Ex-Premie.Org

Forum II Archive # 11

From: Mar 21, 1998

To: Mar 28, 1998

Page: 1 Of: 5


Brian -:- Forum Reset In 30 Minutes -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 05:31:08 (EST)

Jim -:- Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:31:08 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:46:17 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:59:05 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:08:13 (EST)
___Mili -:- Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 03:11:26 (EST)

John K. -:- Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:24:14 (EST)
___Jim -:- Maybe it's you, John -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:38:46 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:52:20 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:59:51 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:02:17 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:15:31 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:17:54 (EST)
___NV -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:45:19 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Honestly funny -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:11:19 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:15:35 (EST)
___John K. -:- -g. = ? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:36:27 (EST)
___Mili -:- Re: Why are premies so angry? -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:53:29 (EST)

John K. -:- Hats off to Bill Patterson! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:47:43 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:17:41 (EST)
___John K. -:- Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:28:43 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:38:30 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:55:03 (EST)

gumby -:- Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 00:10:35 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 02:29:38 (EST)
___Mili -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 02:38:24 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 02:52:22 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 07:37:47 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 10:21:16 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:18:18 (EST)
___John K. -:- Please translate -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:49:21 (EST)
___Spock -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 13:08:36 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 14:32:59 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 15:53:42 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:01:07 (EST)
___eb -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:27:12 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:31:21 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:44:38 (EST)
___John K. -:- Thou forsakest Logos? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:55:59 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:57:03 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Thou forsakest Logos? -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:00:18 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:04:30 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:28:35 (EST)
___John K. -:- All Hail John Lennon! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:31:33 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:32:57 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:58:59 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:17:34 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: All Hail John Lennon! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:21:35 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:25:20 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:33:36 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:38:46 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:45:19 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:05:15 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:08:50 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:26:04 (EST)
___Spock -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:14:51 (EST)
___VP -:- Small town violence -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 21:05:39 (EST)
___Joy -:- No Way, Paul Rules! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:07:44 (EST)
___Joy -:- Re: Syntropy -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:11:50 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:32:22 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:49:37 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- It ain't John for me. -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:51:46 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 23:29:00 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:02:35 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Entropy... -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:13:05 (EST)
___Paula -:- Re: No Gods -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:51:54 (EST)

Paula -:- Fascination & Fulfillment -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 23:29:32 (EST)
___Anon -:- Re: Fascination & Fulfillment -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 06:36:34 (EST)
___John K. -:- Re: Fascination & Fulfillment -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:03:31 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Fascination & Fulfillment -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:53:47 (EST)
___Paula -:- Re: Fascination & Fulfillment -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:58:09 (EST)
___Paula -:- Re: Fascination & Fulfillment -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 03:11:57 (EST)

Nigel -:- Dazed and Enthused -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 14:58:54 (EST)
___sat guroovy -:- Enthused -:- Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:08:00 (EST)

David -:- I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 02:57:20 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 14:04:24 (EST)
___Robyn -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 15:22:26 (EST)
___I admire -:- your honesty -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 17:50:00 (EST)
___Joy -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 18:42:51 (EST)
___Lg -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 18:44:31 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: your honesty -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 18:47:58 (EST)
___David -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 19:37:22 (EST)
___Robyn -:- To Participant -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 20:19:11 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 21:07:18 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 22:16:45 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: I still love Maharaji -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 00:30:06 (EST)
___John K. -:- I loved premies more -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 10:17:49 (EST)
___NV -:- Re: your honesty -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:14:57 (EST)
___NV -:- Re: your honesty -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:15:47 (EST)
___I thought -:- Aesop left -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:40:50 (EST)
___Jim -:- Only as funny as your guru -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:57:47 (EST)
___John Kay's wife (for now) -:- Never mind that!! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:12:54 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: Never mind that!! -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:56:55 (EST)
___VP -:- Re: Only as funny as your guru -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:59:07 (EST)
___Jim -:- Re: Only as funny as your guru -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:04:06 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Re: your honesty -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:03:19 (EST)
___NV -:- Re: Only as funny as your guru -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:19:30 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- We seek truth. Ich Verstehen. -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:21:56 (EST)
___NV -:- Re: your honesty -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:29:49 (EST)
___Scott T. -:- Honestly funny -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:09:17 (EST)
___Jim -:- You can't brag about your own jokes -:- Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:23:49 (EST)



Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 05:31:08 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Forum Reset In 30 Minutes
Message:
I'm awake early this morning, so I guess I'll do it now. I'll reset it at 6:00 (EST), or thereabouts.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:31:08 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: NV
Subject: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below
Message:
[All you have to do is leave out one little thing and you're italicized forever. That would have been more than enough of an excuse to launch into satsang back when. Yechh!] Pathetically lame? Seething anger and dull sense of humor? Nah, it's in fact an example of raw sarcasm resulting from such a presumtuous question being asked by someone who seems to think they've got it all figured out, but who really hasn't. Which by the way seems to be a common trait of the principle contributors of this forum. Come on Jim, be fair. Maharaji has told some pretty funny jokes over the years. As for an answer, I'm standing on my own experience of life as filtered through the subjective doors of my perception. How about you, you standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? Would you know if they were? Come on, honestly with no bravado please. Really, NV, there's no point going on about your 'raw sarcasm'. Everyone knows that's what it was. You have to admit, though, it fell a little flat. Look, I'm a funny guy myself. But even I blow it sometimes. Don't feel bad. Go inside. So, NV, just when I thought I'd ruined it with all my premie friends, you come along and want to talk. Grace? Who can say? But, yes, I'll talk with you. I'll start by answering your questions to me, as an act of arguably gratuitous good faith, in the hopes that finally the Lord almighty may have sent me a premie unafraid of discussion. This is exciting. Has Maharaji told some pretty funny jokes over the years? Well, let's see. I've got to admit I don't have all his videos. My time frame really lasts only as far as the early 80s with some subsequent spot checks. Did Maharaji make me laugh? Yes, Maharaji made me laugh. When I first heard him speak, I chuckled a lot. Why? I think it was the obvious and fantastic juxtaposition of this breezy, faux-Yankee slang coming out of the mouth of a 14-year old Indian who was, by the way, God. 'Holy cow,' we all thought (I know 'cause we told each other again and again and again),'who'd ahve thought the Lord would come like this?' (In retrospect, what amazes me about all that was how quickly we fell into thinking that the 'Lord' would come at all but, alas, we did.) So anything he said was both startlingly fresh (for the Lord that is), profound and mind-shattering. If humour's whatever mixes up your expectations and confronts your worldview and laughter's an evolved reaction to that shakeup, just believing in Maharaji was, quite literally, funny. It shocked our mind. We were into it for that reason. We were into shocking our mind. Remember how the mahatmas used to say-- I think it was my old tennis partner (okay, everyone's old tennis partner), Gurucharanand -- remember how they used to say that we are all 'women' to the Lord? Well, he might also have said we're all slaves, sycophants, hotel clerks and Ed McMahan's (sp?). We sat there through his many, many 'extemporaneous discourses' searching for anything, just any small thing to set our minds on. Tell me, after you'd heard the Superman comic story eight or ten times, what did you think about when he told it? 'When, oh Lord, will this end?' 'Come on, Maharaji, I love you so much, please take away this mind of mine that even now, even now, Lord, in this obviously special moment, finds you boring as hell?' 'I'm so glad I don't have to go back to that fucking xxxx community and that I'm finally being transferred to a town where there's a decent chance I'll get full-time service and won't have to get a job.' What did you think about? Oh, I know, the real devotees, unlike assholes like me, didn't think anything. They just sat there and soaked up the grace. Or, if they thought anything it was a very quiet purring 'Yes, Maharaji, Yes! I'm with you, My Lord, tell it like it is. Yes, I'll shut up even these thoughts so I can feel you here, with me now. Oh yes!' Sometimes, when he cracked a lame joke, it gave all our minds a chance to actually latch on to something. For a brief moment, becuase he'd made afunny and wanted us all to enjoy it, we could relax and, yes, for that briefest moment, it WAS the words after all. So, surprise, surprise, we laughed. But, NV, I'll tell you something. Those jokes weren't that funny. Didn't you ever have the experience of taking someone new to satsang and briefly watching the movie or video or even the Lord himself, if that's where you were, through their eyes? Didn't you then see something a little funny going on? Didn't you notice the premies laughing a bit too hard? Couldn't you then tell, if you hadn't noticed already, that they were laughing a little too earnestly? You know, since then, I've noticed that all closed-authoritarian groups I've ever had a chance to observe (a few, nothing special, just a few) have demonstrated the same symptom. I'm really trying to be fair and I kind of think that there might have been one or two times when Maharaji really said something funny. I kind of remember REALLY laughing. But even that may be wishful thinking on my part. Please, NV, could you give us just a couple of Maharaji's great jokes over time? (Here's a joke I heard yesterday that I thought really funny. Mabe you've heard it. If not, tkae your shoes off, unplug the phone and get the wife. Pour yourself a diet drink and check this out: what happens when you play a country music record backwards? [Answer at end of post]) Next, N, if I can call you that, you aksed me about growing up black in a white man's world. (No, I'm kidding. It's just that I keep typing 'aksed' instead of 'asked'. Hey, where's that token black premie, Marshall what-his-name?) No, seriously you asked me if I could ever say I'm standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? And, how would I know anyway? My answer's simple. I didn't invent logic. I didn't invent rationality. Maybe that too is simply a false presumption of the dominant running-dog capitalist patriarchal 'old' way of thinking but, guess what? I don't think so. I think there's a lot of evidence for a world that's independent of our cultural vagaries, a world that does indeed call for rationality (e.g. if it's raining, take your umbrella) and rewards logic. I think there's ample evidence that we've evolved to be rational beings and, that logic, accordingly, is essentially hard-wired. SOOOOOO, relying on logic, I look at Maharaji and ask myself a whole lot of questions. I ask him a whole lot of questions, too, and can't help but note that he generally won't anser and, perhaps more importantly, when he HAS ansewred, his answers have stunk of deception and embarrassment. Then I consider the stories of those who have known him better than I ever did. I DO put some serious weight on the Mishler interview. Ain't it a pity, you must ask yourself, that Misher didn't live longer than he did? Well, I know what you mean. I feel that way too. I then consider the entire lineage of Ride-my-pony gurus which you, too, can read about on David Lane's web page and which unceremoniously describes the history of the guru business in modern India. It's like reading about the garment industry. (Did you know that so-and-so once was a designer for so-and-so before they started their own now-'legendary' company?). And then I talk with premies like you. I realize thorugh these dialogues just what kind of sacrifice your continued faith costs you in terms of honesty, depth and common sense and, I tell you, form where I'm sitting, it don't look pretty. If I'm 'in my mind' as we used to say (and you likely stil do), I'm also in my body. They're both integral parts of me. Maharaji tried, at one time, to cut me off from both. Please, don't quibble. There's no denying it. He never expected to let me enjoy any of the fruits of this world. I had to wrestle my freedom away from him. From where I'm looking, he's just a despicable snake in the grass. Make that snake on the dias. Snake on the podium. Snake at the mike. Maybe, if you see him for what he really is next time you go to pay your deepest respects and seek a little direction is this tricky, tricky world. Maybe, then, you'll find a whole new vein of humour you'd never expected. As for my questions -- would you please explain the following quotes of Maharaji's: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destoryer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? Yes, I guess you could say he can be funny at times. [Oh yeah -- Answer: your wife doesn't leave you, you don't lose your house and your dog comes home. I thought it was funny]
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:46:17 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below
Message:
I REALLY hated it when Mahraji told that joke about the guy who goes to heaven and is asked what he ever did that was good and he said he gave 25 cents to a orphan and a beggar and God gave him his quarter back and told him go to hell. It was sort of okay about the first 20 times he told it, but after that, especially because he paused for long periods in the middle as if he forgot the next line, that it really got old for the next 47 times he told it. When he was younger nearly all his examples were cars. 'This knowledge is like driving a car.' He was just fascinated with cars. Then I think he started watching a lot of American television and I really think he thought sitcoms were reflective of the way people really live. He used a lot of examples and jokes from TV but at intro programs, especially like you say, listening from the viewpoint of a 'new person' I invited, he sounded totally out of touch with humanity. I do recall when he said that he and Raja Ji thought they had won the Publishers Clearinghouse contest because of the mailing that arrived that said 'You may have already won $500,000.' They were all excited. I did sort of think that was funny and kind of endearlingly cute. But I recall at Maharaji's birthday party in Los Angeles (at the Shrine Auditorium the VERY same place they just held the academy awards!) some initiator got up, and it was just after that program in the Poconos, and this initiator said 'Guru Maharaj Ji touched me deep in the Poconos.' I remember I started laughing so hard I had to leave the hall. I felt really guilty and really in my mind, but that line still makes me laugh. Maybe you had to be there. No, he wasn't too good at jokes. But when he was really young, his naivete about things was kind of cute. Unfortunately, that wore off REAL fast. Like it didn't sound so cute anymore, when he came to DECA and spoke a good 15 minutes about how great is new red Ferrari was. He described in detail all the features it had. It wasn't funny. It was just condescending and arrogant, but by that time I had learned to suspend all judgment whatsoever as far as Maharaji was concerned and I politely sat and listened and went 'ooo' and 'ahhh' with everyone else.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:59:05 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below
Message:
And here is a joke for you: Question: How likely is it that Maharaj will ever address directly and honestly the fact that some of his former devotees feel he is a charlatan and that they have been ripped off my him and his cult and take any responsibility for it whatsoever? Answer: About as likely as being struck by lightning in a house you won from Ed McMahan. By the way, do you think Maharaji as a favorite Beatle? I think it might be Ringo.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:08:13 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: JW
Subject: Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below
Message:
JW wrote: 'When he was younger nearly all his examples were cars. 'This knowledge is like driving a car.' He was just fascinated with cars.' I remember people competing to buy him cars! I thought that was just a little strange, and I asked someone (early during my involvment) why we bought him so many cars, I mean, if he's the Lord of the Universe, he really doesn't need them. I was told that it was okay because he wasn't attached to them. I then suggested that we stop for a while, since he wouldn't care, but my friend could not understand why one would want to treat the Lord of the Universe in such a manner!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 03:11:26 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Repost to NV ('don't brag') from below
Message:
[All you have to do is leave out one little thing and you're italicized forever. That would have been more than enough of an excuse to launch into satsang back when. Yechh!] Pathetically lame? Seething anger and dull sense of humor? Nah, it's in fact an example of raw sarcasm resulting from such a presumtuous question being asked by someone who seems to think they've got it all figured out, but who really hasn't. Which by the way seems to be a common trait of the principle contributors of this forum. Come on Jim, be fair. Maharaji has told some pretty funny jokes over the years. As for an answer, I'm standing on my own experience of life as filtered through the subjective doors of my perception. How about you, you standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? Would you know if they were? Come on, honestly with no bravado please. Really, NV, there's no point going on about your 'raw sarcasm'. Everyone knows that's what it was. You have to admit, though, it fell a little flat. Look, I'm a funny guy myself. But even I blow it sometimes. Don't feel bad. Go inside. So, NV, just when I thought I'd ruined it with all my premie friends, you come along and want to talk. Grace? Who can say? But, yes, I'll talk with you. I'll start by answering your questions to me, as an act of arguably gratuitous good faith, in the hopes that finally the Lord almighty may have sent me a premie unafraid of discussion. This is exciting. Has Maharaji told some pretty funny jokes over the years? Well, let's see. I've got to admit I don't have all his videos. My time frame really lasts only as far as the early 80s with some subsequent spot checks. Did Maharaji make me laugh? Yes, Maharaji made me laugh. When I first heard him speak, I chuckled a lot. Why? I think it was the obvious and fantastic juxtaposition of this breezy, faux-Yankee slang coming out of the mouth of a 14-year old Indian who was, by the way, God. 'Holy cow,' we all thought (I know 'cause we told each other again and again and again),'who'd ahve thought the Lord would come like this?' (In retrospect, what amazes me about all that was how quickly we fell into thinking that the 'Lord' would come at all but, alas, we did.) So anything he said was both startlingly fresh (for the Lord that is), profound and mind-shattering. If humour's whatever mixes up your expectations and confronts your worldview and laughter's an evolved reaction to that shakeup, just believing in Maharaji was, quite literally, funny. It shocked our mind. We were into it for that reason. We were into shocking our mind. Remember how the mahatmas used to say-- I think it was my old tennis partner (okay, everyone's old tennis partner), Gurucharanand -- remember how they used to say that we are all 'women' to the Lord? Well, he might also have said we're all slaves, sycophants, hotel clerks and Ed McMahan's (sp?). We sat there through his many, many 'extemporaneous discourses' searching for anything, just any small thing to set our minds on. Tell me, after you'd heard the Superman comic story eight or ten times, what did you think about when he told it? 'When, oh Lord, will this end?' 'Come on, Maharaji, I love you so much, please take away this mind of mine that even now, even now, Lord, in this obviously special moment, finds you boring as hell?' 'I'm so glad I don't have to go back to that fucking xxxx community and that I'm finally being transferred to a town where there's a decent chance I'll get full-time service and won't have to get a job.' What did you think about? Oh, I know, the real devotees, unlike assholes like me, didn't think anything. They just sat there and soaked up the grace. Or, if they thought anything it was a very quiet purring 'Yes, Maharaji, Yes! I'm with you, My Lord, tell it like it is. Yes, I'll shut up even these thoughts so I can feel you here, with me now. Oh yes!' Sometimes, when he cracked a lame joke, it gave all our minds a chance to actually latch on to something. For a brief moment, becuase he'd made afunny and wanted us all to enjoy it, we could relax and, yes, for that briefest moment, it WAS the words after all. So, surprise, surprise, we laughed. But, NV, I'll tell you something. Those jokes weren't that funny. Didn't you ever have the experience of taking someone new to satsang and briefly watching the movie or video or even the Lord himself, if that's where you were, through their eyes? Didn't you then see something a little funny going on? Didn't you notice the premies laughing a bit too hard? Couldn't you then tell, if you hadn't noticed already, that they were laughing a little too earnestly? You know, since then, I've noticed that all closed-authoritarian groups I've ever had a chance to observe (a few, nothing special, just a few) have demonstrated the same symptom. I'm really trying to be fair and I kind of think that there might have been one or two times when Maharaji really said something funny. I kind of remember REALLY laughing. But even that may be wishful thinking on my part. Please, NV, could you give us just a couple of Maharaji's great jokes over time? (Here's a joke I heard yesterday that I thought really funny. Mabe you've heard it. If not, tkae your shoes off, unplug the phone and get the wife. Pour yourself a diet drink and check this out: what happens when you play a country music record backwards? [Answer at end of post]) Next, N, if I can call you that, you aksed me about growing up black in a white man's world. (No, I'm kidding. It's just that I keep typing 'aksed' instead of 'asked'. Hey, where's that token black premie, Marshall what-his-name?) No, seriously you asked me if I could ever say I'm standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? And, how would I know anyway? My answer's simple. I didn't invent logic. I didn't invent rationality. Maybe that too is simply a false presumption of the dominant running-dog capitalist patriarchal 'old' way of thinking but, guess what? I don't think so. I think there's a lot of evidence for a world that's independent of our cultural vagaries, a world that does indeed call for rationality (e.g. if it's raining, take your umbrella) and rewards logic. I think there's ample evidence that we've evolved to be rational beings and, that logic, accordingly, is essentially hard-wired. SOOOOOO, relying on logic, I look at Maharaji and ask myself a whole lot of questions. I ask him a whole lot of questions, too, and can't help but note that he generally won't anser and, perhaps more importantly, when he HAS ansewred, his answers have stunk of deception and embarrassment. Then I consider the stories of those who have known him better than I ever did. I DO put some serious weight on the Mishler interview. Ain't it a pity, you must ask yourself, that Misher didn't live longer than he did? Well, I know what you mean. I feel that way too. I then consider the entire lineage of Ride-my-pony gurus which you, too, can read about on David Lane's web page and which unceremoniously describes the history of the guru business in modern India. It's like reading about the garment industry. (Did you know that so-and-so once was a designer for so-and-so before they started their own now-'legendary' company?). And then I talk with premies like you. I realize thorugh these dialogues just what kind of sacrifice your continued faith costs you in terms of honesty, depth and common sense and, I tell you, form where I'm sitting, it don't look pretty. If I'm 'in my mind' as we used to say (and you likely stil do), I'm also in my body. They're both integral parts of me. Maharaji tried, at one time, to cut me off from both. Please, don't quibble. There's no denying it. He never expected to let me enjoy any of the fruits of this world. I had to wrestle my freedom away from him. From where I'm looking, he's just a despicable snake in the grass. Make that snake on the dias. Snake on the podium. Snake at the mike. Maybe, if you see him for what he really is next time you go to pay your deepest respects and seek a little direction is this tricky, tricky world. Maybe, then, you'll find a whole new vein of humour you'd never expected. As for my questions -- would you please explain the following quotes of Maharaji's: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destoryer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? Yes, I guess you could say he can be funny at times. [Oh yeah -- Answer: your wife doesn't leave you, you don't lose your house and your dog comes home. I thought it was funny] Jim, why don't you try to type your boring drivel in Microsoft Word 7.0? It's really neat, because it underscores all the spelling errors in red, and you can correct them right away.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:24:14 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
What is it with the premies on this forum page? Yesterday one told me to go get raped, and then another heaped all kinds of abuse on me and the rest of us ex's. Now I see yet another premie is extremely nasty with Scott and all Scott did was ask a simple question. If you're gonna hang out here...actually why do you hang out here? I made a stupid joke about a mahatma who used to talk to us about past lives and what dogs were in their previous incarnation, and Mili takes an incredible offense at it and tells me to go get raped! HUH? Where does that come from? If a dumb little joke (that does not even reference the guru!) get you this upset, or a simple little question like Scott asks below gets you that bent out of shape, then why are you here? I can't believe premies are actually worried that we are going to somehow influence your guru's work in the world. No sincere seeker of truth is going to be put off by a bunch of digruntled former followers. These premies seem to be in a state of heightened anger and frustration. Aren't videos shown during the day? Or is it only at night that you get to experience peace?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:38:46 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Maybe it's you, John (Re: Why are premies so angry?)
Message:
What is it with the premies on this forum page? Yesterday one told me to go get raped, and then another heaped all kinds of abuse on me and the rest of us ex's. Now I see yet another premie is extremely nasty with Scott and all Scott did was ask a simple question. If you're gonna hang out here...actually why do you hang out here? I made a stupid joke about a mahatma who used to talk to us about past lives and what dogs were in their previous incarnation, and Mili takes an incredible offense at it and tells me to go get raped! HUH? Where does that come from? If a dumb little joke (that does not even reference the guru!) get you this upset, or a simple little question like Scott asks below gets you that bent out of shape, then why are you here? I can't believe premies are actually worried that we are going to somehow influence your guru's work in the world. No sincere seeker of truth is going to be put off by a bunch of digruntled former followers. These premies seem to be in a state of heightened anger and frustration. Aren't videos shown during the day? Or is it only at night that you get to experience peace? John, If you ask Katie this question, at least regarding Mili, she might explain to you that: a) It takes two to tango. If Mili's not being nice to you, you probably deserve it. b) Maybe Mili et al. don't trust you? Again, you probably did something in the past to warrant this mistrust. (It's not easy, after all, being a premie). c) Have you been asking hard questions perhaps? You can't blame premies for getting testy if they feel a little cornered. What do you expect, anyway? d) Guys like you love insulting each other, don't you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:52:20 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
I think they are angry because we insinuate that M isn't all he is supposed to be, and bad people like myself infer that they are fooling themselves regarding their experience of K. Now, why do they keep coming here? Mili and CD are hooked; they can't break the habit now. Mili stayed away for a total of what? three weeks? As for the rest of them, maybe they want to come here and try to argue with us grumpy exes and then, once insulted, they can wear it like a purple heart. Maybe it's similar to the martyrs who sought martyrdom (although there will be no murder here, except for spelling and syntax). I really can't find any rational or logical reason for their hanging around here; maybe we just have to EXPERIENCE it instead of trying to UNDERSTAND it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:59:51 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
I think they are angry because we insinuate that M isn't all he is supposed to be, and bad people like myself infer that they are fooling themselves regarding their experience of K. Now, why do they keep coming here? Mili and CD are hooked; they can't break the habit now. Mili stayed away for a total of what? three weeks? As for the rest of them, maybe they want to come here and try to argue with us grumpy exes and then, once insulted, they can wear it like a purple heart. Maybe it's similar to the martyrs who sought martyrdom (although there will be no murder here, except for spelling and syntax). I really can't find any rational or logical reason for their hanging around here; maybe we just have to EXPERIENCE it instead of trying to UNDERSTAND it. You're absolutely right except you mean 'imply', not 'infer.'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:02:17 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
John, So why are you carrying on about it? Mili made a mistake and already apologized in a response to Katie! I am sure you saw that post also. CD
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:15:31 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: CD
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
John, So why are you carrying on about it? Mili made a mistake and already apologized in a response to Katie! I am sure you saw that post also. CD Mili did say he was sorry. Actually, he said 'Sorry about that.' Then he continued, 'As I was saying...', and wrote several paragraphs about the subject included with his original post with the insult. 'Sorry about that' could be the diminutive of 'I'm sorry', and following a clipped apology with alot of text about an unrelated subject can diminutize it even more. I know Mili said 'Sorry about that', but it still didn't seem like a real apology.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:17:54 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
I think they are angry because we insinuate that M isn't all he is supposed to be, and bad people like myself infer that they are fooling themselves regarding their experience of K. Now, why do they keep coming here? Mili and CD are hooked; they can't break the habit now. Mili stayed away for a total of what? three weeks? As for the rest of them, maybe they want to come here and try to argue with us grumpy exes and then, once insulted, they can wear it like a purple heart. Maybe it's similar to the martyrs who sought martyrdom (although there will be no murder here, except for spelling and syntax). I really can't find any rational or logical reason for their hanging around here; maybe we just have to EXPERIENCE it instead of trying to UNDERSTAND it. You're absolutely right except you mean 'imply', not 'infer.' You're right; I guess that's just more of that murder I mentioned.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:45:19 (EST)
Poster: NV
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
Don't take it so hard John, it's not anger. It's just kinda fun sometimes to poke at you fine folks when you take yourselves so seriously. Besides, it works both ways.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:11:19 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: NV
Subject: Honestly funny (Re: Why are premies so angry?)
Message:
A Sap: Regarding: Nah, it's in fact an example of raw sarcasm resulting from such a presumtuous question being asked by someone who seems to think they've got it all figured out, but who really hasn't. Which by the way seems to be a common trait of the principle contributors of this forum. No one on this side of the line thinks they have it all figured out. You must be looking at a reflection. Who was it that was standing on what, where... again? -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:15:35 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
Michael: Regarding: I really can't find any rational or logical reason for their hanging around here; maybe we just have to EXPERIENCE it instead of trying to UNDERSTAND it. It's 'good charisma.' -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:36:27 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: CD
Subject: -g. = ? (Re: Why are premies so angry?)
Message:
CD: Actually, he apologized to Katie, not to me., but you're right of course, I am making a mountain out of a molehill. [That is, if telling me to go get raped is in fact just a molehill.] I am carrying on because I am shocked at the violent feelings unleashed by our trivializing of the guru experience. So what if we think the guru was a flake, and so what if many people don't think he was a flake. Why don't all the people who can't handle our belief that he's a flake stay away from this site where we think he's a flake? I certainly would never think of going to the video events and harassing people there. I think people should show more respect for our need to have a place to express our religious doubts. CD, you never answered my query below about what does .g mean? or is it -g.?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:53:29 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Why are premies so angry?
Message:
What is it with the premies on this forum page? Yesterday one told me to go get raped, and then another heaped all kinds of abuse on me and the rest of us ex's. Now I see yet another premie is extremely nasty with Scott and all Scott did was ask a simple question. If you're gonna hang out here...actually why do you hang out here? I made a stupid joke about a mahatma who used to talk to us about past lives and what dogs were in their previous incarnation, and Mili takes an incredible offense at it and tells me to go get raped! HUH? Where does that come from? If a dumb little joke (that does not even reference the guru!) get you this upset, or a simple little question like Scott asks below gets you that bent out of shape, then why are you here? I can't believe premies are actually worried that we are going to somehow influence your guru's work in the world. No sincere seeker of truth is going to be put off by a bunch of digruntled former followers. These premies seem to be in a state of heightened anger and frustration. Aren't videos shown during the day? Or is it only at night that you get to experience peace? Sorry about that 'get fucked' thing, John. I guess it was just my mind making funny comments.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:47:43 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Hats off to Bill Patterson!
Message:
Participation in this forum has allowed me to see my ten years in the cult quite differently from how I viewed it before. I now see that most, if not all, of the positive experiences I had in the ten years following the guru came from my own efforts and of course from other premies who I lived with and met. I was never one of the 'Premies Around M'. I never had a conversation with him, I never interacted with him, so really what can I attribute to the guru? The last year I was involved I got to go to his residence quite often but only when he was not there, and I only went there to do work. Never was thanked for it, by the way. If you come up and give me a glass of water, then I can thank you for that glass of water. But the guru never actually physically gave me anything. So really what is there to thank the guru for? (I gave him plenty of paychecks and never received any thanks, but I don't want to dwell on the negatives. After all, it was MY choice to give him those paychecks, just as it was my choice to go to the residence and slave away. And it was the guru's choice to not thank me.) Now there is the idea that M is a meditation teacher. But he never was in the 10 years I followed him. He never gave me a meditation review. In fact, now that I think of it, the person I should really thank for my success with meditation is Bill Patterson. He gave me a review of the meditation techniques in 1976 that was a fantastic experience. This was before M made devotion the whole focus of our lives again. So the review with Bill was focused only on the techniques, as I remember it there wasn't even a picture of the guru in the room. Bill's focus and clarity in explaining the meditation was very helpful for me. It would have been considered very uncool back then to admit that another premie was actually important or helpful in one's spiritual life. So, this is simply a belated thanks to someone who most likely does not visit this forum page, but just in case he does, thanks Bill!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:17:41 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson!
Message:
Participation in this forum has allowed me to see my ten years in the cult quite differently from how I viewed it before. I now see that most, if not all, of the positive experiences I had in the ten years following the guru came from my own efforts and of course from other premies who I lived with and met. I was never one of the 'Premies Around M'. I never had a conversation with him, I never interacted with him, so really what can I attribute to the guru? The last year I was involved I got to go to his residence quite often but only when he was not there, and I only went there to do work. Never was thanked for it, by the way. If you come up and give me a glass of water, then I can thank you for that glass of water. But the guru never actually physically gave me anything. So really what is there to thank the guru for? (I gave him plenty of paychecks and never received any thanks, but I don't want to dwell on the negatives. After all, it was MY choice to give him those paychecks, just as it was my choice to go to the residence and slave away. And it was the guru's choice to not thank me.) Now there is the idea that M is a meditation teacher. But he never was in the 10 years I followed him. He never gave me a meditation review. In fact, now that I think of it, the person I should really thank for my success with meditation is Bill Patterson. He gave me a review of the meditation techniques in 1976 that was a fantastic experience. This was before M made devotion the whole focus of our lives again. So the review with Bill was focused only on the techniques, as I remember it there wasn't even a picture of the guru in the room. Bill's focus and clarity in explaining the meditation was very helpful for me. It would have been considered very uncool back then to admit that another premie was actually important or helpful in one's spiritual life. So, this is simply a belated thanks to someone who most likely does not visit this forum page, but just in case he does, thanks Bill! And, as we have heard, Bill Patterson dumped Maharaji some years ago. I appreciated Bill as well, but somehow I never considered him quite human. His enthusiasm for knowledge and Maharaji seemed to know no bounds. His unbridled enthusiasm could be overwhelming. I lived with Bill Patterson for about a year in San Antonio. I actually got to talk to him quite a lot personally. He was always very kind and had a big heart. And he conveyed to me a lot of things to Maharaji said to him in private conversations and in small groups. For example. One day he told me Maharaji said it was virtually impossible to have the full experience of dedication and of knowledge without living in the ashram. There simply was no other way. And, of course, guess what I did? Then, of course, Mahararji basically told us the same stuff directly. I recall in 1975 when he was one of the first western mahatmas maharaji cristened (along with Ira Woods, Arthur Brigham, Kathy Sullivan (was there someone else?) I recall it sounded so funny because Maharaji named him 'Mahatma Satchitanand.' (This was only slightly less funny than Ira's name 'Mahatma Gurupujanand.') But Ira was such a jerk he deserved it. It would be great if someone could track Bill down and see what he has to say these days, now that it's been a few years since he left the cult.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:28:43 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson!
Message:
I don't remember those hindi names for them. I don't think we ever used them did we? I think the one for Arthur Brigham could have been Mahatma Pompousassanand Ji Ira could have been Mahatma Paranoidanand Ji. I'll never forget his satsang about how we don't even have the right to look at another person.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:38:30 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson!
Message:
I don't remember those hindi names for them. I don't think we ever used them did we? I think the one for Arthur Brigham could have been Mahatma Pompousassanand Ji Ira could have been Mahatma Paranoidanand Ji. I'll never forget his satsang about how we don't even have the right to look at another person. We did use the names for awhile, but within a couple of years, Maharaji dropped the Hindi names, I think when he made the next group of mahatmas, that included people like Joan Apter. I always throught Ira looked like Anthony Perkins in 'Psycho.' And he sometimes acted that way too. Remember when he went through that period advocating that we all go to parks and start screaming satsang? Maharaji said it was the say knowledge should be spread, until in a few cities it got on the local news programs and that little endeavor was quitely dropped. I love those names for Arthur and Ira. I think Kathy Sullivan was Pranam Bai, or something equally stupid.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:55:03 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Hats off to Bill Patterson!
Message:
I don't remember those hindi names for them. I don't think we ever used them did we? I think the one for Arthur Brigham could have been Mahatma Pompousassanand Ji Ira could have been Mahatma Paranoidanand Ji. I'll never forget his satsang about how we don't even have the right to look at another person. Haha! There's the ole John K. we all know...:)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 00:10:35 (EST)
Poster: gumby
Email: megumby@hotmail.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Entropy...
Message:
Hi everyone, I just read a bunch of posts concerning Entropy. The whole subject is very cool. I would like to get peoples feedback on the following: First Let's review the three laws of thermodynamics: 1) Conservation of Energy You can't create something from nothing or put another way You can't win 2) Law of Entropy Entropy increases. Everything tends towards more disorder You can't break even 3) This one I am fuzzy on, it is something like E=HC/T, where HC=heat content, T=temperature, ??? You can't leave the game Recently i was having a discussion with a friend that went something like this: ----> Universe could not have always been here. Why?, because by #2 above, it would have tended toward complete disorder long ago, if it would have always been here. ----> Therefore, the Universe was created. Then by #1 above, it could not have created itself, therefore there has to be a Creator! Proof of God's existence. GAGBWY -gumby
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 02:29:38 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: gumby
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
So how do you get god from nothing? That was hardly a proof, now, was it?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 02:38:24 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: gumby
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
Hi everyone, I just read a bunch of posts concerning Entropy. The whole subject is very cool. I would like to get peoples feedback on the following: First Let's review the three laws of thermodynamics: 1) Conservation of Energy You can't create something from nothing or put another way You can't win 2) Law of Entropy Entropy increases. Everything tends towards more disorder You can't break even 3) This one I am fuzzy on, it is something like E=HC/T, where HC=heat content, T=temperature, ??? You can't leave the game Recently i was having a discussion with a friend that went something like this: ----> Universe could not have always been here. Why?, because by #2 above, it would have tended toward complete disorder long ago, if it would have always been here. ----> Therefore, the Universe was created. Then by #1 above, it could not have created itself, therefore there has to be a Creator! Proof of God's existence. GAGBWY -gumby Entropy is like a perfect imperfection - it drives the scientists who are looking for ultimate symmetry in the universe nuts. There is a much more elegant proof of the existence of God, which follows from the existence of the objective world, which was given by Bishop Berkeley in the 18th century. He began by refuting Locke about the cognition of objects. If all our knowledge comes from sensation or reflection, for instance if a rock acts on our minds to produce an idea of a rock, then we should admit that all we have is a mental image of a rock and we can't know anything about the rock itself. Locke countered by saying that according to Berkeley, the rock would cease to exist if no one is looking at it! Berkley, however, stuck it out, by saying 'Esse est Percipi' - to be is to be perceived. The rock indeed exists because someone is perceiving it. In the absence of anyone else perceiving it, God is still perceiving it! God perceives everything including our perceiving minds, and thus assures their existence.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 02:52:22 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
So how do you get god from nothing? That was hardly a proof, now, was it? Prove it!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 07:37:47 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: gumby
Subject: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Gumby: (I'll have to relate my Howdy Doody theory of politics sometime, which has implications for the Gumby generation, or perhaps the Mister Rogers generation. But anyway...) Regarding: 1) Conservation of Energy You can't create something from nothing or put another way You can't win 2) Law of Entropy Entropy increases. Everything tends towards more disorder You can't break even 3) This one I am fuzzy on, it is something like E=HC/T, where HC=heat content, T=temperature, ??? You can't leave the game Recently i was having a discussion with a friend that went something like this: ----> Universe could not have always been here. Why?, because by #2 above, it would have tended toward complete disorder long ago, if it would have always been here. ----> Therefore, the Universe was created. Then by #1 above, it could not have created itself, therefore there has to be a Creator! This is a very creative argument, and is a variation on the theme of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' However, entropy is not the whole story. The Greeks employed a concept called synergy that was the antithesis of energy. Entropy applies to energy, but not to principles of organization. Synergy is the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, and the hypothesis is that there must be syntropy centers in the universe, governed by highly evolved design principles, that are not revealed by either direct or reflected radiation. For all practical purposes they are invisible to us, though we may be part of one that is on it's way to fruition. In that case Universe is a minimum perpetual motion machine and the argument above is insufficient. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 10:21:16 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: CD
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
CD, Gumby, In logic you can not prove there is a god. I won't remember the process as I am not as retentive as many of you who post about such deep stuff but I remember that. I thought logic was going to be so cool but I really found it very rigid. I always thought of myself as very logical but after taking the course I've had to rethink my opinion and now I think I am intuitivly logical, it is a new term I made up just to suit me! Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:18:18 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Gumby: (I'll have to relate my Howdy Doody theory of politics sometime, which has implications for the Gumby generation, or perhaps the Mister Rogers generation. But anyway...) Regarding: 1) Conservation of Energy You can't create something from nothing or put another way You can't win 2) Law of Entropy Entropy increases. Everything tends towards more disorder You can't break even 3) This one I am fuzzy on, it is something like E=HC/T, where HC=heat content, T=temperature, ??? You can't leave the game Recently i was having a discussion with a friend that went something like this: ----> Universe could not have always been here. Why?, because by #2 above, it would have tended toward complete disorder long ago, if it would have always been here. ----> Therefore, the Universe was created. Then by #1 above, it could not have created itself, therefore there has to be a Creator! This is a very creative argument, and is a variation on the theme of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' However, entropy is not the whole story. The Greeks employed a concept called synergy that was the antithesis of energy. Entropy applies to energy, but not to principles of organization. Synergy is the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, and the hypothesis is that there must be syntropy centers in the universe, governed by highly evolved design principles, that are not revealed by either direct or reflected radiation. For all practical purposes they are invisible to us, though we may be part of one that is on it's way to fruition. In that case Universe is a minimum perpetual motion machine and the argument above is insufficient. -Scott Scott T, I thought that it was a variation on 'if a tree falls in the woods, does it make any sound?' I am in the Mister Rogers generation, and did catch some of gumby on TV as well, so I'd be interested in hearing the theory as long as it's not going to group me into some kind of inane generalization on 'thirtysomething' people. (by thirtysomething, I mean age, not stars of this show who would be fortysomething by now.) I would like to make the point that we are not in the same generation as the Howdy Doody-ers. (My parents watched Howdy Doody.) Take care! VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:49:21 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Please translate (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Hey CD, sometimes in your posts you add this to a line -g. What does that mean? Is this some kind of robot speak? -j. (The -j means 'Joke'.)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 13:08:36 (EST)
Poster: Spock
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
Logic would dictate that there either is or isn't God. By God we mean a conscious being who exists on all dimensions and is everywhere. Logic dictates that if there were no God then we could never prove it or even know it, with certainty. ______________________ Logic dictates that if there is a God it would be difficult to prove. However, we would have to look at people's claims of having seen or experienced God to come near to any logical conclusion. Passing such witnesses of God off as cranks, would be illogical. So also would believing everything they claimed. Logically, the possibility of there being a God without any evidence, is 50/50. After studying all the evidence presented to me I would say that the probability of there being a God is very high. This is logical.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 14:32:59 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.coom
To: Spock
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
Dear Spock, is that Benjamin from beyond the grave or from beyond the galaxy (Star Treck) I don't disagree with you but do you know about logic as a science where each argument has a circle and if they overlap it means one thing if not another? As I said I don't remember the particulars at all but I do believe it was, through logic, shown that you can prove or disprove the existance therefore in effect making the possibility 50/50? Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 15:53:42 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
CD, Gumby, In logic you can not prove there is a god. I won't remember the process as I am not as retentive as many of you who post about such deep stuff but I remember that. I thought logic was going to be so cool but I really found it very rigid. I always thought of myself as very logical but after taking the course I've had to rethink my opinion and now I think I am intuitivly logical, it is a new term I made up just to suit me! Robyn Robyn, I took logic in college, too. I actually loved it. It was really technical and just like math. It was just a discipline, and had nothing really to do with being 'logical.' Like Calculus and Linear Algebra, it has had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my life.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:01:07 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
I think you might have to be close to 50 to have watched Howdy Doody (at least to know what you were watching). But 40somethings are definitely in the Mr. Wizard generation, and are of an age that they can remember when there were cigarette commercials on televison, and, if they lived in the states, where they were when they heard President Kennedy was shot. Also, they are likely to have a favorite Beatle. Armistad Maupin says you can tell more about a person by whom their favorite Beatle was than by any other single piece of information.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:27:12 (EST)
Poster: eb
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
I think you might have to be close to 50 to have watched Howdy Doody (at least to know what you were watching). But 40somethings are definitely in the Mr. Wizard generation, and are of an age that they can remember when there were cigarette commercials on televison, and, if they lived in the states, where they were when they heard President Kennedy was shot. Also, they are likely to have a favorite Beatle. Armistad Maupin says you can tell more about a person by whom their favorite Beatle was than by any other single piece of information. Alright, I'll bite. What does it mean to have admired John the most? eb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:31:21 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
I think you might have to be close to 50 to have watched Howdy Doody (at least to know what you were watching). But 40somethings are definitely in the Mr. Wizard generation, and are of an age that they can remember when there were cigarette commercials on televison, and, if they lived in the states, where they were when they heard President Kennedy was shot. Also, they are likely to have a favorite Beatle. Armistad Maupin says you can tell more about a person by whom their favorite Beatle was than by any other single piece of information. JW, You are correct. I think my generation knows where they were when the challenger blew up. We were all drooling and crawling when Kennedy was shot! So, the question is, who is your favorite Beatle? VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:44:38 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email:
To: eb
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Me too... John.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:55:59 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Thou forsakest Logos? (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Whoa Joe! Just when the discussion gets around to logic, you forsake logic! Your writing is very well structured and follows very logical lines. It's obvious that, as you say, you love logic. So then why do you say that it has had no bearing on your life? That just does not sound..logical.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:57:03 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
I think you might have to be close to 50 to have watched Howdy Doody (at least to know what you were watching). But 40somethings are definitely in the Mr. Wizard generation, and are of an age that they can remember when there were cigarette commercials on televison, and, if they lived in the states, where they were when they heard President Kennedy was shot. Also, they are likely to have a favorite Beatle. Armistad Maupin says you can tell more about a person by whom their favorite Beatle was than by any other single piece of information. JW, You are correct. I think my generation knows where they were when the challenger blew up. We were all drooling and crawling when Kennedy was shot! So, the question is, who is your favorite Beatle? VP John. I think that means you are more idealistic, a believer in a better world (just Imagine!, perhaps somewhat political. I would think most premies and ex-premies, especially those who got involved in the 70s probably would pick John. As opposed to Paul -- romantic, innocent, naive. As opposed to George -- spiritual, disciplined, austere; As opposed to Ringo -- just wanna have fun! These are just my guesses. Armistad had more details, but I can't recall them all at the moment.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:00:18 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Thou forsakest Logos? (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Whoa Joe! Just when the discussion gets around to logic, you forsake logic! Your writing is very well structured and follows very logical lines. It's obvious that, as you say, you love logic. So then why do you say that it has had no bearing on your life? That just does not sound..logical. I think being on the debate team in high school had more to do with whatever sense I can make, that a college logic course. It's a different kind of logic than stringing words together and arguing. That's what I meant. And I don't really love logic, I just (sometimes) like to argue.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:04:30 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
And another thing Armistad said. On the day John Lennon was shot, and entire generation of people turned 40, simultaneously, that day.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:28:35 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Another vote for John.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:31:33 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: All Hail John Lennon! (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
It's not even close. John WAS the Beatles. Without him they would have been another Dave Clark Five.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:32:57 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: gumby
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
Now that we are entirely off topic, I thought I would raise the issue of whether it's evidence of entrophy, or whether or not there is a god, that children (I mean little kids!) are slaughtering their little classmates all over the rural countryside of America, primarily in areas where the majority of people are fundamentalist christians.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:58:59 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
CD, In logic you can not prove there is a god. I won't remember the process as I am not as retentive as many of you who post about such deep stuff but I remember that. Robyn Here is a reminder for the curious mind on what Logic is like and why a proof of God might be just a bit on the hopeless side. Hope you like it. M once said something like: 'Will we ever understand it? No. Will we try? Of course!' I am not really into the deep stuff either. I realized a long time ago that people could not even account for the irrational numbers. But thinkers had built incredibly elaborate systems to try to corral that infinity and the paradoxes of existence and consciousness that we are. I have no problem with trying. It can be entertaining! Regards, CD
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:17:34 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
JW: Re: Armistad Maupin says you can tell more about a person by whom their favorite Beatle was than by any other single piece of information. Hmm... George, definitely. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:21:35 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: John K.
Subject: Re: All Hail John Lennon! (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
It's not even close. John WAS the Beatles. Without him they would have been another Dave Clark Five. Without him they are a bunch of rich old farts, but they don't put out anything worth listening to. What was that sorry thing they did a few years ago? I rather listen to Radiohead right now.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:25:20 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
Now that we are entirely off topic, I thought I would raise the issue of whether it's evidence of entrophy, or whether or not there is a god, that children (I mean little kids!) are slaughtering their little classmates all over the rural countryside of America, primarily in areas where the majority of people are fundamentalist christians. JW: I spent nearly the entire day with Seymour Martin Lipset, and he couldn't stop talking about it. I think we came to the conclusion that it had to do mostly with the number of firearms in that community, and the predisposition to 'recreate' with guns. So says the father of modern political sociology. Not really too scientific though. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:33:36 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
CD, Gumby, In logic you can not prove there is a god. I won't remember the process as I am not as retentive as many of you who post about such deep stuff but I remember that. I thought logic was going to be so cool but I really found it very rigid. I always thought of myself as very logical but after taking the course I've had to rethink my opinion and now I think I am intuitivly logical, it is a new term I made up just to suit me! Robyn Robyn: I think you are correct that you can't prove the exsistence of God in the same way you would prove a mathematical theorem. However, if you're willing to accept a lesser standard, like 'preponderence of evidence' it becomes much easier. However, like you I don't recall the details. I think Mortimer Adler wrote a book about it though. I think it was called something like 'God and Us,' or perhaps 'The Angels and Us,' or maybe both. -Scott -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:38:46 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
I prefered Paul at the time, but later on I realized that John was the talent and I changed my mind. A good friend of mine taught the guy who shot John Lennon. Said he was strange in high school.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:45:19 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
Now that we are entirely off topic, I thought I would raise the issue of whether it's evidence of entrophy, or whether or not there is a god, that children (I mean little kids!) are slaughtering their little classmates all over the rural countryside of America, primarily in areas where the majority of people are fundamentalist christians. JW Can't think about this one for long or I'll go mad. Some of us have kids in school. I don't know if it's entrophy or God but I can tell you it's terrifying and unnecessary and tragic.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:05:15 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
I couldn't agree more about he prevelence of firearms, but how does one 'create' let alone 'recreate' with a gun? Recreat what? Death?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:08:50 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
Now that we are entirely off topic, I thought I would raise the issue of whether it's evidence of entrophy, or whether or not there is a god, that children (I mean little kids!) are slaughtering their little classmates all over the rural countryside of America, primarily in areas where the majority of people are fundamentalist christians. JW Can't think about this one for long or I'll go mad. Some of us have kids in school. I don't know if it's entrophy or God but I can tell you it's terrifying and unnecessary and tragic. It IS terrifying. I don't have kids, but I can really feel for the parents of both the kids who got shot and of those who didn't. When this stuff happens, one wonders how the NRA can maintain any support whatsoever. I think it is the prevelence of firearms that kids have access to, along with (what I think is a 'southern' thing) about the need to fight back when 'disrespected.' And since kids don't always see the long-term results of their actions, if they have a gun they can shoot and not really understand the consequences until it's too late. I'm just so surprised because these things are occurring in very small communities where everyone knows everyone else.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:26:04 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
I couldn't agree more about he prevelence of firearms, but how does one 'create' let alone 'recreate' with a gun? Recreat what? Death? I think he meant recreate, as in recreation, like hunting.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:14:51 (EST)
Poster: Spock
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Robyn
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
I remember doing those logic diagrams in Starfleet Acadamy with Captain Kirk. In my professional life as second in command of a large starship, I don't have time to draw diagrams to come to a logical conclusion. Logic is the application of reason to something that seems unreasonable. It would be logical if there were a God. But would it be logical if there were not? I will ask my friend, Data, next time I see him.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 21:05:39 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Small town violence (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
JW, Don't be too surprised. We used to live in a VERY small town. The week that we moved there, a man shot his wife in the head in broad daylight right in the grocery store parking lot. He dumped her body out of the car onto the parking lot. Then he drove away. Everyone in the grocery store who saw this knew them. My theory for a lot of the problems in that small town, (after working and living there) was that there was a lack of hope for anything better in the lives of the people. No one was ever going to 'get out of that town'. No one was ever going to 'amount to anything'. (finish high school, go to college, get a good job, etc.) There was a general apathetic mood that was pervasive throughout the town. Some bad attitudes. It was very depressing. I also think that when people are ignorant, and major problems happen to them, they don't have the coping mechanisms (or the resources) that they need to deal with these problems. They become desperate. An example of this would be the teenage girls who become pregnant and kill or bury the babies instead of looking at all of the options open to them. Also, the man in the story above-the wife was breaking up with him. He couldn't cope. I also think that people in these small towns that you are speaking of have to keep more secrets. This is in part because they have less privacy and also because less deviant behaviour is accepted by their peers. People have their human desires, emotions, etc. but no one can 'know about it'. I'll bet Scott could tell us more. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:07:44 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: No Way, Paul Rules! (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Nope, Paul McCartney was the driving force behind the Beatles. Read the new biography about him, Many Years From Now -- tons of good info in there for any Beatle fan. Without Paul, there would've been no Let It Be, no Yesterday, no She Loves You. Plus, he was (and still is) so damn cute (I'm sure half the women on the planet would agree with me there).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:11:50 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: JW
Subject: Re: Syntropy (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Guess I'm just a naive, innocent romantic at heart, then, Joe. I remember hearing about John Lennon being shot at a program in Miami Beach Convention Center; we were all having some sort of sit-down dinner, I think it was Maharaji's birthday party or something. No one could believe it. I can't remember Maharaji having anything to say about it, though, when he spoke (as usual--when did Maharaji ever have anything profound to say about current events?).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:32:22 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
JW: JW: Regarding: how does one 'create' let alone 'recreate' with a gun? Recreat what? Death? I think you're probably pulling my leg, but it's wreck-ree-ate not ree-cree-ate. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:49:37 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: JW
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
A lot of people seem to think this kind of thing only happens in major urban areas, like Oakland. They seem to think that only African-American kids get mad about getting dissed, but violence in small town America has been going on for ages. I used to think that people murdering their family members and such was a sickness of the modern era, but I spend a lot of time reading about late antiquity, and terrible crimes were happening then, too. We live in a world of pain and some simply have no idea how to deal with this. I feel sadness for so many people every morning when I read the paper; there is so much madness and murder out there.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:51:46 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: It ain't John for me. (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
Joy: I hate to shatter your image, and it's probably sacrilegious, but when I was working in L.A. one of my co-workers said he was in the 'Hungry I' when John Lennon tried to pick up a young woman. (This was after his marriage to Yoko.) The girl told him to get lost, to which he (reportedly) replied: 'What's the fucking matter with you! I'm John Fucking Lennon, for Christ sakes!' Consequently, George is my favorite Beatle. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 23:29:00 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
JW: Re: I'm just so surprised because these things are occurring in very small communities where everyone knows everyone else. I'm not sure it's all that new or unique. When I was a kid growing up in a small town of less than three thousand a woman everyone knew got pissed at her husband for spending too much time in the bar and walked in and shot him dead. We have this huge compendium of stories from the last century called 'History of the Big Bend Country,' which is basically a lot of transcribed first hand accounts of everyday mundane events. There was a lot of violence. About 10 years ago my kindergarten teacher, a woman the whole town knew and loved, was doing social service for a poor family and the son went to her house, kidnapped, raped, and murdered her throwing her off a bridge into the Spokane River. The frequency of these events could be increasing, but it could also be cyclical. Scholars are not of one mind about whether the phenomenon is modern or not. The reason the British started shipping people off to Australia is that the crime rate had become completely unmanageable and the country was in danger of anarchy. She was my kindergarten teacher though. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:02:35 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
JW: Re: I'm just so surprised because these things are occurring in very small communities where everyone knows everyone else. I'm not sure it's all that new or unique. When I was a kid growing up in a small town of less than three thousand a woman everyone knew got pissed at her husband for spending too much time in the bar and walked in and shot him dead. We have this huge compendium of stories from the last century called 'History of the Big Bend Country,' which is basically a lot of transcribed first hand accounts of everyday mundane events. There was a lot of violence. About 10 years ago my kindergarten teacher, a woman the whole town knew and loved, was doing social service for a poor family and the son went to her house, kidnapped, raped, and murdered her throwing her off a bridge into the Spokane River. The frequency of these events could be increasing, but it could also be cyclical. Scholars are not of one mind about whether the phenomenon is modern or not. The reason the British started shipping people off to Australia is that the crime rate had become completely unmanageable and the country was in danger of anarchy. She was my kindergarten teacher though. -Scott I grew up in a fairly small town too. It was about 30,000 people, and there was a lot of under-the-surface violence there, too. Domestic violence is rampant and always has been, maybe especially in small towns, and there have always been the odd sexual murder. But I think the difference here is the involvement of such young children as perpetrators of what is essentially mass murder. I think that is really something different. Again, I think it's the access to guns that might be the difference. Maybe in another situation those kids might have been throwing rocks or soda bottles at those girls. And I agree with VP that there often isn't a lot of tolerance in small town America for anyone who is at all different from the norm, and it can feel like a terribly suffocating place to live. But it is still astounding that kids so young are capable of that kind of violence.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:13:05 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Entropy...
Message:
JW: JW: Regarding: how does one 'create' let alone 'recreate' with a gun? Recreat what? Death? I think you're probably pulling my leg, but it's wreck-ree-ate not ree-cree-ate. -Scott I don't think 'recreate' used that way is technically really a word, but I recall George Bush used it that way during Gulf War at his place up in Maine. If your using it as a form or 'recreation' like bowling, are you saying murder is a form of recreation for these kids? Please explain.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:51:54 (EST)
Poster: Paula
Email:
To: gumby
Subject: Re: No Gods (Re: Entropy...)
Message:
If someone or something created all the universe.... good for him. But why would I think he is my idol and I have to do things for him? an Idol is such less powerful than the Creator, and also if he wants something, he does it himself, as he created the universe.....
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 23:29:32 (EST)
Poster: Paula
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Fascination & Fulfillment
Message:
Fascination is a state of spirit. Followers, ex-followers... they are all there because they believe or believed in someone's ideas. All people here are fascinated with Maharaji. It is natural, he touched a lot of people. He touched you, as he touched me. Maybe the best thing to be done is to not believe in idols. And also, don't believe that someone has more power than you. What would be Maharaji without all those people behind him? And for him it is very easy to keep everyone putting money on his pocket..... because it is just say 'don't think'...... And as a matter of fact... if the mind make tricks (as he said a lot of times), why the heart does not? Everyone here wanted fulfilment. But isn't this fulfilment made of a good life? What do you need to get peace? I need to feel pleasure on simple stuff on life. Pleasure of dreaming, working, meeting friends, travelling. This is my fulfilment. it is not lie down on bed and wait for it happens. At the same time, to stop a little bit and be with myself is a need. it does not matter where I put my tongue, or where I put my thumb.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 06:36:34 (EST)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Paula
Subject: Re: Fascination & Fulfillment
Message:
Nice post Paula, I know exactly what you mean. Of course the heart plays tricks just as the mind does! How do you tell the difference? I think all this mind versus heart stuff is very simplistic and quite misleading. The mind gets blamed for everything! I suppose its convenient (in a simplistic paradigm) to have one insubstantial 'Demonic' entity which you can offload all responsibility for your negativity onto. Your right also that 99.9% of people ,including premies, get most of their daily fulfillment from down to earth things. Premies who invest all their time in Service and neglect building their their own lives, often see the world as hostile all the more because they don't get on so much in life. Of course that is not always the case.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:03:31 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: Paula
Subject: Re: Fascination & Fulfillment
Message:
Well said, Paula. Of course, the 'heart' plays tricks! The 'guru' is just a growing, changing, human being like all of us. He uses words which some of us find interesting for awhile, and then most of us grow tired of such a simplistic view of ourselves and of life and we move on. The idea that everything bad in life can be reduced to one word is what he was taught by the religion of his father. It's an attractive idea for people seeking quick and dramatically simple answers, but it certainly did not hold up over time for me.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 11:53:47 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Fascination & Fulfillment
Message:
Well said, Paula. Of course, the 'heart' plays tricks! The 'guru' is just a growing, changing, human being like all of us. He uses words which some of us find interesting for awhile, and then most of us grow tired of such a simplistic view of ourselves and of life and we move on. The idea that everything bad in life can be reduced to one word is what he was taught by the religion of his father. It's an attractive idea for people seeking quick and dramatically simple answers, but it certainly did not hold up over time for me. I never really thought about it quite this way, but it kind of clicked for me when 'lg', down below said that going back to Maharaji would be like going back to the first grade when he or she had graduated long ago and was now in high school. John, it seems like you are saying something similar, in that following Maharaji was interesting for awhile, but eventually you grew out of it. But I think the trap with Maharaji is that the ideology is set up in such a way that people stick with him for years after they grew out of his simplistic trip because his programming says to discount one's recognition that the cult is not longer working, and, in fact, it has become a major drag. That's my biggest regret. If I had stayed a premie for a couple of years, like so many others did, it wouldn't have been such a big deal. But because I listened to, and believed Maharaji's medieval religious teachings, I didn't trust my own feelings, and instead trusted HIM. Hence, I wasted a lot of time living a life which was very unfulfilling, stagnant, and kind of pointless.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 02:58:09 (EST)
Poster: Paula
Email:
To: Anon
Subject: Re: Fascination & Fulfillment
Message:
I keep thinking why people have to have a God to follow. There is so many Gods, and so many masters... of course learning is good, and to have someone to learn of is excellent. But people start thinking that all the solution for their lives is THAT person. I think that we all are capable to take our steps and then to teach, and exchange knowledges.....
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 03:11:57 (EST)
Poster: Paula
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: Fascination & Fulfillment
Message:
But John, I had another idea in my mind when I wrote that message. The thing is: you meet someone, and you find this someone very special. And then, you realise this person is very special for what he HAS, and how people see him. And then, this person tells you..... 'don't think too much'.What do you do? you go and become his servant. Fascists didn't think too much when they killed 6 million people, or... some premies don't think too much when they give presents to Maharaji when he asks... and then..... you see this guy and say.... wow..... he is so powerful....... of course...... everyone believed he was. If I belive the sun is blue, it will be!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 14:58:54 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Dazed and Enthused
Message:
I have been trawling the libraries again, and found the following reference: 'Mystical experience, spiritual knowledge, and a contemporary ecstatic religion.' Buckley,P & Galanter,M. (1979) British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52(3) 281-289 (researchers based at Yeshiva U, Albert Einstein Coll of Medicine, Bronx Municipal Hospital Ctr) > 'Studied a contemporary 'enthusiastic' religion, the Divine Light Mission (DLM), to elucidate psychological factors underlying the appeal of this charismatic religious sect for American youth. Individual DLM members were interviewed, and a questionnaire was given to 119 randomly selected converts. The modal respondent was a single White between 21 and 25 yrs of age, who had some college, had been a member 1-2 yrs, and was living in communal residence with other members. Mystical experiences, analogous to an acute circumscribed hallucinatory episode, were found to be a central factor in the conversion of some of the adherents. These experiences, along with regularly practiced meditation, appeared to be of considerable importance in reinforcing the belief system. The psychology of mystical conversion experiences is reviewed, and an explanation for the central importance of the 'knowledge' in the DLM is developed through the concept of affect functioning as cognition. A powerful group solidarity, the presence of a charismatic leader, and the occurrence of dramatic conversion experiences are seen as potent and appealing factors.' > Looks like another paper I'm going to have to try and get hold of. I was particularly struck by the last two sentences, especially the concept of 'affect functioning as cognition', which in plain English means, I think, allowing what you feel to stand in for and supplant what you know. When a premie says 'I know Maharaj Ji is the living Lord', they know no such thing (okay, it may be unfashionable to make such claims, but all of us who used to have premie minds held this belief, secretly or otherwise). If they are honest, what they should at best be saying is 'following Maharaj Ji feels good'. Also, for a long time I have thought that the group solidarity factor combined with the charismatic leader are crucial to any analysis of the GMJ experience, to the extent that Knowledge can only really be understood as a social phenomenon. There is actually a vast psychological literature on social influence (including conformity, compliance and obedience) which tends to support such an analysis. For instance, I wonder how many practicing premies have asked themselves how their experience of Knowledge, or feelings towards GMJ would change if they were the only remaining devotee left after all the others had split? I can't imagine anybody hacking it for very long. Has anybody witnessed the 'Toronto Blessing' being administered, either live or on TV? (Gumby, maybe?). All the ingredients are there: preacher dramatically zaps a member of the congregation with the 'Holy Spirit', like a stage hypnotist snapping his fingers, or a witch-doctor laying a curse, and the person instantly has an experience which appears to knock them head over heels and often leaves them writhing on the floor. The preacher is no more doing anything here, than GMJ has the power to do anything, whether in darshan, or when delivering his addresses. The believer blisses out (for real) as a result of internal psychological processes triggered off by the social setting - in this case the place of worship combined with enthusiastic like-minded congregation and role-playing leader. But where's the harm though, you might ask, if it keeps people off the streets and makes them happy? For me, the harm lies in the non-falsifiable assertions and promises made both by GMJ and leaders of many other sects and fundamentalist religions. Worst of the lot are those claims that people who accept the faith / receive Knowledge are 'saved', and those who do not are not saved (GMJ used to state this quite explicitly). Premies die. This is a fact: everybody dies. The idea that a premie's soul can, by GMJ's grace, survive physical death and merge with the infinite is no more than a belief. But this brings us back to the confusion between affect and cognition. Recently a premie (CD or Student) posted here that GMJ had given them 'infinite bliss'. In what way is this bliss infinite, exactly? If it arises as a result of sitting under a blanket, or watching a video, that experience has pretty much dissolved by the time you wake up next morning. (This is even allowing for the assumption that bliss is being experienced in meditation; for me, better descriptions would be 'relaxed detachment', 'inner well-being', 'back-ache' and 'boredom', mixed together in equal parts.) Infinite might of course mean 'always there when you look for it', but, then, so is your mind, yet nobody argues that mind is also infinite. I guess what is meant when premies use/abuse the word infinite, is that their experience feels infinite in some indefinable way. I really didn't mean to start an essay here, so I'll just shut up now and see if I can get hold of that research paper.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 28, 1998 at 00:08:00 (EST)
Poster: sat guroovy
Email: *.*
To: Nigel
Subject: Enthused (Re: Dazed and Enthused)
Message:
Hi nigel, good post, A girl I met the other day workes at the library and she left rawat long ago (lucky for her) and she said she found some years ago that dlm was listed as a religion and the (legal) holidays for cult members were holi and nov. event. Christians get thier holidays from work, we got ours? No, there was never a day off to be real. Just worship the pretend god. And serve and listen.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 02:57:20 (EST)
Poster: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Maharaji & everyone
Subject: I still love Maharaji
Message:
Now I realise it. I actually still love Maharaji. Although I haven't been to see him since 1986 because I don't agree with his Hindu based philosophy and despite having called him all the names under the sun on this forum I realise deep down that I still love the guy. It's strange isn't it. I realised this when Bill Burke claimed he thought that Student was Maharaji. You see I thought, well if it was Maharaji who I'd had that little forum communication with, that would be great. Of course, I doubt if Bill's right and Maharaji IS Student but then I realised that actually, yes, I would like to have some online communication with Maharaji and sort some things out. You no, I could never feel an affinity or empathy with a video image or a distant figure on a stage. The few times I met Maharaji in person, I actually liked the guy. Others have seen an angry side to him or a dark side and I appreciate that but when I saw him that time in the back garden at Woodside Avenue, London, he was a laugh a minute. I'd been patiently waiting to see him all afternoon while he had probably been watching a movie on TV. He was just a boy, a funny, audacious, slightly wacky fifteen year old. It's hard not to feel some love for someone you spent a decade trying to devote yourself too. I'm glad I don't hate him. When we all finally go to the big garden in the sky, wrongs will be righted and it's best not to take any hate with us, in my view. So Maharaji, if you are reading this, come on down to the Forum and mix it with some of your greatest ever devotees, like Jim, Bill and Anon. I think you'd find Maharaji, that if you related to us on the same level you'd find a warm welcome from some ex-premies. Warm welcome or not - it would be fun wouldn't it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 14:04:24 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: David
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
Now I realise it. I actually still love Maharaji. Although I haven't been to see him since 1986 because I don't agree with his Hindu based philosophy and despite having called him all the names under the sun on this forum I realise deep down that I still love the guy. It's strange isn't it. I realised this when Bill Burke claimed he thought that Student was Maharaji. You see I thought, well if it was Maharaji who I'd had that little forum communication with, that would be great. Of course, I doubt if Bill's right and Maharaji IS Student but then I realised that actually, yes, I would like to have some online communication with Maharaji and sort some things out. You no, I could never feel an affinity or empathy with a video image or a distant figure on a stage. The few times I met Maharaji in person, I actually liked the guy. Others have seen an angry side to him or a dark side and I appreciate that but when I saw him that time in the back garden at Woodside Avenue, London, he was a laugh a minute. I'd been patiently waiting to see him all afternoon while he had probably been watching a movie on TV. He was just a boy, a funny, audacious, slightly wacky fifteen year old. It's hard not to feel some love for someone you spent a decade trying to devote yourself too. I'm glad I don't hate him. When we all finally go to the big garden in the sky, wrongs will be righted and it's best not to take any hate with us, in my view. So Maharaji, if you are reading this, come on down to the Forum and mix it with some of your greatest ever devotees, like Jim, Bill and Anon. I think you'd find Maharaji, that if you related to us on the same level you'd find a warm welcome from some ex-premies. Warm welcome or not - it would be fun wouldn't it. David, I think you should be free to love whomever you want to. That's up to you. But I would be suspicious of feeling love for someone you perhaps spent 15 minutes with on one occasion. Do you know him well enough to say you 'love' him, or do you 'love' your idea of him, or is it that you love the way you would like him to be? Reality has a way of undermining that kind of 'love.' Also, I doubt Maharaji will ever willingly discuss anything with you or any other ex-premie, and probably not with 99% of premies either. You see, I think he doesn't give a shit about his devotees or his ex-devotees and never really did, except to the extent they help him maintain his delusion of divinity and keep his cash flowing. And he knows that as long as he just presents himself in the most controlled of circumstances, programs and videos, he can retain the illusion that he is some sort of a supreme being. But, as long as you understand that the 'love' you feel for him is entirely a one-way street, loving him is up to you. But David, I think you deserve a lot better love relationship than that. I do feel some nostalgic affection for Maharaji too. But it isn't love. Rather, it's nostalgia for the 'feeling' of love I had in the past. And because of that, I would really like to see some evidence that he has at least a shred of integrity and morals, and that he would take some responsibility for and address the concerns and questions of people who followed him sincerely and got messed up by it. I would feel a lot better about having followed him and loved him, if that were the case. And I did love him once, despite the fact that I never even met him, but it was really love of a fantasy, not a reality, but if I hadn't loved him, his whole cult would have had less of an impact on me than it did and I wouldn't have gotten nearly as involved in it as I did, with the resulting negative consequences we have all discussed.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 15:22:26 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: JW
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
JW, Well said! Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 17:50:00 (EST)
Poster: I admire
Email:
To: David
Subject: your honesty (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Good to see you're not on the 'ex' bandwagon David and you're standing on your own experience.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 18:42:51 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: David
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
I agree with BOTH David and Joe! I still continue to have what we used to refer to as 'darshan dreams' back in the ashram days, dreams in which you interact with Maharaji somehow. In fact, these have been much more profound and vivid SINCE leaving DLM around 1981. One dream I had in the late 1980s was that I went to Maharaji's house and HE gave me a present (not the other way around, as usual), and it was a beautiful lace pillow (Note that I used to make beautiful embroidered velvet pillows for Maharaji's personal throne and for his feet in darshan lines when I was a premie.) And then I said to him, Maharaji, I will never be your devotee again, but I will always love you. It IS hard to let go of something that was such an all-encompassing part of your life for so long, whether a fantasy love, or a 'real' love. But I also agree wholeheartedly with everything JW says, and the more I hang around this Forum it's helping to sort out what I really feel, and I certainly would be more likely to give Maharaji a kick on the shins than a kiss on the feet if I were ever to encounter him in person again, which is, of course, not likely, since I was hardly ever able to encounter him personally as a premie despite full time effort towards that end. But I think both sentiments are valid, JW's and David's.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 18:44:31 (EST)
Poster: Lg
Email:
To: David
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
David For a moment don't you think you're getting a bit mushy? And that love is based on what? Do you know what love is? It is to allow and accept a person for what/who he/she is; not a nastalgia feeling of a moment. JW said it so well in his message. I too, havent't seen him since 1987, and I had a lot of experiences and realisations with K and M. at that time and I don't deny any of it. But after a while it was time to move on in order to continue growing. So when I left M. it was without a grudge. I simply have no love or hate for him. For me, It would not be conceivable to return to M. because since I left, I have experienced greater and more profound experiences. It would be like: from grade 5, returning to grade 1. Doesn't make sense.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 18:47:58 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: I admire
Subject: Re: your honesty (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Good to see you're not on the 'ex' bandwagon David and you're standing on your own experience. NounVerb: And what, exactly, are you standing on? -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 19:37:22 (EST)
Poster: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: everyone
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
Yes I do know a bit about what love is. Perhaps I seem a bit mushy in my above post but I cannot deny something. I was heavily involved with being a devotee for eleven years. I pranammed with sincerity and gladly suffered the trials of trying to be a devotee because I believed that love was the most important thing. I loved and hated Maharaji with a passion. He was an integral part of my life for many years. I cannot just switch that off and pretend it never happened. I understand Joy & JW's posts. What do I know about love? Well I know it's stronger than hate. I think it would be blind to deny any love we once felt for Maharaji. We were not all acting, we genuinely felt it. As JW suggests, it may have been a one way thing but then actually that really is the nature of love, it is unconditional. All the love I've ever felt is the strongest and most memorable set of experiences in my life. I don't see love as being negative, even if it misguided because a person benefits from experiencing love, of any kind. There are not many benefits from experiencing hatred. I am not about to become a premie again, in fact it would be impossible considering my circumstances and health difficulties. I am surprised myself, that I still feel some love towards Maharaji. The fact that I wasn't pretending to love him in the past, does mean that some of that will always be there in me. I cannot deny it. It may be wrong and illogical, but it's still there.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 20:19:11 (EST)
Poster: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Joy
Subject: To Participant (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
I agree with BOTH David and Joe! I still continue to have what we used to refer to as 'darshan dreams' back in the ashram days, dreams in which you interact with Maharaji somehow. In fact, these have been much more profound and vivid SINCE leaving DLM around 1981. One dream I had in the late 1980s was that I went to Maharaji's house and HE gave me a present (not the other way around, as usual), and it was a beautiful lace pillow (Note that I used to make beautiful embroidered velvet pillows for Maharaji's personal throne and for his feet in darshan lines when I was a premie.) And then I said to him, Maharaji, I will never be your devotee again, but I will always love you. It IS hard to let go of something that was such an all-encompassing part of your life for so long, whether a fantasy love, or a 'real' love. But I also agree wholeheartedly with everything JW says, and the more I hang around this Forum it's helping to sort out what I really feel, and I certainly would be more likely to give Maharaji a kick on the shins than a kiss on the feet if I were ever to encounter him in person again, which is, of course, not likely, since I was hardly ever able to encounter him personally as a premie despite full time effort towards that end. But I think both sentiments are valid, JW's and David's. Participant, And that is why we're here. Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 21:07:18 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: David
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
Yes I do know a bit about what love is. Perhaps I seem a bit mushy in my above post but I cannot deny something. I was heavily involved with being a devotee for eleven years. I pranammed with sincerity and gladly suffered the trials of trying to be a devotee because I believed that love was the most important thing. I loved and hated Maharaji with a passion. He was an integral part of my life for many years. I cannot just switch that off and pretend it never happened. I understand Joy & JW's posts. What do I know about love? Well I know it's stronger than hate. I think it would be blind to deny any love we once felt for Maharaji. We were not all acting, we genuinely felt it. As JW suggests, it may have been a one way thing but then actually that really is the nature of love, it is unconditional. All the love I've ever felt is the strongest and most memorable set of experiences in my life. I don't see love as being negative, even if it misguided because a person benefits from experiencing love, of any kind. There are not many benefits from experiencing hatred. I am not about to become a premie again, in fact it would be impossible considering my circumstances and health difficulties. I am surprised myself, that I still feel some love towards Maharaji. The fact that I wasn't pretending to love him in the past, does mean that some of that will always be there in me. I cannot deny it. It may be wrong and illogical, but it's still there. David, there isn't anything wrong, in and of itself, of one-way, unconditional love. The problem, and the danger, comes when a one-way love causes us to do things (sometimes self-destructive things) that are damaging to us as individuals, or if it makes us refrain from doing things that we should do for our own benefit. The problem is that no matter how much you sacrifice, and 'give' in an unconditional love 'relationship' you never get anything back, and you can get used. Many people, like me, also can entertain the illusion that we ARE being loved back by the object of our love when it isn't really true. And with Maharaji that isn't true, and it can't be true because he didn't know I was alive, and he didn't care. And I want to love someone who loves me back. And I don't want to waste time loving someone who doesn't/can't love me. I know what you mean about not being able to deny that I felt the 'one-way' love. Sometimes it felt good. Sometimes it was profoundly awful. But it was ultimately unfulfilling because I didn't know the object of my love and I never got loved back. I tried to convince myself that I was being loved back, but I never really was. It seemed that the entire cult was set up to create the illusion that Maharaji cared about us. But it was just an illusion. It felt empty, and it was. So, I don't really believe in the concept of unconditional love. I think it's really dangerous. And since I stopped being a premie, I got a lot more self-confidence and self-esteem, such that I really believe I deserve to be loved back when I give my love. I won't settle for anything less, and so I won't continue in the group illusion of Maharaji's love. But, once you have loved someone, there will always be the nostalgia.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Mar 26, 1998 at 22:16:45 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
JW, Thanks for that. You do deserve to be loved back when you give your love. So do you David, and so do I and Jim and Katie and every single arsehole on here (sorry, I know this is a serious post, but I had to have a little comic relief) I'm not settling for anything less myself. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 00:30:06 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: JW
Subject: Re: I still love Maharaji
Message:
Yes I do know a bit about what love is. Perhaps I seem a bit mushy in my above post but I cannot deny something. I was heavily involved with being a devotee for eleven years. I pranammed with sincerity and gladly suffered the trials of trying to be a devotee because I believed that love was the most important thing. I loved and hated Maharaji with a passion. He was an integral part of my life for many years. I cannot just switch that off and pretend it never happened. I understand Joy & JW's posts. What do I know about love? Well I know it's stronger than hate. I think it would be blind to deny any love we once felt for Maharaji. We were not all acting, we genuinely felt it. As JW suggests, it may have been a one way thing but then actually that really is the nature of love, it is unconditional. All the love I've ever felt is the strongest and most memorable set of experiences in my life. I don't see love as being negative, even if it misguided because a person benefits from experiencing love, of any kind. There are not many benefits from experiencing hatred. I am not about to become a premie again, in fact it would be impossible considering my circumstances and health difficulties. I am surprised myself, that I still feel some love towards Maharaji. The fact that I wasn't pretending to love him in the past, does mean that some of that will always be there in me. I cannot deny it. It may be wrong and illogical, but it's still there. David, there isn't anything wrong, in and of itself, of one-way, unconditional love. The problem, and the danger, comes when a one-way love causes us to do things (sometimes self-destructive things) that are damaging to us as individuals, or if it makes us refrain from doing things that we should do for our own benefit. The problem is that no matter how much you sacrifice, and 'give' in an unconditional love 'relationship' you never get anything back, and you can get used. Many people, like me, also can entertain the illusion that we ARE being loved back by the object of our love when it isn't really true. And with Maharaji that isn't true, and it can't be true because he didn't know I was alive, and he didn't care. And I want to love someone who loves me back. And I don't want to waste time loving someone who doesn't/can't love me. I know what you mean about not being able to deny that I felt the 'one-way' love. Sometimes it felt good. Sometimes it was profoundly awful. But it was ultimately unfulfilling because I didn't know the object of my love and I never got loved back. I tried to convince myself that I was being loved back, but I never really was. It seemed that the entire cult was set up to create the illusion that Maharaji cared about us. But it was just an illusion. It felt empty, and it was. So, I don't really believe in the concept of unconditional love. I think it's really dangerous. And since I stopped being a premie, I got a lot more self-confidence and self-esteem, such that I really believe I deserve to be loved back when I give my love. I won't settle for anything less, and so I won't continue in the group illusion of Maharaji's love. But, once you have loved someone, there will always be the nostalgia. Well put, JW. It brought back memories of all the loneliness and sadness I experienced at programs, in between the upliftment. I'd never identified it, but your post pointed out it was the sound of an empty reply; love given but none received. Just an imagination.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 10:17:49 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: David
Subject: I loved premies more (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Comparing M to past girl friends ( or past love affairs) is interesting. But, if I think of all the women I have been in love with ( I can write this because I know my wife does not read this forum, at least I don't think she does) and then I put M beside them, and then I think what if I could have lunch with any of them today, M would be last on the list. Honest to GOD,that is my experience. I am standing on MY experience when I say that. I am not on the ex bandwagon. Which makes me wonder about all those years with the guru. Really, I would much rather meet and have lunch with dozens of old premie friends rather than meet and have lunch with the guru. I never had a personal relationship with M. Without personal contact, can real love actually grow? In my case, the answer is no.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:14:57 (EST)
Poster: NV
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: your honesty (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Good to see you're not on the 'ex' bandwagon David and you're standing on your own experience. NounVerb: And what, exactly, are you standing on? -Scott Another thought provoking question from you Scott... you are indeed an insightful individual! Well gosh, now that you ask I'm not sure what I'm standing on. You really do probe into the nub of the issues don't you. There are oh so many levels to consider... emotional ground, intellectual ground, physical ground. And of course I can only answer these questions based on my level of self awareness, which by it's nature is a subjective measure of reality, so the solidity of the ground I'm standing on could all be an illusion. All I've got to say is thank God there's a site like this so I can find inciteful (oops, wrong spelling... I meant insightful) people like... well like you Scott, who can not only ask me these difficult kinds of questions that are beneficial to my growth but can also, with the help of Jim, and Joe, Katie, and the other great souls who contribute, provide me with all the answers I need, not the least of which is setting me straight on what the dickens I've been experiencing for the last 25 years while following Maharaji. Golly Scott, it's so assuring to finally find people who really care... (flutter, flutter;-)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:15:47 (EST)
Poster: NV
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: your honesty (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Good to see you're not on the 'ex' bandwagon David and you're standing on your own experience. NounVerb: And what, exactly, are you standing on? -Scott Another thought provoking question from you Scott... you are indeed an insightful individual! Well gosh, now that you ask I'm not sure what I'm standing on. You really do probe into the nub of the issues don't you. There are oh so many levels to consider... emotional ground, intellectual ground, physical ground. And of course I can only answer these questions based on my level of self awareness, which by it's nature is a subjective measure of reality, so the solidity of the ground I'm standing on could all be an illusion. All I've got to say is thank God there's a site like this so I can find inciteful (oops, wrong spelling... I meant insightful) people like... well like you Scott, who can not only ask me these difficult kinds of questions that are beneficial to my growth but can also, with the help of Jim, and Joe, Katie, and the other great souls who contribute, provide me with all the answers I need, not the least of which is setting me straight on what the dickens I've been experiencing for the last 25 years while following Maharaji. Golly Scott, it's so assuring to finally find people who really care... (flutter, flutter;-)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 16:40:50 (EST)
Poster: I thought
Email:
To: NV
Subject: Aesop left (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Either Aesop/A premie is a masochist or there is yet another rude premie lurking in the mists.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 17:57:47 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: NV
Subject: Only as funny as your guru (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Good to see you're not on the 'ex' bandwagon David and you're standing on your own experience. NounVerb: And what, exactly, are you standing on? -Scott Another thought provoking question from you Scott... you are indeed an insightful individual! Well gosh, now that you ask I'm not sure what I'm standing on. You really do probe into the nub of the issues don't you. There are oh so many levels to consider... emotional ground, intellectual ground, physical ground. And of course I can only answer these questions based on my level of self awareness, which by it's nature is a subjective measure of reality, so the solidity of the ground I'm standing on could all be an illusion. All I've got to say is thank God there's a site like this so I can find inciteful (oops, wrong spelling... I meant insightful) people like... well like you Scott, who can not only ask me these difficult kinds of questions that are beneficial to my growth but can also, with the help of Jim, and Joe, Katie, and the other great souls who contribute, provide me with all the answers I need, not the least of which is setting me straight on what the dickens I've been experiencing for the last 25 years while following Maharaji. Golly Scott, it's so assuring to finally find people who really care... (flutter, flutter;-) Ever notice how extremely unfunny Maharaji's jokes are? Ever wonder about the long-term affect of fooling yourself into thinking he's hilarious? What would that do to your innate sharpness? Your sense of irony? We've already seen that the guru has taught his suckers how to avoid things. He's taught them how to dummy down, how to forget the past and how to abuse prepositions. NV, now, gives further proof that the guru hamstrings one's mental function. NV, your post was pathetically lame, friend. It just reflects your seething anger and dull sense of humour. Plus, you didn't answer Scott, now did you? Care to try again?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:12:54 (EST)
Poster: John Kay's wife (for now)
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Never mind that!! (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Comparing M to past girl friends ( or past love affairs) is interesting. But, if I think of all the women I have been in love with ( I can write this because I know my wife does not read this forum, at least I don't think she does) and then I put M beside them, and then I think what if I could have lunch with any of them today, M would be last on the list. Honest to GOD,that is my experience. I am standing on MY experience when I say that. I am not on the ex bandwagon. Which makes me wonder about all those years with the guru. Really, I would much rather meet and have lunch with dozens of old premie friends rather than meet and have lunch with the guru. I never had a personal relationship with M. Without personal contact, can real love actually grow? In my case, the answer is no. Dear John, What's going on here? I told you I take a look at your anti-guru page once in a while when things get slow at work. It's not that I find it all that interesting. (I can't believe how stupid those premies sound. Mind you, Jim Heller sounds like a very sweet guy. I bet he's good looking!) But I've shown some of the staff here your page and they think it's kind of funny. Personally, I like to see how much time you've wasted on any given day when you could be putting a bit more bread on our table. So what's this 'other loves' you're talking about? You told me I was the first and I always gave you that kind of credit for inexperience, if you know what I mean? John, what in the world's going on here?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:56:55 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: John Kay's wife (for now)
Subject: Re: Never mind that!! (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
>Mind you, Jim Heller sounds like a very sweet guy. You must wear army boots!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 18:59:07 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Only as funny as your guru (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Jim, Do you think you will ever be answered? VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 19:04:06 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: VP
Subject: Re: Only as funny as your guru (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Jim, Do you think you will ever be answered? VP I sure hope so.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:03:19 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: NV
Subject: Re: your honesty (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
NV: The point, my friend, is that you feel empowered to congratulate someone else on their honesty, when you are not sufficiently transparent to use your name, or even a pseudonym that is identifiable as a personality. It does not take a mountain of reflection to see that this is suspect. I'll bet David is just enormously gratified at your comment, whoever you are... 'Deep' or 'subtle' it's not. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:19:30 (EST)
Poster: NV
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Only as funny as your guru (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Pathetically lame? Seething anger and dull sense of humor? Nah, it's in fact an example of raw sarcasm resulting from such a presumtuous question being asked by someone who seems to think they've got it all figured out, but who really hasn't. Which by the way seems to be a common trait of the principle contributors of this forum. Come on Jim, be fair. Maharaji has told some pretty funny jokes over the years. As for an answer, I'm standing on my own experience of life as filtered through the subjective doors of my perception. How about you, you standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? Would you know if they were? Come on, honestly with no bravado please.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:21:56 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: David
Subject: We seek truth. Ich Verstehen. (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
David: I don't think there is any discredit in having loved, or even still loving... even if the love does the loved one no good or goes completely unappreciated. I still love an ex-girlfriend. I would arrange to have my friends lock me in a room and throw away the key, sliding lettuce and Bakoz under the door for sustenance, if I thought there was a chance I would ever subject myself to that again. One is only allowed so much stupidity in a lifetime, and I've used up my quota. The point is, I think, you fully deserve to let Maharaj Ji be the stupid one this time. God, I hope this makes sense! -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 20:29:49 (EST)
Poster: NV
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: your honesty (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
NV: The point, my friend, is that you feel empowered to congratulate someone else on their honesty, when you are not sufficiently transparent to use your name, or even a pseudonym that is identifiable as a personality. It does not take a mountain of reflection to see that this is suspect. I'll bet David is just enormously gratified at your comment, whoever you are... 'Deep' or 'subtle' it's not. -Scott Scott I am as empowered as I choose to be within the constraints of my environment, pseudonym or not. That is inherent in the definition of the word. I guess you would like me, as an outsider here, to ask you for empowerment based on your terms. Fortunately that is not one of the constraints I have to negotiate within.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:09:17 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: NV
Subject: Honestly funny (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
A Sap: Regarding: Nah, it's in fact an example of raw sarcasm resulting from such a presumtuous question being asked by someone who seems to think they've got it all figured out, but who really hasn't. Which by the way seems to be a common trait of the principle contributors of this forum. No one on this side of the line thinks they have it all figured out. You must be looking at a reflection. Who was it that was standing on what, where... again? -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 27, 1998 at 22:23:49 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: NV
Subject: You can't brag about your own jokes (Re: I still love Maharaji)
Message:
Pathetically lame? Seething anger and dull sense of humor? Nah, it's in fact an example of raw sarcasm resulting from such a presumtuous question being asked by someone who seems to think they've got it all figured out, but who really hasn't. Which by the way seems to be a common trait of the principle contributors of this forum. Come on Jim, be fair. Maharaji has told some pretty funny jokes over the years. As for an answer, I'm standing on my own experience of life as filtered through the subjective doors of my perception. How about you, you standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? Would you know if they were? Come on, honestly with no bravado please. Really, NV, there's no point going on about your 'raw sarcasm'. Everyone knows that's what it was. You have to admit, though, it fell a little flat. Look, I'm a funny guy myself. But even I blow it sometimes. Don't feel bad. Go inside. So, NV, just when I thought I'd ruined it with all my premie friends, you come along and want to talk. Grace? Who can say? But, yes, I'll talk with you. I'll start by answering your questions to me, as an act of arguably gratuitous good faith, in the hopes that finally the Lord almighty may have sent me a premie unafraid of discussion. This is exciting. Has Maharaji told some pretty funny jokes over the years? Well, let's see. I've got to admit I don't have all his videos. My time frame really lasts only as far as the early 80s with some subsequent spot checks. Did Maharaji make me laugh? Yes, Maharaji made me laugh. When I first heard him speak, I chuckled a lot. Why? I think it was the obvious and fantastic juxtaposition of this breezy, faux-Yankee slang coming out of the mouth of a 14-year old Indian who was, by the way, God. 'Holy cow,' we all thought (I know 'cause we told each other again and again and again),'who'd ahve thought the Lord would come like this?' (In retrospect, what amazes me about all that was how quickly we fell into thinking that the 'Lord' would come at all but, alas, we did.) So anything he said was both startlingly fresh (for the Lord that is), profound and mind-shattering. If humour's whatever mixes up your expectations and confronts your worldview and laughter's an evolved reaction to that shakeup, just believing in Maharaji was, quite literally, funny. It shocked our mind. We were into it for that reason. We were into shocking our mind. Remember how the mahatmas used to say-- I think it was my old tennis partner (okay, everyone's old tennis partner), Gurucharanand -- remember how they used to say that we are all 'women' to the Lord? Well, he might also have said we're all slaves, sycophants, hotel clerks and Ed McMahan's (sp?). We sat there through his many, many 'extemporaneous discourses' searching for anything, just any small thing to set our minds on. Tell me, after you'd heard the Superman comic story eight or ten times, what did you think about when he told it? 'When, oh Lord, will this end?' 'Come on, Maharaji, I love you so much, please take away this mind of mine that even now, even now, Lord, in this obviously special moment, finds you boring as hell?' 'I'm so glad I don't have to go back to that fucking xxxx community and that I'm finally being transferred to a town where there's a decent chance I'll get full-time service and won't have to get a job.' What did you think about? Oh, I know, the real devotees, unlike assholes like me, didn't think anything. They just sat there and soaked up the grace. Or, if they thought anything it was a very quiet purring 'Yes, Maharaji, Yes! I'm with you, My Lord, tell it like it is. Yes, I'll shut up even these thoughts so I can feel you here, with me now. Oh yes!' Sometimes, when he cracked a lame joke, it gave all our minds a chance to actually latch on to something. For a brief moment, becuase he'd made afunny and wanted us all to enjoy it, we could relax and, yes, for that briefest moment, it WAS the words after all. So, surprise, surprise, we laughed. But, NV, I'll tell you something. Those jokes weren't that funny. Didn't you ever have the experience of taking someone new to satsang and briefly watching the movie or video or even the Lord himself, if that's where you were, through their eyes? Didn't you then see something a little funny going on? Didn't you notice the premies laughing a bit too hard? Couldn't you then tell, if you hadn't noticed already, that they were laughing a little too earnestly? You know, since then, I've noticed that all closed-authoritarian groups I've ever had a chance to observe (a few, nothing special, just a few) have demonstrated the same symptom. I'm really trying to be fair and I kind of think that there might have been one or two times when Maharaji really said something funny. I kind of remember REALLY laughing. But even that may be wishful thinking on my part. Please, NV, could you give us just a couple of Maharaji's great jokes over time? (Here's a joke I heard yesterday that I thought really funny. Mabe you've heard it. If not, tkae your shoes off, unplug the phone and get the wife. Pour yourself a diet drink and check this out: what happens when you play a country music record backwards? [Answer at end of post]) Next, N, if I can call you that, you aksed me about growing up black in a white man's world. (No, I'm kidding. It's just that I keep typing 'aksed' instead of 'asked'. Hey, where's that token black premie, Marshall what-his-name?) No, seriously you asked me if I could ever say I'm standing on anything that's not built of selectively filtered perceptions? And, how would I know anyway? My answer's simple. I didn't invent logic. I didn't invent rationality. Maybe that too is simply a false presumption of the dominant running-dog capitalist patriarchal 'old' way of thinking but, guess what? I don't think so. I think there's a lot of evidence for a world that's independent of our cultural vagaries, a world that does indeed call for rationality (e.g. if it's raining, take your umbrella) and rewards logic. I think there's ample evidence that we've evolved to be rational beings and, that logic, accordingly, is essentially hard-wired. SOOOOOO, relying on logic, I look at Maharaji and ask myself a whole lot of questions. I ask him a whole lot of questions, too, and can't help but note that he generally won't anser and, perhaps more importantly, when he HAS ansewred, his answers have stunk of deception and embarrassment. Then I consider the stories of those who have known him better than I ever did. I DO put some serious weight on the Mishler interview. Ain't it a pity, you must ask yourself, that Misher didn't live longer than he did? Well, I know what you mean. I feel that way too. I then consider the entire lineage of Ride-my-pony gurus which you, too, can read about on David Lane's web page and which unceremoniously describes the history of the guru business in modern India. It's like reading about the garment industry. (Did you know that so-and-so once was a designer for so-and-so before they started their own now-'legendary' company?). And then I talk with premies like you. I realize thorugh these dialogues just what kind of sacrifice your continued faith costs you in terms of honesty, depth and common sense and, I tell you, form where I'm sitting, it don't look pretty. If I'm 'in my mind' as we used to say (and you likely stil do), I'm also in my body. They're both integral parts of me. Maharaji tried, at one time, to cut me off from both. Please, don't quibble. There's no denying it. He never expected to let me enjoy any of the fruits of this world. I had to wrestle my freedom away from him. From where I'm looking, he's just a despicable snake in the grass. Make that snake on the dias. Snake on the podium. Snake at the mike. Maybe, if you see him for what he really is next time you go to pay your deepest respects and seek a little direction is this tricky, tricky world. Maybe, then, you'll find a whole new vein of humour you'd never expected. As for my questions -- would you please explain the following quotes of Maharaji's: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destoryer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? Yes, I guess you could say he can be funny at times. [Oh yeah -- Answer: your wife doesn't leave you, you don't lose your house and your dog comes home. I thought it was funny]
Back To Index -:- Top of Index