Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 5

From: Apr 23, 1998

To: May 5, 1998

Page: 1 Of: 5


Jude -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:25:42 (EST)
__Lg -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:50:09 (EST)
____Jude -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:06:17 (EST)
__VP -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:01:20 (EST)
____Jude -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:20:54 (EST)
______Lg -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:29:55 (EST)
__Brian -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:32:01 (EST)
____Jude -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:09:59 (EST)
______Katie -:- self-esteem and re-framing -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:22:14 (EST)
________Jude -:- self-esteem and re-framing -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:35:25 (EST)
______Robyn -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:12:57 (EST)
________david f. -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:34:35 (EST)
__________Robyn -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:33:57 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- david f. -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:51:56 (EST)
____________david f. -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 12:42:23 (EST)
____________Jude -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 23:24:31 (EST)
______________Brian -:- What is enlightenment -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:23:44 (EST)
______________Robyn -:- Jude -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 09:05:37 (EST)
______Still Crazy -:- What is enlightenment -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 13:45:31 (EST)
____bill -:- forked tongue -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:11:27 (EST)
__Gerry -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:00:37 (EST)
____Robyn -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:19:14 (EST)
______Gerry -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 13:07:00 (EST)
________Gerry -:- What is enlightenment-more -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 13:31:24 (EST)
__________Carol -:- What is enlightenment-more -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:06:04 (EST)
____________Jim -:- Gossip's natural -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:23:45 (EST)
______________Carol -:- Gossip's natural...sin, too -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:42:57 (EST)
________________Katie -:- Gossip's natural...sin, too -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:59:34 (EST)
__________________VP -:- Gossip's natural...sin, too -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:39:47 (EST)
____________________Katie -:- Gossip's natural...sin, too -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:55:04 (EST)
______________________VP -:- Gossip's natural...sin, too -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 15:48:04 (EST)
__________VP -:- Beware of Dr. Laura -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 17:05:11 (EST)
____________gerry -:- Beware of Dr. Laura -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:22:35 (EST)
____________John -:- Beware of self -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 12:31:01 (EST)
______________Jim -:- Beware of self -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 14:03:57 (EST)
________________John -:- Beware of self -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 15:14:01 (EST)
__________________Jim -:- Screw diligence -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 15:35:22 (EST)
______________VP -:- Beware of self -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 14:26:32 (EST)
________bill -:- Gerrific -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:17:34 (EST)
__________Gerry -:- You asked for it-'free will' ? -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 13:25:42 (EST)
____________Scott T. -:- You asked for it-'free will' ? -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 14:37:15 (EST)
______________Gerry -:- You asked for it-'free will' ? -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 15:23:40 (EST)
________________Scott T. -:- Chuck Berry and free will... -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:06:18 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- You asked for it-'free will' ? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 09:16:45 (EST)
______________Gerry -:- 'Who says words with my mouth' -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:13:23 (EST)
________________Robyn -:- 'Who says words with my mouth' -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:45:11 (EST)
__________________Gerry -:- 'Who says words with my mouth' -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:21:20 (EST)
____________________Robyn -:- 'Who says words with my mouth' -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:30:43 (EST)
________________Robyn -:- Shell -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:26:05 (EST)
______________RobYn -:- You asked for it-'free will' ? -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 19:27:17 (EST)
__david f. -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:15:18 (EST)
__Billericay Dickie -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:12:02 (EST)
__Scott: More than you ever -:- wanted to know about 'the'... -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 12:25:00 (EST)
____Jude -:- wanted to know about 'the'... -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 07:53:01 (EST)
____Jude -:- wanted to know about 'the'... -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:19:47 (EST)
______Robyn -:- wanted to know about 'the'... -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:57:40 (EST)
__Keith -:- What is enlightenment -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 19:31:53 (EST)
____mg -:- What is enlightenment -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 05:29:27 (EST)
______John -:- just let go mg and feel it! -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 13:29:37 (EST)
__Still Crazy -:- What is enlightenment -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:21:57 (EST)
____JW -:- What is enlightenment -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 17:48:32 (EST)
______Still Crazy -:- What is enlightenment -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:09:14 (EST)

Jim -:- Brain God -:- Fri, May 01, 1998 at 22:11:33 (EST)
__CD -:- God is Food -:- Fri, May 01, 1998 at 23:42:16 (EST)
____bill -:- God is Fod -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 00:27:06 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- God is Food -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:33:32 (EST)
______VP -:- God is Fod -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:18:36 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- God is Fod -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:28:48 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- Infinity--a self-appraisal -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:26:34 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- ... and one more point -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:44:01 (EST)
__________CD -:- ... and another and ... -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 00:51:09 (EST)
____________Scott T. -:- Euclid and infinity -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 13:37:11 (EST)
______________CD -:- Euclid and infinity -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 16:02:55 (EST)
________________Jim -:- CD speaks -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 17:11:37 (EST)
__________________Jim -:- Dawkins speaks to Chris -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 17:52:48 (EST)
____________________CD -:- Dawkins speaks to Chris -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:09:52 (EST)
____________________Robyn -:- Jim HTML -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:13:29 (EST)
______________________Jim -:- We need macros -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 15:53:04 (EST)
__________________CD -:- CD speaks -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:01:57 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- New age dogma, Chris? -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 23:01:00 (EST)
______________________CD -:- I endorse thinking and love -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 13:50:51 (EST)
________________David de Camembert -:- Euclid and infinity -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:55:42 (EST)
__________________Scott T. -:- Euclid and infinity -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:22:21 (EST)
____________________Camembert -:- Infinity & nothing -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 11:04:18 (EST)
______________________Jude -:- Infinity & nothing -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 12:02:00 (EST)
______________________CD -:- Infinity & nothing -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 13:23:39 (EST)
________________Scott T. -:- Infinity isn't. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:14:59 (EST)
__________________Jim -:- Is this healthy? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:25:36 (EST)
____________________Scott T. -:- Is this healthy? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:45:09 (EST)
__________________Jude -:- Infinity isn't. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:26:15 (EST)
____________________Scott T. -:- Infinity de-amped. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:25:31 (EST)
______________________VP -:- 'Somewhore' -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:29:48 (EST)
________________________Scott T. -:- 'Somewhore' -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:11:13 (EST)
______________Jude -:- Euclid and infinity -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:00:42 (EST)
________________Gerry -:- Euclid and infinity -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:26:05 (EST)
__________________Jim -:- Shell Game -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:48:36 (EST)
____________________CD -:- Shell Game -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 18:56:52 (EST)
______________________Jim -:- Thanks so much, Chris -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 21:52:23 (EST)
__________________Robyn -:- Mindless! -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:33:42 (EST)
________________Scott T. -:- A shell game. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:31:29 (EST)
__________________Jude -:- A shell game. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:43:34 (EST)
____________________Scott T. -:- A shell game. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:01:12 (EST)
______________________Jude -:- A shell game. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:07:37 (EST)
________________________Scott T. -:- A shell game. -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:53:49 (EST)
__________________________Jude -:- A shell game. -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 05:25:37 (EST)
____________________________Scott T. -:- Bi-cycles -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:24:35 (EST)
______________________________Jude -:- Bi-cycles -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:36:55 (EST)
______________________________jude -:- Question -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 12:33:58 (EST)
______Nigel -:- God is Food -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:36:31 (EST)
________nigel -:- Infinitely quantum -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:57:20 (EST)
__bill -:- Brainiac -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 00:18:21 (EST)
__Cheddar -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 01:02:10 (EST)
____milk -:- by-product -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 01:36:49 (EST)
____Jude -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:17:32 (EST)
______gumby -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:32:50 (EST)
________Jude -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:58:40 (EST)
__________gumby -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 03:25:42 (EST)
____________Jude -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 05:01:44 (EST)
________Jude -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 03:16:41 (EST)
__________gumby -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 03:29:31 (EST)
____________Jude -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 04:11:39 (EST)
______________VP -:- Video as addiction -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:45:29 (EST)
________________Jude -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:04:50 (EST)
__________________VP -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:16:16 (EST)
__________________Scott T. -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:48:48 (EST)
____________________Jude -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:22:26 (EST)
______________________Katie -:- Articulate and clear -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 18:31:25 (EST)
______________________Still Crazy -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:53:59 (EST)
________________________Jim -:- Really that beautiful? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 16:00:53 (EST)
__________________Carol -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 18:15:03 (EST)
____________________Jude -:- Love -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:07:01 (EST)
__________________bill -:- jude -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:39:53 (EST)
____________________Jude -:- jude -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:22:36 (EST)
__________________JW -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 20:06:10 (EST)
____________________Jude -:- Video - off on a tangent -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 21:56:16 (EST)
______________________Katie -:- Attachments -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:28:30 (EST)
________________________Jude -:- Attachments -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:40:22 (EST)
__________________________VP -:- Material Attachments -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:05:03 (EST)
____________________________Jude -:- Material Attachments -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:25:01 (EST)
______________________________Scott T. -:- ISP Attachments -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:28:57 (EST)
________________________________Jude -:- ISP Attachments -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 05:29:16 (EST)
________________________________Jude -:- ISP Attachments -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:02:25 (EST)
__________________________________Scott T. -:- Academic attachments -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:36:49 (EST)
______________________________JW -:- Material Attachments -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:32:38 (EST)
______________Katie -:- Hello to Jude -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:12:42 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:56:59 (EST)
____________bill -:- Bra in -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:33:22 (EST)
______________gumby -:- GAGBWY -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 00:47:20 (EST)
________________Jim -:- GAGBWY -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 01:47:27 (EST)
__________________Jude -:- GAGBWY -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:55:17 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- Sorry, no G for me -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:58:54 (EST)
______________________Carol -:- Sorry, no G for me -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:47:53 (EST)
________________Cheddar -:- GAGBWY -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:28:23 (EST)
__________________gumby -:- GAGBWY -:- Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:13:39 (EST)
______________Jude -:- Bra in -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:47:56 (EST)
________________Jim -:- Bra in -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:05:33 (EST)
______VP -:- To Jude-on death -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:25:41 (EST)
________Jude -:- To Jude-on death -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:35:43 (EST)
__________VP -:- To Jude-on death -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:51:33 (EST)
________Jude -:- To Jude-on death -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:49:10 (EST)
______Cheddar -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:03:11 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- Keeping the rules in sight. -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:15:31 (EST)
______Still Crazy -:- Brain God -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:40:23 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:41:52 (EST)
____Robyn -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:49:54 (EST)
______Cheddar -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 13:30:18 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 15:16:39 (EST)
______VP -:- May the force be with you -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:32:01 (EST)
________Robyn -:- May the force be with you -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:51:56 (EST)
__________VP -:- May the force be with you -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 15:41:25 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- May the force be with you -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:49:27 (EST)
__________Jim -:- God as Social Worker? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 16:32:20 (EST)
____________VP -:- God as Social Worker? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 17:15:13 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- God as Social Worker? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:46:12 (EST)
______________Jim -:- Fideism? Why not? -:- Mon, May 04, 1998 at 20:06:39 (EST)
____Carol -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:28:23 (EST)
______Sir David -:- No, I'm just slow Carol -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 23:18:49 (EST)
__Scott T. -:- Brain God -:- Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:12:07 (EST)
__Mili -:- Brain God -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 15:58:13 (EST)
____Jim -:- Brain God -:- Sun, May 03, 1998 at 16:41:35 (EST)

Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:25:42 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Hallo everybody. I discovered this site yesterday and am very happy to have found it. I received knowledge relatively recently compared to many of you.

Reading the site has made me think a lot about things I had grown to accept (even though I am not completely happy with knowledge).

When I was first told about knowledge, it was by a premie who had been around since the 70's. He told me enlightenment is when you get off the wheel of reincaration and merge (forever) with the divine.

I was a bit afraid of this concept (it seemed very absolute) but it did reflect stuff I had read years ago. I just hadn't thought it was possible but for some reason i didn't really doubt that Maharaji had this power.

I had just had a nervous breakdown and was definitely needy. I think I gained a lot by listening to the videos but sometimes I got a lot more confused when the premie who was introducing me talked. For instance, he said knowledge was like an acid trip and I didn't really want another one of those.

It's odd that M didn't confuse me but seemed to help me and I believed that he was with me everywhere, looking after me. I am still wondering right now whether perhaps he has that divine aspect but in his earthly self is just as prone to corruption as anyone, as he is flesh and blood..

I ascertained that by touching his hand when I first saw him, and he allowed me to. I was absolutely desperate not to get involved with something fake, but so needy of 'salvation'. It is his little kindnesses that have continued to move me.

But indeed the whole thing could be a dream, an alternate reality and I do agree the more you go into dreams (as I know from drug experiences) the worse the emotional issues build up, and the pain.

So tell me anyone (everyone), do you still believe in the concept of enlightenment, and if so, what do you think it is?

Regards to you all
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:50:09 (EST)
From: Lg
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Hi Jude

Personally my concept of enlightenment is much different from what M or the premies think it is. Perhaps because every one wants to control or have a grip on people.

M. teaches beautiful things, but the full truth is not reveal. He never teach us to be our own person. We become subservient, and this is not healty. Also his wallet needs to be filled to his satisfaction.

To me enlightenment is nothing more than 'knowing'. 'Be in knowledge of, know yourself'. Knowing is power.

I have done much spiritual search so far. After a few religions, then Maharaji, then other ascended masters which are in a much better position to give some Truth.

The bottom line is Know yourself, take care of self. Take responsability for yourself. We create our own reality.

Have a good life Jude. You're entitled to that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:06:17 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Lg
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Thank you. That is beautiful. Really.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:01:20 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
'I am still wondering right now whether perhaps he has that divine aspect but in his earthly self is just as prone to corruption as anyone, as he is flesh and blood..'

Jude,
No way is he divine. Now I am wondering why I ever thought he could have been. Does it have something to do with wanting that to be true? Wanting to have a living Perfect Master so that we don't have to accept responsibility for our actions?

Maharaji's big brother also has a web site and proclaims to be the Guru Maharaj Ji. There are plenty of gurus in the world proclaiming to know the way (spiritual and otherwise.) Also, just so that you know, the techniques are available from other sources. Katie has more info. on this than I, but it is a good point to consider. VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:20:54 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Yes here is something I have never been able to understand. I was told that at a knowledge selection someone said they wanted to become a master too, like M. And the instructor kind of laughed, like no way. (not nastily)

Well the new age story of christ is that he said the kingdom is within, and he wanted to show us all our own divinity (that he was no more the son of god than any of us)

So it would be logical to assume that anyone who realised their own divinity fully could become a master and be empowered to teach others the same thing they had found themselves

then in that case the hierarchy thing is a bit of a worry. because if we don't get any more lives and this is it, then surely that means in those terms they are saying we can't really obtain enlightenment (if we can't become masters though k)

I used to think a perfect master was one who could get off the wheel but chose to come back. that is a buddhist belief. and then I thought, well if he made that sacrifice I guess he is entitled to enjoy himself at the same time and partake of the fruits of the earth. I suppose in a way I think/thought enlightenment means you can have everything earthly because you are no longer attached to it. so why not have it?

But I must say it was funny watching the recent long beach videos and seeing m's daughter in her obviously very expensive gown and jewellery, performing with other premies in their normal gear. Looking perfect creates an image of perfection, doesn't it.

When I think of m as divine I think of a certain luminosity. I don't understand it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:29:55 (EST)
From: Lg
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Jude

Being divine means only to be who we are, because we are divine. Maybe you mystify something that is very simple.

Perhaps if you met M in real life with his own concern and everything, you would change your idea of what is divine.

Cheers
LG
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:32:01 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
It's odd that M didn't confuse me but seemed to help me and I believed that he was with me everywhere, looking after me. I am still wondering right now whether perhaps he has that divine aspect but in his earthly self is just as prone to corruption as anyone, as he is flesh and blood.

We all have questions about ourselves in life, and the two most obvious places to 'find' answers are by asking others and by examining what we personally learn/feel. Maharaji's 'message' itself (Satguru crap aside) is basically that the answers are inside of us. This is not only reassuring, but also self-empowering since it places the responsibility for answers squarely on the questioner. I believe that ultimately it's a true statement.

But Maharaji goes beyond this particular 'truth' when he appends statements to the effect that our purpose in even questioning in the first place is to bring us to him where we can live out our lives in devotion to him. So what's his purpose in life? Why to suck up that devotion, of course! And he does.

When people use true statements to lead others into accepting an accompanying lie they are using truth as a lever to manipulate. That the accompanying lies cause people to view him as possibly being divine is no accident.

Maharaji has never done a single thing in this world that can only be attributed to divinity, and he has yet to do those things required to claim humanity - admit to lies, mistakes, etc.

I have personally lied, manipulated, stolen, and committed a lot more mistakes than these in the course of my life. But I can admit to this. Can he? When is that going to happen?

The fact is, Maharaji continues to mislead people so that he can continue to play Messiah/Perfect Master at the expense of genuine, yet gullible, human beings motivated by a sincere desire to understand something that he is completely clueless about - how to be human.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:09:59 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
That is a very good point about attaching a lie to the truth. Yes I suppose it is me who has put him on a pedestal by attributing divinity and in my own way making exuses for him or not wanting to know what he's really like as a human being.

So I wanted him to be unquestioned because i thought he was giving me gold every time I listened to him. And that somehow it would all accumulate within me and in time I would become wise, powerful (I guess) - all the things (I believe) he is .

Yes I suppose there is a lot of truth in that. After going from the new-age 'you are all-powerful creator of your own reality' etc to a 12 step program 'you are powerless' and then finally to crashing emotionally, I had such low self-esteem that someone who loved themselves as much as m. seemed a wonderful role model.

why is it so hard to believe in myself and have my own self esteem or self acceptance.

However one thing is clear, if I am following someone who does not really deserve my service, my devotion, my love (and I guess another person should never really be in that position) - then that is not going to help me at all.

Thinking I have needed him to be up there on a pedestal is new to me. Yes, it certainly makes god unobtainable, out of reach. And unless I have a lot of money and/or get in the right circles, I can never really be that close to him personally (subconsciously I know that - I see the way the people are dressed who sit up the front. But I thought that part of this knowledge thing was gifts of grace - like wealth)

Thank you everyone who has answered me, it is really helping.

You obviously all have experiences of knowing about him in person that he has not admitted to mistakes. I have never seen him claim to be the lord of the universe, in fact when I heard such stuff I always imagined it was made up by premies themselves.

That has been an eye opener. I still can't quite get a handle on all this new information because it involves a lot of re-framing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:22:14 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jude
Subject: self-esteem and re-framing
Message:
Hi again Jude -
I can't believe you said that you don't write intelligent posts! The one above was amazingly perceptive.

You hit on two things that I think are very important.
First - you talked about self-esteem. I don't believe that following Maharaji increases most people's self-esteem, because there is a constant message that you are imperfect, that you are not doing enough (that you are NEVER doing enough), that you are not where you want to be, that you are letting your mind run your life and so forth. This was really damaging to me. There was also a subtle message that I was somehow 'different' from other people who did not have knowledge, and this made me feel even more socially awkward when I wasn't around premies.

Secondly - you mentioned 're-framing'. This is what a lot of us have had to go through when we left M. Being a premie entails having certain beliefs and world views, and this can penetrate into every aspect of your life. Leaving M's organization can precipitate a major shake-up in your belief structure. This is hard and can make people feel pretty disoriented (that's what happened to me anyway - it took me about a year to re-orient myself.) But, yes, you are definitely right about the 're-framing'.

Regards from
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:35:25 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: self-esteem and re-framing
Message:
Thank you Katie for the two posts - I feel so content now. I am signing off for now, thank you all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:12:57 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Dear Jude,
When I read:
'Yes I suppose there is a lot of truth in that. After going from the new-age 'you are all-powerful creator of your own reality' etc to a 12 step program 'you are powerless' and then finally to crashing emotionally, I had such low self-esteem that someone who loved themselves as much as m. seemed a wonderful role model.
why is it so hard to believe in myself and have my own self esteem or self acceptance.

I felt like I had to reinforce what Lg told you. To know and love yourself. This has not been an easy thing for me, maybe it is for some, but it is the key to self esteem. That sounds to simple but it really includes many things. I wish you luck in your life and hope you continue to come here for support.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:34:35 (EST)
From: david f.
Email: dkfreed@whidbey.com
To: Robyn
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
thanks robyn,
Just yesteday I was speaking with a friend and she said that she thought I had a lot of self esteem. I told her that I went to some pretty dark places sometimes, feeling hopless, that I was unimportant, unattractive, etc. and she said, 'but at least you are willing to acknowledge those places and feel them.'
Chogyam Trungpa, a buddhist teacher (who died of alcholism by the way) often wrote about developing a basic friendliness towards ourselves, that can embrace even our hard thoughts and feelings. He used the anology that if we wanted to play in a beautiful garden, first we need to turn our shit into compost, before we grow flowers. BMs trip seems to give us the promise of by-passing ourselves, our basic humanity, in favor of some ultimate freedom. I don't think so.
bast wishes, david f.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:33:57 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: david f.
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Dear David F.,
I believe we have to embrace any and all of our hidden scary places and that is a part of accepting one's self and adds to our self esteem. Take the good with the bad you know. No one is perfect least of all myself. By accknowledging my weaker, more negative areas I either find them illusions and am done with them or more often find things in myself that I will concentrate on and work to mend. So, I think your friend was right and the only thing is to not get stuck in those hidden places but to bring them out and deal with them.
A question, are you Jude? Your post seems like a direct response to my reply to Jude. I am just curious and belive in and respect anyones right to post her anonymously so don't bother answering if you don't want to.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 11:51:56 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Robyn
Subject: david f.
Message:
Dear David F.,
Just read down the thread and see you are not Jude, sorry. Unless of course you are doing the Vacol/Vayu thing. I don't think you are and I just want to clarify for Vacol if he's lurking that that is OK with me anyway.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 12:42:23 (EST)
From: david f.
Email: dkfreed@whidbey.com
To: Robyn
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Hi Robyn. Thanks for your response to my post--yes, for me also seeing our own darkness and weakness, as opposed to hiding it, is really the basis of bravery. An important step that you could easily by-pass or ignore in devotional and concentration practices (how's that for judgement?).

No. I am not posting as Jude. Don't know who that is.
best wishes, david f.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 23:24:31 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Just to let you know david.f is not me. I appreciate all your input about self esteem. It's so important (for me) to be able to find the love and acceptance for myself from within me rather than from an external source (M., or a therapist).

I have had direct experience of this, it's not just talk. In the early days after my breakdown my therapist was so much like a mother, and I was regressed to a tiny, helpless infant (inside).

Over time I regained my ability to 'hold' myself in a very fundamental way. I do not understand psychotherapy but it was an amazing experience to go through at the level I needed it then. (I was also suicidal, and that feeling was there for me at that helpless, baby level of myself - if I can't be held, I will die).

After I learned to trust my therapist, then I felt I could also trust M. Personally I don't know if he has harmed me... The earlier stuff he obviously used to say, which was said to me by the premie who introduced me, was harmful to my sanity though. So I let it go.

I seem to be at the stage now of being able to examine the whole issue without emotional damage being done to me.

But questioning knowledge is all very recent for me. I was reflecting earlier what someone else mentioned about it being a reflection of their own dysfunctional family. At the stage I seemed to have joined, it does reflect my place in my father's life. There was a lot of history he never dealt with. And lots of misery and suffering in our family.

I must add, that probably in the past 12 months, I did hear M. say on one video, once, that 'Just because I am Maharaji doesnt mean I am always right...however I usually am'. That stood out because I never heard him make such a comment before.

Regards

Thank you again for all your reassuring input - it is very gratefully received.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:23:44 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
I did hear M. say on one video, once, that 'Just because I am Maharaji doesnt mean I am always right...however I usually am'.

What a pompous ass!

BTW, are you getting my email? I realise that you are new to the web, but you don't have to use the feedback form if your emailer is working. It's not a problem to me, but I was just wondering if you're having trouble emailing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 09:05:37 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jude
Subject: Jude
Message:
Good Morning Jude,
I had a close friend in high school who wrote a poem for me. It was such a nice suprize but when I read it it kind of hurt my feelings. I must have seen it's wisdom at some level because I kept it in my wallet, moving it from wallet to wallet over the years. It's basic message was that I was looking for answers to my questions in other people and that I would never find them outside myself. Thirteen years later I finally took it out of my wallet and read it and it made perfect sense. I think we all need others for support or to bounce our thoughts off of and to get feedback from but we have to be the main director for our lives. I'm not saying this because I think you didn't already know it just because your first paragraph made me think of this experience in my past.
I am glad you are here and seem to have found a good support system and I hope you soon think of yourself as one of us ex's! Also about that last quote of BM 's, in your post...Any woman could express the same sentiment about herself. :)
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 13:45:31 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
why is it so hard to believe in myself and have my own self esteem or self acceptance.

Because the world is set up to rob you of them.

However one thing is clear, if I am following someone who does not
really deserve my service, my devotion, my love (and I guess another
person should never really be in that position) - then that is not going to help me at all.

I'm not certain of this. I was helped a lot by following M (although it may be more coincidental than anything else). But I do think it's very dangerous, and that I was lucky.

I still can't quite get a handle on all
this new information because it involves a lot of re-framing.

I am going through this myself, as I left M less than 3 months ago. My advice is to take your time and let the understandings come. There's no race-course to be run here.

-Still
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:11:27 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: forked tongue
Message:
exellente
b

except, his alleged pointing to the idea that the answers are
within.
We are already 100% within our bodies.
So that is no help and is not even truth.
Whatever people think or feel, they are within thier own heads.
What he is actually saying is that the feeling inside us
is courtesy of the master.
I think ANY alleged true statement by him is invalidated
as a true statement because he ties an untruth directly to it.
Like you said.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:00:37 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
I got this off another 'Forum' site (with permission) and it spoke to me so I thought I would share it with you all. ' Nadeen'' BTW, IS NO GURU, in fact if you had to put a label on him, you could apply 'ex-con' equally as well. He did have a radical 'awakening' under some rather odd and strenuous conditions (jail).

' Nadeen speaks very clearly about the impersonal-ness of awakening; we seeker-types want to be someone special...and when we stumble on the reality that we are most ordinary ('no-thing special') we tend to either try to make ourselves special (look at me: how spiritual or screwed up I am) or we really embrace and accept how ordinary we are.

And then, lo and behold, the ordinary becomes extra-ordinary; the passing of a bird's shadow can make one swoon with bliss..

Again, so much of it seems to boil down to a matter of identity. We are not who we think we are...thinking can't even begin to touch who 'I' truly is.

And yet, as Nadeen points out, we can get into a self-agressive loop that helps keep our psuedo identity intact when we beat up on ourselves for 'not having it' or whatever....

Acceptance: what a relief!! What is, as it truly is, no wish-full thinking or frills attached. '

Anybody want the URL?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:19:14 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Dear Gerry,
I'd like the URL just to have a look/see. Thanks. Is it still sunny in Washington? Raining in PA today. Hope I didn't offend you saying your home town was yucky because of its weather. Just my 2 cents (Paula).
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 13:07:00 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Hi Robyn,

It would take a whole lot more than a mild jest about my home town to offend me. The weather there is awful, no doubt about that. After five days of tortuous sun, it's finally raining here. AHHhh relief.

http://wolfcrk.com/nadeen/

After several years in spiritual retirement, I went searching again. Last year I bought some tapes from www.synchronicity.org which (and here's the hook) presents enlightenment as a state of left brain/right brain sychronicity whereas both sides of the brain produce measureable output of brain-wave activity that are 'equal'. Sounds like a lot of psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo now and it probably is, although many people talk about brain hemi-synch outside of a spiritual context.

Here's the kicker: what it really is all about is devotion to the master--again!

All their stuff is super expensive and they bug you to come to programs etc. A very slick version of the same guru trip so needless to say, I am very sceptical about anything to do with sprituality these days.

I read Nadeens book--Patty (my wife) calls it ' The Book of Con'. I thought it was pretty funny and the concepts actually quite liberating as he does an excellent job dismantling the main New Age myths such as Karma, reincarnation, ascended masters, meditation, avatars, gurus and (gulp) free will. The last one was a tough one for me. It's a short book and a quick read. I really enjoyed it, although I'm still the 'same ole same ole'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 13:31:24 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: What is enlightenment-more
Message:
While I really like about Nadeen is his concept of accepting what is-as it is.

I've picked up other juicy tid bits I think are worth sharing even if they are a little revealing .

From Dr. Laura of radio fame: something really simple and basic, but boy, what an impact! Stop gossipping. That's it. She defines gossip as talking negatively about another person. (This does not include ideas and concepts and I think we can exclude those among us who are hell bent on using and abusing others such as the BM.)

I tried it and guess what (and here's the revealing-and- embarrassing part): I spent some awfully quiet days during the time of my experimenting with this earth shattering concept. It's part of my life now even if I talk a whole lot less than I used to.

Beats the heck out of spiritual disciples for real change.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:06:04 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Gerry,Jude,Robyn,Lg etc.
Subject: What is enlightenment-more
Message:
Hi Jude and all,
I've enjoyed reading this thread. It is very positive and un-gossipy. I agree that the practice is healthy to avoid gossiping. If you've ever been a victim of neighborhood or community gossip, as we have from some of my son's behaviors due to his Tourette Syndrome, you really understand how harmful it can be. Gossip often involves blaming aor criticism which would be better handled by more directly communicating with the people with whom you have a problem. I agree that since M has not agreed to this kind of communication (and has affected so many lives); it is OK to discuss him here while inviting his reply. Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:23:45 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Gossip's natural
Message:
Hi guys,

We were going to go for a walk and then stumbled accross 'Greystoke' on t.v. It really is much better than I remembered. But -- such a nice day out. We're outta here!

Hi Jude, nice to hear yet another new voice. It's really enriching to have you guys here (Carol just dropped in a couple of days ago herself).

Hey, I just had to say that I've read some pretty cool ev/psych theories about gossip which explain quite handily how natural it is for us. That's not to say it's desirable, of course, just that it serves some fairly universal needs we have to project, compare, refine, our personalities and moral framework. Gossip keeps us clear on what we all expect of one another. It's fun too!

Carol, I can just imagine how cruel gossip can be when you're really exposed on some level like your son. (Maybe I can't imagine it, but I'm sure it's intense.) I'm not justifying that.
But sometimes direct communciation isn't at all what you want. Sometimes people need a forum for 'exploratory' analysis and commentary. And besides, what in the world would we talk about if not each other?

If M was my 'friend' I'd talk to him and about him. That's okay, isn't it? It only gets to be problematic if I'm hypocritical as a matter of course with someone. Like, even a little hypocrisy's okay, isn't it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:42:57 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Gossip's natural...sin, too
Message:
Jim, Of course, I'd like to think a little hypocrisy is Ok, since I get involved in it too. I am definitely not without sin either. Do you remember the definition of sin being given in one of the AIID magazines or somewhere, and which I use to expouse: 'sin' is an archery term that means to miss the mark, so human sins are just based on not hitting the target....sometimes we don't even see the target and sometimes we ignore it. I am enjoying being present with you all here and I enjoy being irreverent. God if he/she/it exists as a consciousness apart from us, I am certain has a sense of humor. As it exists in us, it certainly does. Carol... gratefully smiling my mona lisa smile.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:59:34 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Carol
Subject: Gossip's natural...sin, too
Message:
Hi Gerry, Carol and Jim (and all) -

My best friend's husband is a cultural anthropologist, and thus sees a lot of things from an anthropological point of view. He says that gossip provides an important function in spreading information in primitive societies, and also in our society (and of course in the forum, which is a microcosmic society!). I think there needs to be a distinction made between gossip - which is talking about other people - and negative gossip - which is saying negative and possibly untrue things about other people.

For example, if I met Carol's son without knowing that he had Tourette's, I might have some bad feelings about him. But if I already knew that - thru gossip - it would be easier for me to accept him. I have been the subject of negative gossip myself and know how much it can hurt. But I still think it's OK to talk about other people in an effort to try to understand where they are coming from. Sometimes it leads you to a more compassionate or understanding place.

Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:39:47 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Katie and Jim
Subject: Gossip's natural...sin, too
Message:
Gossip may be natural, but don't get caught, or someone's feelings can be hurt. VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:55:04 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Gossip's natural...sin, too
Message:
Hi VP - I WAS thinking about you when I wrote the above message...

Take care,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 15:48:04 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Gossip's natural...sin, too
Message:
Katie,
Thanks. I thought so:) VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 17:05:11 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Beware of Dr. Laura
Message:
Gerry,
Sometimes I really like Dr. Laura because she cuts right to the heart of an issue when a true MORON is unable to see logic. On the other hand, she often makes snap decisions for people without having enough information about their situation or thinking it through carefully enough to offer any valid insight. She acts so pompus that she really gets under my skin. Everything is black and white with her.

Once this really nice, very relaxed sounding guy called her and said that his wife makes messes and never cleans them up. He said that she starts little projects around the house and then leaves them and he had trouble walking around, finding things, etc. Her advice to him was to tell him that he was 'anal' and that he needed to relax and get some therapy. Unreal! She never even thought that maybe he had a valid concern and his wife ought to assume some responsibility for her things. Good thing she wasn't advising him on marriage or on childrearing or anything else. Then of course, I could be anal...

I just think it's dangerous to accept anyone else's ideas as your own without careful thoughtful evaluation of what they are saying. The morons need Dr. Laura because they damn sure can't think for themselves. Others need to evaluate things for themselves and make their own decisions. Consulting someone is not a bad idea, but just taking someone's advice without thinking about it can be disasterous. VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:22:35 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Beware of Dr. Laura
Message:
Good example of bad advise, VP. Sometimes I think the lack of indepth analysis is due to the nature of the format, though. Can't say I agree with her extreme judgemental attitude, although she has her moments.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 12:31:01 (EST)
From: John
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Beware of self
Message:
Don't ya think that anyone who calls Dr. Laura seeking advice, deserves whatever she's dishing out?
Which btw, also applies to anyone seeking enlightenment from a guru, imho.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 14:03:57 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: John
Subject: Beware of self
Message:
John,

I think you're too hard on suckers. It all depends, doesn't it? I think that people getting involved with Maharaji now, for example, are more to blame than we were so long ago. Why? Because that let's me off the hook is probably the main reason.

No, seriously, it's because I really did try to do some 'due dilignece' back then. I asked all I could about where he came from but, as you know, DLM was prepped with what seemed to be a solid, united pitch. If you could buy the notion that such creatures may exist, Maharaji came with all the right papers as a bona fide unicorn.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 15:14:01 (EST)
From: John
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Beware of self
Message:
Jim:
Due diligence? You really did due diligence?
The only due diligence I did was...well, as an example, let's look into my brain after I heard my first satsang.

John the Mind: Wow, that was really simplistic, wasn't it?

John the True Seeker of Truth: Wow! those people were really sincere!

J the M: Sincere, yeah, but...you have to admit, it's a bit simplistic.

J the TSOT: Well, what's important is that I could tell they were speaking from their experience. I could see it in their eyes, they were so happy! Wow!

J the M: Hey, be careful man, you're not actually thinking this kid guru is for real are you? I mean she never answered your questions, didn't you notice that? Like remember you asked her how she knew the experience came from the guru, she never really answered you man!

J the TSOT: Yes she did so answer. Well, not directly, but she closed her eyes and smiled that blissful smile and then she opened her eyes and looked at me so sincerely and ...that WAS the answer. Don't you get it? Hey, you know, you're really pretty damn stupid you know it? Look, some things are beyond words, okay? I don't need you around. I can make my own decisions about things.

J the M: Hey now Johnny me bucko, I'm your common sense! Don't tune me out man, you'll regret it, trust me.

J the TSOT: Yeah, well you're pretty damn boring. I need some excitement in my life, she said he was the Lord of the Universe and he's come for US this day. If there's even the remotest chance of that being true I owe it to myself to check it out.

J the M: That's fine, that's okay, I agree completely. Calm down, okay, let's just take it nice and slow.

J the TSOT: Take it slow!?! Are you kidding! This is not the time to 'take it slow'. This is IT! I need to get that Knowledge NOW. It's the Knowledge of GOD, for crying out loud!

J the M: But...

J the TSOT: SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was about the extent of my due diligence.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 15:35:22 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: John
Subject: Screw diligence
Message:
John, me boy,

You've got me there. What was I thinking? What I should have said was that it wasn't quite so easy to do due diligence then. I mean I asked -- or was told -- all about the sacred lineage (although I admit the lineage as I understood it went like this [in reverse chronological order]: Maharaji, Shri Hans, some other guy named Sarupanand or something, some other Inidan guys, maybe Ramakrishna, some more Indian guys, Buddha, some more Indian guys, Jesus, some more Indian guys, Lao Tse, some more Indian guys, Krishna, Vishnu, Milarepa, Marpa the Translator, some more Indian guys, maybe Moses, some more Indian guys.)

The big difference then, which point I will defend to my death if need be was that there was no current history of eastern cults that had been laughed off the scoreboard, let alone Maharaji's own ridiculous failed mission to save the world. Know what I mean? It was different.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 14:26:32 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: John
Subject: Beware of self
Message:
John,
Yes, yes. They deserve it. I mean these fools call up the woman and tell her they are her biggest fan. Then they tell her a stupid situation they are in and she makes mincemeat out of them. Like they didn't know that was going to happen--they have listened to her before! The radio is not the medium for any kind of advice. The woman has 30 seconds to solve your problems. It can be very entertaining to listen to. I feel really healthy after about 10 minutes of that program.

Gurus are a different animal as they take a longer time and you actually have live people around giving out warm fuzzies, etc. It all sounds so good and so safe and so fun. It's not like you have heard M dressing down someone until it is too late. You usually don't know the goods on him in advance. The stupid ones in that instance are the ones who find out the truth and then just refuse to hear what their mind is telling them about the guy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:17:34 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Gerrific
Message:
Maybe you will post a paragraph or two on his free will comments?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 13:25:42 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: You asked for it-'free will' ?
Message:
Entire text taken from 'Onions to Pearls' by Satyam Nadeen

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to those of you running around with your head stuck in the tiger's mouth of awakening, is breaking through the big, fat, juicy layers of conditioning centered around free will and intentional efforts at life. It sure feels like you were born with free will. Everything you've learned about New Age awareness says that you are responsible for your thoughts and actions, that thoughts create reality and that energy follows thought. That you should take responsibility for your life and improve it on all levels:spiritual, emotional, physical, intellectual, emotional, sexual, artistic, and so on. Remember it is with infinite intelligence and wisdom that Source makes the dream we live in so real, and that it's hard to argue with our seeming illusions of free will. And that's by Divine design! It is the intentional efforts of the 'me' ego to improve, change, make better, ameliorate your life conditions that keep limitation alive and well.

There is one aspect of free will allowed, though: the freedom to think you have free will. But in no way changes the actual truth that your are simply not the 'doer'. You are being 'done' at every moment by Source. You don't exists as separate from Source except in your fantasy of separation. There is only Consciousness as 'I AM' in appearance, and 'I-I' at rest. Your efforts to change your life from what it is-as is, into something different are futile. You are headed down the path of destiny that was laid out at the moment of your conception. If you accomplish some planned goal in your life,it is a coincidence because the plan was already established by Grace and Destiny. It happened in spite of you and not because of you. Source is very clever in keeping you confused as to who's in charge here. Once you awaken and it sinks in that all there is, is Consciousness, and you as the 'me' are not the doer, then only one course of nonaction remains open for you to relax into, that is, just be--do nothing--understanding is all!

Once this understanding deepens and becomes part of your Pearl vision, the deliverance unfolds with a 'what is-as is' approach to living life.

(Gerry) That's it the whole chapter--sharpen your pencils kids, let's have a go at it!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 14:37:15 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: You asked for it-'free will' ?
Message:
Gerry:

'Nadeen... why don'tcha be true? Oh Nadeen, you done gone back doin' the things ya usedta do!'

Sorry. Couldn't help it. Had no damn free will atall.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 15:23:40 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: You asked for it-'free will' ?
Message:
Scott,

He 'used to' to manufacture Ecstacy or DMA or whatever the hell it was. You wouldn't want to do THAT again, now would you?

PS The devil made him do it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:06:18 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Chuck Berry and free will...
Message:
Gerry:

I don't think I got Chuck Berry's lyrics exactly right anyway. I think it's '... why can'tcha be true? You done gone back doin' dem thangs ya usedta do!'

What Nadeen is proposing sounds like a pseudo-sophisticated version of predestination, sans 'the elect.' You'd think that a belief in predestination would result in fatalism, but in fact the opposite was true as Max Weber so skillfully observed. I'm not sure that Nadeen would be able to avoid the notion of 'an elect' in the long run. In either case, whatever our 'destiny' there would be no way of knowing it beforehand. His conception that all we can do is 'relax into it' is simply wrong, behaviorally. No one would relax into an unknown destiny on the assumption that they could not change it. Instead, they would seek to produce a 'sign' that their destiny is 'good,' or at least acceptable. This production of a sign will inevitably involve a great deal more energy than would the idea that you are the master of your own destiny. The Calvinists were more rigidly constrained in their behavior than any of the 'free will' Deists.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 09:16:45 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: You asked for it-'free will' ?
Message:
Dear Gerry,
I have plans on checking out that site today. From what you've posted here I'd have to say...yes and no. I do believe in a predestine plan but also that we each have the ability to exersize influence on that plan. If we had no power over our own life what would be the sense of doing anything? I think you said you have incorporated these view into your life. If I am correct in that I'd be very curious to know how you motivate yourself to improve or change course in your life if you believe you don't have any control over your own path? I seems like with this belief system firmly in place it would be easy to give over your life to BM or anyone like him. I will probably have more to say after I check this site out. Get back to you then.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:13:23 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: 'Who says words with my mouth'
Message:
Good morning Robyn,

If I have incorporated Nadeen's thoughts (theories? realities?) into my life, I must have set up a 'shell corporation' :)

(See the thread which contains the header 'Shell game' by Jim.)

BTW, I found the thread with JW's 10 commandments. The whole thread was fantastic, one of the best I've read--thanks

PS My wife beats me with a stick to motivate me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:45:11 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: 'Who says words with my mouth'
Message:
Dear Gerry,
I have often said, when working more than 1 job as I am now, that I need a wife at home. Now I really know why!
My wife beats me with a stick to motivate me.

I am getting some facts about all these new people confused, so many came on at the same time, sorry but it will take me time to sort you all out. I do mostly remember you as my birthday buddy, so to speak!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:21:20 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: 'Who says words with my mouth'
Message:
I was the one to bring up Nadeen, so you do have that correct. I WISH I could incorporate SOME of the things he says but I'm by no means wiiling to walk lock-step with anyone. Been there, done that.

It's puzzling to me why I felt the need to 'go shopping' again after ignoring or rejecting anything that smacked of spirituality since my stint with the BM more than 25 years ago. But there it was.

Nadeen is only one of many people who reject the traditional guru/disciple path to realizing or awakening to our true nature as 'Source'.

Here's another website I like, along the same lines: www.livingessence.com (with apologies to the rationalists on board here).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:30:43 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: 'Who says words with my mouth'
Message:
Dear Gerry,
With all these web sites to check out and CD keeps putting links up too, I'll have to get a 3rd job with a net connection! Just kidding. Thanks.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:26:05 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: Shell
Message:
Dear Gerry,
I just came across that shell game post from Jim. I learned about that in school but forgot. You will have to forgive and continue to forgive my forgetfullness. In my case it is hereditary and drug induced from my youth!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 19:27:17 (EST)
From: RobYn
Email: sundogs
To: Gerri
Subject: You asked for it-'free will' ?
Message:
Dear Gerri,
I did check out the second web address you gave me: lifessence and found it nice but I guess even though they say differnt things it is hard for me to really get into what these types of sites say. There are so many, what makes one better than another and therefore worth really getting into. I see right away they have things available for cash and that turns me off right away. I have a pretty good sense of what I believe now. I am always open to new ideas and directions but am not LOOKING for more beliefs or spiritual teachings to identify with.
Now I must confess that I have lost the first address you gave me, wolf..., I think. That was the one I really wanted to see and hesitated to show my spaciness AGAIN by having to admit I lost it. I have always been a space cadet to some degree and my busy schedule just makes it much worse. Thanks for being understanding in advance.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:15:18 (EST)
From: david f.
Email: dkfreed
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Jude, thank for being willing to put you self on the line here, given how synical some of us are about big M and other trips. For me enlightenment means being awake, perhaps even some ultimate state of being present. However, I think that developing concentration does not necessarily equate to waking up or to gaining any particular insights about our lives. In that sense, it is much more like a drug high--it might feel good (maybe very good), but . . . . ?

Another thought that I have had about all this is this sense that M is somebody ultimate and that knowledge is the 'ultimate' truth or freedom. While we may really want to touch some kind of ultimate truth in our lives, I think we have to keep this clear from looking for an ultimate fix, or high, or escape from our lives. I this sense, our spiritual quest beocmes no different than wanting the ultimate car, or ultimate lover, or the perfect place to live, etc.

thanks again for sharing.
may you be happy, david f.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:12:02 (EST)
From: Billericay Dickie
Email: Billericay@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
It is his little kindnesses that have continued to move me.

Why discuss the ordinary human virtues of the guru?

Back in 1979 Ian Dury and the Blockheads had a UK number 1 record, 'Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick'. A radio journalist asked the great man: 'But aren't these lyrics a little bit rude?'

Dury replied: 'How can they be a little bit rude. They're either not rude at all, or they're VERY rude.'

Ditto Maharaj Ji. Either he's giving the human race the ultimate gift for which no thanks are adequate, for which we would allegedly 'weep for a thousand years', or he's taken us for a bunch of moonbeams. There is no middle ground that I can see. Discussing whether he shows acts of personal kindness or sent his Momma a Chrismas card is neither here nor there.

Hit me.. Hit me!!!

Best wishes
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 12:25:00 (EST)
From: Scott: More than you ever
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: wanted to know about 'the'...
Message:

Jude:

I am still wondering right now whether perhaps he has that divine aspect but in his earthly self is just as prone to corruption as anyone, as he is flesh and blood.

This is possible only if the universe is perverse, and if this is the case then it doesn't matter if he is divine, it won't do us any good. Personally, I don't believe the universe is perverse, so the rest follows.

There is some irony in the use of the word 'enlightenment' in the sense that when mystics use the term they are actually referring to a concept that became part of the 'counter-enlightenment.' That is, they refer to something that is in direct opposition to the meaning of enlightenment in Western thought. The pivotal figure in philosophy is Kant, who began the 'interpretive turn' that led to the philosophical movement known as the counter-enlightenment. In the US the counter-enlightenment included the transcendentalists Emerson, Thoreau, and Margaret Fuller as well as literary figures like Melville and Hardy. One of it's current leading exponents is Jacques Derrida, the father of Deconstructionsim.

Derrida would feel right at home with the notion of a single word that has two directly oppositional meanings. He uses this sort of thing to make the argument that all language is 'logocentric,' which means that language has no meaning separate from 'the Logos.' He does not define the Logos, but most consider it to be a universal subjective experience. It leaves impressions behind (language, architecture, art, etc.), but can't be approached by reference to those impressions alone. I've heard him recently make the claim that the more the impressions actually resemble the Logos the greater the potential for healing the 'scars' and 'wounds' that are the older impressions. Supposedly the electronic information on the Internet has this potential. At a certain point I can no longer follow Derrida. I don't think he is being completely honest about what he believes, or perhaps he doesn't believe anything??

Just in case you doubt the rationalistic meaning of the term 'enlightenment' here is an encyclopedic excerpt:

Enlightenment (èn-lìt¹n-ment), term for the rationalist, liberal, humanitarian, and scientific trend of 18th-cent. Western thought; the period is also sometimes known as the Age of Reason. The enormous scientific and intellectual advancements made in the 17th cent. by the EMPIRICISM of Francis BACON and LOCKE, as well as by DESCARTES, SPINOZA, and others, fostered the belief in NATURAL LAW and universal order, promoted a scientific approach to political and social issues, and gave rise to a sense of human progress and belief in the state as its rational instrument. Representative of the Enlightenment are such thinkers as VOLTAIRE, J.J. ROUSSEAU, MONTESQUIEU, Adam SMITH, SWIFT, HUME, KANT, G.E. LESSING, BECCARIA, and, in America, Thomas PAINE, Thomas JEFFERSON, and Benjamin FRANKLIN. The social and political ideals they presented were enforced by 'enlightened despots' such as Holy Roman Emperor JOSEPH II, CATHERINE II of Russia, and FREDERICK II of Prussia. DIDEROT's Encyclopédie and the U.S. CONSTITUTION are representative documents of the Age of Reason (The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1995 ).

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 07:53:01 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott: More than you ever
Subject: wanted to know about 'the'...
Message:
Scott
Wow
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:19:47 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott: More than you ever
Subject: wanted to know about 'the'...
Message:
OK Scott I have re-read this post.
In case you're wondering why I'm so active at the moment, I was given lots of free access to the internet, so I'm using it.

I've been really blessed to get a computer and this free access in the very recent past.

I feel like this is totally amazing and wonderful to take part in this Forum and when my free time runs out i will have to shut up probably!

However, so I tried to stretch my brain and read about the Logos again. What comes up for me is to make a connection between this idea

He does not define the Logos, but most consider it to be a universal subjective experience. It leaves impressions behind (language, architecture, art, etc.), but can't be approached by reference to those impressions alone. I've heard him recently make the claim that the more the impressions actually resemble the Logos the greater the potential for healing the 'scars' and 'wounds' that are the older impressions.

and an idea I read recently about emotional damage to people. If feelings/emotions can be likened to impressions in another form, this idea was that all emotional problems and blockages starting from childhood could have been released if the child could process the pain by feeling the feeling completely - that it kind of washes the 'kink' away in their psyche (no matter how bad the experience was?)

Well for some reason the above concept makes me think of a universal feeling language through which people connect and feel connected. and healing emotional scars of the past 'impressions'. Therefore the meaning of something is healed.

I don't think I'll try this hard again to reply to such complex material but thank you for awakening my sleeping mind somewhat.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:57:40 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jude
Subject: wanted to know about 'the'...
Message:
Dear Jude,
I don't want to make you continue this conversation if you don't want to but something you said made me think.
and an idea I read recently about emotional damage to people. If feelings/emotions can be likened to impressions in another form, this idea was that all emotional problems and blockages starting from childhood could have been released if the child could process the pain by feeling the feeling completely - that it kind of washes the 'kink' away in their psyche (no matter how bad the experience was?)

I feel like I'm jumping in here but when I relate this to my own experience as a child, and this quote seems to argree that, the natural thing for a child to do in a bad environment is to NOT feel the pain fully. That is what I did, toughening up to in so as not to show myself as weak or if it got to bad I'd put myself into a kind of trance in the bathroom to escape. Other children block their memories or develop multipule personalities to escape. It is probably true that if they could fully feel the pain they would get through it but part of getting through it is having some power which the child doesn't have and a way to deal with the whole thing intellectually which is beyond many young children being hard enough for the adults those children grow into. If I've got this right then the only missing ingredient is a professional to help the child, to much secrecy in those types of families for that though.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 19:31:53 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
Am I free,
To be me,
Can I see,
Free to be,
Thanks to he,
Him and me,
In the sea,
Of infinity ;

Enlightenment,
Is to know,
Without a doubt,

Do not ask with thought,
Meditate.....
And know,
Without a doubt!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 05:29:27 (EST)
From: mg
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
know what?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 13:29:37 (EST)
From: John
Email: None
To: mg
Subject: just let go mg and feel it!
Message:
Oh come ON mg, don't be so dense. It's to KNOW, you know, that it's just soooooo beautiful, and it's inside each one of us NOW, and it's sooo incredible! It just takes letting go, just trust, just once, can't ya feel it? It's just so blissful!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:21:57 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
So tell me anyone (everyone), do you still believe in the concept of enlightenment, and if so, what do you think it is?

To balance Scott's Western 'Age of Enlightenment' comments, what M and his group refer to as 'enlightenment' is the Hindu concept of 'moksha,' also translated as 'liberation,' because enlightenment liberates from the 'Wheel of Birth and Death.'

It is basically the idea that there's this infinite ocean of love, wisdom and consciousness (brahman or sat-chit-anand) that is the underlying foundation of everything we think or perceive. 'Selfhood' or 'ego' (atman) is really brahman, but doesn't know it. It's kind of like a bottle sitting on the bottom of the ocean: it's filled with sea water, but it's unaware that it's completely indivisible and at one with the sea.

Moksha is the experience of 'breaking the bottle' and becoming one in perception with universal consciousness. Before this event, belief in individuality causes the 'atman' to be foreced to be reborn, because it needs a vehicle to experience its individuality. After 'moksha,' there is no individual rebirth, and one is born as all beings. Hence, the 'liberation' from the compulsion to be reborn.

As to whether I believe any of this, at this point in my life my entire belief system is under review, so I guess it could be stated that at the moment I don't believe anything, or that my beliefs are deferred.

-Still
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 17:48:32 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Still Crazy
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
I know that the 'wheel of birth and death' concept was part of the early years of M, along with the whole Hindu conceptual framework, although I rarely ever heard him talk about it. Also, in later years of my involvement, he NEVER talked about enlightenment and only talked about devotion and surrender, and also about being freed from the hell of your own mind.

In fact, as time went on, M had very little to say that put the whole K and M trip into any kind of a ideological or religious framework whatsoever. It was just master and devotee, and the glories of BM, period. Almost nothing about enlightenment or realization.

Then, later, I heard that M began to downplay reincarnation entirely and actually made fun of people who believed it. Did you hear this too?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:09:14 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: What is enlightenment
Message:
although I rarely ever heard him talk about it.

Nor did I, although one of the 1st things I ever heard Charnanand say, at the Montrose festival I think, was, 'I am just thankful to my Guru Maharaj Ji for freeing me from the cycle of birth and death.

If you got the impression I was implying that M used these things, I apologize. It's just the meaning of 'enlightenment' that I think is most common among practitioners of Eastern paths, and nobody had mentioned it.

Also, in the early days, enlightenment did seem to be a big goal for all the premis, although it was usually referred to a 'realizing Knowledge.' After 1977 or so that seemed to go by the wayside.

Then, later, I heard that M began to downplay reincarnation entirely
and actually made fun of people who believed it. Did you hear this too?

Most definitely.

I made a post last week, perhaps while you were gone, about M taunting a devotee to jump off a building if he believed in reincarnation. I made another post today in one of these threads about M and reincarnation as well.

-Still
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, May 01, 1998 at 22:11:33 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Stolen from the pages of the Utne reader:

God on the Brain
New research sheds light on the question:
Are we hardwired to be religious?
Is belief in God a delusion or an insight into how the universe really operates? Until quite recently, only heaven knew, but some now say that's about to change. Probing ever deeper into the wet engine of awareness we call the brain, neuroscientists are starting to understand how we meld our five senses into a vivid picture of the world. A few even think they may be closing in on a sixth human sense that intuitively perceives the divine.

Science has tried to explain religion before, of course, though often as pathology. This new approach assumes that religious impulses are actually a beneficial adaptive trait. The religious reflex has shown a certain 'survival value,' some say, and not just because the faithful eat so well at church picnics. Rather, a vision of reality that includes a place for God -- or something like God -- may be a more accurate view of how the universe works, and this truth has given believers an evolutionary edge.

Or so argue James B. Ashbrook and Carol Rausch Albright in The Humanizing Brain (Pilgrim Press, 1997). 'Archaeological evidence of religious observances indicate that we have been religious for as long as we have been Homo sapiens, perhaps longer,' they write. Over the ages we emerged as the planet's most effective hunters -- of meaning. The brain evolved as the organ of meaning, our 'lens' for glimpsing the world's 'inner logic.' The authors are among those who view life and the universe as blooming toward a divinely inspired end, not ad-libbing on a road to nowhere, as most hard-core evolutionists would argue.

Though Ashbrook and Albright admit having been 'molded and taught by the Judeo-Christian tradition,' they believe that 'the brain reveals a basic and universal structure that underlies all belief systems.' Therefore myth, religion, and science are all valid efforts to 'humanize' God's mysterious plan. Albright, executive editor of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, and Ashbrook, professor emeritus of religion and personality at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, are part of a wider movement to fuse the insights of science and religion -- in this case, into a new theory of what has been called the neurobiology of meaning.

Skeptics might agree that humans have indeed evolved a brain attuned to meaning -- so attuned, in fact, we see it where none exists. Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology and director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at MIT, shares this less-exalted opinion of the religious reflex. In How the Mind Works (Norton, 1997), he suggests that 'religion and philosophy are in part the application of mental tools to problems they were not designed to solve.' In his view, 'we are organisms, not angels, and our minds are organs, not pipelines to the truth. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we were capable of asking.'

Some spiritual believers insist that such questions can be answered, in moments of mystical experience. But are mystics gifted, sick, or both? Some neurologists see a link between mysticism and epilepsy, which is often described as an electrical 'storm' in the brain that begins in a damaged area, usually the temporal lobe. Researchers at the University of California at San Diego have reportedly worked with epileptics to identify what may be our 'dedicated neural machinery' for religious experience, though they've published no results.

In Zen and the Brain (MIT Press, 1998), James H. Austin describes a similar study he's been conducting for decades -- on himself. A professor emeritus of neurology at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Austin calls his book a 'clinical autobiography,' a scientific account of his other, unscientific life as a practitioner of Zen Buddhism. 'These two paths converge in ways that lead to one straightforward thesis,' he writes: 'Awakening, enlightenment, occurs only because the human brain undergoes substantial changes.'

As Austin notes, in Zen belief the instant of enlightenment 'does not descend from some greater power up above.' Rather, it 'means awakening to our fundamental unity with that eternal universe right under our noses.' He theorizes that meditation and other forms of Zen discipline 'help release basic, pre-existing neurophysiological functions' that make sudden 'insight-wisdom' more likely. As for neuroscience, the growing knowledge of our 'inner weather' will allow us 'to forecast -- and encourage -- those rare conjunctions when biological systems, joining forces, go on to transform our bodies and brain.'

What are we to make of these efforts to reconcile science and religion? Do they mark the birth of a new faith better suited to the modern mind, or another vain attempt to 'prove' the existence of cosmic meaning? That's hard to say. But with neuronauts poised to replace both Freud and the physicist as the secular high priests of the next century, one thing seems fairly certain: The language of neuroscience could soon be taken for the word of God, even if it isn't.

by Jeremiah Creedon
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Fri, May 01, 1998 at 23:42:16 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: God is Food
Message:
The fundamental dilemma is not resovled by uncovering more details of the brain.
We have to embrace the essence of infinity to get to the heart of the matter.
The seemingly finite nature of our 'life' is a puzzle to behold.
Luckily the stars remind us of the feeling we desire.

CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 00:27:06 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: God is Fod
Message:
Your talking about the breath here CD.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:33:32 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: God is Food
Message:
Sorry CD, but I have to ask. What makes you think there is such a thing as 'infinity?' How is it different from 'very very big' or 'really really small?' (In which case 'infinity' has no essence, because it does not exist.) It's basically a conception about how to extrapolate that comes from the Greeks and that we have incorporated into our mathematics for the sake of convenience. The calculus, for instance, which is wired together based on the notion of 'infinitesimals,' is demonstrably flawed. It is a system of progressive approximation that works if discontinuities are not significant. Progressive approximation works as well as 'infinity,' without the anxiety or error.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:18:36 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: God is Fod
Message:
Scott T.
Now you have me thinking, 'Where is the end of pi?' VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:28:48 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: God is Fod
Message:
VP:

Since when does nature calculate pi to create, let's say, a bubble? There is no end of pi, but it can be calculated to whatever level of resolution is necessary. There is no practical reason to 'grasp the essence' of infinity. It is a conceptual and mathematical device that has some convenient uses, but that also leads to some profound misconceptions.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:26:34 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Infinity--a self-appraisal
Message:
VP:

I must be honest about my perspective on this matter of infinity. My perspective basically derives from an association with the work of R. Buckminster Fuller, and therefore may be rather biased. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not infinity 'exists' in any practical sense what bothers me about the way CD uses infinity is that it ends up being a very convenient scapegoat for a lot of questionable assumptions and extrapolations. For instance, I don't think there is any way to talk about 'grasping the essence' of infinity in any meaningful sense. If infinity has a real, rather than a merely theoretical, existence it is still by definition 'non-unitarily conceptual,' or in other worlds 'not graspable.' To then use it as a 'unitarily conceptual' model for something represents the very worst of reductionist thinking, ironically in an argument attempting to point out the weakness of rationality. It is like someone who insists on seeing the ocean in a teacup. While there may be some superficial resemblance, extrapolation from that resemblance as some sort of 'essence' can be extremely misleading. In other words, in a very practical sense there is no difference between 'infinity' and 'really really big' or 'very very small,' except that you don't have to specify 'how big' or 'how small.'

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 11:44:01 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: ... and one more point
Message:
VP:

R.B. Fuller has another conceptual device that I've found quite useful, called the 'constant zenith projection.' This basically refers to a geometric transformational model that illustrates the notion of a 'finite point beyond infinity.' I've found it useful as a reminder that even if infinity is not graspable, it's meaning is not infinite. If infinitity is always bounded by finite points then it can't be that big a deal, and may in fact me merely a construction or device that we will always be able to find a way around. It's not looming up ahead somewhere in ambush, as CD seems to imply.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 00:51:09 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: ... and another and ...
Message:
> If infinitity is always bounded by finite points then it can't be that big a deal, and may in fact me merely a construction or device that we will always be able to find a way around. It's not looming up ahead somewhere in ambush, as CD seems to imply.

Scott,

More likely an infinite number of finite points - g.

Good god, even the [0,1] interval has infinite rational and irrational numbers contained within its boundaries.

Anyway, I have been following your lambasting of my ideas of the importance of what infinity represents.
I intend to give you a good solid reply one of these days.
If you enjoy techie stuff then I could probably throw in some jargon.
I just don't have the time at the moment to do the topic full justice and be proud of the details I present.

Infinity is not looming ahead to ambush us.
We are it.

Some Casual Infinity Background Reading

Some Nice Transformations and Vector Spaces

CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 13:37:11 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Euclid and infinity
Message:
CD:

More likely an infinite number of finite points - g..... Good god, even the [0,1] interval has infinite rational and irrational numbers contained within its boundaries.

[0,1] is not just any interval, it's the interval. According to Cantorian set theory there are lots of classes of infinity that are not bounded in this way. My point is that there is no way to prove the existence of these, or any, infinities. 'Does a tree fall...' sort of thing. It's all pretty 'wowwee zowwee' but I don't think it has very much to offer to our sort of argument. Infinity always involves logical conundrums. I have a collection of them, but they are basically just games. The practical applications always involve something like limits. Only in the so-called 'metaphysical' arguments is this not the case. I also don't think 'infinity' is a very useful concept in describing spirituality. The important concepts are finite and definite, and perhaps 'unbounded.' Infinity is sort of like the chess move we used to call 'the phos play.' You just take your hand and turn the board upside down, dumping all the pieces on the floor. In practical terms this is always where you introduce the concept, when you want to sidestep bringing the argument to some definite conclusion.

There is a tougher way to go, that does not involve giving up or surrendering in this way. But, you've got to believe that 'finite' and 'definite' are not plebeian concepts compared to the elite and superior 'infinite.' I see infinity as the ultimate and perversely inspired shell game, although I admit that it is a useful shortcut in some kinds of mathematical and engineering problems. I also maintain that even these shortcuts involve unaccounted error, as do all shortcuts. The theory of limits has been adequate to confine that error, but it is basically linear.

Points are not non-dimensional, so Euclidean geometry is conceptually flawed from the very beginning. My position is that we can keep tweaking the old system in the same way they kept tweaking the Ptolemaic system, but we could also start over completely and get somewhere a lot more quickly and efficiently. I admit I'm in the minority in taking this position. In short, I am not making an authoritative argument. The 'authorities' are presently on the other side. What I'm trying to do is appeal to your innate intuition about these things, so that you'll stop relying on that stupid Euclidean nonsense. You can't construct a real universe out of dimensionless points, nor can you describe one that already exists. What happens to all the fancy arguments about infinity without this assumption?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 16:02:55 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Euclid and infinity
Message:
>The 'authorities' are presently on the other side. What I'm trying to do is appeal to your innate intuition about these things, so that you'll stop relying on that stupid Euclidean nonsense.

Look Scott,

You had better give me more credit for what I know than you are giving to make yourself look good on the forum.

Yes, the 'authorities' just haven't quite gotten there just yet - g!

Greater people than you and I have wrestled with the notions of Infinity and existance over the ages. After all this time about the only thing to be said is that there are things that exist that are beyond the capabilities of our logic to absolutely describe.
You can gyrate and postulate but you can't complete the story.

The moral of the mango story remains simple yet relevant to this day.

In some sense all notions are an illusion because the reality is just what is, wether we can understand it our not.

We do exist. We are it.
Lets enjoy it and try to manifest the good vibes in our actions towards others.

Mans Search for Meaning
The idea of the infinite has baffled thinkers since ancient times

Cheers,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 17:11:37 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: CD speaks
Message:
Chris,

It's so interesting to hear you actually communicate for a change. I guess it took Scott's enthused academic style to bring you out. Whatever, eh? Maybe I should just shut up before I spoil things.

But, well, may I? Just a little, Chris? Please?

I just want to ask you one really, big entirely sincere 'So what?' So what if we don't have all the answers? It doesn't mean we don't have any does it? I get the impression that you take a strange comfort in certain mysteries, strange in that you seem to extrapolate the specific uncertainty they trigger into uncertainty about everything.

But why do that? Can't you see that bit by bit we're learning more about life and the world? Why not give credit where it's due? Sometimes I get the feeling that despite your conscious effort to stay 'positive' and all that, that you're actually one of the most cynical people around. Not just you, I think that's just a common underside to premie good cheer, the sense that we don't know enough, will never know enough and are somehow fools for trying. It's a gilded 'know nothing'ness that I'm so glad I left behind in the ashram.

So ironic, Maharaji used to -- probably still does -- try to cultivate a 'childlike guilelessness' in his followers. The fact is children have unfettered, robust curiosities. Remember? Maharaji's practising chinese foot binding on his premies' minds, turning them all into geishas.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 17:52:48 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dawkins speaks to Chris
Message:
Reading that Dawkins talk (mentioned above) I came across something quite on point with what I was saying:

Yes, for sure, the process of accumulation doesn't stop with us. 2,000 years hence, ordinary people who have read a couple of books will be in a position to give a tutorial to today's Aristotles: to Francis Crick, say, or Stephen Hawking. So does this mean that our view of the universe will turn out to be just as wrong?

Let's keep a sense of proportion about this! Yes, there's much that we still don't know. But surely our belief that the earth is round and not flat, and that it orbits the sun, will never be superseded. That alone is enough to confound those, endowed with a little philosophical learning, who deny the very possibility of objective truth: those so-called relativists who see no reason to prefer scientific views over aboriginal myths about the world.

Our belief that we share ancestors with chimpanzees, and more distant ancestors with monkeys, will never be superseded although details of timing may change. Many of our ideas, on the other hand, are still best seen as theories or models whose predictions, so far, have survived the test. Physicists disagree over whether they are condemned forever to dig for deeper mysteries, or whether physics itself will come to an end in a final 'theory of everything', a nirvana of knowledge. Meanwhile, there is so much that we don't yet understand, we should loudly proclaim those things that we do, so as to focus attention on problems that we should be working on.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:09:52 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dawkins speaks to Chris
Message:
>But surely our belief that the earth is round and not flat, and that it orbits the sun, will never be superseded. That alone is enough to confound those, endowed with a little philosophical learning, who deny the very possibility of objective truth: those so-called relativists who see no reason to prefer scientific views over aboriginal myths about the world.

The earth is round but we still don't really know where it is floating.
And we are still quite a ways from getting to the nearest star.

The fact is that we know both a lot and also very little.

Luckily the stars still do inspire that feeling of wonder in us.
It has very little to do with wether the earth is round at all.
Our existence is the miracle.

CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:13:29 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Jim HTML
Message:
Dear Jim,
Maybe you are already doing this but I thought it might help so Brian doesn't have to fix your html's. Before you paste or type what ever you want in italics, type the opening tag and the closing tag and then put your courser in the middle. Just a suggestion. You may get your whole post in italics if you forget to get past the closing tag, and maybe that is what you did here but at least Brian wouldn't have to catch it.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 15:53:04 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: We need macros
Message:
Thanks for the suggestion. Scott also sent me a helpful guide on how to use Word to post but I confess I was begging off the forum right then and I haven't studied it carefully (the only way to study anything Scott gives you [compliment]).

But what we really need are a couple of macros we could use right here on the forum, ones for bold, italics, links and 'I know you are but what am I?' (the classic rhetorical device Ramakrishna used to taunt the other kids and realize god concomittently.)

Anyone know how to do this? Anyone want some service?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:01:57 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: CD speaks
Message:
>I just want to ask you one really, big entirely sincere 'So what?' So what if we don't have all the answers? It doesn't mean we don't have any does it? I get the impression that you take a strange comfort in certain mysteries, strange in that you seem to extrapolate the specific uncertainty they trigger into uncertainty about everything.

Jim,

I believe that there is a fundamental importance to the existance of great mysteries.
They have worthwhile lessons to teach us.
It goes deeper than words.

I think that it is great that new disoveries are made and details are revealed by the progress that occurs as people continue to build on the efforts of our predecessors.
It does seem inevitable.

The truths imposed by the great mysteries are also inevitable.
The simple wonder that they can inspire is most often overshadowed by the glitz and 'practicality' of technology.

Technology, logic, the mysteries, feeling, music and love all have an important role to play in our lives.

Remember, the problem is when too many priorities are biased towards the 'mind' or the 'heart'.
A balanced combination of the strengths of both offers the fullest pleasure of life to all of us.

I'll try to take some time to read Dawkin's comments.

'Xcuse me while I kiss the sky'

Regards,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 23:01:00 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: New age dogma, Chris?
Message:
>Remember, the problem is when too many priorities are biased towards the 'mind' or the 'heart'.
A balanced combination of the strengths of both offers the fullest pleasure of life to all of us.

Chris, do you recall when you first 'learnt' of this classic new-age dichotomy, the 'heart' and 'mind'? Do you know where it comes from? Are you sure it's real and not just notion some people like to toss around?

One thing's certain: true or not, the doctrine is used to stifle curiosity, thought and expresion. What an ingenious device -- a 'spiritual' authority confronted with discomfiting facts or questions can look his critic in the eye and admonish them for being too 'mind-oriented'. If he's lucky, the trick works and the questions are dropped.

Tell me you haven't seen this evasive move before. Of course you have. In the 'real' world, there aren't too many ways to deal with a question. You either answer it or you don't. In new age circles though, where thinking itself is suspect and often ridiculed, if you don't like a question you can just go straight for the 'sincerlty' or 'heart' or whatever of the questioner.

Now I'm not suggesting for a moment, Chris, that you would use this 'heart/mind' thing this way. Not intentionally, anyway. But I do ask you Chris if you haven't seen Maharaji use the maneouvre once or twice?

Indeed, haven't you come to expect just that from Maharaji? I sure have. Here's a little thought experiment -- imagine someone addressing Maharaji at a program one day and asking him one of the countless embarrassing questions you and I both know he'd rather not deal with. Let's say this guy or girl asks Maharaji about the many times he called himself Supreme Lord in Human Form. Assuming the questioner didn't get immediately ushered out of the hall, do you think Maharaji would actually deal straight up with the question? Or do you think that, instead, he'd start picking away at the guy's 'sincerity' (i.e. 'heart' quotient)?

It would be easy to say you have no idea Chris, but I'm not askign if you know for sure. I'm just asking you to speculate freely and honestly given all that you've experienced to date. My experience of Maharaji tells me that he would most definitely try to avoid the question on that basis. What do you think?

By the way, how did you feel when you learned that Satpal doesn't tell his devotees that he's got two other brothers and that, in fact, he used to worship one as the Lord for about eight years before he decided to claim the guruship himself? Honestly, Chris, how did that affect you?

And then this, Chris -- let's say you were conversant with one of Satpal's followers, like the good-natured, intelligent, mature devotee I called in England. He speaks of HIS Guru Maharaj Ji just like premies speak of their Maharaji. In his case, he did know that there were two other brothers but the story he got was that somehow Satpal had delegated propogation in the west to his kid brother for a while. He said he wasn't interested in history so much. Indeed he called it 'other peoples' problems'.

What would you say to him, Chris? Where would the heart and mind enter into it, if at all? How about the truth? What would you say to him?

I've been conversing with the young guy in Tanzania who put up the Satpal page. What would you say to him? He tells me that not only is the official history of Satpal exactly as he's posted it (he simply lifted the story from the intro to Hans Yog Prakash), but that even informally he's been lead to believe that there were only two sons, not four. He's pretty confused by all this, needless to say. What would you tell him?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 13:50:51 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I endorse thinking and love
Message:
>Chris, do you recall when you first 'learnt' of this classic new-age dichotomy, the 'heart' and 'mind'? Do you know where it comes from? Are you sure it's real and not just notion some people like to toss around?

When I was young I was the tops in math at my school and ran into notions such as infinity in a deep way.
I also had a severe accident with unusual associated experiences..
This combination caused me to look at my existence in a different way.

>Let's say this guy or girl asks Maharaji about the many times he called himself Supreme Lord in Human Form. Assuming the questioner didn't get immediately ushered out of the hall, do you think Maharaji would actually deal straight up with the question?

This question has been asked many many times before in public and given a direct answer.
Most of the issues you bring up have been around since I can remember back in 1972.

>One thing's certain: true or not, the doctrine is used to stifle curiosity, thought and expresion.

Many people do use doctrines for the purpose you have stated.
That is not my way.
I use ideas to accomplish things and for my enjoyment.
I encourage people to educate themselves and take advantage of their ability to think.
But, don't fall into the trap of regarding your ideas as the ultimate.
We all do fall into the trap and this becomes the source of the problems people have coexisting in this world and also the source of judgement and hatred.

I do not see M stifling curiousity, thought or exxpression at all.
He certainly acknowledges the importance of the mind but does focus his efforts on the realm of the heart.
M has said since 72 to look inside and find the answer there.
When you are able to look inside and have the gift of the mind becoming quiet, what is there to experience is only what really exists.
When the ripples stop on the lake you only have your true reflection to look at.

Children are great but sometimes you want them to shut up.
The mind is fantastic, but there is a time and place for the reflective inner experience, peace and love.

Cheers,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 22:55:42 (EST)
From: David de Camembert
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: CD
Subject: Euclid and infinity
Message:
I'm with you on this one Chris. But I do have a kind of mental model of the Universe and of God which simplifies things and also puts things into perspective.
First the Universe. The physical universe is definitely finite. It is expanding and that does produce some wierd effects which we cannot overcome or completely measure. Imagine you're a microbe on the skin of a balloon which is being blown up. The reality that you perceived would not be the total reality of the whole balloon but only what you could perceive of it. With the universe there are some problems because as everything is moving away from us at faster and faster speeds depending on how far away it is, then there reaches a point where very didtant galaxies are approaching the speed of light, or seem to be. Scientists always speak of the 'known' universe and this surely is an admition of how little we do know of it.
It is quite possible and indeed it is my theory that far distant galaxies are disappearing into another dimension of time and space, as we speak. So by our very limitations of time and space, we are unable to measure, fathom or comprehend such a big finite thing as the physical universe.
Finally God. I believe that God is evolving and is in a state of flux. We are moving with Him and as we grow, so does He. It would be ridiculious to perceive God as this seperate and distant entity set apart from us. He's more friendly than people realise and our life and experiences are intertwined with him. How can I put it? Everything is done for us. He's done all of this for us and He can bend the rules, create universes and do anything we like because He sees us as His equals, like His younger siblings. That's the distinct impression I've got. Just felt like saying that Chris.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:22:21 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: David de Camembert
Subject: Euclid and infinity
Message:
David:

You've just given a very good explanation of the proposition that the Universe is finite, but non-unitarily conceptual (which makes it seem like it's infinite). I believe you've also provided a description of a finite God. That one is up for grabs, but who knows?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 11:04:18 (EST)
From: Camembert
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Infinity & nothing
Message:
I'd go with that one. Who said God had to be infinite anyway? A non Euclidean universe is immesurable. Surely the light or force we call God is immesurable too. Have you ever tried to measure your consciousness? How wide is it? Or how long?

The notion of infinity is a notion of space that goes on forever. Yet there isn't a forever space or a boundery either. When I was a child I used to think that at the edge of the universe there would be a brick wall. But then I thought, what's beyond the wall?

We simply can't grasp the notion of nothing, so we have to assume that space goes on forever. That's a wrong assumption. Hard to comprehend that there is no wall around the universe and yet it isn't infinite either. What happens when you run out of space? There's nothing, no space, no time and no dimensions. Have you ever tried to comprehend what nothing actually is (or isn't)? I found it an interesting mental excersise, though fruitless. Because we still think of nothing as being either an empty space or the absence of what was once there. But ABSOLUTELY nothing, well that's still a hard one to understand.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 12:02:00 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Camembert
Subject: Infinity & nothing
Message:
But ABSOLUTELY nothing, well that's still a hard one to understand.

Dear Camembert
I find it hard to imagine the existence of absolutely nothing. Has it ever been measured or perceived or does it simply fit the theory?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 13:23:39 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Camembert
Subject: Infinity & nothing
Message:
>The notion of infinity is a notion of space that goes on forever. Yet there isn't a forever space or a boundery either. When I was a child I used to think that at the edge of the universe there would be a brick wall. But then I thought, what's beyond the wall?

The thing is the extent of infinity is endless outwards towards the 'end' of the universe and als inwards towards the realm where what is exists (looking into bigger and bigger microscopes, numbers inside of infinitly small intervals).

We do exist in the midst of it all.
I do believe that the practice of K is a chance to experience the simplilicity of what the existence offers rather than thinking about our models of what the existence is.

I have nothing against thinking and systems of math, science, logic, etc ...

The thoughts of the mind and the experience of pure existence both have their purpose in our lives.
I am sure you have heard it said that human beings are a wonderful combination of the finite and the infinite.

CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:14:59 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Infinity isn't.
Message:
Chris:

You had better give me more credit for what I know than you are giving to make yourself look good on the forum.

It would simply be tedious to go through the 'singly connected solid' proof that there is no such thing as an 'instantaneous tangent.' If you like, I'll give you a reference in Synergetics: The Geometry of Thinking.

Yes, the 'authorities' just haven't quite gotten there just yet - g!

Gotten where? They aren't going anywhere. They just blindly did what Euclid told them to do. What their grade school teachers told them Euclid told them to do. The only modest rebellion occurred at the turn of the century with hyperbolic geometry, which evolved by tossing out only one of Euclid's postulates (that parallel lines don't meet). The fact is that you can construct a very useful mathematics by throwing out all of Euclid's postulates. All of them. Let me be perfectly clear. Believing in dimensionless points is like believing in spooks or ghosts. Well, whatever gives you comfort.

Greater people than you and I have wrestled with the notions of Infinity and existance over the ages. After all this time about the only thing to be said is that there are things that exist that are beyond the capabilities of our logic to absolutely describe.

No doubt they are better than me, but are you sure they're better than you? I mean, most of those guys actually thought they knew something! All I'm saying is that there are no important questions involving infinity. Not any. There are some really really important questions involving the numbers 0, 1 and 2 however. These have real significance.

In some sense all notions are an illusion because the reality is just what is,...

... is all I'm saying. Infinity is not even an illusion. It just isn't.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:25:36 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Is this healthy?
Message:
Scott, are you sure this is good for you, all this infinity's-neat-so-Maharaji's-the-Lord stuff with Chris? What if you started taking it seriously? Besides, I think you're making Robyn nervous.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:45:09 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is this healthy?
Message:
I've tried to contain myself, but after all... I'm outfinite.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:26:15 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Infinity isn't.
Message:
... is all I'm saying. Infinity is not even an illusion. It just isn't.

Scott this is such an interesting statement.

Could you please explain in really simple layman's terms what you mean by that statement?

Also, when you say what isn't, can you say what is?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:25:31 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Infinity de-amped.
Message:
Jude:

I think I did that somewhore in this thread a few minutes ago, but maybe not. BTW, the term Plato (Socrates) used for this sort of shell game was 'sophistry.' CD would have us believe that all intellectual endeavor is sophistry, or pointless. (I'd say that's because he believes in spooky points, but it's too easy.) I think there is such a thing as 'honest' intellect, that is not sophistry. Of course I can't say 'what is.' I can hypothesize what is, and then as long as you or I or someone can't falsify the hypothesis we can regard it as true, conditionally. James Buchanan came up with the quaint phrase 'relatively absolute... absolute.' The peculiar thing is that it works.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:29:48 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: 'Somewhore'
Message:
Is that Freudian?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:11:13 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: 'Somewhore'
Message:
Actually VP, I type on a Dvorak keyboard in which the 'o' and the 'e' are next to each other on the home row. I often mix up the two when excited.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:00:42 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Euclid and infinity
Message:
Scott
Could you please explain what a shell game is?
Thanks
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:26:05 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Euclid and infinity
Message:
Hi Jude,

I've been wondering when some one would ask this question, so I'll try. I relate it to the business term 'shell corporation.' This is a corporation set up on paper only, sometimes in a country considered a 'tax haven' for the puposes of avoiding or evading taxes.

There is a board of directors, (ususally locals who know little or nothing about the person setting up the co) by-laws and other legalities necessary for a corporation. The whole point is that it is a front, and essentially an empty container, used for purposes other than those stated. There's no substance to it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:48:36 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Shell Game
Message:
Simpler than that -- a shell game is that thing where a carny puts a ball under one shell and then mixes that shell up with two others. The customer has to guess where the ball is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 18:56:52 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Shell Game
Message:
Well done. Clear, accurate and to the point.
You do know your stuff - g!

But, the game is also played on the streets of big cities for profit.

Cheers,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 21:52:23 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Thanks so much, Chris
Message:
Well done. Clear, accurate and to the point.
You do know your stuff - g!

Chris,

Thanks so much for the compliment. I put a lot into that research and I guess it shows. I'm thinking of doing a book, you know. Really, there's enough there for two.

But tell me, Chris, should I expect an answer from you to my other post above ('New age dogma, Chris?')?

I'd really like your response if you've got a moment.

Thanks,

Jim
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:33:42 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: Mindless!
Message:
Dear Gerry,
I am so mindless I could still be a premie! I hate it when my mind is already on vacation on Monday morning. It wasn't Jim's post I saw it was yours and Jim's is just a roit! I love him when he's funny!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:31:29 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: A shell game.
Message:
Jude:

You've never seen the great Harry Andersen do this? The shell game is a classic low-tech magic trick. In the conventional version you have three walnut shells and a pea. The pea goes under one of the shells, which are then shuffled around while the 'mark' attempts to keep track of the pea. Bets are placed, and of course the 'mark' always loses because he doesn't know the trick. He always guesses the wrong shell. In some versions the con artist will show that two of the three shells are empty and then ask for bets. Of course there's nothing under the third shell either. The pea has been palmed, or inhaled, or drops off the edge of the table, or disappears into Chris' infinity.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:43:34 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: A shell game.
Message:
Yes but for some reason in the context of the discussion I got an image of empty shells everywhere - sort of like everything being sucked out and just the shell remaining.

How that could be a game is a worry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:01:12 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: A shell game.
Message:
Yes but for some reason in the context of the discussion I got an image of empty shells everywhere - sort of like everything being sucked out and just the shell remaining.... How that could be a game is a worry.

Apparently it is making people nervous. I'm a philomorph, so to me it was just good clean fun. The shell has an inside and an outside. It also has concavity and convexity. If you make cuts in it and gradually flatten it out the angle of the cuts will sum to 360 degrees (or 720 degrees for the whole walnut shell). All that interesting opposition in just one little 'thing.' Who cares about the pea! To me, 'infinity' is precisely accountable as 720 degrees. You can put a pea inside that, or not. There an no hidden or sinister shadows anywhere.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:07:37 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: A shell game.
Message:
'To me, 'infinity' is precisely accountable as 720 degrees. '

Is that like 720 degrees of Separation?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:53:49 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: A shell game.
Message:
Jude:

Shows you how out of touch I am. That's the title of a movie isn't it? I don't even know what the film is about. It makes sense though, doesn't it? The funny thing is that 720 degrees is also two cycles, which is the same thing as the symbol for infinity. Hmmm...

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 05:25:37 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: A shell game.
Message:
'Shows you how out of touch I am. That's the title of a movie isn't it? I don't even know what the film is about. It makes sense though, doesn't it? The funny thing is that 720 degrees is also two cycles, which is the same thing as the symbol for infinity'

That is the next thing I was going to ask you - what does 720 degrees look like so I can visualise it because the last time I studied maths it only went as far as 360 so now my concept has doubled - you have in fact blown my mind and my reality to pieces...

Yes, the movie was called 6 degrees of separation and it was about the concept that everyone in the world is ony 6 people removed from each other...
It has nothing to do with infinity it was just word-play...then again....maybe everything in the universe is only 720 degrees apart....and if you fold that infinity symbol back on itself you could get a spiral effect?..and if you squashed it up everything would be as one...which I believe is how our universe started, as a small compact disc kind of thing
Correct me if I'm wrong...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:24:35 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Bi-cycles
Message:
Jude:

I like the idea of making the bicycle the symbol for infinity. I mean, it really doesn't work all that well, but if you're a bike dorque (and what person who wears bike shorts isn't) it's kind of cool.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:36:55 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Bi-cycles
Message:
On your bike you dork! Your spelling is abominable unless that's antique french or something?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 12:33:58 (EST)
From: jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Question
Message:
Scott
I am interested in what your experience was with M. Had you studied before you heard about him & what were you looking for when you first got involved?
I mean if it's not too personal
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:36:31 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Scott T.
Subject: God is Food
Message:
You're absolutely right Scott (as usual). CD, in repeated posts over many months seems to have put all his faith into this notion of the 'infinite', which science cannot explain, but can only be 'experienced' (by premies, presumably). I have yet to be convinced that there is anything even slightly infinite (can you have 'slightly infinite'?!) in the experience of meditation, or watching Mr Rawat on video.

Infininty - if it is about anything - deals with both time and space.

In terms of time, meditation lasts as long as you can keep it up, and you don't even feel any different the next morning from how you'd feel if you hadn't meditated; videos last until the tape runs out and everyone says Jai Satchitanand and goes home to bed.

In terms of space - well - you tell me... It is not as if you actually sail past Alpha Centuri whilst propping up your beragon with your eyelids.

Or am I missing something?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:57:20 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: None
To: Scott
Subject: Infinitely quantum
Message:
It's like new-agers calling everything vaguely unbelievable 'quantum', secure in the knowledge that the listener is equally vague on such matters.

Shri David Smith Gobshite Ji invoked the mysteries of quantum mechanics at my Knowledge session to reassure to the more scientifically oriented aspirant that GMJ was indeed what he was.

Fooled me, for one...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 00:18:21 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Brainiac
Message:
J creedon says at the end: do they mark the birth...or another
vain attempt to...
I say niether.

Austin attempts to explain it all through the buddist-drenched
blabber of zen logic.
The notion of enlightenment as an assumption of some conceptual
unity is one of the core elements of hinduism and in fact
the main conerstone of thier confusion.
He is another potential rawat backer as he thinks that the
power that is sponsering the show is less concious of itself than
that HAL 2000 computer in 2001 the movie.

He thinks like all eastern buddha/hindu/guru confused brains,
that we are to just recognise or more correctly, we are to
just 'identify' with the divine and we are realised.
'awakening to that fundamental unity with that eternal universe'

The guy is poisoned with the eastern crapola.
The power of life has no personality and conciousness to speak
of, and according to the eastern delusion, Austin's zen
godhead, and rawat, and all those guys, they plant thier idea
of life in front of me as if all the smart sounding words
like 'enlightenment' and 'realise' are the facts.
Limiting the power of life by thier ideas- or at least
trying to limit my subtle recognition of the interaction
of the force of life in my days.

Rawat is not afraid to pretend he is god because he thinks
of the power in a similar stupid way as Austin.
What does HE have to worry about? There IS no concious
power to have to worry about or take into consideration.
HE can play master, HE can be the superiour power in person.
WHY? Because he has 'identified' with the divine and
like buddha, the universe is all YOU, YOU, YOU.

What a far cry from reality.
The power is way cooler than that.
It is SO smart and although we are part, the fun is in
seeing the smart power and all the great features of life.
The full gamut of those features are lost on the
victims of the eastern thinking.

Sure, lots of people make the concious power seem either
distant, dumb, or rediculously religious.
They want to get us to join thier thought army.
I say I have done that it is a challenge to keep all the
world out of the way of my seeing the nature of the life force
for myself.

Of course this is where the eastern thinkers clamor for acceptance
and say 'there are many paths to the one' or some such
nonsense. I exist, the power exists, I am NOT here to pretend
I am enlightened. Reality is stareing me in the face,
And everyone wants me to put on thier stupid self made glasses.
Distorting my direct experience with confused lenses.

Of course some people are sick of religious glasses and so they
make glasses that have NO religious elements in the lenses.
I can relate, but better to have NO glasses but instead, to love
being here and enjoying the features and frankly, the
companionship of the smart and concious life force.
Or something like that.
b
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 01:02:10 (EST)
From: Cheddar
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jim
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Who was it who said that if there was no God then we'd invent one?

Scientists say that if the universe had expanded a milisecond faster or slower at the beginning then all of the heavy elements that support a life giving universe would not have come into being. I guess you could say it was a bit of luck that the universe expanded at the right speed.

Rather than try to figure out whether we've invented God or not, how about understanding the mystery of our own awarness? Why are we aware? Do you really believe that it is a biological phenomenon that we have consciousness? If so, what exactly causes consciousness? We can create neural networks that can learn similar to the capacity of a fly or ant. But is the neural net conscious? If you believe it is conscious then we have different ideas about what consciousness is. I don't believe a neural net will ever know it exists. It will never know what it is doing. Commander Data wouldn't agree though but he only is programed to act like he has consciousness. There's a difference between acting like you're aware and actually being aware.

So to me, the most importand and more easily solvable question is to evaluate whether consciousness is purely a biological result of all the amino acids coming together or whether consciousness is a seperate thing to a biological phenomenon. It it could be proved beyond all doubt that consciousness is a seperate thing to a biological reactions then it would mean that we exist independantly of our biological bodies. If that's the case then consciousness need not be limited to just the known physical universe and such a thing as God, could be a possibility.

As far as I know though, science has yet to come to an agreement upon what consciousness actually is. Therefore we have to walk down other avenues in our search for answers. These avenues may not be orthodox science but nevertheless, they can be scientific.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 01:36:49 (EST)
From: milk
Email: None
To: Cheddar
Subject: by-product
Message:
Good points milk-by product,
the question what is conciousness is interesting.
and is it seperate from biological phenomena is
a smart question. After I read that I thought of
the qualities a very young child has and that very
special quality kids under 6 years old have.
A 5 year old can be so loving and sweet that a whole room
full of tired or pissed off people can end up smiling
by the special something they got.
It could be said I guess that it helps to insure thier survival.
It helps to keep you from killing them and keeps you feeding
them until they are safely independent.
But there is something to that quality that is extra
special.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:17:32 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Cheddar
Subject: Brain God
Message:
I am new to this Forum. I saw a program attempting to show that 'new science' is closer to religion than science has ever been, which discussed the 'miracle' of the speed the galaxy expanded at which enabled life to exist here. it also said science can prove that once a molecule has been in contact with another molecule, even if one of them goes to the other side of the moon, when something affects the first molecule the second shows an affect. sorry if I'm being too wordy but there were lots of exciting thoughts in this program.
What I have been puzzling about lately about K is that M said K is for the living and my consciousness can experience the infinite/divine while I am alive..as though I can only benefit from K while I am alive and when I die its' all over?
also I have appreciated very much reading so far
appreciate some feedback
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:32:50 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Hi Jude,

Welcome to the forum.

I am curious as to what do you believe will happen to you when you expire?

GAGBWY

-gumby
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:58:40 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: Brain God
Message:
I know this was a convoluted way to join the converation but that's me at the moment!
Well I read this book called 'who dies' and it said a part of us is never born and therefore never dies. Well if M is saying the part of me that was born can connect with god now through Knowledge, yet if that part dies then the only point of Knowledge is bliss now. Im finding it hard to frame what I really want to say. I suppose I'm saying that I can see that if M is meant to be god incarnate then why does he believe in the 'illusion' of now? and the separation (permanen) of consciousness and the divine. I don't expect you to answer except from your own perspective. I just want to discuss some stuff.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 03:25:42 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Hi Jude,

Thanks for your reply. I shall comply with your expectation in answering from my perspective. I'm not sure how I would do otherwise. :)

When I look at m in different lights many, many inconsistencies come up. When someone is a false teacher, it is hard to make sense out of what they teach, IF I expend the energy and really look at what is being taught. If I don't the possibility of being deceived is great. I believe m is a false teacher. I believe he is steering people in a direction that can lead to unnecessary suffering.

Where are you currently?(In life I mean) Also, did my last question to you offend you, as you didn't answer it.

GAGBWY

-gumby
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 05:01:44 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: Brain God
Message:
gumby
thanks for answering me. I am not only new to the forum but new to the internet. I didn't realised you had answered me as the sequence of letters in the index appears out of order. Also I am probably brain dead.

No, you did not offend me at all. I was delighted someone answered me. What I meant about your own perspective was I realised it may have sounded like I wanted you to address Maharaji's issue for him. (?)

Anyway, where I am in life is - I am struggling with living in the real world. I am struggling with issues about money, owning my own home, being single, feeling my consciousness has been raised (and aware of my heart at times) and yet no-one to talk to really.

I have done a lot of work on myself for quite a few years. I heard about M after a lot of struggle. I thought it might be a time of grace in my life and forgiveness for all the mistakes I have made.

Lately I am thinking about my values in life. I am trying not to be paranoid about the world or to believe this is an age of darkness. I am trying to be real.

Communicating honestly with others would help a lot I think.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 03:16:41 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: Brain God
Message:
gumby

can you please tell me what GAGBWY means, also?
probably means as much to me as my ramblings have meant to you?

Jude
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 03:29:31 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Hi Jude,

GAGBWY = Grace And God Be With You.

-gumby
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 04:11:39 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: Brain God
Message:
I have decided to introduce myself. I am a relatively new premie. Recently I have been wondering when I will experience the kind of bliss that is described in the practice of knowledge. I experience peace and calm but not bliss. I have never seen light - maybe a glimpse.
It is hard to talk about this topic and I am so glad I have found this forum.

I find it hard to reconcile the split between knowledge and my emotional/life issues. I also find it hard to accept how wealthy Maharaji is. An 'old' premie told me M would 'shake my tree' when I received knowledge and I guess I believed him. For a while I expected some miracles in my life. When things did happen, like desires would manifest and then turn out to not make me happy, I thought this meant I was learning desires are useless.

But if this is so why I don't I experience true feelings of contentment just by following M? (I do sometimes just after a video).
I have done a lot of service. I have been quite dedicated I think. I have told many people about M. I have felt it was my mission in life to do that. I have felt the only purpose of my existence now is to become enlightened before I die. I think this is a sad way to think.

Around me are pretty devout premies. There is no-one to discuss these feelings with but now I have found you guys.

You are all very intelligent and to the point. I am not but would like to join in if possible a discussion.

I do love Maharaji because of the feelings of devotion he has brought out in me, which I never felt before. A lot of the perspective in this forum seems to be the feeling that this devotion belongs to god and not maharaji. I am glad if untruths about him can be exposed to me because I need to know what is real and what is not real. Thankyou if any of you can assist me with that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:45:29 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Video as addiction
Message:
Jude,
How old are you? I get the impression that you are around my age maybe? (Thirties?)

I thought it was interesting that you sometimes feel good after you watch a video again. Think about this. I don't want to insult you by saying this, but think about how people addicted to drugs feel. Pretty lousy during the periods where they don't have the drug. Then they take the drug and feel really good for a while afterwards. I am not saying that YOU are addicted to M, because I don't know you, but this behaviour as you have described it is something for you to consider.

If it makes you feel any better, I credit all of your good feelings after watching a video to you and your own mind, not to M. Your mind does the devotion which is a one way thing, IMHO. This means that your mind can make you feel good without M or the videos. We do not need programs or anything else to enjoy our lives. I think things can be simple. M complicates things while trying to deliver a simple message. It is ironic.

I agree that there is a God who has absolutely nothing to do with M. I think you can have very high standards and morals in your life without M. Last I heard, he doesn't really even address these issues. Glad that you are here, Jude. VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:04:50 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
VP

I am 42 but emotionally probably still in my 30's. I wasted a lot of time earlier on drugs.

Yes I agree with what you say.

Yes I value standards. After spending time in the dog eat dog drug world where there was no trust or honour among thieves, and I suppose after an unstable childhood originally, I do aim very sincerely to have integrity even though I know I personally don't always have it.

This issue of integrity is incredibly important.

Lately I have realised it is up to me how I live and what I think. I was worried for a long time about this being 'the age of darkness' the Hindus talk about, and that M is this one shining light. It sort of connected to fears about the end of the world coming (due to pollution/ozone layer) and the feeling that we all need to 'get on the arc' (spiritually) before this happens!

I have an inkling now of how this catastrophic thinking is part of my own mental condition, my own despair. But at least I can see that now and don't need to project it onto the world.

Of course when all is dark, the earth needs a saviour, one who comes at these times when we have all forgotten our god-nature. But is the earth really that dark?

Sometimes I long for the green fields of my childhood (unpolluted) but that isn't the current reality. That is innocence. I now live in an imperfect world, along with everybody else, and always have. I have really enjoyed hearing the love some of the people on the forum have described for their families.

I am in the same boat. The main source of real love in my life is my child. When I was really ill and heard about M, I was told the story about 'leaving your baggage at the door' and I not only thought this meant all my furniture (I gave it all away and moved house), but my attachments to my child.

But when you feel real love for your child (husband, whoever) you are not feeling attachment at that time. You are really seeing them for who they are, a a miracle in a crazy world, full of hope and optimism.

I was told you can't love what is impermanent but then again it's all I have to love.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:16:16 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
Jude,
This world can make it hard not to be cynical. There is so much around us that is dark. You are right about that! People are not what they seem. They let us down. We let ourselves down.

There is good in the world, too. I think it takes some work to see it sometimes. You don't need M to see it. If you have a child, then you can see the beauty in the world in a very simple and amazing way! That is my experience with my children. You can look up at the stars without thinking about the ozone layer each time.

Jude, You really care about things which is one thing I value in people. Be easy on yourself:) You seem to be a decent person. We have all made mistakes. I have to go, but we can talk more later. VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 09:48:48 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
Jude:

I have an inkling now of how this catastrophic thinking is part of my own mental condition, my own despair.... Of course when all is dark, the earth needs a saviour, one who comes at these times when we have all forgotten our god-nature. But is the earth really that dark?

Barbara Tuchman wrote a book called Through A Distant Mirror about life in the Middle Ages. My generation grew up thinking the end of the world through nuclear annihilation was right around the corner. Tuchman's book threw that into some perspective by relating a time in human history when a large proportion of the European population was dying of Bubonic Plague. It makes our era look positively secure in comparison. During the Roman era Palestine had a succession of eschatological messianic movements that were connected with deliverance from the brutality of Roman rule. John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were only two in this series. This end-of-the-world thinking has been around for a long long time.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:22:26 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
Nice to hear from you, Scott.

I am feeling a bit sad that these beautiful ideas are perhaps just stories. I actually wrote a short book out of my devotion to m. which I was hoping would be published, hinting that 'he' is here.

I made it the story of someone who searches and searches but in all the wrong places, and then finally when they are about to give up, they find truth.

But even since then as time has passed i have looked back on all the 'chapters' of my life and realised I did learn somethign from them all. It's not black and white, though in my story it was.

I actually met a guy who said he would read the story, who had publishing connections. Grace, I thought.

When I looked at it a few months later it looked like such facile crap. I hate to say it, but it did. It is so precious.

That feeling of love, of trust, of faith is so vulnerable and truly precious. I hope I don't lose that from my vocabulary, now I have found it but perhaps I will stop needing to attribute it to something external. Somethign tells me I had to go though this whole process though (and I'm probably not through yet).

I must say you guys are all extremely articulate and clear. Do you think the (past or now) practice of knowledge has contributed to that in any way? Because I feel very grateful to have found this forum and read what I have read here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 18:31:25 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jude
Subject: Articulate and clear
Message:
Dear Jude -
You wrote:

I must say you guys are all extremely articulate and clear. Do you think the (past or now) practice of knowledge has contributed to that in any way? Because I feel very grateful to have found this forum and read what I have read here.

First thing, I am very glad that you like the forum and are grateful for it - thanks very much for saying that. But, I would have to say that you probably can't attribute the articulacy and clarity of the people on the forum to knowledge. A lot of us have gone back to school after being premies and learned how to write. A lot of us were creative people who didn't need to go to school to learn how to express ourselves verbally. (And some of us don't express ourselves so well...but being on this forum helps! Maybe you can attribute it to the need to communicate on the forum - who knows?)

I said this earlier, but I don't think your clarity and articulateness leave anything to be desired - I think you express yourself very well.

Take care of yourself,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:53:59 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
I am feeling a bit sad that these beautiful ideas are perhaps just stories.

M says many very beautiful things. Some of them may even be true.

However, keep in mind that a confidence man needs to gain your confidence. He will tell you what you most want to hear in order to do that.

M is a demonstrable liar. Don't accept what he says merely because he says it. Evaluate the truth or falsehood of what you hear by yourself. And don't let yourself think something is true just because you'd really really like it to be true.

-Still
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 16:00:53 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Still Crazy
Subject: Really that beautiful?
Message:
Jude,

I wonder if all those stories are really all that alluring to begin with? Think about it. Yes, the Hindu model of self-evaporation has some appeal; awakening into a conscious universe of love thick with perfect cosmic intimacy. (Shit, just saying that reminds me of how much I wanted that dream. Did I ever?)

Where was I? Oh yeah, think of the downside to the merging paradigm: no personal life, no quirky life, no privacy, no autonomy, and on and on. I no longer have to dream about being just one little bead of sweat on my fat master's upper lip. I've got better things to do. Whatever they are, they're better.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 18:15:03 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
Jude, I was told once to give away my child by an initiator so he could be raised into a mahatma. I didn't. I was told my husband and child were not MY husband and child so I needed detachment. I divorced and moved to a premie house, then married a premie and later divorced again. I believe that love may be the only thing that IS permanent, that it exists in us and is why we exist. Loving people who are close to us merely make it simpler to experience love. Love is still there inside when outer relationships dissolve. Blessings to you, Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:07:01 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Love
Message:
' I believe that love may be the only thing that IS permanent, that it exists in us and is why we exist. Loving people who are close to us merely make it simpler to experience love. Love is still there inside when outer relationships dissolve. '

Carol I have just realised what a wonderful thing you said about love. thank you so much and for all the other sharing you have been doing. What a lot you have been through, and you say you work at a hospice for the dying.

You are certainly qualified to speak about love.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:39:53 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: jude
Message:
what were you asked in the knowledge session.
who was your assistant instructor before the so called knowledge
session?
during your meetings, is that when you were told about not loving
the impermanent?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:22:36 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: jude
Message:
what were you asked in the knowledge session.
who was your assistant instructor before the so called knowledge
session?
during your meetings, is that when you were told about not loving
the impermanent?

1. I was asked to give the three vows, if that's what you mean
2. Belkis (don't know if right spelling)
3. I don't know where I got that from.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 20:06:10 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
'I was told you can't love what is impermanent but then again it's all I have to love.'

Very true statement. Did you give up your possessions and your relationship with your child to pursue BM and K? I know other people who did the same thing, or at least had the same ideas, including me to some extent. During my involvement with M, relationships with other people, including parents, spouse, mate, etc. was looked down upon, as something 'less' than the supposedly higher, and the only 'real,' love relationship with BM as the perfect master. It was a very destructive idea and caused lots of pain and suffering for people, both among premies and among the people who loved them. Sounds like you've realized that the idea that you can only love certain beings or in certain ways, that M sold us is a pile of crap, which he hoisted on us for his own personal benefit.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 21:56:16 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Video - off on a tangent
Message:
'I was told you can't love what is impermanent but then again it's all I have to love.'

JW thanks for your post and sharing

I want to reply to you and have found it very difficult. I realised I am wanting to avoid looking at these things. However after reading Jim's Letter to ... I feel encouraged.

I mean it's good for me to get it out, whether I can remember whether M said it or a Premie said it or who said this stuff, this is what I heard and it affected me a lot. I'm not taking potshots at M and can't quote what he said when I first heard him 5 years ago as I had a mental breakdown and clinical depression and my mind was a mess.

That's what made me feel like I was saved - everything was a mess but inside there would be salvation - truth, love, peace, eternity....just like what Jesus promised when he came.

I was told that attachments to people, cats etc were attachments to Maya, to nothing. I was told the idea of leave your baggage at the door and I took it to mean detach yourself from your possessions and other people. (Later as I got well I thought - oh, he only ever meant to stop thinking when you practice. It's kind of tricky stuff, isn't it)

Then later came the story from the Bhagavad Gita about the battleground. Again, the family was on one side and Arjuna on the other. Recently M has said he thinks it is the battle between the heart and mind that the book describes. But at that time I was told by premies it meant the battle about your attachments.

Recently I expressed sadness at the death of a public figure, who I had been reading about for years and felt sad about her death. This premie said to me coldly that she was the living dead (because she was not awakened).

How very strange all of this stuff is when I talk about it. How glad I am to talk about it and listen to you guys talk about it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:28:30 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jude
Subject: Attachments
Message:
Hi Jude - I was really touched by your post. I'm trying to remember if those ideas about attachment were floating around when I was a premie, and I remember that they were. It was worse for the ashram premies because they had to take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; but I do remember feeling that all of us should be detached from our families, our non-premie friends, anything that didn't have to do with M and K. We were SUPPOSED to be attached to M. In fact, I think that we weren't supposed to be attached to all these other people so we could be more attached to M.

Of course, I was never able to attain this ideal. I was attached to my family and attached to my friends whether they were premies or not. I know that attachment to people (or cats!) eventually does bring suffering, because you have to leave each other at some point, but I think that what I get from my 'attachments' is worth it. I am very attached to my husband, my cats, my friends, my family (I don't have kids), and I don't try not to be attached to them. I was attached to my dad, and when he died, I was really sad, but it didn't kill me or mess up my life or anything. It was just natural grief.

The kind of attachments that I think might be worth breaking are those to material objects, and attachments to things working out a certain way. (I also have many of these kind of attachments, and I DO work getting rid of them at time!) Some of these attachments definitely cause suffering that seems to be out of proportion to their worth. But for me, attachments to people and animals are worth all the suffering that they cause me.

By the way, I definitely remember being told that it was OK for Maharaji to have so many material things and such a nice lifestyle because 'he wasn't attached to it'! Did you ever hear that one? Wonder if it's true or not?!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:40:22 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Attachments
Message:
'By the way, I definitely remember being told that it was OK for Maharaji to have so many material things and such a nice lifestyle because 'he wasn't attached to it'! Did you ever hear that one? Wonder if it's true or not?'

Yes definitely I heard that one. So if I was concerned about his Rolex, that would mean I had a problem, not him.

Also, it is an insidious way really of hinting that I too can have all that stuff once I lose my attachment to it. Kind of queen of the world, wandering around free and rich.

Travelling all over the world to be at his feet.

Everyone says things will be taken care of, like if you really want to go and see him and can't afford the ticket - trust and you will get there.

There is quite a bit of poverty also in the premie community and rich premies are what everyone likes to gossip about. Everyone wants to be a rich premie, I would say.

It's all part of the 'favour' thing that somehow you will be rewarded for your devotion and will get favours. This premie told me when I got K people would be attracted to me like a magnet, attracted to my power etc.

So powerful, magnetic, favoured and fortunate I would be.

Not.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:05:03 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Material Attachments
Message:
Jude,
And don't forget that Rolex, too. You are giving up a lot here-(just kidding.) I always heard that line about trust and you will get there, to the programs. The premies would get so blissed out because the insurmountable poverty had been overcome by grace. Someone would always give my premie family members a ride, a car to sleep in, etc.

You are going to love this one, JW. Once at the breakfast table some premie relatives were bragging about how they had stolen something to get the money they needed to get to a program. My Dad made this very serious speech not taking his eyes off of these folks. He calmly yet firmly told them that in this family stealing was not to be tolerated nor glorified. He respected their right to have their own beliefs, but the breaking the law and his moral code then bragging about it in front of his children was not going to be tolerated. I never saw adults shrink or grow quiet so quickly. Then I think he asked about my math test or something and everyone went right on eating. I thought the premies were going to leave, but I guess they were really hungry.

When he first started to speak, I was really embarrassed for them, but then I remember seeing my Dad grow about 10 feet during that speech. I remember thinking that he had the guts to tell someone that he wouldn't stand for them trying to lessen who we were as people. That was very cool to me.

Jude, what do people say about the rich premies? You have got my curiousity peaked now.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 23:25:01 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Material Attachments
Message:
What do they say about rich premies?

Sounds like a good title for a novel to me

I must go now (and I am getting way too attached to this Forum)

Read you later
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:28:57 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: ISP Attachments
Message:
Jude:

I meant to ask you what sort of ISP you have. It sounds like you have 'metered service' in the sense that you pay by your online time (once you start paying). There are unlimitted service providers as well. Erol's is one around here, and I think you can sign up for three years at about $10 a month (more for shorter contract periods). There's also Earthlink. I'm currently using the University's until the 15th at which time I'll have to get another meal ticket.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 05:29:16 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: ISP Attachments
Message:
Thankyou
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:02:25 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: ISP Attachments
Message:
Just curious - what are you doing at uni? I have re-read some of the material about infinity you included and realised I should have taken more time to try and understand what you were saying rather than jump in with idiotic replies.
Maybe I could learn something.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 08:36:49 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Academic attachments
Message:
Jude:

I have just completed a Ph.D. in Public Policy, but have an undergrad degree in Design Science, obtained under the tutelage of Arthur Loeb who was R. Buckminster Fuller's co-author in the Synergetics series. Arthur has written a number of design and math books himself and, to me, is a sort of bridge between Synergetics (Fuller's version, not Hawking's) and the more conventional Euclidean oriented framework. If I were wont to cut Chris any slack, I'd direct him to Arthur's books, but Arthur's view of infinity would be too practical for him.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:32:38 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Material Attachments
Message:
Jude, I don't know if you were ever told this, but for about the first 12 years or so Big M was in the West we used to sing a long song to him called 'Arti.' It had about 15 or 20 verses and was translated from Hindi.

One of the verses began: 'Anger, desires, attachments, rob us or eternal life, take away our heavenly life.'

Back then, Big M was explicit that 'attachments' were a bad thing. The biggest 'attachments' for a devotee were things like family, personal relationships, friends, personal satisfaction and ambition, money, food, and, or course, sex. These were the things we were supposed to give up to follow and be devoted to Big M. He, and his mahatmas and initiators was very explicit about this.

Now, I think Big M has to have more PR in the way he expresses these things, or people would never get involved with him. But I think the basic implication is still there.

I was raised a pretty strict Catholic, and I think I have always been very hard on myself, expecting myself to be perfect or feeling I always needed to try harder. I always got straight A's, was first in my class, was a debate champion, on the tennis team and I used to go to mass every day as a kid. I was the kind of goody kid that might make you want to throw up.

Anyhow, I approached being a premie the same way. I took what Maharaji said very literally and I tried to do it. I figured, since he's god, why compromise? Why do it half way? So, I tried to cut off all my 'attachments' as part of this 'devotion.' And the entire 10 years I was a premie, I never heard Big M even once discourage this. In fact, he just encouraged a 'one-pointed' devotion to HIM. It was a very damaging to me and many others in a lot of ways. He, of course, benefited to a big extent financially by this 'devotion' and lack of 'attachment' by a large number of his devotees.

And that's also correct. Big M isn't 'attached' and therefore, he can have sex, money, expensive material possessions, family and all the rest of it and it's OKAY for him. That's because the rules don't apply to HIM. He's not 'of' the world, only in the world. He's a lotus. Yeah, right!

But, as you know, I never even met Big M and he didn't know I was alive, and I have since discovered that he couldn't care less weather I'm alive or not. All that devotion was really misplaced. And all the broken 'attachments' caused me and many others a lot of unnecessary pain.

So, you can talk about it all you like, I think most of us exes will understand. Many of us have been through similar things in our devotion to the lord of the universe, aka ' the perfert scheister of our time.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:12:42 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jude
Subject: Hello to Jude
Message:
Dear Jude - I have read most of the messages that you posted this morning, and wanted to answer. I just woke up and had my first cup of coffee, so I don't know how 'intelligent and to the point' I will be, but I'll give it a try! (By the way, you sound quite intelligent to me.)

You wrote
Recently I have been wondering when I will experience the kind of bliss that is described in the practice of knowledge. I experience peace and calm but not bliss. I have never seen light - maybe a glimpse.

I practiced knowledge for five years, and had the same experience that you did. I never experienced 'bliss', as was promised. I believe now that the 'knowledge' is just composed of four traditional Raj Yoga meditation techniques. I don't think there is anything special about it. I don't think that Maharaji's 'Grace' is transferred to one in the knowledge session, or anything like that. I personally have found other meditation and relaxation techniques that work better for me.

You wrote:
I find it hard to reconcile the split between knowledge and my emotional/life issues. I also find it hard to accept how wealthy Maharaji is. An 'old' premie told me M would 'shake my tree' when I received knowledge and I guess I believed him. For a while I
expected some miracles in my life...But if this is so why I don't I experience true feelings of contentment just by following M?

I also expected miracles or at least contentment in my life as a result of receiving knowledge. This did not happen I had some emotional problems resulting from being the child of two alcoholics, I was relatively socially dysfunctional, and I felt bad about myself all the time. Knowledge was supposed to help me with those things, and it did not. I had so much anxiety in my life that I couldn't even calm down enough to meditate. I had so many problems with trusting people that I never really trusted Maharaji (which was actually lucky, as it turns out). What really helped me was therapy and counseling with some good counselors (there are a lot of mediocre ones out there too, so you have to be careful).

You wrote:
I have felt the only purpose of my existence now is to become enlightened before I die. I think this is a sad way to think.

I am still struggling with the 'purpose of my existence' concept. I don't really want enlightenment anymore, or at least the traditional concept of enlightenment. (I liked Lg's definition of it in the thread above). My goal is to live my life unencumbered with some of the garbage in my unconcious mind. I want to be happy, and I want to be helping other living things in some concrete way. I feel good about my life when I'm doing that.

I used to feel that telling people about knowledge was really 'helping' them, because Maharaji was going to bring peace to the world. I don't believe that anymore. It was hard, because as you said in one of your messages, so many bad things happen in the world. I get very depressed about this sometimes. I think it's important to admit that these bad things happen, and to try and change them if you can (at least on a very small level), but I work really hard not to let them get me down. When I feel bad about this, I try and focus on people I know that are good people and do unselfish and kind things for others.

You wrote
I do love Maharaji because of the feelings of devotion he has brought out in me, which I never felt before. A lot of the perspective in this forum seems to be the feeling that this
devotion belongs to god and not maharaji. I am glad if untruths about him can be exposed to me because I need to know what is real and what is not real.

I am an agnostic (which means I don't know if God exists or not), however I tend to believe that there is some sort of higher power in the universe. I don't think that Maharaji is any more of a manifestation of this higher power than you are or than I am or than anyone else is. I do feel that devotion to Maharaji himself is misdirected. It's sort of sad, because so many of the premies have very beautiful feelings of devotion to him, and I don't think he deserves it.

I hope this tells you a little bit about what I think. By the way, I am 42 also (and so are several other people on the forum). I have also read that book 'Who Dies' and liked it very much - the author (Stephen Levine) is quite non-judgemental and accepting.

Take care - glad you found the forum,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:56:59 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: gumby
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Dear Jude and gumby,
Thanks for asking what GAGBWY means, I always thought it had something to do with gumby and just couldn't figure it out!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 22:33:22 (EST)
From: bill
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: Bra in
Message:
gagbwy
Maybe you might want to try and rework the wording on that.
Actually I guess I could stand to hear a definition of grace.
If I had an idea of what that was I have forgotten.
Also, since the concious power is always present and
accounted for, it is kind of off to say god be with YOU.
More like the other way around.
Im glad he asked. I didnt know what those letters meant either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 00:47:20 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: GAGBWY
Message:
Hi Bill,

Thanks for posting. It is a good and a very valid question, that you ask. I believe that Grace is that which goes beyond reason, beyond expectation, beyond all odds, beyond all limits, That which can really only be a direct gift from God. You know the kind of story, where someone is hit by a car, run over by a second car, basically left to die, then comes back and runs a marathon two years later. Or some youngster growing up in some inner-city ghetto, both parents are crack addicts, but somehow the youngster pulls through, survives, and becomes a nationally respected businessman. Or, family where father is sick, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. 1st is blind, 2nd is dead, 3rd is deaf, 4th has TB. She finds she's pregnant again. She is in an extreme situation. She keeps the child. The child's name is Beethoven. This, I guess, is my definition of Grace. What is your defintion?

In regards to your observation about God being with you, I do agree that God is omnipresent, so me wishing, in my posts that God be with you, may be redundant, but the intention is not maligned.
Does it offend you? I guess it might be a little akin to saying: Have a nice day to someone, in that who the heck am I to tell you what kind of a day to have, but most people would not be offended by it.

May Grace be multiplied many times in your life.

-gumby
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 01:47:27 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gumby
Subject: GAGBWY
Message:
Hey Gumby,

The idea of any kind of consciousness able to help like that and not doing so at all other times seems like the antithesis of 'grace'; the antithesis of caring.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:55:17 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: GAGBWY
Message:
Jim, I think you have to ask. I think that's the key. And what comes next isn't always magic but it does come. For example when I was at the end of my tether with drugs I asked for help. The next thing, I went to a drug rehab. It was horrible. We had to wash the carpets once a week (someone must have thought we were really dirty).

My concept of grace would have been to have the addiction removed surgically

After all how are we still all alive, I bet you've been through as much bad stuff as I have.
I think it's a miracle I'm still alive.
My secret was to ask for help and really mean it.
Have you ever asked and not been answered in some way?
I mean, when you get to the end of will, mind, bargaining etc with the universe and you are in a really bad place and you don't know how to get out of it - really don't know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 10:58:54 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Sorry, no G for me
Message:
Jude,

We saw the A&E special on the Lusitania last night. Like the Titanic, a thousand people floating in the water. A thousand hearts crying for God. The idea that there's a God actually hearing those cries and responding to a few and leaving the rest strikes me as immensely unbelievable. So, I don't believe it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 22:47:53 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry, no G for me
Message:
Jim,
I think there are natural laws in place in this material world that 'God' cannot change. In addition, most people who are helped are helped partly because of their own efforts and willingness to be helped or to endure until help comes if it does. Of course, some people also believe in 'natural' laws that effect our experience of life, like karma at the extreme end. As you said before (I think) sometimes things just happen. When I was raped by my brother in 1972 a month after receiving knowledge,I was shocked by it partly because I had been told and had believed that all my Karma was wiped away when I received knowledge, so I couldn't understand why this had happened to me. I was so naive. Then another premie said, when I asked about it after I was raped: 'karma is not linear' and for some reason I accepted that. I seemed to need to find meaning in everything that happened. A week before it happened, I had been telling my brother about knowledge and M and then right before, when he started to do something I recognized as out of bounds, I reacted by yelling and fighting and then he said to me, 'If that M is who you said he is, then you wouldn't have reacted that way, you would have said..go ahead but you're the one who's sinning' To which I replied angrily, 'You can't test him by testing me.' Then he hit me and proceeded.
I have to say that my faith and practice of knowledge seemed to help me through that period of my life. But it also kept me from entirely healing for many years, because as much as I believed I was not my body or mind, my body and mind carried memories. Sorry I rambled on and I hope the subject isn't upsetting. I don't think God had much to do with it all except for being silent witness and still loving both the victim and the perpetrator. Carol
PS I went to India about a month later where I had hopes of more personal and close relationship with M. I was very disappointed, and hardly saw him except at a few big programs.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:28:23 (EST)
From: Cheddar
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: gumby
Subject: GAGBWY
Message:
Isn't your GAGBWY the same as saying, 'I wish you well'?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, May 05, 1998 at 00:13:39 (EST)
From: gumby
Email: None
To: Cheddar
Subject: GAGBWY
Message:
Yes sir!

GAGBWY

-gumby
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 08:47:56 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: Bra in
Message:
This question of grace reminds me of the science/religion program I saw that quoted Einstein saying 'the most amazing thing about the universe is that it can be understood' (by our minds)

A Dr. Pilkington said that new science is starting to understand that the way our minds work is similar to the way the universe works - that there is something similar to our minds and the universe.

Doesn't that point to a total sanity in the whole construction of the universe - that we belong to it, are of it. Therefore because of the (agreed) miracle of life on earth, isn't that grace? Isn't that another word for - that we have been cared for by being here and are continued to be cared for - for example when we ask for help it does come?

I suppose this is another way of saying the universe is intelligent, we are intelligent, and we are loved. that is grace. how could we not be loved by what created us?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:05:33 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Bra in
Message:
Jude,

Why think that intelligence exists outside of brains? There's no evidence of it, no model, no precedent. Here I go again, but I really encourage you to read Dawkins' latest book, Climbing Mount Improbable.

One thing we as laymen don't readily get unless we're walked through it carefully, is the amazing power of natural selection. That's what that book's all about; natural selection filling the wonder gap on the intelligence question.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:25:41 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: To Jude-on death
Message:
If what M said is true, my friend who killed himself was surely disappointed at his time of death. All of his premie friends said that he 'just wanted to go and merge with that which he loved'(cough cough). Thanks for posting that little tidbit. Do you recall when or where this was said? VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:35:43 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: To Jude-on death
Message:
I hope I haven't said something confusing, because I see I have been mixing up a lot of ideas together. Could you clarify what 'tidbit' you are referring to in my communication and then I can answer you properly.
Thanks for replying.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 08:51:33 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: To Jude-on death
Message:
Jude,
Yes, I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. You said that M says that we can only enjoy the K in life. That when we die, it no longer exists. That is not what the premies I knew used to say. They told me that you meld into the light when you die. That this energy was God. I had a premie friend who killed himself and his friends said he did so to meld with the thing he loved. That was their way of consoling me about his death. I was just saying that he must have been disappointed when he didn't meld with the light at his death. (I was being sarcastic) I was asking you if you remembered when or where Maharaji said that it is to be experienced in life. VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 20:49:10 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: To Jude-on death
Message:
(If what M said is true, my friend who killed himself was surely disappointed at his time of death. All of his premie friends said that he 'just wanted to go and merge with that which he loved'(cough cough). Thanks for posting that little tidbit. Do you recall when or where this was said? VP)

VP
I've only just now found your post and will respond to it. I have been listening to m for about 5 years now (it's actually been longer than I first thought).

Many times he has said K is for the living. He has never said anything about the point of death or merging with the light. However, I must say that for a long time I assumed that was the point of K, that this would be the moment when you got off the wheel of rebirth (which the premie had talked about).

There is one video I remember seeing before I asked for K and M said that people who don't receive K are like flowers that don't bloom. it's a complete waste - ashes to ashes, dust to dust...words to that effect. I was upset about this because I imagined my (deceased) father as not living on after death (whereas I imagined I was getting the opportunity to - that's why I believed it's such grace to find M).

The instructor said she believes the god who looks after us all in the womb etc looks after us after death. that was her belief.

I hope I haven't made it seem like M said there is nothing after death but he has said many times K is for the living.

Check this box to skip previewing your Message.

Click here to submit your Message.

Then WAIT, to allow time for the server to process your Message.

Active Index
Inactive Index
Forum Help
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 10:03:11 (EST)
From: Cheddar
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jude
Subject: Brain God
Message:
You wrote some interesting things there Jude, particularly the bit about the molecules. The only way I've come to any conclusion about what happens after death is to read about or listen to people who've had out of body experiences (OBEs) or near death experiences (NDEs). That would be a logical method of searching for the truth of the matter.

Many people who report leaving their body and viewing their body from outside have also said that once out of the confines of their body they felt blissfully happy. They still existed and the reality which they encountered was very real. Many people have spoken of brilliant light which was very peaceful and loving; a multitude of dimensions being perceived and a deep understanding of the nature of existence that previously eluded them.

It would appear that these other dimesions are only available to us after death. That's my view. I don't believe that Maharaji's knowledge can ever take you to these fabulous dimensions. I think that's a myth. Meditation can provide a greater insite and experience while in the physical universe. That I do believe but then so can lots of things bring hightened awarness. I think the claim that people have to merge with light in order to be with it after death is a lie perpretrated by Hindu gurus. It seems that everyone goes into a dimension of light after death, from what the NDEers have said.

Of course, such NDE reports can be discounted as hallucinations. Exept that people have continually reported to doctors complete and accurate details of what the doctors were doing to revive their dead body. They were watching things from outside of their body. Many doctors and medical staff can vouch for this. This I think, is as close to scientific proof that consciousness exists independantly of the body that we have.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:15:31 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Cheddar
Subject: Keeping the rules in sight.
Message:
David:

I think that's a myth. Meditation can provide a greater insite and experience while in the physical universe.

I don't know why Jim has not been on your case about this. Don't you know you're not allowed the use the word 'insite' on this sight?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 12:40:23 (EST)
From: Still Crazy
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Brain God
Message:
as though I can only benefit from K while I am alive
and when I die its' all over?

I know M is very down on belief in reincarnation, and frequently slams it in his 'lectures.' For example, he talks about the pharaohs, how they would have everything going for them if they came back, all their possessions, gold, big houses, etc, and that if anyone could come back it should be them. But nobody has seen them return.

He also says, 'Go to a bank that is run by the most religious people you can find. Try to borrow some money and tell them you'll pay it back in the next life.' He uses this as an example that nobody really believes in 'the next life.'

I think the point is that we are alive and can experience things as a result. Speculating what happens after death can never be any more than that, just speculation.

-Still
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:41:52 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Cheddar
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Who was it who said that if there was no God then we'd invent one?

Berger and Luckman in The Social Construction of Reality. ( Actually, I think it may have been Shaw or Bertrand Russell.)

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 12:49:54 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Cheddar
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Dear Cheddar,
If it could be proved beyond all doubt that consciousness is a seperate thing to a biological reactions then it would mean that we exist independantly of our biological bodies. If that's the case then consciousness need not be limited to just the known physical universe and such a thing as God, could be a possibility.

OK, David now you have me thinking. If I take this quote as a possible fact, I must consede that there is a god, or maybe I could still hold to my belief that there is no god but a life force (a term I've taken on to avoid the word energy) connecting every thing on this earth and beyond. I do believ we exist independantly of our biological bodies as in atroplaning. Also last night I saw the interview Baba Wawa did with Christopher Reeves, a truly wonderful testimony to living life through love, by the way David, I don't know if you see US TV, this interview was on the magazine show, 20/20. He is totally paralyzed except, apparently his face as he can talk with some effort and smile. Even his breath is not under his own power. He and his wife/children continue to have a loving and full life although they miss his 'wellness' desperately. My point is he really isn't his body anymore. He has just published a book called Still Me, pointng to his bodies stillness and the continuation of 'himself' without the use/control of his body.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 13:30:18 (EST)
From: Cheddar
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Robyn
Subject: Brain God
Message:
I think Christopher Reeve is an incredibly brave and loving man. He did say that once he realised his condition after the accident that he wanted to die. But then he saw his wife and children and thought how could he ever leave them, or words to that effect.

I still don't see that there's a problem with your view of God as being the life force. God could be called the sum total of all the parts. For instance, we know that we live on planet Earth which is a part of our solar system. Our solar system is a tiny part of a galaxy we call the Milky Way. And yet our galaxy is just one of a small cluster of galaxies in this region of space. Yet there are billions of similar clusters of galaxies which in total we call the Universe. We call the whole thing the Universe and yet we cannot comprehend it, fully.

I think that 'God' could be viewed in a similar way. There again He could be an old man on a throne, like Charlton Heston.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 15:16:39 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Robyn:

What a 'superman' his is. Not only that, but he seems to have chosen his mate very well. I missed the interview, however. Maybe I will catch it next time it airs.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:32:01 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: May the force be with you
Message:
Robyn,
I always tend to think of God the way that you have described here- a life force. I know that if some of the guys here who know their science get ahold of us, we will be in a pie (not to be confused with pi) before long! I have really had to take a long hard look at this belief recently because I learned it from premies when I was a young age. This energy or force is what I was told God was by them, and look who they told me the messiah was! I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though, so I am trying to evaluate this very cautiously. I am going to read Dawkins and anything else Mickey or anyone else recommends.

I think that belief in an all knowing all powerful and omnipotent God would rule out Charlton Heston, though. (snicker) I have always thought it was pretty precocious of us to assume that we could ever fully understand God or comprehend what he/she/it could or should be. To assume that there is no God based upon the disasters that befall us is a reasonable conclusion, but it assumes that God is completely fair or that he/she should be. I think we are assuming how the mind of a creator should be based on our wants/desires as humans. I don't believe that it is completely possible to do so. This is just an opinion and I reserve the right to change my mind on it.

I think it is valid to judge the actions of a MAN proclaiming to be a God on earth, but I think it would be difficult to know the mind of the creator. Just my opinion. I am braced for the flames now...VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 14:51:56 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: VP
Subject: May the force be with you
Message:
Dear VP,
To assume that there is no God based upon the disasters that befall us is a reasonable conclusion, but it assumes that God is completely fair or that he/she should be.

I read a book some time ago called, Why Bad Things Happen To Good People, it was written by a Rabbi and has a unique view of how god relates to the bad things that happen in our lives. He states that maybe god doesn't cause a house to burn or a flood to ravage a farming community or afflict a baby/child/person with a serious disease or whatever. These things are random and god's role is to be there for us as a source of support and comfort. This seems so logical to me and fits into my belief system with the changing of one of those words, can you guess which one!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 15:41:25 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: May the force be with you
Message:
I read that book, too. I think that the Rabbi should come up with one called, 'When good things happen to bad people' which has always been more of a mystery to me than the other way around!. There could be a whole chapter on Maharaji in that one.

Which word would you switch? I missed something. VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:49:27 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: VP
Subject: May the force be with you
Message:
Dear VP,
God is the word I'd change you silly, and I did just below here, or above, I get so confused! I changed it to life force and think it makes even more sense!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 16:32:20 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: God as Social Worker?
Message:
Now that we've got question marks in our subject lines all hel''s going to break loose. This is absolutely fantastic!

Robyn, you say that the Rabbi's views are 'logical' but I don't think so. Yes, they're rational in the sense that, as speculations go, his doesn't violate logic per se. But when one puts inordinate weight on speculative theories one starts to stray from logic's good housekeeping circle.

The rabbi says 'maybe'. Fair enough. Maybe God's a first aid attendant and not a prime mover. That sure would take care of a lot of sticky problems, wouldn't it? As for the seemingly arbitrary selection of recipients, well that just proves how mysterious are-eth the ways of the Lordeth. Hell, if it wasn't so mysterious we'd have to ask if that's our little God at all and not some impostor.

Maybe God started this whole creation on a bet and wasn't really expecting it to last this long. Maybe he's got another job (i.e. creation) and just can't afford to put all the time he'd like into this one. After all, who can be in two places at once?

Maybe, we don't know what's good or bad, only God does, maybe, maybe, maybe.

Maybe there is no God.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 17:15:13 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: God as Social Worker?
Message:
Have you ever read the book of Job? All that stuff was done to Job on a bet that God had with Satan. Amazing stuff, and not true, according to biblical scholars, just a story. When Job questions God, God basically answers, 'Because I am God and you are man.' I guess that is how I look at things. I cannot know the mind of God. I don't think God is a Social Worker, I don't know what he/she is. I just don't feel alone in all of this for some reason. Maybe because I don't want to feel alone? I guess this is what making a leap of faith is about. If that makes me a fool, then so be it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 19:46:12 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: God as Social Worker?
Message:
Dear Jim,
I don't believe in god as a person in a chair in a cloud. I believe it is a life force. How could a force make personal tragedies manifest. It may not be logical but to me in my own personal quirky logic it makes sense. How could god decide this person will have their house burn down. How could god 'make' earth and people, I believe in the more scientific view of how the earth came about and, yes the life force, in my belief did have a lot to do with creation or even a fire just not that this one or that one will be in this certain place at this certain time. I do believe in those things, 'fate' and I believe they can be significant to but not personally orchastrated by a god. The more I type here the more I like the term/feel of life force.
The rabbi who wrote the book didn't do research on this topic, I don't believe. His own son was born with a terminal condition and died and having to comfort people with similar heart aches he thought of this as a possible alternative explination. I told my close friend whose son drowned about it and she said it helped her and was the only thing she found that did. Since then she gets a copy for anyone she knows who goes through the loss of a loved one.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 04, 1998 at 20:06:39 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Fideism? Why not?
Message:
I'd never heard the term before but Martin Gardner, the aging patriarch of the modern skeptical movement, says he subscribes. He says he believes in God just becuase it feels good. He concedes that, in his opinion, the arguments against are stronger than those for the existence of God. Still he believes; it just feels good.

Personally, I can't quite swallow that pill but at times my fingers itch and I reach for the bottle.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 17:28:23 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Cheddar,Scott,Jim,etc.
Subject: Brain God
Message:
I agree. All of the ideas presented have some 'ring of truth'. I know only that I prefer to believe in a higher consciousness of which I am a part. I feel better doing it. I prefer to find meaning in life events and in the belief that our bodies' death is not our end. I work as a volunteer with dying hospice patients and it is my belief that allows me to comfortably and compassionately be present for them. I also am awestruck when I can begin to conceive of the immensity of the universe and the beauty and diversity of life and creation. It makes me 'high' when I think about it all and especially about Love being the everpresent reason for it all. (David, you have yet to respond to my very first post. Should i feel rejected?) Carol who used to look a little like Mona Lisa
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 23:18:49 (EST)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Carol
Subject: No, I'm just slow Carol
Message:
And I've copied your post so I can reread it and post back to you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sat, May 02, 1998 at 02:12:07 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Brain God
Message:
In How the Mind Works (Norton, 1997), he suggests that 'religion and philosophy are in part the application of mental tools to problems they were not designed to solve.' In his view, 'we are organisms, not angels, and our minds are organs, not pipelines to the truth. Our minds evolved by natural selection to solve problems that were life-and-death matters to our ancestors, not to commune with correctness or to answer any question we were capable of asking.'

Gosh, that's stunningly brilliant. But, as I recall, there was a good deal of philosophical deliberation that went into the creation of the great institutions: the market, the law, and the state. Apparently it was all a waste of time and we should have gone fishing. Alternatively, what it could mean is that engineers with calculators hanging off their belts don't make good philosophers. Now, that's a shock!

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 15:58:13 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Interesting article, Jim. But, what really gets me is how come an inquisitive, rational person such as yourself can get off on punk rock music?!

Weird.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 03, 1998 at 16:41:35 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Brain God
Message:
Mili,

You should have been there. We're talking incredibly powerful, precise, bass-driven ......

I feel like shit right now though.

No, not really, just a little hung over.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index