|
Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum II Archive #
4 |
From:
Jan 21, 1998 |
To:
Feb 4, 1998 |
Page:
4
Of:
5 |
|
Rick -:- Katie's the best -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 09:34:33 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: Katie's the best -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 10:51:46 (EST)
___Katie -:- All those flamers are the same person -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:10:58 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: All those flamers are the same person -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:26:11 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Katie's the best -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:28:16 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: Katie's the best -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:31:13 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: All those flamers are the same person -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 00:05:00 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: All those flamers are the same person -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:28:21 (EST)
___seymour -:- Re: Katie's the best -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 15:57:21 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: Katie's the best -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 18:45:45 (EST)
___Katie -:- Thanks, Seymour and Nigel -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 21:10:51 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: All those flamers are the same person -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 21:38:29 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: All those flamers are the same person -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 23:38:05 (EST)
Mili -:- Check it out! -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 01:43:47 (EST)
___yeah! -:- Re: Check it out! -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 08:52:56 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: Check it out! -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 11:35:18 (EST)
Katie -:- FAT -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 21:12:27 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: FAT -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 01:24:18 (EST)
___op -:- Re: FAT -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:07:05 (EST)
___Kevin L -:- Re: FAT -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 06:28:28 (EST)
___JD -:- No Photo - Please -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 06:34:46 (EST)
___SuperBitch -:- Katie who? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 07:17:34 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: FAT -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 12:48:30 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: FAT -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:05:09 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: FAT -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:16:40 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: FAT -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 01:46:40 (EST)
___God -:- Re: FAT -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:57:28 (EST)
___JW -- Sexual Connotations -:- Re: FAT -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 19:18:59 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: FAT -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 19:28:26 (EST)
___Katie - addendum -:- Re: FAT (an postscript) -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 23:25:06 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Sexual connotations -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 23:52:54 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: Sexual connotations -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 11:57:56 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Sexual connotations -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 13:17:30 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Sexual connotations -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 13:53:20 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Sexual connotations -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 14:10:48 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: Sexual connotations -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 14:58:25 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Sexual connotations -:- Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 18:47:45 (EST)
Monica L. -:- versus Mr President -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:39:10 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: versus Mr President -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:54:26 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: versus Mr President -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 01:36:33 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: versus Mr President -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:23:34 (EST)
___Mickey the Pharisee -:- Re: versus Mr President -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:35:03 (EST)
___JW (Off Subject) -:- Re: versus Mr President -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:55:22 (EST)
Katie -:- Maharaji and Marolyn's children -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:03:45 (EST)
___swing -:- er -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:42:13 (EST)
___all -:- mind your business fatty -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:43:09 (EST)
___Katie -:- What is your problem, anyway? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:58:10 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: What is your problem, anyway? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:25:43 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: What is your problem, anyway? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:28:38 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: What is your problem, anyway? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:13:52 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: What is your problem, anyway? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:19:05 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: What is your problem, anyway? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:28:13 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: What is your problem, anyway? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:44:13 (EST)
Katie -:- What is darshan? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 14:48:03 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:02:25 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:00:43 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:52:28 (EST)
___op -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:12:01 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 10:34:51 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:49:03 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:04:17 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:19:28 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:54:47 (EST)
___op -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 21:51:07 (EST)
___there is no -:- darshan -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 22:09:29 (EST)
___op -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 22:25:01 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:32:30 (EST)
___Mr Ex -:- Re: What is darshan? -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:24:47 (EST)
Trent -:- Guru Maharaji -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 12:53:59 (EST)
___Joy -:- Re: Guru Maharaji -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 13:50:17 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Guru Maharaji -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 14:36:16 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: Guru Maharaji -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:43:18 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: Guru Maharaji -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:53:53 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Guru Maharaji -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:59:07 (EST)
Trent -:- Sat Guru -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 00:15:11 (EST)
___me -:- Re: Sat Guru -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 08:16:49 (EST)
___18 -:- billion -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 13:22:51 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: Sat Guru -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:07:21 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: billion -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:15:05 (EST)
___ntfv -:- Re: Sat Guru -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:54:49 (EST)
___ntfv -:- Re: billion -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:08:21 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: billion -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:21:24 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: billion -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:24:34 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: billion -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:39:49 (EST)
___CD -:- Re: billion -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:41:19 (EST)
Trent -:- GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 00:03:39 (EST)
___Rick -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 00:31:46 (EST)
___Persona Non Grata -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 05:02:53 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 12:37:37 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 14:17:06 (EST)
___Anon -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:34:29 (EST)
___North of the Trent -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:46:54 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:54:11 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:19:11 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:34:27 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:34:28 (EST)
___Nigel -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:37:55 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: GOD -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:53:18 (EST)
___Katie -:- shouting on the forum -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:20:03 (EST)
___bftb -:- Re: shouting on the forum -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:56:23 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: shouting on the forum -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:59:31 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Conversations with God -:- Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 23:14:25 (EST)
___op -:- Re: shouting on the forum -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:15:09 (EST)
___op -:- Re: shouting on the forum -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:18:12 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: shouting on the forum -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:54:18 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: Conversations with God -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:27:53 (EST)
___Katie -:- Re: Conversations with God -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 15:01:50 (EST)
___Trent -:- Re: Conversations with God -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 15:58:58 (EST)
___the sentence that -:- started it all -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 18:54:58 (EST)
___op - off topic -:- Re: shouting on the forum -:- Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 19:11:16 (EST)
___JW -:- Re: GOD -:- Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 00:27:20 (EST)
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 09:34:33 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Katie's the best
Message:
It's unfortunate that someone would post a mean insult and hurt Katie. She's the nicest, sweetest person who posts to this site. She always sees some good in everyone and reaches out to communicate with people who have different views from her. Other ex-premies are not so nice, I know I'm not. Why not take a shot at me? Or someone else. Not Katie.
I also take exception to OP's post that co-opts the subject to maharaji. It isn't the same thing. It isn't even the same thing to take a shot at me. I'm sure maharaji doen't give one care about someone calling him names, and I don't care either. Number one, maharaji is fat, and two, he doesn't care what people think of it. Three, people on this site take shots at him, because they feel cheated in a contract. No one here has any contract with Katie, she hasn't cheated anyone, and she doesn't claim to be the lord. Remember what maharaji said, "Big shots get a shot in the head". Katie isn't a big shot. Leave her alone.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 10:51:46 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Katie's the best
Message:
Making fun of anyone's real or perceived appearance is simply lame,and worthy of ignorance only.
When reading a few recent posts below,I had the feeling that they're from the same person,and this person is behaving in a similar way to that poster back about a month or so ago who was appropriating names and insulting people.I also keep in mind that oftentimes people do this simply to distract from any productive conversation taking place.You know;they try to subvert the forum because they don't like it or they're just shit disturbers in general who really couldn't care less about the topic but get off on badgering people.The more attention they get the more they giggle.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:10:58 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: bftb
Subject: All those flamers are the same person (Re: Katie's the best)
Message:
Making fun of anyone's real or perceived appearance is simply lame,and worthy of ignorance only.
When reading a few recent posts below,I had the feeling that they're from the same person,and this person is behaving in a similar way to that poster back about a month or so ago who was appropriating names and insulting people.I also keep in mind that oftentimes people do this simply to distract from any productive conversation taking place.You know;they try to subvert the forum because they don't like it or they're just shit disturbers in general who really couldn't care less about the topic but get off on badgering people.The more attention they get the more they giggle.
Yeah, you are right, bftb, as far as I can tell with my rudimentary hacking skills (grrrls can hack, too). My preliminary conclusion is that: Kevin L, SuperBitch, JD, Mindman (the dick in toaster guy), fat, Me, and one of the fake Jim's are the same person. I can't prove it and I'm not gonna take it to court.
Both you and Rick are right that I probably shouldn't address these people's (this person's) posts, but they tend to make me lose my temper and it makes me feel better to answer some of them. I was especially interested in the ones that said that my asking the names and ages of GMJ's kids is nosy (?), which several people wrote. I'm starting to wonder what GMJ has to hide here.
I'd be interested to know if you, and others, think that this person (or these people) are premies.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:26:11 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: All those flamers are the same person (Re: Katie's the best)
Message:
They could be anything.Premie,non-premie,expremie,or just people getting a kick out of coming here and getting a little attention.Sorry if this is vague and wide open but it's what I think.I have no way of knowing their real agenda(or even if they have a conscious agenda.)
Don't even begin to take personal insults seriously.They're dumb and reflect more on the insulter.Don't know why but if ever I'm insulted I tend to find it humorous more then anything else in the final analysis.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:28:16 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Katie's the best
Message:
Hey Rick - thanks very much for your support. I may not agree with your assessment of me (as nice and sweet), but I appreciate it very much. I would guess that this person (or these people) is probably attacking me because I am friends with some premies and they would prefer the forum to be a premie v.s. ex-premie war zone. Or it could just be a fuzzing tactic, such as bftb describes below.
You are right that I shouldn't respond to these posts, and that the people (or person) who are (is) posting them are basically just schoolyard bullies. The problem is that I when I get hurt and/or angry, it makes me feel better to answer at least some of the posts (some of them just aren't worth answering). No doubt this is just what the people who post these things want. But I'll try and keep your advice in mind and not let my hot head get out of control in the future. I've already used profanity on the forum yesterday (I called someone "chickenshit", which was richly deserved), after I had solemnly promised Jim Heller (really!) that I wouldn't swear again on the forum until after Passover. Sorry, Jim, honey!
Anyway, thanks again, Rick, for sticking up for me. You may not like this, but I think you're actually a really nice guy too.
Regards from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:31:13 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Katie's the best
Message:
Dear Rick:
I agree with you assesment of Katie. I don't know her personally, and I have only been communicating with her for a short time, however she has never attacked me or my ideas, she is patient, courteous and open to new ideas. Wonderful. And, for that matter, why attack anyone. All attack is a cry for help.
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 00:05:00 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: bftb
Subject: Re: All those flamers are the same person (Re: Katie's the best)
Message:
Hey bftb - Thanks for your thoughts. I keep meaning to tell you that I admire and respect your equanimity. I've seen it demonstrated on the forum and wish I could keep my cool like you do.
Regards from K.
P.S. Hey = hi, which you probably already know. I prefer it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:28:21 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: All those flamers are the same person (Re: Katie's the best)
Message:
Hey Katie,
Thanks for the compliment.Confession time:I'm actually quite a hothead as well,but fortunately on a forum like this,if something gets to me, I can take a step back,take a breath,and post once I'm calm.In real life I'm a maniac in that I'll even get into loud public confrontations with people who I deem aholes,usually I'm right but even so I end up feeling foolish for not having contained my gut reaction.On a forum like this it allows me to respond in a measured reasonable way(most of the time anyway),you know;the way I aspire to be in real life interaction 100% of the time as opposed to my current 90%.I'm a scrapper and in my younger stupider days was somewhat of a merry s--- disturber so it helps me to recognize other s--- disturbers and thus hopefully not be drawn in to their nonsense.(the 'fatty' posts imho were an example of s--- disturbing)
And thanks for that hotmail idea,but for now anyway I'll just stick to the forum.
calm,cool,and collected,I remain,
bftb
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 15:57:21 (EST)
Poster: seymour
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Katie's the best
Message:
I also would like to add my two penny worth in support of the integrity and all round 'sanity' of Katie. I can't understand why people on this forum are so aggressive. As premies and ex-premies surely we have the same desire to choose kindness over cruelty and, although we may well get get angry at someone who deceives or betrays us it seems crazy to hurl insults at someone you do not even know and who may feel hurt as a result.
Take no notice Katie.
Cheers, Seymour.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 18:45:45 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email:
To: seymour
Subject: Re: Katie's the best
Message:
I also would like to add my two penny worth in support of the integrity and all round 'sanity' of Katie. I can't understand why people on this forum are so aggressive. As premies and ex-premies surely we have the same desire to choose kindness over cruelty and, although we may well get get angry at someone who deceives or betrays us it seems crazy to hurl insults at someone you do not even know and who may feel hurt as a result.
Take no notice Katie.
Cheers, Seymour.
If Katie's the best, then I think you're probably second best, Seymour. Better than me, at least. I find it impossible to be nice to people who insult others I like and respect (such as Katie who's never been unpleasant to anyone) or who post to me pretending to be 'JW' (ditto re. like and respect).
He'll proabably get bored soon, and conversations will become more civil.
Best wishes and ciao for now.
Nigel
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 21:10:51 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Nigel
Subject: Thanks, Seymour and Nigel (Re: Katie's the best)
Message:
Hey thanks, you guys (Trent, too). I'll try to emulate you and "take no notice", Seymour, but I do agree with Nigel that it can be difficult to keep one's temper with people who hurl insults or post under other people's names.
I'm glad you both are on the forum (I KNOW you're leaving, Nigel, but see you whenever).
Thanks from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 21:38:29 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: bftb
Subject: Re: All those flamers are the same person (Re: Katie's the best)
Message:
Hey Katie,
Thanks for the compliment.Confession time:I'm actually quite a hothead as well,but fortunately on a forum like this,if something gets to me, I can take a step back,take a breath,and post once I'm calm.In real life I'm a maniac in that I'll even get into loud public confrontations with people who I deem aholes,usually I'm right but even so I end up feeling foolish for not having contained my gut reaction.On a forum like this it allows me to respond in a measured reasonable way(most of the time anyway),you know;the way I aspire to be in real life interaction 100% of the time as opposed to my current 90%.I'm a scrapper and in my younger stupider days was somewhat of a merry s--- disturber so it helps me to recognize other s--- disturbers and thus hopefully not be drawn in to their nonsense.(the 'fatty' posts imho were an example of s--- disturbing)
And thanks for that hotmail idea,but for now anyway I'll just stick to the forum.
calm,cool,and collected,I remain,
bftb
Hey bftb - what exactly do you mean by "merry shit disturbing"? Does that mean messing with people for no particular reason except to make trouble? Like "to see what will happen?" Don't want to bring memories from your supposedly misspent youth, but I'm curious.
BTW I used to think that I could be (and was) much cooler and calmer on the forum than in real life, and most of the time I can, but I haven't been able to keep it together as much as I thought that I could. It's been interesting. I know what you mean about taking a deep breath and stepping back - I think I'm at about 95% on the forum (not so good in real life, yet.)
No e-mail address is OK with me if you desire to keep on being a person of mystery. I think that you probably already got the gist if not the particulars of my "darshan" experience (only op says what happened was probably not darshan, so maybe I should call it "seeing the infinite through the finite".)
Regards, from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 23:38:05 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: All those flamers are the same person (Re: Katie's the best)
Message:
No not really,I guess I wasn't very clear there.I meant that in days past,in _response_ to being messed with I'd use similar 'distract with b.s.' and 'mess with their head'right back at 'em.Having used them as self defense tactics,I can recognise when someone here is using similar b.s. to upset and distract the forum.By scrapper i meant fighting back,with same tactics being used.These days I prefer to recognise the game and stay the hell out of it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 01:43:47 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Check it out!
Message:
Hi everyone!
I have a new page up. It was great fun doing it and I want to share it with all of you.
Click here
You don't have to be dysfunctional when you are blissed out, you know.
Be sure to have a soundcard plugged in because there is some great music there that I composed myself...
Regards,
- Mili
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 08:52:56 (EST)
Poster: yeah!
Email: bb
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Check it out!
Message:
excellent site Milificent.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 11:35:18 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Check it out!
Message:
Yeah,I'm with bb;very good job.I especially like it that you have a link to the church of the subgenius.Mili,have you read any of the reverand Ivan Stang's books?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 21:12:27 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Everyone
Subject: FAT
Message:
About a month or so, I wrote a revealing post on the forum about how bad I had felt because I was overweight while I was a premie (age 16 to 21). It was hard to write this post, because I am still ashamed of having been overweight as a teenager (I did lose 30-40 lbs after leaving DLM). Since then, there have been a few posts on the forum directed to me with titles such as "Katie is Fat and Dull", and "Mind Your Own Business, Fatty". I am telling you right now that although these posts make me angry, they also hurt me, and I find it disconcerting that someone (who I assume is a premie) would be so cruel as to make them. I also don't think that this person would be making these postings if I wasn't a woman, so I assume that they also feel that a woman's worth is dependent on her physical attractiveness.
Incidentally (because it shouldn't matter) I am not fat anymore (I wasn't even really that fat as a teenager - I just thought I was), but I went through years of hell because of my weight and I am still sensitive about it. Perhaps those of you who had severe acne as teenagers, or those of you who had learning disabilities, or those of you who were nerdy, or socially inept, or for whatever reason didn't "fit in" can relate. No matter how well you are doing now, some of those things from the past can still hurt.
A friend of mine (who happens to be a premie, BTW) has offered to help me post a picture of myself on the forum to settle the question once and for all, but I've decided not to take that route. For one thing, there may be other people posting on here who are overweight, and I certainly don't want them to think that I consider it to be a character defect or some kind of moral flaw. What the hell difference does it make how much someone weighs? Is a thinner person a better person? Is calling someone "fat" equivalent to calling them morally degenerate? Apparently one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
I really appreciate the attitude of one of the other people who posts on here who cheerfully admitted he was about 25 pounds overweight for the moment. Unfortunately, I don't have it together enough to feel that way about my former self yet, but I hope to. In the meantime, I wanted to address this heckling directly, and hope that it comes to an end.
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 01:24:18 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
About a month or so, I wrote a revealing post on the forum about how bad I had felt because I was overweight while I was a premie (age 16 to 21). It was hard to write this post, because I am still ashamed of having been overweight as a teenager (I did lose 30-40 lbs after leaving DLM). Since then, there have been a few posts on the forum directed to me with titles such as 'Katie is Fat and Dull', and 'Mind Your Own Business, Fatty'. I am telling you right now that although these posts make me angry, they also hurt me, and I find it disconcerting that someone (who I assume is a premie) would be so cruel as to make them. I also don't think that this person would be making these postings if I wasn't a woman, so I assume that they also feel that a woman's worth is dependent on her physical attractiveness.
Incidentally (because it shouldn't matter) I am not fat anymore (I wasn't even really that fat as a teenager - I just thought I was), but I went through years of hell because of my weight and I am still sensitive about it. Perhaps those of you who had severe acne as teenagers, or those of you who had learning disabilities, or those of you who were nerdy, or socially inept, or for whatever reason didn't 'fit in' can relate. No matter how well you are doing now, some of those things from the past can still hurt.
A friend of mine (who happens to be a premie, BTW) has offered to help me post a picture of myself on the forum to settle the question once and for all, but I've decided not to take that route. For one thing, there may be other people posting on here who are overweight, and I certainly don't want them to think that I consider it to be a character defect or some kind of moral flaw. What the hell difference does it make how much someone weighs? Is a thinner person a better person? Is calling someone 'fat' equivalent to calling them morally degenerate? Apparently one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
I really appreciate the attitude of one of the other people who posts on here who cheerfully admitted he was about 25 pounds overweight for the moment. Unfortunately, I don't have it together enough to feel that way about my former self yet, but I hope to. In the meantime, I wanted to address this heckling directly, and hope that it comes to an end.
Katie
Katie, I feel for you. I think it was a hurtful thing for that poster to bring up; kind of like schoolyard behavior. Obviously something else is going on with the poster, because they've never seen you, and possibly read your post where you mentioned you weren't overweight. So why would someone call someone who isn't fat, fat? It could be reckless pranks or it could be someone who's angry for some other reason. It could be Mili, although you've been more supportive of him than most of the crowd. Whoever it is, is a coward and a bully, and I hope you ignore them. They aren't worth your time.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:07:05 (EST)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
Apparently one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
If I may correct you:
Apparently at least one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
I agree with you about physical features and worth, and I am sorry that you had to suffer during your growing years thinking that thinness was the ideal.
Unfortunately, many many people still feel this way - anorexia etc are still on the increase, many girls smoke to stay thin, etc.
So if I may make this relevant to the topic of this forum - perhaps Katie at least can understand why I feel so insulted when some of those who post insult M for physical features. His weight and other physical attributes have nothing to do with his ability to teach or communicate.
There are even some who feel that he purposely keeps himself nondescript and 'average' looking and in that way is more relatable to his audience.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 06:28:28 (EST)
Poster: Kevin L
Email: Sorry no email
To: Katie
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
Well Katie, just take no notice!
Maybe the poster was showing you what it is like to be put down. Its not nice is it? M takes a lot of personal insults on this forum and you merrily join in.
Would you like someone on the net to be asking questions about your kids?
He types one snide remark and you have given him food by blurting your life story out.
Maybe you should try to be less of a busybody.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 06:34:46 (EST)
Poster: JD
Email: '
To: Katie
Subject: No Photo - Please (Re: FAT)
Message:
About a month or so, I wrote a revealing post on the forum about how bad I had felt because I was overweight while I was a premie (age 16 to 21). It was hard to write this post, because I am still ashamed of having been overweight as a teenager (I did lose 30-40 lbs after leaving DLM). Since then, there have been a few posts on the forum directed to me with titles such as 'Katie is Fat and Dull', and 'Mind Your Own Business, Fatty'. I am telling you right now that although these posts make me angry, they also hurt me, and I find it disconcerting that someone (who I assume is a premie) would be so cruel as to make them. I also don't think that this person would be making these postings if I wasn't a woman, so I assume that they also feel that a woman's worth is dependent on her physical attractiveness.
Incidentally (because it shouldn't matter) I am not fat anymore (I wasn't even really that fat as a teenager - I just thought I was), but I went through years of hell because of my weight and I am still sensitive about it. Perhaps those of you who had severe acne as teenagers, or those of you who had learning disabilities, or those of you who were nerdy, or socially inept, or for whatever reason didn't 'fit in' can relate. No matter how well you are doing now, some of those things from the past can still hurt.
A friend of mine (who happens to be a premie, BTW) has offered to help me post a picture of myself on the forum to settle the question once and for all, but I've decided not to take that route. For one thing, there may be other people posting on here who are overweight, and I certainly don't want them to think that I consider it to be a character defect or some kind of moral flaw. What the hell difference does it make how much someone weighs? Is a thinner person a better person? Is calling someone 'fat' equivalent to calling them morally degenerate? Apparently one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
I really appreciate the attitude of one of the other people who posts on here who cheerfully admitted he was about 25 pounds overweight for the moment. Unfortunately, I don't have it together enough to feel that way about my former self yet, but I hope to. In the meantime, I wanted to address this heckling directly, and hope that it comes to an end.
Katie
Are you completely mad Katie?
To even think of putting your photo on the net is strange.
Or where you going to put your friends photo here?
Only joking with you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 07:17:34 (EST)
Poster: SuperBitch
Email: sexy legs
To: Katie
Subject: Katie who? (Re: FAT)
Message:
About a month or so, I wrote a revealing post on the forum about how bad I had felt because I was overweight while I was a premie (age 16 to 21). It was hard to write this post, because I am still ashamed of having been overweight as a teenager (I did lose 30-40 lbs after leaving DLM). Since then, there have been a few posts on the forum directed to me with titles such as 'Katie is Fat and Dull', and 'Mind Your Own Business, Fatty'. I am telling you right now that although these posts make me angry, they also hurt me, and I find it disconcerting that someone (who I assume is a premie) would be so cruel as to make them. I also don't think that this person would be making these postings if I wasn't a woman, so I assume that they also feel that a woman's worth is dependent on her physical attractiveness.
Incidentally (because it shouldn't matter) I am not fat anymore (I wasn't even really that fat as a teenager - I just thought I was), but I went through years of hell because of my weight and I am still sensitive about it. Perhaps those of you who had severe acne as teenagers, or those of you who had learning disabilities, or those of you who were nerdy, or socially inept, or for whatever reason didn't 'fit in' can relate. No matter how well you are doing now, some of those things from the past can still hurt.
A friend of mine (who happens to be a premie, BTW) has offered to help me post a picture of myself on the forum to settle the question once and for all, but I've decided not to take that route. For one thing, there may be other people posting on here who are overweight, and I certainly don't want them to think that I consider it to be a character defect or some kind of moral flaw. What the hell difference does it make how much someone weighs? Is a thinner person a better person? Is calling someone 'fat' equivalent to calling them morally degenerate? Apparently one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
I really appreciate the attitude of one of the other people who posts on here who cheerfully admitted he was about 25 pounds overweight for the moment. Unfortunately, I don't have it together enough to feel that way about my former self yet, but I hope to. In the meantime, I wanted to address this heckling directly, and hope that it comes to an end.
Katie
Who the hell is Katie?
Who the hell cares?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 12:48:30 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Kevin L
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
Well Katie, just take no notice!
Maybe the poster was showing you what it is like to be put down. Its not nice is it? M takes a lot of personal insults on this forum and you merrily join in.
Would you like someone on the net to be asking questions about your kids?
He types one snide remark and you have given him food by blurting your life story out.
Maybe you should try to be less of a busybody.
Dear Kevin -
I have never "Merrily joined in" in personal insults about Maharaji, as you put it. Perhaps you haven't read my posts carefully.
As far as I'm concerned Maharaji is a public figure, and if I was a reporter I would have no qualms about asking him how many children he had. Most fathers would have no qualms about answering. I don't think that this makes me a busybody, and I think it's quite odd that you and other premies feel that the number, names and ages of Maharaji's children should remain a secret.I
Several premies have jumped on me for asking this question, and all I can think now is that Maharaji has something that he wants to keep secret. The reason I asked the question was in an attempt to correct some misinformation about his family that had been published on the internet.
As for blurting my life story out, it's already been done on the ex-premie page. If it gives premies and other people ammunition for more insults, so be it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:05:09 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
Apparently one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
If I may correct you:
Apparently at least one of the people who posts on here feels that way.
I agree with you about physical features and worth, and I am sorry that you had to suffer during your growing years thinking that thinness was the ideal.
Unfortunately, many many people still feel this way - anorexia etc are still on the increase, many girls smoke to stay thin, etc.
So if I may make this relevant to the topic of this forum - perhaps Katie at least can understand why I feel so insulted when some of those who post insult M for physical features. His weight and other physical attributes have nothing to do with his ability to teach or communicate.
There are even some who feel that he purposely keeps himself nondescript and 'average' looking and in that way is more relatable to his audience.
I think a description of M's physical appearance, including the fact that he was fat and still is, is not an inapproriate comment. I recently saw a video of M after not seeing him for a number of years. I did comment that he is still fat, but I did not call him names. And I don't think OP should be insulted by a simple statement of fact. I also wonder how truly insulted you could possibly be, OP. Give me a break.
And there is a big difference between noting that M is fat and calling someone who posts here names based on physical appearance. No one who posts here, unlike Maharaji, has held himself or herself up as a subjectl of worship for thousands of people, had people kiss his or her feet, had his or her picture plastered on magazine covers or danced around in front of throusands wearing garlands, krishna costumes and crowns. No one who posts here has been described by many as being so beautiful, even physically, with "golden" skin and a perfect smile. No one who posts here has their pictures on altars, on buttons, on car dashboards and the like.
So, I think noting M's less than attractive appearance (IMHO and this is a subjective thing) is more than fair game, because I would never been allowed to say it as a premie, even though I saw it and thought it. And because it is M, and not anybody else, who puts HIMSELF in the middle of his whole knowledge trip. That's HIS choice. You can't distribute videos with nothing more than HIM walking around to music, and sit on a stage as the ENTIRE focus of a program and not put your appearance on the line, now can you? Again, that's his choice. And I don't think M has ever had a problem with his self-esteem or with anorexia, so I'm sure he's not hurt by someone pointing out that he is overweight.
Besides, what do you care what people think of M's appearance? Why does it bother you?
JW
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:16:40 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: JW and OP
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
I think a description of M's physical appearance, including the fact that he was fat and still is, is not an inapproriate comment. I recently saw a video of M after not seeing him for a number of years. I did comment that he is still fat, but I did not call him names. And I don't think OP should be insulted by a simple statement of fact. I also wonder how truly insulted you could possibly be, OP. Give me a break.
And there is a big difference between noting that M is fat and calling someone who posts here names based on physical appearance. No one who posts here, unlike Maharaji, has held himself or herself up as a subjectl of worship for thousands of people, had people kiss his or her feet, had his or her picture plastered on magazine covers or danced around in front of throusands wearing garlands, krishna costumes and crowns. No one who posts here has been described by many as being so beautiful, even physically, with 'golden' skin and a perfect smile. No one who posts here has their pictures on altars, on buttons, on car dashboards and the like.
So, I think noting M's less than attractive appearance (IMHO and this is a subjective thing) is more than fair game, because I would never been allowed to say it as a premie, even though I saw it and thought it. And because it is M, and not anybody else, who puts HIMSELF in the middle of his whole knowledge trip. That's HIS choice. You can't distribute videos with nothing more than HIM walking around to music, and sit on a stage as the ENTIRE focus of a program and not put your appearance on the line, now can you? Again, that's his choice. And I don't think M has ever had a problem with his self-esteem or with anorexia, so I'm sure he's not hurt by someone pointing out that he is overweight.
Besides, what do you care what people think of M's appearance? Why does it bother you?
JW
Dear JW and OP,
I think that I have to agree with JW on this one. I think the problem is that when JW, and I, and others were premies, we KNEW Maharaji was overweight and we felt like we couldn't say anything about it. Instead there was a lot of talk about Maharaji's golden body, and so forth. Some of this talk had quite sexual connotations (but perhaps that's another story). Now obviously, people who are overweight can be attractive, but there was a feeling when I was a premie that it would be wrong to say that Maharaji was fat, even though he was. It's sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes story, which I am sure everyone is familiar with. Hence the tendency of many ex-premies to say "Maharaji is fat!", although his weight certainly has nothing to do with his worth as a person.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 01:46:40 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Katie
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
I hope that we can all avoid the fat jokes, I think that they are hurtful. I was skinny as a rail as a Premie, due to my metabolism and poor diet. I remained very thin for years, especially by combining my fast metabolism and the use of tobacco, but once I hit 35, my metabolism slowed. Then I quit smoking and I have been fighting with the scale ever since. I know intellectually that my worth as a person has nothing to do with my weight, but when I look in the mirror, I do not always feel good about myself. The terrible thing is that I am really not overweight, it's just that I was so skinny for so long that I think I am overweight.
I prefer to consider the quality of one's posts and arguments on this site, rather than on their physical appearance. Since Trent says we're all God, that means we're all beautiful! So, no more mean comments about physical appearances!
Michael
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:57:28 (EST)
Poster: God
Email: zeus@olympus
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
"Since Trent says we're all God, that means we're all beautiful!"
There are two incorrect statements here. One is: "we are all God". Enough already of these references to all of you being God. Try to get it through your heads, you are human beings, you are not God. If you don't believe me, tell me what really happened between Monica and Bill. You don't know do you, hmmm? don't you think you should know, since you are God? In other words, this claim to be God, is typical meaningless-in-the-real-world spiritual garbage doubletalk which meditating was supposed to take you beyond!
Now, I bet your all wondering the 2nd incorrect statement in that statement above. Come on now, admit it you are. Well, it's "This means we are all beautiful." The incorrect assumption here is that God is beautiful. If I was so beautiful, don't you think I would have showed my face earlier? No, I'm embarassed as hell about how I look, and I don't appreciate your making judgements on my appearance which are totally false! You are simply making me feel very angry! In fact I feel like picking up a thunderbolt...and...where'd they go! WHO (God
WILL capitalize whatEVER letters God wants to) took my thunderbolts!!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 19:18:59 (EST)
Poster: JW -- Sexual Connotations
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
/i>Dear JW and OP,
I think that I have to agree with JW on this one. I think the problem is that when JW, and I, and others were premies, we KNEW Maharaji was overweight and we felt like we couldn't say anything about it. Instead there was a lot of talk about Maharaji's golden body, and so forth. Some of this talk had quite sexual connotations (but perhaps that's another story). Talk about sexual connotations, remember how we used to sing that song to Maharaji at programs? It went: "rock me Maharaji and roll me tonight, rock me Maharaji and say it's all riiiiiiiiiight, it's all riiiiiiight, etc." No sexual overtones or connotations there, right?
And then, of course, there was Maharaji's "partial nudity" while he danced at programs and while he sprayed water at Holi festival, when he was naked from the waist up, wearing only a garland of flowers. That got a lot of premies excited. I was not one of them. I had the same reaction to Maharaji that I do to Michael Flatley, which is "please, put your shirt back on!" Of course, as a premie, I would NEVER have mentioned that to anyone.
Premies used to also talk about having dreams in which they had sex with Maharaji. Or else they had fantasies about it. Keep in mind that not ONCE did a premie tell me this, it was only after they became ex-premies that they admitted to this. My reaction was always, first of all, YUCK!!, and secondly with a question of how could they even think about having sex with a being they believed was god walking on earth? I mean, doesn't that produce some form of "performance anxiety?"
JW
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 19:28:26 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: JW -- Sexual Connotations
Subject: Re: FAT
Message:
On second thought, there were premies, including ashram premies who told me about fantasies they had about having sex with Maharaji. Some premies even slept with his picture. [I am not lying.] When they told me, I just smiled and nodded reverently, as a good premie would do in such a situation.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 23:25:06 (EST)
Poster: Katie - addendum
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Katie
Subject: Re: FAT (an postscript) (Re: FAT)
Message:
Dear JW and OP,
I think that I have to agree with JW on this one. I think the problem is that when JW, and I, and others were premies, we KNEW Maharaji was overweight and we felt like we couldn't say anything about it. Instead there was a lot of talk about Maharaji's golden body, and so forth. Some of this talk had quite sexual connotations (but perhaps that's another story). Now obviously, people who are overweight can be attractive, but there was a feeling when I was a premie that it would be wrong to say that Maharaji was fat, even though he was. It's sort of like the Emperor's New Clothes story, which I am sure everyone is familiar with. Hence the tendency of many ex-premies to say 'Maharaji is fat!', although his weight certainly has nothing to do with his worth as a person.
I wanted to add something to what I said about Maharaji's weight above. I think the reason that we, as premies, never mentioned or talked about the fact that Maharaji was overweight was due to our cultural conditioning. As I'm sure everyone is aware, people in the US and no doubt many other countries as well are conditioned practically from birth to think that being overweight is bad, unattractive, and a sign of moral weakness. There may still be a few areas in the world where fat people are not considered to be ugly, but they're probably shrinking quickly under the influence of popular culture.
Anyway, I still think it's OK for ex-premies to say "Maharaji is fat" because some of us were conditioned just not to mention it for so long. I think it's OK for JW to say that he thinks Maharaji is unattractive, if that's how he feels, especially because he apparently felt guilty about even thinking it for so long. I just don't think that premies should necessarily view it as an insult to Maharaji.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 23:52:54 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: JW -- Sexual Connotations
Subject: Re: Sexual connotations (Re: FAT)
Message:
Talk about sexual connotations, remember how we used to sing that song to Maharaji at programs? It went: 'rock me Maharaji and roll me tonight, rock me Maharaji and say it's all riiiiiiiiiight, it's all riiiiiiight, etc.' No sexual overtones or connotations there, right?
And then, of course, there was Maharaji's 'partial nudity' while he danced at programs and while he sprayed water at Holi festival, when he was naked from the waist up, wearing only a garland of flowers. That got a lot of premies excited. I was not one of them. I had the same reaction to Maharaji that I do to Michael Flatley, which is 'please, put your shirt back on!' Of course, as a premie, I would NEVER have mentioned that to anyone.
Premies used to also talk about having dreams in which they had sex with Maharaji. Or else they had fantasies about it. Keep in mind that not ONCE did a premie tell me this, it was only after they became ex-premies that they admitted to this. My reaction was always, first of all, YUCK!!, and secondly with a question of how could they even think about having sex with a being they believed was god walking on earth? I mean, doesn't that produce some form of 'performance anxiety?'
JW
On second thought, there were premies, including ashram premies who told me about fantasies they had about having sex with Maharaji. Some premies even slept with his picture. [I am not lying.] When they told me, I just smiled and nodded reverently, as a good premie would do in such a situation. Hey JW -
I found your post really interesting because I never really picked up on the sexual connotations of certain premies' worship of Maharaji until several years after I received Knowledge. I always found Maharaji to be very asexual in both appearance and manner - even androgynous at times. This may be because both he and I were really young when I got knowledge, and I found that following Maharaji gave a refuge from a prematurely and overly sexualized life "in the world". (Plus I never lived in the ashram or was celibate.) For the first few years that I had knowledge, I believed that Maharaji was NOT a sexual being, so it really surprised me when he got married.
I do remember hearing some premies give satsang about Maharaji's appearance and attractiveness, but it was only until I discussed it years later with another woman who had received Knowledge at a very young age that I realized that quite a few premies had had (and expressed) sexual feelings about Maharaji. Obviously, a lot of people were pretty sexually repressed as a result of trying to be celibate (remember how food seemed to take the place of sex for a lot of people? Especially things like ice cream?), so that probably helped give these kind of sexual nuances to their satsang. (And probably explains why people would do things like sleep with Maharaji's picture. Actually I knew someone who did that and it doesn't seem that weird to me, given the beliefs that premies had about Maharaji back then.)
To give Maharaji credit (and despite the rumors about his present private life) he never seemed to take advantage of the premie's sexual feelings towards him. He had to have had plenty of opportunities to do so. (A lot of other "spiritual" leaders certainly did - and took advantage of them too!)
P.S. JW, "performance anxiety" with god?! Is this a Catholic thing or something?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 11:57:56 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Sexual connotations (Re: FAT)
Message:
Yes Katie,I agree;Maharaji should be given credit for not abusing his power in this way.Without naming names I can say that I was told by someone I trusted,who had been very high up(so to speak)in the organization,that due to the amount of time this person spent with M that M had plenty of opportunity to take advantage of his role and abuse this person.He never did,and never behaved in anything but an exemplary manner.Unlike countless other spiritual leaders who -do- abuse their followers in those ways,M doesn't.
All I have is my experience and the people that I actually know and trust who have spent time with M,and really,neither I nor they were ever subject to abuses by M.That's why although some of the rumours posted here are fun reading;I take them with a grain of salt,and don't believe they're facts until proven.He may enjoy a ridiculously high standard of living,and he may in fact want too much money;but in the end I believe that he believes that he is sincere.He's probably so used to his wealth by now that he's out of touch with how out of the ordinary it is.All this crazy stuff about him being a sadist and this and that...I just can't relate to it,it interests me but it's very far from my own experience.
Grand delusion or not;I believe it's sincere delusion and not 'all for the money' as is often thought here.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 13:17:30 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email: joger02@aol.com
To: bftb
Subject: Re: Sexual connotations (Re: FAT)
Message:
Yes Katie,I agree;Maharaji should be given credit for not abusing his power in this way.Without naming names I can say that I was told by someone I trusted,who had been very high up(so to speak)in the organization,that due to the amount of time this person spent with M that M had plenty of opportunity to take advantage of his role and abuse this person.He never did,and never behaved in anything but an exemplary manner.Unlike countless other spiritual leaders who -do- abuse their followers in those ways,M doesn't.
All I have is my experience and the people that I actually know and trust who have spent time with M,and really,neither I nor they were ever subject to abuses by M.That's why although some of the rumours posted here are fun reading;I take them with a grain of salt,and don't believe they're facts until proven.He may enjoy a ridiculously high standard of living,and he may in fact want too much money;but in the end I believe that he believes that he is sincere.He's probably so used to his wealth by now that he's out of touch with how out of the ordinary it is.All this crazy stuff about him being a sadist and this and that...I just can't relate to it,it interests me but it's very far from my own experience.
Grand delusion or not;I believe it's sincere delusion and not 'all for the money' as is often thought here.
I have no doubt that Maharaji "believes he is sincere." But you see, I think that is the problem. Even the most blatant charlatan usually "believes he is sincere" and that's partly what makes it so hard for them to own up to the fact that through their supposed sincerity, a lot of people got ripped off and that they have some responsibility. And, as we all know, Maharaji has never publicly taken responsibility for any of the things we have talked about here.
So, I think "giving Maharaji credit" for NOT using women right and left sexually isn't exactly a compliment. I mean, that's only the behavior you would expect from any civilized human being, let alone someone who is supposedly so spiritually evolved.
And, also, keep in mind that when most of us were involved with Maharaji when he was very young, and seemed sort of shy and obviously inexperienced in social and interpersonal settings. Mishler points this out, for example. I think Maharaj Ji knew the perfect master role, but not much else, so I think sexual predation was not what he was into. (Perhaps, as Mishler said, he was more into alcohol.) So, I'm not surprised that he didn't take advantage of women (or men) in this way during that period.
However, I think that changed as he got older. I have been told by people close to Maharaji in the 80s that he had numerous affairs with women outside his marriage and that these were premies. One woman who told me this was Maharaji's personal lawyer, and she left following Maharaji in the late 80s out of disgust because of his behavior. And somehow I have a hard time not believing that the premies likely had at least some belief that he was a god-like creature whom they had been adoring for years, and this might well have made those relationships lopsided when it came to the power dynamics. That is a central problem in the guru-devotee relationship. It is easily subject to abuse. But, I have never heard that Maharaji was ever some sort of sexual predator, unlike some of his Mahatmas. So, I guess I can give him "credit" for that. And I also don't know whether thos relationships weren't completely consensual between adults.
JW
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 13:53:20 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Sexual connotations (Re: FAT)
Message:
Talk about sexual connotations, remember how we used to sing that song to Maharaji at programs? It went: 'rock me Maharaji and roll me tonight, rock me Maharaji and say it's all riiiiiiiiiight, it's all riiiiiiight, etc.' No sexual overtones or connotations there, right?
And then, of course, there was Maharaji's 'partial nudity' while he danced at programs and while he sprayed water at Holi festival, when he was naked from the waist up, wearing only a garland of flowers. That got a lot of premies excited. I was not one of them. I had the same reaction to Maharaji that I do to Michael Flatley, which is 'please, put your shirt back on!' Of course, as a premie, I would NEVER have mentioned that to anyone.
Premies used to also talk about having dreams in which they had sex with Maharaji. Or else they had fantasies about it. Keep in mind that not ONCE did a premie tell me this, it was only after they became ex-premies that they admitted to this. My reaction was always, first of all, YUCK!!, and secondly with a question of how could they even think about having sex with a being they believed was god walking on earth? I mean, doesn't that produce some form of 'performance anxiety?'
JW
On second thought, there were premies, including ashram premies who told me about fantasies they had about having sex with Maharaji. Some premies even slept with his picture. [I am not lying.] When they told me, I just smiled and nodded reverently, as a good premie would do in such a situation. Hey JW -
I found your post really interesting because I never really picked up on the sexual connotations of certain premies' worship of Maharaji until several years after I received Knowledge. I always found Maharaji to be very asexual in both appearance and manner - even androgynous at times. This may be because both he and I were really young when I got knowledge, and I found that following Maharaji gave a refuge from a prematurely and overly sexualized life 'in the world'. (Plus I never lived in the ashram or was celibate.) For the first few years that I had knowledge, I believed that Maharaji was NOT a sexual being, so it really surprised me when he got married.
I do remember hearing some premies give satsang about Maharaji's appearance and attractiveness, but it was only until I discussed it years later with another woman who had received Knowledge at a very young age that I realized that quite a few premies had had (and expressed) sexual feelings about Maharaji. Obviously, a lot of people were pretty sexually repressed as a result of trying to be celibate (remember how food seemed to take the place of sex for a lot of people? Especially things like ice cream?), so that probably helped give these kind of sexual nuances to their satsang. (And probably explains why people would do things like sleep with Maharaji's picture. Actually I knew someone who did that and it doesn't seem that weird to me, given the beliefs that premies had about Maharaji back then.)
To give Maharaji credit (and despite the rumors about his present private life) he never seemed to take advantage of the premie's sexual feelings towards him. He had to have had plenty of opportunities to do so. (A lot of other 'spiritual' leaders certainly did - and took advantage of them too!)
P.S. JW, 'performance anxiety' with god?! Is this a Catholic thing or something?
Well, maybe this whole Bill Clinton sex scandal means the whole country has sex on the brain. Yesterday, I had the misfortune of watching CNN and seeing Judy Woodruff, with obvious discomfort, lead a discussion about the difference between "sexual relations" and "oral sex." Apparently, Clinton denies "sexual relations" which the dictionary defines as "sexual intercourse." So, maybe he didn't deny other sex, like oral sex. That was the gist of the discussion. It was very surreal to me. And I agree that both Clinton's and Maharaji's sex lives are their own business, I was just commenting on the sexual overtones of much of being a premie and the premie's relationship with Maharaji, and the dreams and fantasies premies used to have.
Among the ashram premies, food, especially sweets like ice cream, was definitely a substitute for sex, and for those who could get the money, like many of the initiators, it was also clothes, very expensive clothes. We used to watch slide shows of nothing but pictures of Maharaji, wearing different clothes and in different positions. That kind of focus on his physical body, can't help but include sexual overtones. And then of course, a lot of the music had sexual overtones, and many were out and out syrupy love songs.
"Performance anxiety" is not a Catholic thing, it's a male thing. So, I guess it would be Maharaji who might experience that, but if his partner was a premie, I'm sure she would have thought it was just "perfect" if he was a little, shall we say, a little flacid in that regard.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 14:10:48 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Sexual connotations (Re: FAT)
Message:
'Performance anxiety' is not a Catholic thing, it's a male thing. So, I guess it would be Maharaji who might experience that, but if his partner was a premie, I'm sure she would have thought it was just 'perfect' if he was a little, shall we say, a little flacid in that regard.
I know what 'performance anxiety' is, JW! (although I don't agree that it's a male thing - I just think male 'performance anxiety' is more obvious.) I was talking about having "'performance anxiety' with God", which (I think) is what you mentioned, assuming that the premies who had sexual feelings about Maharaji thought he was god.
Since God is supposed to be loving, etc., then I wondered why someone might have performance anxiety. But some Catholic, and other, people think that God is very judgemental, so that's what I meant about the "Catholic thing". But we don't have to keep talking about this - I just thought your original statement was interesting.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 14:58:25 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Sexual connotations (Re: FAT)
Message:
Right, and it was just a joke, perhaps not very well stated, and it was that having sex with a regular human being is one thing, and "performance anxiety" could occur even in those situations, but if you dreamed of having sex with god-incarnate, that could be a little intimidating, perhaps increasing the anxiety because the whole idea is a little overwhelming. It's no longer just a human internal, private, experience and a way of communicating and sharing between human beings, but between a human being and something superior in which one partner is "all-knowing," etc.
As to whether or not god is "loving," I think most Christian religions are schizophrenic in this regard. They say god is loving on the one hand, but that "he" is also vengeful and judgmental on the other. Catholicism definitely is that way, but I think most protestant christian denominations are as well, and especially the fundamentalist christian sects.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jan 27, 1998 at 18:47:45 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: Sexual connotations (Re: FAT)
Message:
Right, and it was just a joke, perhaps not very well stated, and it was that having sex with a regular human being is one thing, and 'performance anxiety' could occur even in those situations, but if you dreamed of having sex with god-incarnate, that could be a little intimidating, perhaps increasing the anxiety because the whole idea is a little overwhelming. It's no longer just a human internal, private, experience and a way of communicating and sharing between human beings, but between a human being and something superior in which one partner is 'all-knowing,' etc.
As to whether or not god is 'loving,' I think most Christian religions are schizophrenic in this regard. They say god is loving on the one hand, but that 'he' is also vengeful and judgmental on the other. Catholicism definitely is that way, but I think most protestant christian denominations are as well, and especially the fundamentalist christian sects.
Actually, JW, I was trying to make a joke, too, which I guess really backfired. I mentioned Catholicism because I was teasing you (I grew up as a traditional Episcopalian, which my mom calls being a half-assed Catholic, so I don't have much room to tease people). Anyway, I grew up with that "mean god" idea, too, so I did understand what you mean by "performance anxiety with God", but I just thought the phrase was funny (not to mention the context).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:39:10 (EST)
Poster: Monica L.
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: versus Mr President
Message:
There are some interesting parallels in this case of President Clinton versus Monica Lewinsky, and Maharaji and his alleged lover! The nominal parallel is the most striking and uncanny.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:54:26 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Monica L.
Subject: Re: versus Mr President
Message:
The Clinton investigation is a waste of time and resources.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 01:36:33 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: CD
Subject: Re: versus Mr President
Message:
The Clinton investigation is a waste of time and resources.
CD, I'm happy to say that I agree with you. The investigation is a waste of time and resources, but it is just what Kenneth Starr and the others have been waiting for. I feel bad for everyone involved in this matter, and I am sorry that the nation will have to go through the junk that will fill the airwaves for the next few weeks.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:23:34 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email: joger02@aol.com
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: versus Mr President
Message:
The Clinton investigation is a waste of time and resources.
CD, I'm happy to say that I agree with you. The investigation is a waste of time and resources, but it is just what Kenneth Starr and the others have been waiting for. I feel bad for everyone involved in this matter, and I am sorry that the nation will have to go through the junk that will fill the airwaves for the next few weeks.
Michael, I agree and I also disagree. The Special Prosecutor Statute has been thoroughly abused, but remember we have someone like Kenneth Star because of our friend Richard Nixon, and in that case, I'm glad we had one, because he was truly undermining the constitution. But it is weird that there is some right-wing guy running around with what seems like carte blanche authority to investigate the president's sex life, when he has been supposedly ivestigating a 15-year-old real estate investment in Arkansas. He can't get anything on Clinton there, and so has moved into other areas.
On the other hand, I think Clinton's problems are largely of his own making. He has not been willing to stand up to the religious right wing in this country and instead just tried to adopt their issues like "family values." For example, he signed that awful and destructive "welfare reform bill" which has as one of its components "chastity training" for single mothers on welfare. Can you imagine anything more demeaning and insulting to women? Instead of opposing that, and saying he is no one to comment on anyone else's chastity, he went along with it and I think that environment is coming back to haunt him. It's all part of the hypocritical American moral system when it comes to sexuality, if you ask me. Plus, there are people on the right in this country who have been DYING for 25 years to get revenge for Watergate.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:35:03 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: JW
Subject: Re: versus Mr President
Message:
The Clinton investigation is a waste of time and resources.
CD, I'm happy to say that I agree with you. The investigation is a waste of time and resources, but it is just what Kenneth Starr and the others have been waiting for. I feel bad for everyone involved in this matter, and I am sorry that the nation will have to go through the junk that will fill the airwaves for the next few weeks.
Michael, I agree and I also disagree. The Special Prosecutor Statute has been thoroughly abused, but remember we have someone like Kenneth Star because of our friend Richard Nixon, and in that case, I'm glad we had one, because he was truly undermining the constitution. But it is weird that there is some right-wing guy running around with what seems like carte blanche authority to investigate the president's sex life, when he has been supposedly ivestigating a 15-year-old real estate investment in Arkansas. He can't get anything on Clinton there, and so has moved into other areas.
On the other hand, I think Clinton's problems are largely of his own making. He has not been willing to stand up to the religious right wing in this country and instead just tried to adopt their issues like 'family values.' For example, he signed that awful and destructive 'welfare reform bill' which has as one of its components 'chastity training' for single mothers on welfare. Can you imagine anything more demeaning and insulting to women? Instead of opposing that, and saying he is no one to comment on anyone else's chastity, he went along with it and I think that environment is coming back to haunt him. It's all part of the hypocritical American moral system when it comes to sexuality, if you ask me. Plus, there are people on the right in this country who have been DYING for 25 years to get revenge for Watergate.
I agree with you Joe, this is the result of right-wing revenge for Watergate and Iran-Contra. I also agree that Clinton brought some of this on himself, but I really don't think that the President's sex life is worth all this fury. American's are hypocritical about sexual matters, and this is an obvious example of this hypocracy.
I'm angry at Clinton because he is the first person for whom I voted for President that was actually elected, and I feel betrayed by his welfare policy and his "don't ask, don't tell" BS. But I still don't want to see his presidency destroyed in any manner, and especially this way.
Michael
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:55:22 (EST)
Poster: JW (Off Subject)
Email:
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: versus Mr President
Message:
I agree with you Joe, this is the result of right-wing revenge for Watergate and Iran-Contra. I also agree that Clinton brought some of this on himself, but I really don't think that the President's sex life is worth all this fury. American's are hypocritical about sexual matters, and this is an obvious example of this hypocracy.
I'm angry at Clinton because he is the first person for whom I voted for President that was actually elected, and I feel betrayed by his welfare policy and his 'don't ask, don't tell' BS. But I still don't want to see his presidency destroyed in any manner, and especially this way.
Michael
Yes, I agree, although Iran Contra didn't seem to do much to hurt Reagan and also launched Oliver North's political and radio careers.
The Welfare Reform Bill got me to vote for Ralph Nader (lot of good THAT did), I just couldn't vote for Bill after that, although I did vote for him in 1992. Even as a gay man myself, I'm someone who doesn't blame Clinton that much for "don't ask don't tell." I think he just didn't realize the extent of homophobia in this country and took the best he could get. As it turned out, however, the result was something worse than already existed for the thousands of gays and lesbians in the military. The Defense of Marriage Act is another story. But he did speak before the HRC with Ellen Degeneress recently and that was historic.
But unless Clinton does something quickly to dispell the current avalanche, I think he is a goner. How does the idea of "President Gore" sit with you?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:03:45 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Everyone
Subject: Maharaji and Marolyn's children
Message:
I'm still doing research here, and I have another question. How many kids do Maharaji and Marolyn have, and what are their names? Corrections and clarifications are welcome.
I am under the impression that they have four children. I know that the oldest one is Premlata (apparently now called Wadi Sue - can anyone explain this?) because I was around when she was born in 1975. I know they have a son named Hansi and a daughter named Daya Lata, who is an accomplished singer), but I'm not sure who is older. And I think that their youngest son is named Amar - does anyone know how old he is?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:42:13 (EST)
Poster: swing
Email: **
To: Katie
Subject: er (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
Amar was born dec.25. I heard maharaji put marolyn
on a swing and kept swinging till she went into labor
because he wanted him born that day. I didn't make that
up- it's too odd. I heard it at the time. I can't imagine
anyone else making that up amongst the crowd I was with.
1981.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:43:09 (EST)
Poster: all
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: mind your business fatty (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
I'm still doing research here, and I have another question. How many kids do Maharaji and Marolyn have, and what are their names? Corrections and clarifications are welcome.
I am under the impression that they have four children. I know that the oldest one is Premlata (apparently now called Wadi Sue - can anyone explain this?) because I was around when she was born in 1975. I know they have a son named Hansi and a daughter named Daya Lata, who is an accomplished singer), but I'm not sure who is older. And I think that their youngest son is named Amar - does anyone know how old he is?
.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:58:10 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: chickenshit
Subject: What is your problem, anyway? (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
Do you really feel that I am prying into Maharaji's personal life by wanting to know how many children he has and how old they are? Is it supposed to be a big secret or something? If so, WHY?
If you had any guts, you'd use your real name instead of just posting things like the above. Obviously you don't/
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:25:43 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is your problem, anyway? (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
The use of the descriptive term 'fatty' reminds me of the poster who spent a couple of evenings doing offensive posts using other people's names, just before Mili disappeared off the forum.
Ayar was born in 1979, I think. We were all told to meditate especially hard that night.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:28:38 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is your problem, anyway? (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
The use of the descriptive term 'fatty' reminds me of the poster who spent a couple of evenings doing offensive posts using other people's names, just before Mili disappeared off the forum.
Ayar was born in 1979, I think. We were all told to meditate especially hard that night.
Sorry, Not Ayar, Daya (Lata)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:13:52 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: What is your problem, anyway? (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
The use of the descriptive term 'fatty' reminds me of the poster who spent a couple of evenings doing offensive posts using other people's names, just before Mili disappeared off the forum.
Ayar was born in 1979, I think. We were all told to meditate especially hard that night.
Sorry, Not Ayar, Daya (Lata)
Thanks for the info, Nigel.
You're right about the anonymous poster, too.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:19:05 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is your problem, anyway? (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
Right. Premlata (whom M called "wadi sue" and even named his multi-million dollar yacht the "wadi sue" after her).
Hansi was next and then Dayalata in 1979. Amar (not too sure on the name) was born at the end of either 1981 or 1982. (I don't think there were any kids after that.)
The children are completely relevent to this discussion. M put them, and Marolyn, front and center at programs. We also did all-day meditations (we were told it was specifically M's agya) when Premlata, and Hansi were born, and I recall in 1980 doing the same thing when Navi, Raja Ji's and Claudia's kid was born. M involved us directly with those kids. And, as you know, they ran around the stage at programs, including Hansi wearing a miniature krishna outfit, and in the communities we gave expensive gifts to the kids on their birthdays. M never discouraged this, and , in fact, sometimes commented favorably on the gifts during his satsang. BTW- all the kids had full-time servants (blissful premies) catering to their every need from birth.
I'm sure they have had all the best of everything.
JW
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:28:13 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: What is your problem, anyway? (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
Do you have any idea how the name Premlata (which I think is kind of pretty) evolved into Wadi Sue? One of those kid mispronunciation things or something? Not important - I'm just interested, plus it took me a while to figure out who "Wadi Sue" was - I thought it was M's kids nanny or something.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:44:13 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is your problem, anyway? (Re: Maharaji and Marolyn's children)
Message:
Do you have any idea how the name Premlata (which I think is kind of pretty) evolved into Wadi Sue? One of those kid mispronunciation things or something? Not important - I'm just interested, plus it took me a while to figure out who 'Wadi Sue' was - I thought it was M's kids nanny or something.
I don't know. I heard Maharaji refer to her as just "Wadi" sometimes and at other times he said "Wadi Sue." I saw the yacht in Biscayne Bay in Miami and it had "Wadi Sue' right on it as the name of the boat. I always thought "Wadi" was a bad name for a kid. But he did a better job naming his own kid than that poor premie kid, "Satganga."
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 14:48:03 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Everyone
Subject: What is darshan?
Message:
This is a technical question, not a poetic one - what is the real definition of darshan? My understanding was that it was simply being in the presence of the (whatever holy person). Anybody got anything to add to that?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:02:25 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
This is a technical question, not a poetic one - what is the real definition of darshan? My understanding was that it was simply being in the presence of the (whatever holy person). Anybody got anything to add to that?
That's exactly what I my understanding was. I remember premies usually used the term to refer to kissing maharaji's feet. But when I asked initiators they would describe it as you did. I've heard Senyasins, followers of Rashneesh, use the same term.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:00:43 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trenta@nbn.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
I think you are right. My understanding of Darshan is that it is a Hindu term, describing the idea that you will receive benefit, knowledge, information, enlightnment, etc. when you are in the presence of a FULLY REALIZED BEING. I happen to know that this is possible; but, please don't ask me HOW I know. It is sort of like what GOD was reported to have said in one of the testaments in the Bible; whenever two or more are gathered in MY NAME...
In the process of creation, there is first the thought; the root thought; the sponsoring thought. This thought travels at the speed of light, possibly faster. Once it is out there, it is there forever. Following thought, comes the spoken word. This adds power and impetitus to the thought, and if repeated often enough, it can become a reality. Just imaging how powerful are the thoughts of many, all thinking and talking about the same thing. Why it can actually move mountains; create earthquakes, floods, and all sorts of calamities. In turn, positive thoughts can produce all sorts of wonderful results. If you have a negative thought...think again.
Love,
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:52:28 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Sorry Trent but I have to ask:How do you know for a fact that darshan is real.I'm not being cynical;I would genuinely like you to explain the mechanics of it.You speak with much confidence so I would find it very interesting to have this explained by you.
Thanks
P.S.-What's a fully realized being anyway?How do these beings get that way?Once fully realized can a being of that stature lose same?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:12:01 (EST)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
This is a technical question, not a poetic one - what is the real definition of darshan? My understanding was that it was simply being in the presence of the (whatever holy person). Anybody got anything to add to that?
Right Katie. Darshan means seeing of the master (or great saint, or realized being). I'm not sure of the derivation, but there are a lot of similar words (e.g. darshit = exposed to view; darshak = spectator).
Maharaji has always talked about a 'darshan line' - I think the corruption came mostly from the abbreviated format used in pamphlets and brochures at the various programs at which there was a darshan line ('darshan will be at 10 AM tomorrow'). In India last year, when someone said to an Indian premie: 'Maharaji doesn't give Darshan in the West any more,' the Indian said, 'You mean he never does ANY events in the West?'
Because for them, darshan is any time they can be in M's presence.
I think of it as being similar to the difference between a reception line and a reception.
PS to bftb: Obviously the way to reach the state of full realization is to drop a lot of acid, smoke a lot of hashish, gather up all the theories ever propounded about spirituality and make a volatile stew, which has to be sniffed (and spouted) continuously.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 10:34:51 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Well although I had a good laugh(thanks op)you're not being very nice to our friend,our self:Trent a.k.a. GOD.
Who knows,maybe HE will be the one who will go beyond rhetoric and clearly define the functional mechanics behind HER alluded to states of consciousness.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:49:03 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: bftb & op
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Well although I had a good laugh(thanks op)you're not being very nice to our friend,our self:Trent a.k.a. GOD.
Who knows,maybe HE will be the one who will go beyond rhetoric and clearly define the functional mechanics behind HER alluded to states of consciousness.
dear bftb,
More about darshan. It's my feeling that there are two kinds of darshan - first, just being in the presence of the person (as in the classic definition, or as when premies go through a darshan line, or see Maharaji), and then sort of a "real" DARSHAN experience, which is a lot more intense.
Trent wrote:
My understanding of Darshan is that it is a Hindu term,
describing the idea that you will receive benefit, knowledge, information, enlightnment, etc. when you are in the presence of a FULLY REALIZED BEING. I happen to know that this is possible; but, please don't ask me HOW I know.
IMHO, the part of Trent's statement that makes sense to me is when he says that "you will receive benefit, knowledge, information, enlightnment, etc." during darshan.
I think op has spoken about having this kind of experience with Maharaji, although she would probably agree that it did not happen every time she went through the darshan line or happened to be in his presence.
It's been my experience that the person that one gets darshan from doesn't have to be a "FULLY REALIZED BEING", whatever that is (thanks for the definition, op!) I have had this experience in the presence of another person who wasn't Maharaji, and maybe you have too. (I wasn't under the influence of anything at the time either, op!). It seems to be a private experience - I don't really want to talk about it on the newsgroup and Trent and op appear not to want to either.
Anyway, don't ask me to explain it, but I know it happens (and sometimes it happens in the strangest of places.)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:04:17 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
In the strangest of places indeed.I've had 'em,you've had 'em,trent's had 'em.....but what the heck are they?I guess they are very personal experiences but trent seemed like he may have been able to explain matter of factly how he thought it worked(was facilitated).
'Darshan' or whatever is real but I guess it has little to do with any intermediary that would claim to be its source.
Feel the bliss,avoid the icon?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:19:28 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@Mail.trib.net
To: bftb
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Feel the bliss,avoid the icon?
I guess I would say feel the bliss (only that's not the right word) but don't identify it with the person. I can't really talk about it on the forum. You can e-mail me if you want. (BTW, have you ever thought about getting one of those "rocketmail" e-mail addresses so no one can track you down? Bill - bb - has one, and I think Seymour does too.)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:54:47 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: bftb
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Sorry Trent but I have to ask:How do you know for a fact that darshan is real. I'm not being cynical;I would genuinely like you to explain the mechanics of it. You speak with much confidence so I would find it very interesting to have this explained by you.
Thanks
P.S.-What's a fully realized being anyway?How do these beings get that way?Once fully realized can a being of that stature lose same?
Dear BFTB:
Well, you have asked two very good questions. I am, as you say, quite confident in my knowledge and beliefs; however, I don't know that I can answer these questions and claim that they are the final truth. The answers are from my own experience. How I know is not what we are discussing here...rather what I know. If you want to know how I know, I can only answer you with the parable that I used the other day about the fish. If you did not read that in another forum message by me, let me know. So here goes.
I did not find a definition in my dictionary; however, I would describe it as the experience of being in the physical presence of a person who is a fully realized being. (I'll talk about that further on)
Suffice it to say that when someone is living, permanently in the here and now, who is fully conscious and awake, their being and the energy which resides within them, vibrates at a different rate than that of others who have not had this experience, and who are "sleepwalking". I'm certain you have seen people like this, indeed all of us are in this state at one time or another...until we are not. Just sit and watch people, e.g.traveling on the bus, sitting somewhere, wherever. Vacant stare, eyes glazed over, "lights on, nobody home". We all do this. I do this. I catch myself a hundred times a day in this state. However, I also meditate and pray and perform other mantras, etc. and make a willful effort to stay "here and now". Of course, until I reach such an enlightened state (which BTW could happen at any time, or take many more life times; its all up to me) the "switchman will, from time to time, fall asleep".
I have had the experience of being in the presence of one person in my life, and upon meeting him, I instantly realized that I had been asleep for a long time. He did nothing out of the ordinary, performed no special feat or said anything particulary astounding. He just Was. From what I know of darshan, I believe that I had that experience when I was with him. I did not find that at Prem Nagar in the presence of GM.
So, a fully realized being is someone who has remembered who he/she is. They have no doubt as to their relationship with the One. As Jesus said, "I and my father are one". What he meant here, is that we all and the father are One. My understanding of this state of being is that once you have achieved it, you cannot loose it. Some of the Hindu teaching say that we are like a brass cup, and we can be tarnished...but once we have, through the alchemy of self-realization turned the cup into Gold, then it no longer can be tarnished.
Dear fellow seeker, I truly hope this helps. If you, or anyone else has a better explanation, I would welcome it.
With love,
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 21:51:07 (EST)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Brace yourself. This one's long.
I have had this experience in the presence of another person who wasn't Maharaji, and maybe you have too. (I wasn't under the influence of anything at the time either, op!). It seems to be a private experience - I don't really want to talk about it on the newsgroup and Trent and op appear not to want to either.
Anyway, don't ask me to explain it, but I know it happens (and sometimes it happens in the strangest of places.)
Thanks for having the intuition. No, I really don't want to discuss such personal experiences on the net, either.
As for Darshan as an otherworldly experience, I think you're adding a mystical western touch to what the Sanskrit/Hindi term really means. The experience of having the Divine manifest in some way through the material world - basically so that the inside experience meets external appearances - can be at the same time as Darshan, or not. IOW, Darshan in and of itself is not a religious experience. It's simply seeing or being in the presence of ___ ... What you take home with you is your own experience.
And that means, also, that your experience of perceiving the Divine doesn't even necessarily have anything to do with the one you are perceiving it through. A while ago, Burke mentioned Mother Teresa, who said she saw Christ in all the sick people she cared for - I don't doubt her word. But I doubt very much whether those suffering people knew what she was looking at within them. Most of them were probably ornery, angry, cursing life for their bad luck.
On this level, I agree with Trent: God is within every atom in equal quantity. God is manifest in every action and every word in equal quantity AND quality. Where we start to differ is in the question of consciousness. When I watch an animal move - whether a bird singing or a cat hunting, or even a cat devouring its prey - it feels completely surrounded by, surrendered to, and at one with the power that moves the universe. Does that mean that the cat is god-realized? Doubtful. The closest I ever came to feeling cat-consciousness was during a time I did a lot of drugs, so I can't guarantee the validity of some experiences, but I did feel like I was looking through a cat's eyes at least once, and it was a deep hunger and a motivating force to simply find food - in everything. (Not to say that's the only part of cat-consciousness, but it was the part I felt I experienced.)
Back to humans. Daily living in God-consciousness is impossible. Perhaps that is why 'before ... chop wood, carry water; after ... chop wood, carry water' makes such sense. The difference being that before, the mind is turning over every leaf, jumping here and there searching to make sense of it all. And after, the mind is so humbled, so overwhelmed, that there is nothing left to do but continue with daily activities - holding dear and close to the heart the absolute joy of knowing that this activity is nothing more nor less than another step in the dance with the Divine.
But as for living in the total consciousness of eternity, spacial and temporal ... it just doesn't fit into the human frame. One of the things M has talked about over the past couple of years has been that we consist of the most impossible of combinations: the eternal inhabiting the temporary. The vastness of the universe is encompassed by the small frame that is our physical body and psyche. (I'm not repeating what M said here because that is what has given me the insight. More like a reinforcement of my experience.)
(Aside: Right now I'm listening to some very outrageous classical music. As I hear it, I'm overwhelmed by the beauty that comes through, the incredible miracle that is the human brain connected to the source of inspiration that can both produce and appreciate such beauty.)
And I also agree with anon that the view espoused by Trent is very simplistic. Dare I say it? God consciousness is simple, but not simplistic.
---TIME BREAK WHILE MY DAUGHTER GETS ON-LINE TO COMFORT A FRIEND---
(And when I get back to try to finish this, the inspiration for cosmic chatter has disappeared. )
The original posting I was going to make on this thread was in response to bftb:
Who knows,maybe HE will be the one who will go beyond rhetoric and clearly define the functional mechanics behind HER alluded to states of consciousness.
'Alluded' is the operative word, bftb. I don't know why, but somehow this person doesn't quite make me believe he's reached a state of blissful enlightenment. Then, maybe it's just my concept, but I have this notion that a god-realized being will be humbly aware, not arrogant.
And then, of course, God would not make spelling errors.
Unless he/it/she wanted to. Maybe to teach me a lesson, or to point out the imperfection of this universe.
But then, why would God have to worry about being politically correct? HIS consciousness, HER body, her/his/its blah blah...
Actually, if Trent IS God, maybe he can resolve a problem a lot of us have had for a long time: calling God an 'it' doesn't seem respectful. Calling God 'he' or 'she' projects God into duality. Going the 's/he' or 'he/she/it' route makes one detour from whatever point one was trying to get to. Does God have a new term we can use that won't cause such linguistic problems?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 22:09:29 (EST)
Poster: there is no
Email: bb
To: Trent
Subject: darshan (Re: What is darshan?)
Message:
You say 'suffice to say, when someone is living in
the here and now, who is fully concious and awake,...
and you meditate and pray and perform other mantras,ectuntil I reach an enlightened state..
Well, you said it your self, you pray.
So who are you praying to? What exactly is it that you
are trying to join?
Do you think you can just elbow it aside and claim it's
conciousness? What about the power it has? Does that
become yours too?
There is a reason that it is impossible, because it is
the powers choice to remain out of reach.
Look at jesus whom you mentioned, he said he and his father
are one supposidly, but this was after he had been marching
across the countryside wielding the power big time.
So if that story is true, what did HE have to say?
He said the greatest flaw in the sight of god is
spiritual pride, followed closely by false images.
And that the big force hoped we would enjoy ourselves
and love each other and befriend the power.
That is completely opposite of the whole eastern thing.
The home of the 'realize god' movement is india.
Just look at those miserable fucks, they have a caste
system that is as solid as it can be. You are born in
one of 4 castes and that is the way you and all your kids
and decendents will stay.
So much for seeing god everywhere.
The whole eastern thing is like a poison.
Why? because you answer to no one but you own 'realization'
And it is the ultimate 'emperers clothing religion'
I am realized-can't you see?
Sure we sleepwalk, but we sleepwalk less if we are
interested in something. We can be interested in enjoying
the shareing of the moment of life with all we can share
it with, the concious power, and those around us, and
we can make it fun and we can make some dreams come true.
The eastern thing distracts us from living and discounts
all that we have. Distains it as just a 'test'.
Good grief.
They fooled me for the longest time.
You 'woke up' after a long sleepwalk in some environment
in front of someone, it was not thier doing. You COULD
have had the same thing at prem nagar, or at a playground
with children, or looking at sunrise, whatever.
Someone can hang on to a misperception of themseves
consistantly and that soes not make them whatever they
are pictureing. Just for example, ALL the hindu teachers,
they ALL feel that they have to be somehow elevated
beyond us to warrent our attention and our servitude.
For you I will post 'hindu of the year' soon.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 22:25:01 (EST)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Hi Trent:
Realizing I've spoken around you as though you are an object sitting on a shelf, rather than another human moving through the maze.
Here's the rest of the thought that was cut off on the bit I posted addressed to Katie:
We all know the theory. Maybe we all even have a basic image of the reality: there is an energy - an overwhelming, loving, all pervading, joyous, destructive, catastrophic, rebuilding energy. That energy touches and runs through and comprises every micron, every atom and molecule, from the very core of your heart to the furthest reaches of the universe.
Constant repetition of that will not make me live within that consciousness. 'Om - the jewel in the lotus - I AM' (Om Mani Padme Hum) - I used to repeat it over and over and over. I had visions, I had trances. I didn't have God Consciousness.
Reading many many books will bring an intellectual understanding of the structure of the universe, but not God Consciousness.
Taking apart a flower will let you see how its reproductive system works, but you will not have tasted its fruit. Performing various chemical analyses on a flower will let you know what scent family it belongs to, but you will not have smelled its perfume.
You have convinced me that you know the right answers, but I don't hear the poetry of creation in your rhythm. 'How do you know what I know?' - But how do you know that I don't know what you know?
You see, you may think you're speaking in loving terms here, but you come off as arrogant and trying to teach a lesson. (Maybe not as much as the 'orher side of the coin' guy, but playing professor nonetheless.)
So when it comes down to it, does it make any difference whether M is God - in the final reality - or not? My experience is that M has been and is a doorway to the reality that unites me to the universe. He reflects back to me the very journey that I've undertaken, allowing it to focus on the inner roads, where the connection to the infinite lies. Whether he is a conscious representation of 'God' is irrelevant.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 23:32:30 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
Well, I personally heard M speak on numerous occasions referring to "darshan" as that line of people who file by hour after hour and kiss his feet. But I have also heard the broader term used. Thing is, for 99% of premies, who never got closer than 50 feet to M, the line IS darshan for them.
But I think darshan is a two-way street. M also gets "darshan" from the people who worship and adore him, thus reinforcing his self-esteem. Question is, who does it benefit more?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 12:24:47 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: What is darshan?
Message:
BTW:
Maharaji said recently (Taiwan, september 97) that 'paying
respect' to the master is the second important thing in
'knowledge', the 1st one being receiving the techniques.
If you listen to what he said on that occasion, you'll have a pretty nice explanation of what it means for him .....
'Paying respect' = prostrating at the feet of the master and kissing his feet.
Nothing compulsory, you don't have to ..... of course.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 12:53:59 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Guru Maharaji
Message:
I have slept on this business about Guru Maharaji, and I continue to be concerned about an issue which is actually very simple to resolve. As I understand it, a bunch of premies are upset because they think that they were lied to and ripped off by this what, "imposter"?
The fact it, whether he, Guru Maharaji knew it, or knows it for that matter, he in fact is GOD. Try to follow me here for a moment. This is not news!..for in fact, WE all are GOD. We are HER body, HIS spirit. Can you all not see that there is NO THING ELSE anywhere. Just consider this for a moment. Put aside everything you think you know about GOD; and, consider that everything that you can concieve of, everything that you see, hear, smell, taste; and, everything that you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, touch. ALL that is, and all that is not, what is HERE, THERE and that which is in between. EVERYTHING!!! EVERY SINGLE THING. The smallest atom, the largest cloud in the sky, the birds, the bears, the puppy-dog tails, the worm in the garden, the sweet smell of the flower, the NEXT voice you hear, YOU, ME, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is GOD. There is NO THING that is NOT! GET IT? Once you have taken this concept to heart, and understood it, you will experience a sense of peace and happiness that is beyond what you have ever known. Just think of it. NO SEPARATION. GOD is never NOT HERE. HE,SHE, IT is ALLWAYS with us, for we are ONE in the same. Did not Jesus say "I and the FATHER are ONE"? Every single messenger that GOD has sent to us, every ONE, has in one way or another, carried the same message. We are GODS. Of course, we killed them all for this. Why? Because the powers that be in the various religions could not bear to have us know and live this truth. Why what would they do if we didn't need them anymore. What purpose would they serve, if we did not need them to interceed between us and GOD. Of course they could not allow this truth to be taught, for then they would loose power and be out of a job.
So, Guru Maharaji told you he was GOD. And you all freaked out and now you are angry with him. Possibly he really thought he was GOD; but, the problem was that he did not KNOW that he was GOD. Big difference.
Think about it. It won't hurt you...and, if you do you will see that this is not gobbldygook, but plain and simple truth.
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 13:50:17 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Guru Maharaji
Message:
Maharaji didn't say he was God, actually, he said he was Guru, and that Guru is greater than God, because Guru revealed God. This put him one step up in the hierarchy and was the basis for all the slavish devotion which he demanded. I think if you look at it closely, you'll discover this is what people are annoyed about.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 14:36:16 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Guru Maharaji
Message:
I have slept on this business about Guru Maharaji, and I continue to be concerned about an issue which is actually very simple to resolve. As I understand it, a bunch of premies are upset because they think that they were lied to and ripped off by this what, 'imposter'?
The fact it, whether he, Guru Maharaji knew it, or knows it for that matter, he in fact is GOD. Try to follow me here for a moment. This is not news!..for in fact, WE all are GOD. We are HER body, HIS spirit. Can you all not see that there is NO THING ELSE anywhere. Just consider this for a moment. Put aside everything you think you know about GOD; and, consider that everything that you can concieve of, everything that you see, hear, smell, taste; and, everything that you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, touch. ALL that is, and all that is not, what is HERE, THERE and that which is in between. EVERYTHING!!! EVERY SINGLE THING. The smallest atom, the largest cloud in the sky, the birds, the bears, the puppy-dog tails, the worm in the garden, the sweet smell of the flower, the NEXT voice you hear, YOU, ME, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is GOD. There is NO THING that is NOT! GET IT? Once you have taken this concept to heart, and understood it, you will experience a sense of peace and happiness that is beyond what you have ever known. Just think of it. NO SEPARATION. GOD is never NOT HERE. HE,SHE, IT is ALLWAYS with us, for we are ONE in the same. Did not Jesus say 'I and the FATHER are ONE'? Every single messenger that GOD has sent to us, every ONE, has in one way or another, carried the same message. We are GODS. Of course, we killed them all for this. Why? Because the powers that be in the various religions could not bear to have us know and live this truth. Why what would they do if we didn't need them anymore. What purpose would they serve, if we did not need them to interceed between us and GOD. Of course they could not allow this truth to be taught, for then they would loose power and be out of a job.
So, Guru Maharaji told you he was GOD. And you all freaked out and now you are angry with him. Possibly he really thought he was GOD; but, the problem was that he did not KNOW that he was GOD. Big difference.
Think about it. It won't hurt you...and, if you do you will see that this is not gobbldygook, but plain and simple truth.
Trent
Dear Trent - I really appreciate your sincerity in this matter, and I understand a lot of what you are trying to say. (I understand it as much as possible right now, that is). What I hear you saying is that premies were upset because they believed that Guru Maharaji was GOD (Lord of the Universe, the Perfect Master, and so on). You are saying that he actually was GOD, because everyone is, and so everything should be OK (I think this is what you are saying anyway).
The problem as I see is is that Guru Maharaji didn't teach or tell all the premies that they were also GOD. As I saw it, he claimed to have totally realized the fact that he was GOD, and he used this realization to create a hierarchy in which he was GOD and the premies were not, or at least had not realized it yet. You are probably right when you say that he didn't KNOW that he was GOD - he certainly didn't seem to treat the premies like they were all GOD as well. I don't think that someone who truly understood that they AND everyone else were actually GOD would need to act as if they were superior and should be worshipped. If you read some of the premies stories on the ex-premie.org site, I think that that is what a lot of the anger is about. Because if everyone is GOD, as you say, then everyone should be worshipped equally. This didn't happen, and still doesn't happen, around Guru Maharaji.
Regards from Katie.
P.S. Also see what Joy has to say - it's quite revealing about Maharaji's feelings on the subject.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:43:18 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trenta@nbn.com
To: Joy
Subject: Re: Guru Maharaji
Message:
Opps, sorry. I guess I have not kept up with the Guru and his escapades. Thanks for the update. I have not seen or heard of him since 1974, two years after I returned from Prem Nagar in Hardwar and my short but interesting stint there.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:53:53 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trenta@nbn.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Guru Maharaji
Message:
Dear Katie:
Thanks for your kind remarks and clarification. I think you are absoutley right! When I was at Prem Nagar, I did not know who I really was. I was on a search and just happened by this place in Hardwar in the middle of the night. It was 1971, and they took me in, took all of my great hash, fed me, let me hang out there, and Mahamata Dianand gave me knowledge after a few short weeks. When the Guru arrived one day, he certainly did not treat anyone like THEY were GOD. Actually, he did not say much. Everyone just sort of fell down at his feet and groveled. I got turned off and left soon after.
I have espoused some pretty heavy stuff over the past few days, and you are one of the few that has not seen fit to attack my pronouncements. Thank you. What I feel is important, and you hit on it, is that once you truly know who you are, GOD, then there is no way you can relate to anyone else except to treat them as your EQUAL. What possible ego gratification could I achieve by turning you on to the fact that YOU are GOD as well. Once you realize the truth of this, then what power do I have over you. YOU are just like me; enlightened, happy, and joyous at having remembered WHO you really are. I think it helps to NOT personalize this concept, but simply to scientifically look at EVERYTHING as GOD. It is not if I am the GOD, and you or someone else is not; we are all, in a sence, part of HER body, and HE is experiencing HIMSELF through US.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:59:07 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Guru Maharaji
Message:
Dear Trent - I (again) very much appreciate the time and thought that you've put into considering everyone's remarks here, and actually THINKING about what other people have had to say.
By the way, I'm interested in hearing more of your story of your life as a premie (and as a searcher) should you care to tell it - it sounds fascinating.
Regards,
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 00:15:11 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trenta@nbn.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Sat Guru
Message:
And further more, if this is all a bunch of bull. why, after 27 years, am I here now on this www site, talking about this guy? Why are YOU here ranting and raving about him. So, he ran a scam in Hardwar, sold roses to the locals, printed a bunch of books, and releved us of our hashish, and someone told him he was GOD, and he believed it. It took me until last March to finally realize that I am GOD, and SO are all of you. Let's just disband this page, and go on with our lives knowing WHO we really are.
I had a great time there, meditating, taking knowledge from Mahatma Dianand, picking roses in the garden, listening to my fellow premies fuck in their beds (when they were not supposed to be doing that), walk along the Ganges, watch the crazy old woman on the road pee in the ditch and laugh, and try to cash a travelers check at the local bank in Rishikesh.
Yep
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 08:16:49 (EST)
Poster: me
Email: rusloathful?
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Sat Guru
Message:
Thats a refreshing outlook on life..(for this forum)...
but I think the trick is to keep the stuff that is good for you, the things you learned from M, and keep an open mind for anything you can learn from him in the future. I think we are all the same but some have more experience.
You can look at the TV all day and learn nothing.Then listen to M for 5mins and hear something so simple it can transform your whole attitude and always for the better.
Have you ever listened to M and ended up laughing ..creased up as he tells you some funny incident that happened to him. Its worth going to the occasional programme just for that.
M just wants everyone to be happy.
Some of the people who post here are so negative and miserable.
It really brings you down..all the moaning and stuff and pointing of fingers.
But like you say ..We have everything we need inside us.
OK who's feeling angry today. get it off your MIND zzzzzzzz
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 13:22:51 (EST)
Poster: 18
Email: **bb
To: Trent
Subject: billion (Re: Sat Guru)
Message:
Hello --mili?
whoever, I know after being with maharaji for 24 years
or 27, in your case, we are trained to view knowledge as
god, and maharaji as the manifestation of that.
Before you embrace the idea that we are all god, for the
next 27 years, consider it some more.
There is evidence of a concious friendly power.
Eastern types would have us believe that conciousness
and power are totally unattended. That there is a vacancy,
room at the top, YOU don't have to elbow the power
aside, you just have to ASSUME the throne of power and
realization yourself because there is no one home there.
Millions of people have figured that that is the way life
is set up, but I don't reccomend you just fall into that
misperception.
You can read lots of people who say with great authority
that you are supposed to 'realize' god.
Well, if you want to realize god, just realise that there
is one and look for the evidence in your life.
Walking side by side is what is happening, you want to
be a real person? Enjoy a freindly relationship with
the power and when you go inside, you will have a
friendlier reception. If every miserable asshole that
you know is also god, well, it's a bad world and
hardly worth 18 billion years to manufacture.
There IS a loving feeling inside us and that is available
to anyone if they try for it. Ask the power to show you
that it is a reality. See what happens.
As far as WHO we are, that is a matter of your own making.
Are you someone who has discovered the real priceless
features of being human? Not trying to become god, you are
not going to pull that off and that is not the goal anyway.
Try feeling your life and being kind and fun with all
the others around you. Try marveling at your body and
all your features. And all the facets of the creation.
Try having a childlike fresh view towards the power that
is sponsering the show. Forget all the thoughts that
have been tacked on to your breath. Clean slate.
Run from all talk about god. YOU be the one that talks
about god. You tell the story of how much you love
being alive. And 18 billion years of creation is now
worth it. Because YOU enjoyed it, and YOU shared love
with the others and befriended the power.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:07:21 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Sat Guru
Message:
I swam across the Ganges.
Guess that is why I got sick.
But I had a beautiful nurse at my bedside in Exeter England.
Not complaining!
I still remember the great violin duet of "Over the Rainbow" at the birthday party.
I also remember looking up at the stars while doing security in front of the main stage at Delhi and wodering how the heck I got there!
I would not erase those events from my past.
CD
India 72
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:15:05 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: 18
Subject: Re: billion (Re: Sat Guru)
Message:
Taking some time to quiet the mind and feel the life power inside only helps to achieve the best:
"
1. discover the real priceless features of being human.
2. feeling your life and being kind and fun with all
the others around you.
3. marveling at your body and all your features
4. marveling at all the facets of the creation.
5. having a childlike fresh view towards the power that
is sponsering the show.
"
CD with some help from Burke
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:54:49 (EST)
Poster: ntfv
Email:
To: me
Subject: Re: Sat Guru
Message:
Thats a refreshing outlook on life..(for this forum)...
but I think the trick is to keep the stuff that is good for you, the things you learned from M, and keep an open mind for anything you can learn from him in the future. I think we are all the same but some have more experience.
You can look at the TV all day and learn nothing.Then listen to M for 5mins and hear something so simple it can transform your whole attitude and always for the better.
Have you ever listened to M and ended up laughing ..creased up as he tells you some funny incident that happened to him. Its worth going to the occasional programme just for that.
M just wants everyone to be happy.
Some of the people who post here are so negative and miserable.
It really brings you down..all the moaning and stuff and pointing of fingers.
But like you say ..We have everything we need inside us.
OK who's feeling angry today. get it off your MIND zzzzzzzz
sleep well...(and long)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:08:21 (EST)
Poster: ntfv
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Re: billion (Re: Sat Guru)
Message:
Taking some time to quiet the mind and feel the life power inside only helps to achieve the best:
'
1. discover the real priceless features of being human.
2. feeling your life and being kind and fun with all
the others around you.
3. marveling at your body and all your features
4. marveling at all the facets of the creation.
5. having a childlike fresh view towards the power that
is sponsering the show.
'
CD with some help from Burke
If it's as good as all that, what the hell are you doing here and not doing all those marvellous things, instead? - Or are you 'sharing satsang', heaven forbid? Do you really suppose ex-premies don't know a thing or two about 'the priceless features of being human'?
If there is one thing an ex-premie cannot stand, it is being patronised by a practising premie still spouting the same ethereal nonsense that was once our only vocabulary. I've been there. Done that. Bought the t-shirt. And the video.
It's all bullshit. Wake up.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:21:24 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: CD
Subject: Re: billion (Re: Sat Guru)
Message:
CD:
Yeah! Sounds great to me.
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:24:34 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: ntfv
Subject: Re: billion (Re: Sat Guru)
Message:
My, angry are we? Know it all, do we?
Can't teach you anything at all?
What possible ego gratification could I have, if I am right about this? If you suddenly realize WHO you are, and you are the SAME AS I AM, GOD; then what power, what influence do I have over you. I am only sharing this out of love for you. What do you perceive that I have to gain by telling you this?
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:39:49 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: billion (Re: Sat Guru)
Message:
My, angry are we? Know it all, do we?
Can't teach you anything at all?
What possible ego gratification could I have, if I am right about this? If you suddenly realize WHO you are, and you are the SAME AS I AM, GOD; then what power, what influence do I have over you. I am only sharing this out of love for you. What do you perceive that I have to gain by telling you this?
Trent
I can't possibly imagine.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 18:41:19 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: ntfv
Subject: Re: billion (Re: Sat Guru)
Message:
A bit touchy I see.
Who said the message was for you?
The list of things that you cannot stand must be impressive.
Yeah, it's all bullshit. Right you are.
Have fun.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 00:03:39 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: Everyone
Subject: GOD
Message:
Hi: Why is everyone so uptight about Guru Maharaji (Sat). If you think about it, HE IS the LORD of the Universe. Of course, so am I, you and everyone else. Don't you get it. There is absolutly NO separation between ANYTHING; especially between you and I and GOD. We are GOD. HE/SHE/IT is experiencing itself HERE and NOW through US. We are IT. We are ALL that there is. WE are the WHICH of WHICH there is NO whicher. There is NO THING that GOD is NOT. GOD is NOWHERE (or NOW HERE) if you prefer to use these words in a different way). There is no where to look but here, inside now. GOD is not somewhere else (yet SHE is everywhere, all at once)
Why are we looking for HIM without, externally, somewhere else than right HERE NOW. ALL WAYS will be, allways has been, NEVER WON'T BE. NEVER BORN, NEVER DIES. Let's get on with it.
Jai Satchinand
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 00:31:46 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: Trent
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Hi: Why is everyone so uptight about Guru Maharaji (Sat). If you think about it, HE IS the LORD of the Universe. Of course, so am I, you and everyone else. Don't you get it. There is absolutly NO separation between ANYTHING; especially between you and I and GOD. We are GOD. HE/SHE/IT is experiencing itself HERE and NOW through US. We are IT. We are ALL that there is. WE are the WHICH of WHICH there is NO whicher. There is NO THING that GOD is NOT. GOD is NOWHERE (or NOW HERE) if you prefer to use these words in a different way). There is no where to look but here, inside now. GOD is not somewhere else (yet SHE is everywhere, all at once)
Why are we looking for HIM without, externally, somewhere else than right HERE NOW. ALL WAYS will be, allways has been, NEVER WON'T BE. NEVER BORN, NEVER DIES. Let's get on with it.
Jai Satchinand
Good job at gobbledygook. But things do have definition and you aren't God and neither is maharaji. Perhaps if you look at it like this: People are uptight at maharaji because they were deceived. Men and women get uptight at each other when they discover someone's misrepresented the truth, and so do children at parents. It's the same with maharaji; some people based many actions and decisions on maharaji's claims. They trusted him and then found out that what he was saying wasn't true. To say that there really isn't any separation between anything, sounds cosmic, but it is really without compassion and it diminishes the pain and suffering that people experience. It is also arrogant to take a psychotic viewpoint that puts you above human experience, that you can't face.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 05:02:53 (EST)
Poster: Persona Non Grata
Email:
To: Rick
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Hi: Why is everyone so uptight about Guru Maharaji (Sat). If you think about it, HE IS the LORD of the Universe. Of course, so am I, you and everyone else. Don't you get it. There is absolutly NO separation between ANYTHING; especially between you and I and GOD. We are GOD. HE/SHE/IT is experiencing itself HERE and NOW through US. We are IT. We are ALL that there is. WE are the WHICH of WHICH there is NO whicher. There is NO THING that GOD is NOT. GOD is NOWHERE (or NOW HERE) if you prefer to use these words in a different way). There is no where to look but here, inside now. GOD is not somewhere else (yet SHE is everywhere, all at once)
Why are we looking for HIM without, externally, somewhere else than right HERE NOW. ALL WAYS will be, allways has been, NEVER WON'T BE. NEVER BORN, NEVER DIES. Let's get on with it.
Jai Satchinand
Good job at gobbledygook. But things do have definition and you aren't God and neither is maharaji. Perhaps if you look at it like this: People are uptight at maharaji because they were deceived. Men and women get uptight at each other when they discover someone's misrepresented the truth, and so do children at parents. It's the same with maharaji; some people based many actions and decisions on maharaji's claims. They trusted him and then found out that what he was saying wasn't true. To say that there really isn't any separation between anything, sounds cosmic, but it is really without compassion and it diminishes the pain and suffering that people experience. It is also arrogant to take a psychotic viewpoint that puts you above human experience, that you can't face.
How can you so brusquely and arrogantly discount all those people who trusted Maharaji and found out that what he was saying WAS true?
Look, if a number of people tell you that a certain flower grows above an altitude of a thousand feet on mountain X because they were there and they saw it, you don't just go and say they are all lying, do you?
If a number of people say that they witnessed the same thing - an inner Light, an all-consuming bliss, a primordial vibration, something that they can only call God, who are you to say that they are all lying? It would appear more probable that you are the one who is deceiving yourself.
I just don't get you guys.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 12:37:37 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trenta@nbn.com
To: Rick
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Hi: Why is everyone so uptight about Guru Maharaji (Sat). If you think about it, HE IS the LORD of the Universe. Of course, so am I, you and everyone else. Don't you get it. There is absolutly NO separation between ANYTHING; especially between you and I and GOD. We are GOD. HE/SHE/IT is experiencing itself HERE and NOW through US. We are IT. We are ALL that there is. WE are the WHICH of WHICH there is NO whicher. There is NO THING that GOD is NOT. GOD is NOWHERE (or NOW HERE) if you prefer to use these words in a different way). There is no where to look but here, inside now. GOD is not somewhere else (yet SHE is everywhere, all at once)
Why are we looking for HIM without, externally, somewhere else than right HERE NOW. ALL WAYS will be, allways has been, NEVER WON'T BE. NEVER BORN, NEVER DIES. Let's get on with it.
Jai Satchinand
Good job at gobbledygook. But things do have definition and you aren't God and neither is maharaji. Perhaps if you look at it like this: People are uptight at maharaji because they were deceived. Men and women get uptight at each other when they discover someone's misrepresented the truth, and so do children at parents. It's the same with maharaji; some people based many actions and decisions on maharaji's claims. They trusted him and then found out that what he was saying wasn't true. To say that there really isn't any separation between anything, sounds cosmic, but it is really without compassion and it diminishes the pain and suffering that people experience. It is also arrogant to take a psychotic viewpoint that puts you above human experience, that you can't face.
Rick, how do you know that I am not GOD. Are you so certain in your limited knowledge. Remember what Shakespeare said, "there are more things between heaven and earth Horatio, that are dreamnt of in your philosophy."
The pain and suffering you speak of, is due to the separation that you think exists between you and GOD; when, in fact, there is NO THING else in this universe or any universe, but GOD. GOD is all there is. We, the birds, the trees, the wind, the rare flower high on the mountain, that which you can see and hear, and that which you cannot. Meditate on this for a while; and, with an open mind, you will see that this is the ultimate truth. As long as you insist in beliving that GOD is only here or there, only in that white light in your heart, or only "up in heaven", you will continue the separation, and the pain. BTW, pain and suffering are a condition YOU choose in response to something that happens. NO ONE, especially not GOD, is causing you to suffer. You are it. YOU are in charge of your own act. What kind of GOD would allow you to be born, provide you with the free will to do whatever you please, and then punish you for the act? This is relegating GOD to the role of a pathetic, psychotic dictator; not a loving GOD, who has given you this life so that you may REMEMBER who you really are? GOD!
Take some time to think this through. As long as you insist that you are not worthy of being GOD or a part of GOD, then so will it be. There is NO right or WRONG, except in the sense that we have used these words as labels for things that we either agree with or disagree with. So, you say that I am wrong. I know that I am neither right or wrong. I am simply and awesomely GOD. How do I know this? Let me answer that with a very short story:
Once upon a time, a King and his trusted spirtual advisor were walking in the garden. The advisor was, in reality, a fully REALIZED BEING. He knew who he was. They stopped on a small bridge overlooking a stream. The advisor said to the King, "look you highness, see the fish down there. See how much fun they are having". The King replied, "you are not a fish, how do you know what fish like?" The advisor respond "well you highness, using your own philosophy and logic, " you are not me, so how do you know what I know?"
With a lot of love,
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 14:17:06 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Persona Non Grata
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
How can you so brusquely and arrogantly discount all those people who trusted Maharaji and found out that what he was saying WAS true?
Look, if a number of people tell you that a certain flower grows above an altitude of a thousand feet on mountain X because they were there and they saw it, you don't just go and say they are all lying, do you?
If a number of people say that they witnessed the same thing - an inner Light, an all-consuming bliss, a primordial vibration, something that they can only call God, who are you to say that they are all lying? It would appear more probable that you are the one who is deceiving yourself.
I just don't get you guys.
I, for one, am not saying that anyone is lying about their experience with Maharaji - I am saying that I DID NOT experience it. It bugs ME when premies say that I am lying, or that I just didn't try hard enough or whatever.
You use the example of the flower on the mountain top - this doesn't really apply because this is something that can be seen and verified with one's own eyes.
Isn't it true that thousands of people could experience something, but yet thousands of other people could not? Does the same thing have to be true for everyone? One of the reason this site exists is because people were told that they were wrong, bad, and in their mind because they were NOT experiencing the same thing as "everyone else" after receiving Knowledge. Is is possible to understand that and finally "get" us guys?
Regards from Katie
P.S. Think you'll ever understand the rest of us "cool cats and kittens?" There's a lot of us.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 15:34:29 (EST)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Trent,
You have reminded us that God is everywhere and flatter yourself that no-one except yourself has a clue as to what clearly exalted experience you are privvy to.(we did learn this much from the really over-used parable that you repeated to give your simple point some added weight)
But you, my 'positive' friend, are seeing things, by your own admission, very much from your own blissfull standpoint, and others have every right to examine things from theirs. Do they not? Dare I suggest that you are quite possibly not as informed as they as to the facts and experiences that prompted this discussion. (remember your fish parable?)
What I want to know is what happened to the facts. I sift through the contents of this forum looking for facts and intelligent, interesting comment. To me your message has more to do with bluster than logic. (NB.the repeated use of capitals on the Internet is generally considered to indicate 'shouting'. 'Shouting' when coming from someone using 'spiritual' sounding parables , generally means that their logic is so flimsy it needs to be forced upon the unfortunate listener = bluster) However what you say is of no great news to me and neither really addresses the issues of this website.
What I mean is that you say a lot of sort of irrefutable/incontestable stuff and then appear to illogically think that you have,at a stroke, clarified the problems of those who are 'uptight with Maharaji'
I am afraid that is simplistic. There is more to it of course.
If you take the time to read what people have contributed to this site you will see that some people clearly have sincere and constructive motives for sharing the troubles they underwent whilst disciples of GM.
It is a shame that people who consider themselves 'Enlightened' like yourself are quick to criticise the validity of a site like this (where people can express themselves) and yet slow to really read through and try to understand the real reasons why people wish to discuss Maharaji.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:46:54 (EST)
Poster: North of the Trent
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Hi: Why is everyone so uptight about Guru Maharaji (Sat). If you think about it, HE IS the LORD of the Universe. Of course, so am I, you and everyone else. Don't you get it. There is absolutly NO separation between ANYTHING; especially between you and I and GOD. We are GOD. HE/SHE/IT is experiencing itself HERE and NOW through US. We are IT. We are ALL that there is. WE are the WHICH of WHICH there is NO whicher. There is NO THING that GOD is NOT. GOD is NOWHERE (or NOW HERE) if you prefer to use these words in a different way). There is no where to look but here, inside now. GOD is not somewhere else (yet SHE is everywhere, all at once)
Why are we looking for HIM without, externally, somewhere else than right HERE NOW. ALL WAYS will be, allways has been, NEVER WON'T BE. NEVER BORN, NEVER DIES. Let's get on with it.
Jai Satchinand
Good job at gobbledygook. But things do have definition and you aren't God and neither is maharaji. Perhaps if you look at it like this: People are uptight at maharaji because they were deceived. Men and women get uptight at each other when they discover someone's misrepresented the truth, and so do children at parents. It's the same with maharaji; some people based many actions and decisions on maharaji's claims. They trusted him and then found out that what he was saying wasn't true. To say that there really isn't any separation between anything, sounds cosmic, but it is really without compassion and it diminishes the pain and suffering that people experience. It is also arrogant to take a psychotic viewpoint that puts you above human experience, that you can't face.
Rick, how do you know that I am not GOD. Are you so certain in your limited knowledge. Remember what Shakespeare said, 'there are more things between heaven and earth Horatio, that are dreamnt of in your philosophy.'
The pain and suffering you speak of, is due to the separation that you think exists between you and GOD; when, in fact, there is NO THING else in this universe or any universe, but GOD. GOD is all there is. We, the birds, the trees, the wind, the rare flower high on the mountain, that which you can see and hear, and that which you cannot. Meditate on this for a while; and, with an open mind, you will see that this is the ultimate truth. As long as you insist in beliving that GOD is only here or there, only in that white light in your heart, or only 'up in heaven', you will continue the separation, and the pain. BTW, pain and suffering are a condition YOU choose in response to something that happens. NO ONE, especially not GOD, is causing you to suffer. You are it. YOU are in charge of your own act. What kind of GOD would allow you to be born, provide you with the free will to do whatever you please, and then punish you for the act? This is relegating GOD to the role of a pathetic, psychotic dictator; not a loving GOD, who has given you this life so that you may REMEMBER who you really are? GOD!
Take some time to think this through. As long as you insist that you are not worthy of being GOD or a part of GOD, then so will it be. There is NO right or WRONG, except in the sense that we have used these words as labels for things that we either agree with or disagree with. So, you say that I am wrong. I know that I am neither right or wrong. I am simply and awesomely GOD. How do I know this? Let me answer that with a very short story:
Once upon a time, a King and his trusted spirtual advisor were walking in the garden. The advisor was, in reality, a fully REALIZED BEING. He knew who he was. They stopped on a small bridge overlooking a stream. The advisor said to the King, 'look you highness, see the fish down there. See how much fun they are having'. The King replied, 'you are not a fish, how do you know what fish like?' The advisor respond 'well you highness, using your own philosophy and logic, ' you are not me, so how do you know what I know?'
With a lot of love,
Trent
> Remember what Shakespeare said, 'there are more things between heaven and earth Horatio, that are dreamnt of in your philosophy.'
Hamlet (a character, NOT Shakespeare himself) said this, and at the time of his saying this was in an EXTREMELY unstable frame of mind. Check out the script. Horatio is the only one with any humanity or common sense in the whole shooting-match.
Love and irritating common-sense,
NTFV (for it his he)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 16:54:11 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@Mail.trib.net
To: North of the Trent
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Remember what Shakespeare said, 'there are more things between heaven and earth Horatio, that are dreamnt of in your philosophy.'
Hamlet (a character, NOT Shakespeare himself) said this, and at the time of his saying this was in an EXTREMELY unstable frame of mind. Check out the script. Horatio is the only one with any humanity or common sense in the whole shooting-match.
Love and irritating common-sense,
NTFV (for it his he)
Good point, and not irritating, at least to me. BUT don't you mean NFTV? I hope so, as I'm having trouble keeping you guys straight, and the void must be experiencing a population explosion these days.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:19:11 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
sense. Why would GOD create us, in HIS image, give us the free will to do whatever we choose to do, and then punish us by sending us to some place like purgatory or hell (neither of which by the way, exist)?
So, I studied the teachings of Maharish Yogi, Mehr Baba, Parmahansa Yogananda, took LSD, smoked a lot of dope, meditated, chanted, read the Tibetian Book of the Dead, you name it. Nothing seemed to work. Then I got the idea of going to India. Surely there I would be able to find the answer. Stumbled upon Prem Nagar one night, spent a while there, was told by Mahatma Dianand that I was very advanced and that I should take "knowledge" right away and get on with my life, so I did that. Then I became very depressed, cried a lot, finally got fed up with the whole floorshow there, and went off to Goa, where I enjoyeed some great sex with a fellow premie, drank a lot of beer, smoked a bunch of hash, and sort of drifted away from the word, the music, etc.
Since then I have continued to follow my own spiritual quest, reading, meditating, seeking, actually knowing that the answer was within; that I did not need to go anywhere else or ask anyone else. But, I was still unhappy and lost.
Then, I came upon a book, which I can highly recommend, and in an instant I knew the truth. Everything that I had learned, from every source, all of the TRUTH in all of the teachings, just fell into place. I REMEMBERED who I really was. Guess what...nothing has really changed. I still must work very hard each day to do WHAT I KNOW is right, and to follow my heart. It sounds a bit far fetched...but, I am happy and have shaken off a tremendous amount of guilt, shame, worry and fear. It makes me think of an old Zen saying (at least I think it is Zen), "Before enlightnment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightnment, chop wood, carry water".
Katie, I don't know if this is of interest to you, but I think I would be pleased to know that you find some meaning here, and can sense that what I have said to you is the truth as I know it. I would suggest that you go to a bookstore and buy a copy of Conversations with GOD, by Neale Donald Walsch. Facinating.
Love,
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:34:27 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Remember what Shakespeare said, 'there are more things between heaven and earth Horatio, that are dreamnt of in your philosophy.'
Hamlet (a character, NOT Shakespeare himself) said this, and at the time of his saying this was in an EXTREMELY unstable frame of mind. Check out the script. Horatio is the only one with any humanity or common sense in the whole shooting-match.
Love and irritating common-sense,
NTFV (for it his he)
Good point, and not irritating, at least to me. BUT don't you mean NFTV? I hope so, as I'm having trouble keeping you guys straight, and the void must be experiencing a population explosion these days.
Yes, Katie, it's me. Sorry. I'm still looking in 'from the void' and I'm going to get this whole Internet business sorted out properly pretty soon (you'd never believe I've worked in computers for twelve years).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:34:28 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: Anon
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Trent,
You have reminded us that God is everywhere and flatter yourself that no-one except yourself has a clue as to what clearly exalted experience you are privvy to.(we did learn this much from the really over-used parable that you repeated to give your simple point some added weight)
But you, my 'positive' friend, are seeing things, by your own admission, very much from your own blissfull standpoint, and others have every right to examine things from theirs. Do they not? Dare I suggest that you are quite possibly not as informed as they as to the facts and experiences that prompted this discussion. (remember your fish parable?)
What I want to know is what happened to the facts. I sift through the contents of this forum looking for facts and intelligent, interesting comment. To me your message has more to do with bluster than logic. (NB.the repeated use of capitals on the Internet is generally considered to indicate 'shouting'. 'Shouting' when coming from someone using 'spiritual' sounding parables , generally means that their logic is so flimsy it needs to be forced upon the unfortunate listener = bluster) However what you say is of no great news to me and neither really addresses the issues of this website.
What I mean is that you say a lot of sort of irrefutable/incontestable stuff and then appear to illogically think that you have,at a stroke, clarified the problems of those who are 'uptight with Maharaji'
I am afraid that is simplistic. There is more to it of course.
If you take the time to read what people have contributed to this site you will see that some people clearly have sincere and constructive motives for sharing the troubles they underwent whilst disciples of GM.
It is a shame that people who consider themselves 'Enlightened' like yourself are quick to criticise the validity of a site like this (where people can express themselves) and yet slow to really read through and try to understand the real reasons why people wish to discuss Maharaji.
Dear Anon:
Sorry to have upset you. First of all, I am not flattered by what I know. I simply offered to share some information (albeit unsolicited), as it seems as though many people in this forum are stuck in a rut, worrying about something that they can do nothing about. So, this GM (pardon the caps, I'm not shouting. I used caps to designated references to GOD, in all of her/his/its many manifestations)once got a lot of people, including myself at one time, to place their confidence and belief in him. Possibly they made a mistake. So, acknowledge it and get on with you lives.
Certainly I am not the only one alive who knows who he is. I don't believe I intended that to be the message; and, I never said my experience was exalted. Of course everyone can, should and will see things from their own standpoint, just as in the parable. However, often two or more see things the same...and then. Well, lots of wonderful things happen. Especially if what they are seeing is that there is no separation, but that they are truly ONE and the same.
Sorry if I offended you. All of this was offered out of the deepest love for mankind and in an effort to share the truth.
Best,
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:37:55 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Remember what Shakespeare said, 'there are more things between heaven and earth Horatio, that are dreamnt of in your philosophy.'
Hamlet (a character, NOT Shakespeare himself) said this, and at the time of his saying this was in an EXTREMELY unstable frame of mind. Check out the script. Horatio is the only one with any humanity or common sense in the whole shooting-match.
Love and irritating common-sense,
NTFV (for it his he)
Good point, and not irritating, at least to me. BUT don't you mean NFTV? I hope so, as I'm having trouble keeping you guys straight, and the void must be experiencing a population explosion these days.
Sorry, Katie. Yes it's me, still peeking in 'from the void'. The phone bill wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but I've still got to get this Internet business
sorted out properly - email and everything. It'll happen soon.
(You would not believe I've worked in computers for most of the last fifteen years).
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 17:53:18 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Trent
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
Dear Trent - Although your message got garbled by being mixed with one of Nigel's (which I've since fixed the best I can), I think I got the gist of it. You may want to re-post it if you don't feel that your point got across! Anyway, thanks for your answer. Your journey sounds quite similar in a way to many of the ex-premies who post on this page (see the "Journeys" entries under the "In Contact" link above, although you definitely travelled a lot farther than many of us did.
I think I could describe myself now as fairly sceptical but open minded - I'd definitely be interested in reading the book that you spoke about (and I always liked the "chop wood, carry water" saying. It's such an antidote to being "blissed out" and non-functional.)
Thanks very much,
Katie
P.S. This is off the subject, but a woman named Cleo Odzer wrote an interesting book about Goa during the seventies - can't remember the name of it - and actually has a virtual/interactive Goa on the web if anyone is interested. She also wrote a book about prostitution in Thailand so there's some stuff about that on her web site, so be forewarned.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:20:03 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Anon
Subject: shouting on the forum (Re: GOD)
Message:
Dear Anon - I use capital letters in place of underlining to emphasize a certain word (that's the way I talk, even though it's slightly gauche, and I write the way I talk). I've noticed that some other people on the forum do this too - use capital letters to emphasize a words or sentences. Are there any simple HTML codes we (I) could learn to either underline words, or make them bold, so we wouldn't have to resort to capital letters?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:56:23 (EST)
Poster: bftb
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: shouting on the forum (Re: GOD)
Message:
Dear Anon - I use capital letters in place of underlining to emphasize a certain word (that's the way I talk, even though it's slightly gauche, and I write the way I talk). I've noticed that some other people on the forum do this too - use capital letters to emphasize a words or sentences. Are there any simple HTML codes we (I) could learn to either underline words, or make them bold, so we wouldn't have to resort to capital letters?
I'm _definately_ not an authority on these things but I think _this_ is another way.?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 19:59:31 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: bftb
Subject: Re: shouting on the forum (Re: GOD)
Message:
Dear Anon - I use capital letters in place of underlining to emphasize a certain word (that's the way I talk, even though it's slightly gauche, and I write the way I talk). I've noticed that some other people on the forum do this too - use capital letters to emphasize a words or sentences. Are there any simple HTML codes we (I) could learn to either underline words, or make them bold, so we wouldn't have to resort to capital letters?
I'm _definately_ not an authority on these things but I think _this_ is another way.?
Yeah, but I don't like the way it looks. (Picky, picky, I know.) I know that there's a HTML way to do it; just have to wait for one of the many HTML wizards to come on line.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 23:14:25 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Conversations with God (Re: GOD)
Message:
Dear Trent -
I went to the amazon.com bookstore site and there are pages and pages of reader reviews of "Conversations with God" (apparently there are three volumes). You might be interested in looking at what people have to say about it. (Be warned, some Christians REALLY hate the book!). The URL is:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0399142789/t/1481-2781515-271523
I'd be interested to know why you liked the book so much (obviously a lot of other people did too - I'm just interested in your particular reasons.)
Regards,
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:15:09 (EST)
Poster: op
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: shouting on the forum (Re: GOD)
Message:
Yeah, but I don't like the way it looks. (Picky, picky, I know.) I know that there's a HTML way to do it; just have to wait for one of the many HTML wizards to come on line.
This is a test.
how about this way? Personally, I don't mind single words in all caps for emphasis, because they DO shout. But the correct way would be bold face.
If this works, Katie, my next post will show the codes.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 03:18:12 (EST)
Poster: op
Email:
To: katie & whomever
Subject: Re: shouting on the forum (Re: GOD)
Message:
OK. It worked.
This is the code (without any spaces, of course)
To open bold < b >
to close bold < / b >
so your emphasized word will look like this when you type it (without the spaces, of course):
< b > emphasized < / b >
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 13:54:18 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email:
To: op
Subject: Re: shouting on the forum (Re: GOD)
Message:
Thanks, op. I'm even learning how to do italics too! I used to work on an antiquated mainframe word processing program where I had to mark up text just like that, so I should be able to get the hang of it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 14:27:53 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Conversations with God (Re: GOD)
Message:
Dear Trent -
I went to the amazon.com bookstore site and there are pages and pages of reader reviews of 'Conversations with God' (apparently there are three volumes). You might be interested in looking at what people have to say about it. (Be warned, some Christians REALLY hate the book!). The URL is:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0399142789/t/1481-2781515-271523
I'd be interested to know why you liked the book so much (obviously a lot of other people did too - I'm just interested in your particular reasons.)
Regards,
Katie
Dear Katie:
Well, first of all, let me address your remark about some Christians hating the book. I think it is fairly simple to understand. The only way any organized church, religion, group can continue to exist, is if its members all buy into its philosophy and continue to agree on its doctrines. As long as you will agree to do it their way, you can belong. You can be saved. These groups cannot exist without all of their members being in agreement. If you begin to ask questions like "why would a loving, caring GOD create us, give us the free will to do anything and everything we want, and then punish us if we do something that HE/SHE supposedly does not like?", then you are not like the rest of the flock. You see, the real truth is God does not care one way or another what we do. We have been given this life for one purpose, and that is to realize and remember who we are; an integral, inseparable, part of the one and only what we call God. We are His/Her body. All of us. Our job is simply to remember this. Once we have re-membered that we are a part of this thing we call God, then there is nothing else to do. However, we could not achieve this without having the free will do follow whatever path we might choose, even a path of evil, hatred, anger, or whatever. For it is our choice. The whole point of the process is for us to discover ourself, create our Self, as we truly are...and as we truly wish to be. Yet we could not do that unless we also had a choice to do or be something else.
Should God then punish us for making a choice that He Himself laid before us? If he did not want us to make the second choice, why would He have created other than the first choice?
Eventually, over eons of lifetimes, our soul will, one way or another, finally "get it" and we will remember Who we really are.
The reason that I liked the book so much, is that it brought everything together. It all just "clicked". In all of the various teachings and religious philosophys that I have read and studied, there always seemed to be similar, essential truths; bits and pieces that stuck out...and sort of "spoke" to me personally. I believe everyone has these experiences from various spirtual sources from time to time. One leader said once, "let those who have ears listen" or something like that. In other words, when the student is ready the teacher will appear. You have the ability, as does everyone, to confirm from within the truth of a matter. You need no outside help.
One day I purchased a small copy of the Bahavagita or Song Divine, back in 1969. I don't know why I bought it, because it just sat on my bookshelf and I did not read it. Then one day, about a year later, I picked it up while on vacation, and it was if the words were being spoken "directly to me". From this reading, I understood that GOD was everywhere, within me, without me, in everyone. I was Arjuna on the field of battle. The chariot driver was speaking to Me! It was a beautiful experience. However, it still was just not a complete revelation. I still had the feeling or idea that God was something that I still needed to find. Something external to myself. Something that I still needed to meditate on and pursue.
Conversations with God was another such experince. Again, the words in this book actually spoke to me. It was God speaking directly to me through the words transcribed by this Neale Walsch guy! It seemed to gather all of the individual truths that I had confirmed from other sources, and bring them all together. I realized that my search was over. As God said to Neale when he asked him to perform a miracle, "such as?". Neale responded with, "such as appearing right now before my very eyes." "I am doing so right now", said God. So, Neale said, "no, I mean in an incontrovertable way, in a way that no man could deny." God replied, "What way would that be? In what for or shape would you have Me appear? Neale continued, "in the form or shape that you actually have."
God replied,"That would be impossible, for I have no form or shape you understand. I could adopt a form or shape that you could understand, but then everyone would assume that what they have seen is the one and only form and shape of God, rather than a form or shape of God---one of many. People believe I am what they see Me as, rather than what they do not see. But I am the Great Unseen, not what I cause Myself to be in any particular moment. In a sense, I am what I am not. Is is from the am-notness that I come, and to it I always return. Yet, when I come in one particular form or another - a form in which I think people can understand Me - people assign Me that form forevermore. And, should I come in any other form, to any other people, the first say I did not appear to the second, because I did not look to the second as I did to the first, nor say the same things--so how could it have been Me? You see then, it matters not in what form or in what manner I reveal Myself --whatever manner I choose and whatever form I take, none will be incontrovertible."
"God does not reveal Godself to Godself from or through outward observation, but through inward experience. And when inward experience has revealed Godself, outward observation is not necessary. And if outward observation is necessary, inward experience is not possible"
Katie, that is it! That, of all things in this book, is the message. Right here, right now, forever and ever, everywhere, allways, everything is God. This is the secret.
I can safely say that if you acquire a copy of this book, and read it with an open mind, you will have a grand revelation. In fact, if you like, I will send you a copy of volume one. Provde me with a mailing address. Hope this helps. With love,
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 15:01:50 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Trent
Subject: Re: Conversations with God (Re: GOD)
Message:
Thank you very much for the offer to send me the book, Trent, but I went ahead and ordered Volume 1 (I read a lot & am probably one of Amazon.com's best customers). I will read it, and I will let you know what I think about it if you're still around.
By the way, I don't know if you've read the conversation which bftb, op, and I were having about darshan below (I think you were in on the beginning of it), but the portion of the book that you quoted has some direct relevance to what we were discussing this morning.
Also, by the way, thank you very much for your support elsewhere on the forum.
Take care,
Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 15:58:58 (EST)
Poster: Trent
Email: trent@nbn.com
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Conversations with God (Re: GOD)
Message:
Dear Katie:
I trust you will enjoy the book and will find truth and enlightenment in its pages. I have read Book 1 about 5 or 6 times, have listend to the tapes more times than I can count, and read Book II about 2 time. I am looking forward to book III; and, now I understand that there will be a book IV.
In spite of my genuine enthuisiam for these volumes, I must say that the adage still applys: Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
Keep in touch.
With love,
Trent
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 18:54:58 (EST)
Poster: the sentence that
Email: bb
To: Trent
Subject: started it all (Re: GOD)
Message:
Hello,
This whole assumption and presumption of godhead is
very popular thanks to that fictional book the
bhagavad gita.
Look at all the wonderful effects of this kind of thinking.
If 'HE comes in every age', which is also in that book,
so presumibly that is also completely true, then he is
saying that there is ONE concious awareness that is
a reality. So how do all the hindu's make the jump in
logic that THEY can just become the godhead?
There is one sentence in that book which has done more
to poison the world than all the other stuff in that
book. It is the sentence 'he who identifies himself with
the divine' well, right there is where the ever so brilliant indians and eastern thinkers go spinning off
on the assumption that all they have to do is THINK
they are it and they are.
Just because we are part of it does not mean you should
ignore reality and assume that the boundries that are
there are not there.
Look, you obviously are trying to understand life here
and you can walk your own way certainly, but really, the
whole basis for all the indoctrination you have gotten
from others is based on a misperception of the way life
actually is. Take a week to look at it different.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 19:11:16 (EST)
Poster: op - off topic
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: shouting on the forum (Re: GOD)
Message:
Hi Katie:
The first word processing program I learned was XyRite, which has very similar codes to HTLM. At first I was completely confused by email and internet codes, but it makes sense if you know just a bit about computer coding.
What I don't know anything about is making links. That's on my very long to-do list.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 00:27:20 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Trent
Subject: Re: GOD
Message:
I simply offered to share some information (albeit unsolicited), as it seems as though many people in this forum are stuck in a rut, worrying about something that they can do nothing about. So, this GM (pardon the caps, I'm not shouting. I used caps to designated references to GOD, in all of her/his/its many manifestations)once got a lot of people, including myself at one time, to place their confidence and belief in him. Possibly they made a mistake. So, acknowledge it and get on with you lives.
Trent, where do you get the idea that "many people in this forum are stuck in a rut?" I suggest you speak for yourself. What kind of a rut are you in?
I think you will find that most of the ex-premies who post here most definitely have gotten on with their lives, despite the negative effects of Maharaji's cult. But there is the little matter of letting people know what we have learned by our own hard-lived experience, that is, what a charlatan Maharaji is. Because he is deceptively trying to hide both his past and his motives as he tries to hold his watered-down trip together. I don't like the idea of him sweeping what happened to me and others under the rug. And besides, it can be a lot of fun.
I always think it's interesting when premies grudgingly admit that maybe, just maybe, some people were really ripped off by Maharaji, but just don't understand why the hell they have the gall to talk about it. I mean, don't they have something better to do? And if they do talk about it, they must be in some sort of a rut, filled with debilitating anger, and worthy of condescending pity from the enlightened premies who really believe that parables and simplistic beliefs in things like "we are all god" are substitutes for actual thinking. It's a recurring theme.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index