the people who received knowledge. Doesn't say much for Maharaji and his 'grace' nor does is say much for his ability get people to 'understand.' As for being in a position to judge... by Jim's own admission he just 'jumped on the wagon of an eastern cult circus'. If he were to come today with the same motivation it would not be good enough. Unfortunately he never seemed to get past that point to a deeper level. As for the 90% figure you pulled out of the air, you're just spinning JW. It has no relevance to me. Tag team -- Aesop, months ago I posted this long letter I wrote my family inviting them to Millenium. I was 19. I was completely 'sincere' but, by that, I mean I was also sincere enough to know that 'part of me' (stupid premie overused jargon!) simply wasn't into it. So, before we go any further, do you have that 'part'? If you say 'no' you'd be the very first premie I'd ever come across who claimed such purity. You'd also have a bit of an issue with fatso there because he keeps talking as if that 'part' is a 'problem' everyone. Then, of course, there's all the satsang I and every other premie gave over the years admitting, confessing and bemouning that 'part.' So, assuming you'll anwser yes, as you unavoidably must, I then ask you how you know that that part isn't as real as your 'devotional' self? Really, Plato, there's not a whole lot of difference between us. You just choose to think you can't trust your mind. That's the guru trick. The Christians have it, the Moonies have it, even those crazy fools from Taiwan you can read about over on CNN's page have it -- A Taiwanese cult leader who claims he fathered Jesus 2,000 years ago and now talks to God through a ring on his finger has brought his followers into this Dallas suburb to await God's appearance in a flying saucer. The 150 members of God's Salvation Church, who dress all in white, from their sneakers to their cowboy hats, sold everything back home in Taiwan and moved to Garland because they say it sounds like "God's land. In anticipation of God's arrival on Earth, the cultists have built what they say is a spacecraft using five radial tires, some plywood and a few lamp posts. They also have prepared a shrine with fruit, cola and crackers, and they spend their time in prayer to get ready for the end of the month, when they claim God will show up at 3513 Ridgedale Drive to save mankind from nuclear war. "God is coming to the Earth to save all living beings on the Earth," said Richard Liu, a member of God's Salvation Church. The cult's leader, Hon-Ming Chen, known to members as Teacher Chen, is a 41-year-old former social sciences professor. He is often accompanied by two youngsters he says are the reincarnations of Jesus and Buddha. Chen believes that God will first appear on Channel 18 on television sets worldwide at midnight on March 24. In the Dallas area, that means the Home Shopping Channel will get bumped by the Almighty. Chen also says that on March 31 at 10 a.m., God will take the form of a human being. And, who would that be? That would be Chen himself. The cult leader says that if God does not show up on March 31, he and his followers will not commit suicide, like the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult did a year ago. "God prohibits us from hurting even an ant," Liu said. However, Chen says that if God does not show up in Garland, he will make himself available for stoning or crucifixion -- and his followers will be free to pack up and go home. And, he adds, everyone will be able to regard the cult's beliefs as nonsense. Religious experts say the Salvation Church, whose members include doctors, engineers and teachers, is typical of the kind of religious groups that spring up at the end of a century. "They are comfortable with technology as a means through which spiritual powers can work," said Lonnie Kliever, a professor at Southern Methodist University. A neighbor says she does not mind having the sect next door. "They are not loud. They keep up their places nice. We could use more neighbors like them," said Bonnie Nichols. By the way, if you think JW's blowing smoke on his 90% estimate, what's your guess? How many names from Maharaji's great Rolodex still believe in him?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 00:50:36 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Aesop
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
As for being in a position to judge... by Jim's own admission he just 'jumped on the wagon of an eastern cult circus'. If he were to come today with the same motivation it would not be good enough. Unfortunately he never seemed to get past that point to a deeper level. As for the 90% figure you pulled out of the air, you're just spinning JW. It has no relevance to me. I think what Jim said was that he wasn't a seeker of spirituality at the time he got involved with Maharaji. Neither was I. Neither was the vast majority of people who got involved with Guru Maharaj Ji. All Maharaji said was required was sincerity and a desire to know the truth. That was it. Period. And I had that in spades. The rest was up to him. Now, I know that both he and you have revised that since because things haven't turned out too well, but in any case you are not in any position to judge Jim's or anyone else's sincerity, experience, or "foundation," no matter how spiritually advanced you think you are. As to the 90% figure, I think that's actually conservative. At least 100,000 people have received knowledge in the U.S. alone, and I would be surprised if there are 10,000 premies in the states these days. But, given what you say, I wouldn't be surprised that it had no relevence to you because it just gives you more people to feel spiritually superior to. Life has such simple pleasures.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 10:31:16 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Aesop's fable considered
Message:
As for being in a position to judge... by Jim's own admission he just 'jumped on the wagon of an eastern cult circus'. If he were to come today with the same motivation it would not be good enough. Unfortunately he never seemed to get past that point to a deeper level. As for the 90% figure you pulled out of the air, you're just spinning JW. It has no relevance to me. I think what Jim said was that he wasn't a seeker of spirituality at the time he got involved with Maharaji. Neither was I. Neither was the vast majority of people who got involved with Guru Maharaj Ji. All Maharaji said was required was sincerity and a desire to know the truth. That was it. Period. And I had that in spades. The rest was up to him. Now, I know that both he and you have revised that since because things haven't turned out too well, but in any case you are not in any position to judge Jim's or anyone else's sincerity, experience, or 'foundation,' no matter how spiritually advanced you think you are. As to the 90% figure, I think that's actually conservative. At least 100,000 people have received knowledge in the U.S. alone, and I would be surprised if there are 10,000 premies in the states these days. But, given what you say, I wouldn't be surprised that it had no relevence to you because it just gives you more people to feel spiritually superior to. Life has such simple pleasures. JW, I'd have to say I WAS a 'seeker' when I found M. But my 'seeking' was itself just the result of stumbling upon some of the new-age eastern bandwagon rolling through our culture then. I became a 'seeker' about a year before Knowledge. Read 'Be Here Now', tried to be my own 'guru' for a bit, talked about India, forced myself to start reading the Gita, Upanishads and other ultimately boring tomes. (Made a point of telling my friends, of course). By the time Maharaji hit, I was, for an 18 year-old westerner, quite an expert of 'spirituality', I thought. I knew a lot more than either of my parents or Beaver Cleaver. I started to think I might even know as much as Mr. Ram Dass himself. This conceit was, of course, wonderfully typical of the times.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:24:30 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Be Here Now (Re: Aesop's fable considered)
Message:
Jim, Who wrote "Be Here Now"? What is it about? I have seen this mentioned a couple of times on this site. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 20:37:03 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Be Here Now (Re: Aesop's fable considered)
Message:
Jim, Who wrote 'Be Here Now'? What is it about? I have seen this mentioned a couple of times on this site. VP You serious? How old are you? BHN was the hippie spiritual bible of the early 70s. Richard Alpert, Learly's Harvard partner in crime, went to India and found a guru (two actually) after the Millhaven acid days went bust. BHN explained in very chatty, intelligent prose, that we are all divine, can you dig it? Just a matter of winking at the divine mother in that 'sister' over there, realizing you can't have what you have and learning to enjoy paradox and goat's milk. You should pick up a copy at some spiritual bookstore. It's still in print and, although it set me off on the road to an extended period of celibacy, I'd still have to say it's seminal 70s spritual reading.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 20, 1998 at 21:27:44 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Be Here Now (Re: Aesop's fable considered)
Message:
Jim, Early thirties. I think I was probably nine or ten when you were reading BHN. I don't think it was on our Elementary school's approved reading list-ha! (Although my best friend was reading Agatha Christie and we all knew he was a genius) I'm not too interested in celibacy but may pick it up anyway. Thanks! VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 22:16:13 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Forum III unlocked again
Message:
Let me know if it is now more IE friendly. I hate Bill Gates. And Paradise, of course.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 22:21:33 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Brian
Subject: Responding works here (Re: Forum III unlocked again)
Message:
Also, responding here seems to work, if there was a problem with it earlier that I missed. Wondered about all them thread starts... This is a test of not clicking on don't quote.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 23:24:31 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Brian
Subject: Re: Forum III unlocked again
Message:
Bravo. I hate Bill Gates too. What a huckster.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Mar 17, 1998 at 21:02:00 (EST)
Poster: Anonymoz
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Wedding Video
Message:
I have a copy of the "Wedding Video" and though I still find it as embarassing as when I first saw it I love the first two songs featured on it. Does anyone know who the singer(s)/song writer(s) were? The first song starts "You are the sun above who shines upon the earth with love" and the second "I never imagined such a place, where love could be known all night and day, where love is the only reality and fruits of love are the only thing you see". If only it had been but at least it seemed possible for a time. Although I was probably one the less emotional/more judgemental premies (73-83) and it's been fifteen years since I was a devotee I still find the moment in the video after the wedding scenes are over when the scene switches to "Durga Ji" and she says "You and I are one, one heart loving our Lord" (or something similar) stands the hair up on the back of my neck. I heard that she suffered a stroke a few years ago and hasn't fully recovered her faculties. As she was barely 50 at the time, it seems quite remarkable that a very wealthy wife of the "Lord of the Universe" can have a debilitating stroke and it go so unremarked. Actually as my premie friends try to show me only the better side of premiedom there may have been plenty of talk I didn't hear. Anybody know any of the details?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index