Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 9

From: May 21, 1998

To: Jun 1, 1998

Page: 2 Of: 5



Keith -:- Take heart Bobby -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 04:07:33 (EST)
__Robyn -:- Bobby -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:48:42 (EST)

*>*......Moonies validate -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:17:20 (EST)
__ugh..bal -:- bhagwan ji -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 01:25:48 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- bhagwan ji -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 09:22:59 (EST)
__John Hammond-Smyth -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 05:53:56 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 09:36:58 (EST)
______John Hammond-Smyth -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:36:47 (EST)
________Jude -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:41:07 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:44:13 (EST)
__________John Hammond-Smyth -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:22:51 (EST)
____________Mickey the Pharisee -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:00:08 (EST)
______________John Hammond-Smyth -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:58:11 (EST)
________________Mickey the Pharisee -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 01:04:29 (EST)
__________________Judex -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 04:18:42 (EST)
________________Anon -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 20:37:49 (EST)
__________________JHS's nurse -:- doc's negativity complaint! -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 23:13:47 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- Is that you Rawat? -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 23:51:40 (EST)
______________________VP -:- Is that you Rawat? -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 23:58:53 (EST)
____Nigel -:- Proud and erect -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:22:58 (EST)

*>*...bill -:- our old friend Bobby -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 23:51:58 (EST)
__Katie -:- our old friend Bobby -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:10:16 (EST)
____*>*.....b -:- smoochie tapes -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:38:14 (EST)
______Katie -:- kiss kiss -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:49:44 (EST)
______Selena -:- smoochie tapes -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:53:08 (EST)
________Katie -:- smoochie tapes -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 01:05:44 (EST)
__________Selena -:- smoochie tapes -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:30:40 (EST)
____________Selena -:- smoochie tapes -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:53:44 (EST)
______________VP -:- plucking our heartstrings? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:16:28 (EST)
________________Jim -:- Can I have one? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:37:15 (EST)
__________________VP -:- Can I have one? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:43:49 (EST)
__________________Gerry -:- surfeit -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 23:12:23 (EST)
____________________VP -:- surfeit -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 23:45:17 (EST)
____________________carol -:- surfeit -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 03:06:30 (EST)
__________________Judex -:- Can I have one? -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 05:55:43 (EST)

Jim -:- Just what did he say? -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:29:11 (EST)
__Sir David -:- Ice skating in Hell -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 05:40:57 (EST)
____Jude -:- Ice skating in a small rink -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:28:07 (EST)
__Nigel -:- Just what did he say? -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:38:59 (EST)
____Jim -:- Really, can someone answer? -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:45:21 (EST)
____Robyn -:- Just what did he say? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:37:38 (EST)
______charles -:- Just what did he say? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:39:54 (EST)
________Robyn -:- Just what did he say? -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 09:27:05 (EST)

Jim -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 1) -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:12:31 (EST)
__Jim -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:13:08 (EST)
____charles -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:56:17 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 09:53:10 (EST)
________charles -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:42:28 (EST)
________Jim -:- quit showing off, Scott -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:36:54 (EST)
__________Jude -:- quit showing off, Scott -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:31:57 (EST)
__________Katie -:- MS married to PhD -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:26:59 (EST)
____________Jim -:- Oh Katie, get real -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:45:30 (EST)
______________Katie -:- Oh Jim... -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:13:12 (EST)
________________Jim -:- I'm okay -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:35:42 (EST)
__________________Katie -:- I'm okay (off topic) -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:49:20 (EST)
__________________CD -:- Polyarchy is for realists -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 02:41:42 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- CD can show off too! -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:42:28 (EST)
__________________Judex -:- I'm okay -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 07:33:35 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- Judex re Scott -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:58:30 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- MS married to PhD -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:44:26 (EST)
____________Judex -:- MS married to PhD -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 06:16:29 (EST)
__________JW -:- quit showing off, Scott -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 19:07:11 (EST)
____________charles -:- quit showing off, Scott -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 20:35:03 (EST)
______________JW -:- quit showing off, Scott -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 12:44:24 (EST)
______Jim -:- bullshit, Charles -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:38:09 (EST)
________Jude -:- bullshit, Charles -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:39:31 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:56:41 (EST)
______charles -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:12:26 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:41:13 (EST)
__________charles -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:34:53 (EST)
____________Jude -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:07:59 (EST)
______________Carol -:- What you said! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:51:08 (EST)
______________Keith -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 23:18:18 (EST)
______________Richard -:- Maharaji's mistake.. -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:13:14 (EST)
________Jude -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:53:18 (EST)
__________Robyn -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:59:39 (EST)
____________Jude -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:18:02 (EST)
______________Robyn -:- typo!! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 15:19:29 (EST)
__________charles -:- the bullshit rambler -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:13:20 (EST)
____________Jim -:- Focus, Charles, focus -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:05:39 (EST)
______________charles -:- Focus, Charles, focus -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:23:24 (EST)
________________Jim -:- Paragrah, Charles, paragrah -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:01:09 (EST)
__________________charles -:- Paragrah, Charles, paragrah -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:55:51 (EST)
______JW -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 19:27:26 (EST)
________Jim -:- Well said, JW -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 20:07:26 (EST)
________Judex -:- Guru Papers interview (Part 2) -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 07:49:18 (EST)

Jim -:- Free Inquiry -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:09:34 (EST)
__Scott T. -:- Oooo, I'm so steamed! -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:15:45 (EST)
____Gerry -:- You're scarin' me -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:23:16 (EST)
______Robyn -:- undergrad degree -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:33:02 (EST)
____charles -:- Oooo, I'm so steamed! -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:45:40 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Oooo, I'm so steamed! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:13:00 (EST)
________charles -:- Oooo, I'm so steamed! -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:16:33 (EST)
____Jim -:- Hubris, Scott -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:50:33 (EST)
______Jude -:- Hubris, Scott -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:36:40 (EST)
________Jim -:- What do you suggest, Jude? -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:47:18 (EST)
__________Keith -:- What do you suggest, Jude? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 00:25:31 (EST)
____________Jim -:- So fundamentally wrong, Keith -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 01:00:04 (EST)
__________Jude -:- What do you suggest, Jude? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 04:53:59 (EST)
____________Jim -:- A slight shower -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:12:59 (EST)
______________Gerry -:- A slight shower -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:29:45 (EST)
______________Gerry -:- Jim won't like this -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:54:54 (EST)
________________Jim -:- Maybe I will -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:17:35 (EST)
__________________Gerry -:- Maybe I will -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:50:48 (EST)
____________________Jim -:- I'll read it -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:38:43 (EST)
______________________Gerry -:- Persecution Simplex -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:08:31 (EST)
____________________Gerry -:- Thunderbolts in Gray's Harbor -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:41:00 (EST)
______________________Jim -:- I did, my child, I did -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:51:31 (EST)
________________________Gerry -:- I did, my child, I did -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:12:59 (EST)
______________Jude -:- The speed of light -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 01:30:07 (EST)
________________charles -:- The speed of light -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:21:07 (EST)
________Katie -:- It's Eliot -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:48:42 (EST)
__________Jude -:- It's Eliot -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 05:43:27 (EST)
______Nigel -:- Dawkins is cooler than Gould.. -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:14:33 (EST)
________Judex -:- Dawkins is cooler than Gould.. -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 05:54:36 (EST)
________Jim -:- Yes, Gould's simply wrong -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:18:59 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Hubris Shmubris -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 19:41:07 (EST)
____Jim -:- Scott, a more detailed reply -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:06:46 (EST)
______charles -:- Dawkins -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 23:14:00 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- The Devil is in the details -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 20:19:45 (EST)

Jude -:- Breaking free from the One -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 17:38:42 (EST)

GEORGE -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 15:18:21 (EST)
__Anon -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 17:28:19 (EST)
____Keith -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:12:11 (EST)
______Jim -:- Keith??? -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:30:26 (EST)
________Keith -:- Keith??? -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:37:28 (EST)
______Katie -:- ANON and Anon -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:49:48 (EST)
____The real Anon -:- Hey! That wasn't me!! -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:16:23 (EST)
______Katie -:- Hey! That wasn't me!! -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:28:35 (EST)
______Gerry -:- Hey! That wasn't me!! -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:14:56 (EST)
______VP -:- Hey! That wasn't me!! -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:59:56 (EST)
____VP -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:58:12 (EST)
__Jim -:- See, Doc? Here's another one -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 17:40:55 (EST)
____Keith -:- See, Doc? Here's another one -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:24:25 (EST)
____Gerry -:- To George -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:26:14 (EST)
______Keith -:- To George -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:55:42 (EST)
__MARY -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:28:10 (EST)
__Gerry -:- George and Master Baiting -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:38:42 (EST)
____Keith -:- George's second point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:56:30 (EST)
______Keith -:- George's third point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:02:27 (EST)
________Keith -:- George's forth point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:17:57 (EST)
__________Joy -:- George's forth point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:42:14 (EST)
____________Keith -:- George's forth point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:15:23 (EST)
______________Joy -:- George's forth point -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:29:48 (EST)
________________Gerry -:- George's forth point -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:00:56 (EST)
__________________Joy -:- George's forth point -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 01:52:30 (EST)
________________Jude -:- George's forth point -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:41:43 (EST)
____________Carol -:- George's fourth point -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 04:04:54 (EST)
______________Keith -:- George's fourth point -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:09:23 (EST)
________________Judex -:- George's fourth point -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 06:04:07 (EST)
__________Jim -:- George's forth point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:54:10 (EST)
________Jim -:- George's third point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:51:11 (EST)
______Katie -:- George's second point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:24:24 (EST)
________Keith -:- George's second point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:53:07 (EST)
__________Gerry -:- George's second point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:01:20 (EST)
__________Katie -:- George's second point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:10:59 (EST)
__________JW -:- George's second point -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:23:39 (EST)
______Jim -:- George's second point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:49:50 (EST)
________Gerry -:- George's second point -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:53:13 (EST)
__Anon -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:04:16 (EST)
__JACK -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:17:20 (EST)
____Keith -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:35:56 (EST)
______Jim -:- Keith -- all over the place -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:05:18 (EST)
________Keith -:- Jim-- all over the place -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:21:50 (EST)
__________DOC -:- Jim-- all over the place -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:15:32 (EST)
____________Jude -:- Jim-- all over the place -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:49:27 (EST)
____________VP -:- Jim-- all over the place -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 22:02:04 (EST)
__JOHN HAMMOND-SMYTH -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:20:59 (EST)
____Gerry -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:29:54 (EST)
______Gerry -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:32:31 (EST)
________JIM -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:37:16 (EST)
__________Gerry -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:47:06 (EST)
____Jim -:- John H.S., I should have known -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:31:07 (EST)
____blind fool -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:13:23 (EST)
______Katie -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:26:18 (EST)
________BF -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 16:27:20 (EST)
__________Katie -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:05:27 (EST)
____________bf -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:30:40 (EST)
______________Katie -:- punctuation -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:13:33 (EST)
________________Katie -:- another question for bf -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 19:55:20 (EST)
__________________bftb -:- another question for bf -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:11:46 (EST)
____________________Keith -:- Thankyou -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:37:12 (EST)
______________Jim -:- Blind fool sees what? -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:11:55 (EST)
________________bftb -:- Blind fool sees what? -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:16:34 (EST)
__________________Jim -:- Blind fool sees what? -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:28:01 (EST)
____________________bftb -:- Blind fool sees what? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 10:39:51 (EST)
______________________Katie -:- Blind fool sees what? -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:20:34 (EST)
________________________Jim -:- Thanks bf -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:39:03 (EST)
__________________________bf-kinda off topic to jim -:- Thanks bf -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:06:29 (EST)
__________________________carol -:- Thanks Jim -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 17:31:57 (EST)
__________________________Judex -:- Thanks bf -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 06:12:25 (EST)
______________________Judex -:- Blind fool sees what? -:- Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 06:02:42 (EST)
____nigel -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:20:18 (EST)
______Judex -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 06:16:23 (EST)
__charles -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:11:19 (EST)
____George -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:10:34 (EST)
______Katie -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:41:56 (EST)
________Keith -:- Social animals -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 04:21:28 (EST)
______Carol -:- Ghandi smeared by George -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:22:53 (EST)
________Jude -:- Ghandi smeared by George -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:53:46 (EST)
________Mickey the Pharisee -:- Ghandi smeared by George -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 15:20:31 (EST)
__________Carol -:- Ghandi smeared by George -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:18:14 (EST)
______Jim -:- George, whatever you are -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 15:49:00 (EST)
__JW -:- KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:38:07 (EST)
____*>*.......b -:- The rock called JW -:- Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:16:52 (EST)
______*>*...b -:- The rock called JW -:- Wed, May 27, 1998 at 02:02:44 (EST)


Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 04:07:33 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: Take heart Bobby
Message:
Lets get real!
If I was on my death-bed right now and asked myself ,
'what is important?' AND 'what is real?' I wonder what my answers would be.
I think that I would become surrendered.
I would powerfully be with my own experience,
my own heartbeat,
my own breath,
I'd realise how great a mystery life is,
I would feel my faith,
I would be scared, but in awe too.
I would think of all those that I love.
And want to say goodbye and thankyou.
I would feel that a great power was within me,
and was me.
I would feel gratitude for all the special moments that had graced my years.
All this is speculation of course, although I did pass through something like this a couple of years ago.
Except that I lived to tell the story.
Take heart Bobby,
And my best wishes,
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:48:42 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Bobby
Subject: Bobby
Message:
Dear Bobby,
I was just reading the inactive list to see what I missed this weekend and saw your account of cancer. Of course I was saddened to hear this news. I think you are a strong person, from what little I know of you, you certainly have been confronted with a LOT in your life and have come through with an important purpose and when you say you will/can come through this, I believe you. You have to much to do in your life still, I think, to let this stop you. You are in my thoughts and I will even do some of my brand of praying in your behalf.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:17:20 (EST)
From: *>*......Moonies validate
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
My apologies to anonomousie for exerpting part of her
'zero proof moonshine' post.

...'on the individual level, satan directs intense onslaughts
against each moonie and possible future moonie. He tries to
strike at a persons weakest link, which is useually his or her
loved ones. This is why parents, brothers and sisters
inexplicably become hysterical when you phone to say you are
at a moonie camp and wont be home for a while. Such violent
reactions are proof that satans vioce is speaking through thier
mouths, since satans essential characteristics are anger, discord
and NEGATIVITY, and an unwillingness to listen.

Gods characteristics are harmony, POSITIVITY, love, acceptance,
amd obedience. A premie-ooops I mean a moonie, must hold these
feelings in mind every moment. Even a momentary intrusion
of doubt or negativity is satan gaining a foothold, and it must
be stamped out of thought. Vigorous exercises drill this
ability into good memebers until it becomes almost effortless.
In the war between absolute good and absolute evil, the very
ideas of compromise and tolerance are traps planted by satan.
As soon as you have enough 'positivity' to be told this,
you must give all your money and energy to the cause of
sun myung moon. The universe has never contained anything
more important.

His collected talks are contained in a book titled 'master speaks'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 01:25:48 (EST)
From: ugh..bal
Email: None
To: tbuhnjikml
Subject: bhagwan ji
Message:
dlm white paper:

'bbj is, at this printing, still in england trying to take
over the mission there. Just before hans jayanti toronto (74)
Susan Butcher at bbj's prodding and with Mata Ji's consent, phoned
an incredible story full of lies into the toronto newspapers.'
(retrieveable?)
'the things bbj said about M are still too harsh to repeat'
m told mata ji and bbj to go to india and he would go on may 20th
instead, that turned out to be the day he got married in denver.
On 11/23/74 mata ji tried to go see m at the residence but was
rebuffed and she went to the police and filed a report (retrieveable?)
that he
was being held by security that would not let him see his own mom.
The police came and they were told she could call the next day
for an appointment.
m held off responding in hopes that bbj and mata ji and bhole ji
would tire of the folly that m is too young to lead us, that he is
caught in maya and cannot be trusted.'
'why does m allow such things to happen if he is the lord?
I can only speak for myself, but everything m does is for me.
I can't begin to express the endless lessons I've learned in the
short time of this play. M is taking us beyond our mind and
concepts to a place where we can have the pure experience of love.
Just love; love unfiltered by any idea of what it is. We cannot
experience love with our minds so m takes us beyond our
minds. These situations are the tools he uses to explode our
concepts to take us further DOWN the path of devotion
and surrender.
The physical life of m is here to make our lives easier-
but if our minds doubts then that same life-his style,ect.-will
throw us into confusion.
M is the supreme power who is takeing care of everything in
this world. If we relax and remember to remember that m is
concious of all life; then our life becomes full of peace and
bliss.
It's time for all premies to be clear about devotion. This is
the main point that m is makeing now. DEVOTION to one point,
to the perfect lord. M is makeing everything clear
for us now, we must be one pointed and doing his agya of service
satsang and meditation. If we are doing this agya each day then we
will know how to act when mata ji or bal bhagwan ji comes
around.
So now we can begin to see why m has been trying so hard to
keep us in the ashram and single. He wants us to be one pointed
and free to move quickly and be free of other responsibilities
other than to him.'
I hope to see you all in the light,
mike donner

who, according to his wife 'hates m' and for good reasons.

of course bruce in his great denial will call this a lie and
heresay as well. bruce is a total athiest.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 09:22:59 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: ugh..bal
Subject: bhagwan ji
Message:
Mike:

Well done! That was just extraordinarily interesting. A real stampede! Afraid I don't get the reference to 'Bruce,' however. Must be a different Bruce from the one who posts here, or I'm missing something?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 05:53:56 (EST)
From: John Hammond-Smyth
Email: None
To: *>*......Moonies validate
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
How on earth can you possibly compare Mr Moon to the Perfect Master, Maharaji? Sun Myung Moon is not divine but a mere man. It's like comparing clay to a diamond.

Remember that Maharaji completely discounded other gurus and teachers a long time ago when he said about a tree that grew up amongst the weeds. At first, the weeds seem bigger than the tree but in the end the tree outgrows the weeds and stands proud and erect, much the same as our Lord.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 09:36:58 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
John:

The followers of Moon don't claim he's a mere man, do they? Isn't it just your testemony against theirs? And if it came down to a vote, or to a measure of 'success' like money, influence or number of followers, Moon would surely win hands down. So, how is it that MJ stands above the rest when relatively speaking his head reaches their navels? Sorry to be blunt.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:36:47 (EST)
From: John Hammond-Smyth
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
Maharaji's stature is in His divinity. A devotee sees His divinity whereas others don't.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:41:07 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
It's sort of the same way a 2 year old loves mummy and daddy isn't it. Only a child eventually grows up, and mum and dad admit they're human, one day.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:44:13 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
John:

Well, excuse me for thinking you were making a rational objection to the Moon analogy. I should have know better. So you perceive MJ as divine, which obviates him from having to be answerable to anyone. Fine. How is that basically different from the position of the Moonies?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:22:51 (EST)
From: John Hammond-Smyth
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
It's quite simple really. Maharaji is divine and the Sat Guru while Sun Myung Moon is not divine and is not the Sat Guru. If Mr Moon's followers think he is divine, they are deluded.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:00:08 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
John you are too much!! You are joking, aren't you? I mean, seriously, you can't say your boy is divine and the other guy isn't just because you belong to the club. You're just pulling our legs, right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:58:11 (EST)
From: John Hammond-Smyth
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
Now would I joke about someone as important and special as Maharaji? But think about this: Twenty years ago you would have agreed with me. Most of these deluded ex-premies would have agreed with me.

The question you have to ask is, were you deluded then or are you deluded now? You will probably retort that you were deluded back then. How were you deluded? What caused you to become deluded? Are you sure you were deluded and are you sure you're not being deluded now. I mean, somewhere along the way, either then or now, you have been extremely deluded. Very, very deluded.

If that is the case and you realise how easy it is to fall prey to delusion; how can you be certain which one was the delusion and which one was the truth? WHat is the nature of such a delusion? Is it caused by external means or purely by self delusion? I think it is important to consider this to ensure that delusion is kept at bay. Are you sure you are right when by dint of fact that you say you're right, you must have been so wrong before.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 01:04:29 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
Dear John,
I dealt with this delusion in my Journeys entry. My story is under the entry by Michael Dresbach. Yes, I was deluded then, and I tried to convince myself that BM was the Lord of the Universe. But one day I had to be honest and ask myself how much was truth or whether I was fooling myself. I left, and my life has been so much better.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 04:18:42 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
Yes the proof of delusion is in the way you feel, and in the way your reality reflects back to you.
Life is a mirror, also.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 20:37:49 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
Very fucking funny Smyth. Keep it up... I can't believe that some people think you're serious. Maybe that's enough of that persona for now? Why don't you muck in for real and tell us what you really think? No? Ok then..I get it...it's too much fun pretending to Wag Your Finger..I have to agree, someone had to do it. What you say does indeed successfully parody the essential premie message. You do sound unnervingly like my old school-master I have to say. His scoldings (as a master in his own right) never included keeping us on the Maharaji Straight and Narrow!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 23:13:47 (EST)
From: JHS's nurse
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: doc's negativity complaint!
Message:
Very sorry but my patient, J Hammond-Smyth escaped from his padded cell again this week. Apologies to all concerned. This person is just a silly boy and is not for real. Sincere apologies.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 23:51:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHS's nurse
Subject: Is that you Rawat?
Message:
I knew it!

Either the nurse or Doc are Rawat. I'm not sure which but it's got to be one of them.

*<*... I mean *()*...I mean

Jim
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 23:58:53 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is that you Rawat?
Message:
No, not the nurse...not even close. It's not me either, but just trust me on this. Rawat would never be that clever, would he?

Do you really want to see those videos, or were you pulling my leg again? VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:22:58 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: John Hammond-Smyth
Subject: Proud and erect
Message:
... but in the end the tree outgrows the weeds and stands proud and erect, much the same as our Lord.

Thanks John. I had certainly noticed the pride.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 23:51:58 (EST)
From: *>*...bill
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: our old friend Bobby
Message:
Well hello Bobby,
I must say it was a jolt to read about your illness.
The last two days I thought about it.
My wife says some folks DO succeed in getting past this.
I hope you are one of those.
It is quite possible that any one of us could leave today
and not have your ailment. So I came up with this stuff
as a result of thinking about you.

This could be my last day.
I will make the moment as rich as I can when I am with
someone.
I rest in the movement of life and tell others about it.
I thank the concious power that does care.
I accept that no one alive is higher or more advanced. At the
most, they might be more successful today than me at feeling
and giveing out the good stuff to others. I accept that
anyone that thinks they are a master over others is insane.

I do think that in trying to make every
moment I am with someone and with myself and the concious power,
rich, that many of the things you said are right on target.
And I WILL be pokeing through your previous posts to catch your
message of all this year.

I mentioned you twice today and I think in those conversations
I said it better than now, it is this moments output, this
moments feeling. Includeing the intent to make each moment rich
inspite of where the next person is at, is living smart.
I could die anytime. If one of the kids died that would be the end
also. I figure my wife is going to run out of luck so the same
-live like there is no tomorrow- idea holds up again there also.

What do you think Bobby?

You got to admit, this forum is loaded with athiests, especially
doc and bruce and george. The new age eastern thing is
that any thought of a concious god is my 'ignorance' of my own
divinity. What a halfway thought out theology!

I for one want you to take this time in your life to post more
and state your thoughts and feeling of the day. Each day.
I will keep a 'Bobby's thread' active and will move it up top when
it drifts to close to the inactive file. Look Bobby, you are
a charter member here and this is one place you can talk.
As a group we know you since you like Ram Dass, he wrote books
dealing with trauma, and communicateing, not withdrawing
is the reccomendation from him.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:10:16 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: *>*...bill
Subject: our old friend Bobby
Message:
Hi Bill -
I think that Bobby will post on the forum if he wants to. I did speak to him by e-mail though, and he said he wanted to concentrate on other stuff right now - not the forum. I am sure he would appreciate an e-mail from you, though. His address is:

bobby2@mindspring.com

Take care, Bill. You are right that it could be the last day for any of us.

BTW - did you get the lipstick tapes? I hope you were not disappointed with how little lipstick remained on them. Selena says this is because they were in her car for weeks during very hot weather - or that's what she SAYS, anyway!

Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:38:14 (EST)
From: *>*.....b
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: smoochie tapes
Message:
Yes I got the smoochie tapes!
Thank you. And Selena!
Two of them were on my short list of tapes I wanted for
evidence. So it was good the effort was made.
I will send back the book after a while.
Bobby alluded to the fact that he didnt have very many
people to discuss this with and he may find the value of this
outlet. This forum is not limited to contending
with those that show up here and want to play 'lets pretend'
about the facts of rawats past and present actions.

They are surprisingly similar in thier rewriteing the truth arent they? I am glad some here have the stomach to respond to them.
JW said awhile back to Jim, 'I read thier revisionist history
and my eyes glazed over'. I know what he means.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:49:44 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: *>*.....b
Subject: kiss kiss
Message:
Glad you wanted the tapes - let us know if you want any of the videos. (VP says 'Paris France' is incomprehensible - you might like it.) Keep the book as long as you want. I'd love to know what you think about it. It was recommended by both Mark Appleman and Trent.

If you speak with Bobby, please tell him we care about him very much, and that there have been many messages left for him on the site.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:53:08 (EST)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: *>*.....b
Subject: smoochie tapes
Message:
oooh, and I know what you mean, RE: living up to their purpose tape-wise. I am glad
some of those tapes lived thru to arrive at their legacy. I figured
they would, I got them from the best.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 01:05:44 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Selena
Subject: smoochie tapes
Message:
Selena -
thanks for sending those tapes - they are great. I kept two videos and sent the other four to VP, who is manfully plowing through them (we might even get some reviews!). I watched one video, but not the other one yet (it does have a lipstick smear on the label...)

Anyway, thanks. Hope all is well.
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:30:40 (EST)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: smoochie tapes
Message:
Really, you finally found a lipstick smear? I was worried you would doubt my sanity, or at the very least find my story rather creative.
All is well, sort of. The data 'we' need for our conference presentation went out to lunch on Saturday, and guess who programmed it? sigh, I suppose at times like this insomnia could
be considered a blessing. too bad it's not easily channelled into productivity. Usually I stare at walls during insomnia. I will previal, the programs are already fixed, actually, after 2 days of not so nice-ness, stressing and programming.

Still, I am not giving into the superstition, the one where ' I should have gone to the feet of the Master instead' - If I had, who owuld have fixed the programs?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:53:44 (EST)
From: Selena
Email: None
To: VP Katie Bill Bobby
Subject: smoochie tapes
Message:
Bobby I don't know you but you will be in my version of prayers.
VP and Bill, good luck with those tapes. when I think of the hours and miles I spent listening to the non-lipstick
cassettes I didn't send, the ones I purchased and for the most part lost. Have you noticed his use of cadence or volume? He yells and yells then drops to a soft whisper, so soft you have to turn up the volume. Usually at a part where he is talking about the beauty, the love, the experience. blah.
very hypnotic and very deliberate.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:16:28 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Selena
Subject: plucking our heartstrings?
Message:
That voice is too much.
He...also...makes...pauses...inbetween...words...for...emphasis. Also some long thoughtful pauses at the end of certain sentences...
I also noticed the way he does this thing with his hand. His thumb is touching his index and center fingers- Like he is plucking a string on a lyre. (Plucking our heartstrings?) Thanks for sending them to Katie. I think Brian gets them next.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:37:15 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Can I have one?
Message:
I'll take some Maharaji shlock if there's a surfeit. (Never used that word before. Who has? Personally, I didn't really like it. 'Surfeit'. What's that? Yech! It REALLY ruined my experience.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:43:49 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Can I have one?
Message:
Jim,
I have four: Paris, Santa Monica Public Event-(both of those are boring), Becoming aware, and A Very Good Friend. I think that A Very Good Friend would really piss you off. I think that you should take a look at it. I am willing to send all to you, if you will send them to Brian when you are done. I know he wanted to see them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 23:12:23 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: surfeit
Message:
surfeit

1) too great a supply or excess
2) overindulgence, esp food or drink
3) discomfrot or disorder resulting from (2)
4) disgust, nausea, resulting from any kind of excess

As in a 'surfeit' of maharajism
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 23:45:17 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: surfeit
Message:
Did Jim mean definition number one? I have plenty of number 4 after watching that stuff...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 03:06:30 (EST)
From: carol
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: surfeit
Message:
Hi Gerry, That's my condition today! I'm glad I can put your friendly face with your posts here! carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 05:55:43 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Can I have one?
Message:
If you want to ride the wave of devotion you have to surf (e ) it
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:29:11 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Just what did he say?
Message:
Anon mentioned that he'd heard that Maharaji had mentioned that only about 25 people criticize him here on the web. Eb said that she'd heard tht he said he wan't bothered by it. Does anyone know exactly what he said? Verbatim or better (?) ?

Thanks,

Jim

Told Maharaji to fuck-off in '97.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 05:40:57 (EST)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jim
Subject: Ice skating in Hell
Message:
The day Maharaji condescends to actually answer his critics will be the day when I'll be able to go ice skating in Hell.

Has Maharaji not learned the basics of human civility and reasonable behaviour? If a person claims to be a Teacher and then his students have a disagreement with him and the Teacher, rather than listen to those students, just completely ignores them and critisises them; has that Teacher any right to call himself a Teacher?

He is something else, but not a Teacher.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:28:07 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Ice skating in a small rink
Message:
Oh yes and he will say...but there's only about 25 on the net critisizing him - I think another name for which I think is minimization.
Sorry, I've got the minimizing bug now.
By the way, looked at within the framework of infinity,...none of this really happened at all did it? (author's own comment)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:38:59 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Just what did he say?
Message:
According to Participant's poll of top posters, I weighed in at number 20, which - I take this to mean - Maharaji is finally aware of me at last. A bit late squire, is all I can say...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:45:21 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Really, can someone answer?
Message:
Seriously,

Anon or whoever knows, would someone explain what M said about the site at Miami or anywhere else for that matter? I aksed Linda Gross (president of Elan Vital) and she said she didn't hear him say anything. (Might have been in the sisters' room, I guess).

Thanks,

Jim
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:37:38 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: Nigel
Subject: Just what did he say?
Message:
Dear Nigel,
Some email today has me feeling very thankful for all of you again today, I'll spare you all an entire thread on the topic though! I just love this post and thanks for the info. I've been crediting Petrou with the awards and ex's rating post and here is was Participant, hope he's been keeping track of all points. I don't have any yet, I am waiting until I'm sure someone is keeping track. I'm hoping to win that Subaru all wheel drive wagon!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 21:39:54 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Just what did he say?
Message:
Sorry Subarus all gone. Toasters only thing left.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 09:27:05 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: charles
Subject: Just what did he say?
Message:
Dear Charles,
Damn, I have 3 toasters already!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:12:31 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 1)
Message:
Just found this year-old interview from Omni:

Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad
on the Many Faces of Authoritarianism


Good evening and welcome to Live Science. I'm your host, Dr. Keith Harary,
Editor at Large of Omni. Our special, in studio, guests tonight are Joel
Kramer and Diana Alstad, authors of the critically acclaimed book THE GURU
PAPERS: MASKS OF AUTHORITARIAN POWER. Our discussion tonight will focus on
hidden authoritarianism. As usual, we'll be identifying ourselves by our
initials: KH for Keith Harary, JK for Joel Kramer, and DA for Diana Alstad.
This is an open chat so please feel free to join us and ask questions.
Welcome to Live Science, Joel and Diana. We have a lot to discuss, so let's
get right into it. To begin: The topic of cults has once again heated up.
And, once again, we are hearing the usual line from people who feel immune
to such so-called insanity. That is, people seem to feel that they are
immune and wonder how others could fall prey to such an authoritarian
movement pushing such crazy beliefs. Comments?

------------------------------------------------------------------

JK: Keith, these cults are just an extreme extention of a phenomenon in
society that interests me more. That is they question of why people involve
themselves in authoritarian structures of any kind. Briefly, let me define
what I mean by authoritarian.
When a person or ideology or group is what we call 'feedback proof,' meaning
that no one or nothing external to the authority in the group can change
things then it is authoritarian. We also define authoritarian as any person
or ideology that assumes they know what's best for others. Under these
definitions, many of the social structures of the world are authoritarian.
The very nature of being unchallengeable and of wanting an authority to tell
you what is right for you, or what to do, is a deep part of how the world
works.

------------------------------------------------------------------

DA: People have been conditioned to mistrust themselves and this leads them
to give their power away. We can get into how and why later. Also,
emotionally, cults hook your deep desires and hopes and manipulate your
fears and desires. They also undermine people's critical capacities and
further exaggerate their existing self mistrust.
------------------------------------------------------------------

KH: You seem to be saying that cults are only exaggerating our existing
authoritarian tendencies. But, even so, most people do not go to the extreme
of joining a cult. Do you think we are all vulnerable, or are some of us
much less vulnerable to authoritarianism than others?
------------------------------------------------------------------

JK: Of course, as with many tings, there is a spectrum of vulnerability. And
where one stands on that spectrum is an individual call. I cannot say for
any specific human being where they lie in terms of how easily an
autyhoritarian structure will manipulate them. But I can say, however, that
historically and to date the most prevalent way of maintaining power has
been and is to condition people to susceptibility toward authoritarianism.
------------------------------------------------------------------

DA: In terms of joining cults, one can generalize that people in extreme
situations are more vulnerable -- extreme losses, pain, loneliness, crises,
and the young are particularly vulnerable.
------------------------------------------------------------------

KH: Without getting too abstract, let me ask an obvious question. How can we
possibly get along without some final authority to make the big decisions?
We need elected officials, for example, don't we? This seems very different
from the kind of dictatorship we saw in Jonestown, or Heaven's Gate, or the
Branch Davidians, or -- indeed -- any other cult. Is there such a thing as
healthy authoritarianism?
------------------------------------------------------------------

JK: That's a complex question. First, we must emphatically state that we are
not opposed to authority and we distinguish between authority and
authoritarianism very carefully in our book. The distinguishing
characteristics are related back to our initial definition of what
authoritarianism is, we do not question the need for authority which can be
justified in many ways as a function of knowledge, skill, elections, or a
person placing themselves under the guidance of another as long as that
guidance is just guidance and not control. But the issue is more complex
because in life there may be situations where authoritarian control cannot
be done away with -- certain aspects of childrearing, for example. You don't
leave a three year old in the freeway no matter what it wants. However, in
an overall way, the really interesting question is what is, in this day and
age, the problem with authoritarianism considering that it has been around
for thousands of years and has been an intimate part of the functioning of
the world. I'd like to address that question. In a static world, where
change is either slow or not valued at all, as it has been throughout much
of human history, authoritarianism although it has caused human suffering
has also been the fast way to get things done. However, we now live in a
world of accelerated change. It is our thesis that in order to properly
problem solve in a time of accelerated change it is essential to be
sensistive and take into account the nature of the changes that are taking
place around you. Authoritarianism by its nature and structure is a
filtering device that keeps new information out because it is predicated on
maintaining the power that has come through tradition. It is our point that
as a species we no longer have the luxury to do that. So I would say
authoritarianism itself as a mode of information transference is essentially
unhealthy for these times.
------------------------------------------------------------------

DA: Anything that blocks information and feedback is counter-survival
because we need all the information, understanding, creativity, and
intelligence we can muster to survive and to improve the quality of life.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:13:08 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
KH: You seem to be hinting at the possibility that cults may be on the rise
as a response to the fast pace of change. Certainly, cult leaders have a
habit of narrowing things down very quickly. If that is true, then cults may
be a kind of inevitable response to accelerated change. How, then, can we
hope to protect ourselves and yet continue to move forward scientifically,
technically, and in other more positive social arenas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

JK: This is a mult-layered question and to do it justice I must answer it in
a multi-layered way. First, I see that where we are situated historically is
not only a time of accelerated change but part of this change is that all
traditional moral orders are breaking down. When this occurs, there are two
predictable movements of response on the part of human beings. One is to try
to find solutions to new problems. The other is to blame the problems on
lapsing from the verities of old. The solution offered by the latter is to
attempt to rely on those verities more and harder. The worldwide trend
toward dundamentalism, which is essentially autoritarian, is an example of
this latter approach. History in our times is tearing itself in these two
directions so that one can predict that there will be on one side an
increase in the attempt at fundamentalist solutions of which cults are an
extreme aspect. However, their solutions got us where we are today and will
not solve the problems of a world of accelerated change. So what to do?
JK: I cannot tell others what to do, That would be authoritarian! I can only
tell you what we are doing. Diana and I are trying to put hidden
authoritarianism on the map of consciousness so that people can be alerted
to its structure, prevalence and dangers and why they might be more
susceptible to it than they think. We have seen, in short periods of time,
when people become alert to something obvious, like sex roles in
relationships that feminism revealed, it becomes part of the vernacular and
people are aware of it and deal with it as they can.

------------------------------------------------------------------

DA: These are times of great stress for most people and cults initially
reduce the stress by simplifying the world and escaping from it.
Surrendering to an unchallengeable authority, at first, brings great
conflict reduction, peace, and even passion as people believe they are on
the road to salvation. The sense of community is extraordinary when
everybody's beliefs are deeply aligned. But this sense of community, which
is so lacking in our world, comes at the price of having huge walls between
insiders and outsiders. The members speak of unity while separating from the
world and feeling superior to it. This is not new. This is old. But
eventually, these very walls cause great stress, which is why cults start
out feeling optimistic and wonderful in their expansive phase and as
membership plateaus, the leader increases the control over the members and
gets paranoid when he or she sees the limits of his or her capacity to
seduce the world. So, this brings further isolation, paranoia, and stress.
So we're back to where we started, with great stress. from which there is no
escape. If the paranoia is extreme, an apocalyptic phase ensues which could
bring on the deaths or some or all of the members. One never knows when one
surrenders to another's absolute power where it will lead. But these two
phases are somewhat predictable. So, you see, escaping from stress through
surrender to another is like a Siren song that one follows at great peril.
------------------------------------------------------------------

KH: Certainly, we can see a similar sense of belonging and shared beliefs in
mainstream religion, and even in other groups. Do you think that such a
process is somehow less dangerous within such settings? Is it possible that
we are programmed to respond to authority by early experiences in organized
religion? Or, conversely, do you think such experiences may provide a kind
of moral supports that makes one more immune to the extremes of cults?
------------------------------------------------------------------

JK: Again, a complex question. First, let's distinguish between a cult and
other authoritarian groups. We feel the one telling difference between them
is that, in a cult, leadership within the group has no constraints. In other
authoritarian structures, the Catholic Church being but one example,
leadership is constrained by its history and tradition. The Pope could say
that everyone should kill themselves to get to heaven, but this goes against
the Church's position and traditions. No Pope can do this. The Pope is
constrained. Consequently, structurally, non-constrained leaders are indeed
more dangerous. But that does not eliminate the more subtle dangers of mind
control that other authoritarian groups program.
Religion has been the historic purveyor of morality. As I intimated earlier,
the moral fabric is unraveling because the worldviews that the morality of
religions are embedded in can no longer meet the challenges of these times.
These worldviews are all essentially authoritarian where some
greater-than-human intelligence, be its gods, prophets, enlightened beings,
and the like, tell the rest of us what the world is about and how we should
live in it. The very nature of being such an intelligence is that it is
unchallengeable, thus authoritarian. So, to answer the second part of your
question, I would say -- no -- the so-called moral training so derived does
not make you more immune.

------------------------------------------------------------------

DA: Although the Pope cannot kill individuals directly, or have them kill
themselves, as cult leaders can, he can and does kill people indirectly
through, for example, telling people not to wear condoms in a time of AIDS.
This is asking people to die for the sake of belief in the Catholic
traditions, a cult-like behavior. He can also threaten the species survival
through telling people to have babies in a time of over-population. So,
although the Pope in general might do less harm to individuals than a cult
leader such as Koresh, he actually does far more harm to society because he
is far more powerful and his pronouncements affect billions by asking them
to do something that is no longer viable for this species, which is to
reproduce unconsciously. Cults and religions, whether Eastern or Western,
specialize in offering individuals comfort and personal salvation through
beliefs while often ignoring the social implications of the beliefs and
moralities they put forth. These social implications are usually
counter-survival, as we discuss in The Guru Papers.
------------------------------------------------------------------

KH: Well, we're out of time so we'll have to end on that controversial note.
Thank you Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad, authors of THE GURU PAPERS: MASKS OF
AUTHORITARIAN POWER, for joining us here in Live Science tonight.
------------------------------------------------------------------

JK: Thank you for asking the kinds of questions, Keith, that enabled us to
talk about what is in our hearts and minds.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:56:17 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
No cult ever EVER! has visited upon humankind the murder, torture, oppression (physical, mental, psychological, spiritual) that government in all of its forms has and these people of the initials had the usual boring tendency to validate the overwhelming and everpresent authority (probably keeping an eye on their necks) while they pandered to another red herring in the shell game of morality and convention/tradition.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 09:53:10 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
Charles:

Good point. And the point they make about authoritarianism being too rigid for modern society was made much more clearly by Robert Dahl in Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. Only he went a good deal further, to suggest that the mechanism leads to the proliferation of 'polyarchies,' or societies based upon participation rather than authority. I think they may have borrowed the concept from Dahl.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:42:28 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
Thanks Scott, I'll get that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:36:54 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: quit showing off, Scott
Message:
Scott,

Sometimes you really look like you're just showing off. It's a little interview, for God's sake. They're not presenting an academic paper. Maybe Dahl, who probably none of us have ever read, not to say that we shouldn't of course, does go further. Maybe they've even read him and borrowed the concept from him. So? What are you trying to prove anyway?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:31:57 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: quit showing off, Scott
Message:
C'mon, Jim, it's brain food!
Let each of us show off our own special talent without minimizing it!
Thankyou!
(that's my buzzword today - m i n i m i z e) Never been sure about z's and s's as far as the spelling goes, but hey, this is a polyarchy isn't it (does that mean we can vote on how we spell?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:26:59 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: all
Subject: MS married to PhD
Message:
I work in academia and am married to an academic. In defense of Scott (and he may not want or agree with my defense), I have to say that I don't think he is showing off when he talks about seemingly minor theorists on the forum. He is, IMHO, citing references in support of his opinion, or citing references to refute. I suspect that someone, like Scott, who has been been immersed in writing and defending his dissertation for the past several months, may just be in the habit of doing this. Forgive me if this is not true, Scott.

I write/have written a lot of papers for scientific journals, and one is never allowed to state one's own opinion without citing other people's work. Also, when a bunch of people who work in the same field hang around together, they constantly cite other people's work to each other - even in casual conversations about the topic. Thus the work becomes very immediate, and the authors become very familiar. I got my MS 12 years ago and I can still remember having long talks with my major professor about the other theorists in my particular field (which was sulfur biogeochemistry in tidal marsh soils - no chance to talk about THAT on the forum...).

Anyway, this is my experience, although I haven't explained it all that well, and it's why I don't think Scott is showing off.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:45:30 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Oh Katie, get real
Message:
Katie,

Look, I like Scott. I like him a lot. But I still think he tends to show off on some of this academic stuff. Your explanation doesn't satisfy, I'm afraid and you, yourself, give the reason:

when a bunch of people who work in the same field hang around together, they constantly cite other people's work to each other - even in casual conversations about the topic

Katie, Scott is NOT hanging out with his academic peers here, that's the whole point. Now, you got two choices: either he's absolutely oblivious to that distinction or he's aware of if but acting otherwise nonetheless. I think it'd be a major stretch and quite unfortunate for Scott to boot if the former were true. He'd really have to get a grip, in that case. No, I think the truth is in the lesser evil, he's just 'happy' to be educated.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:13:12 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Jim
Subject: Oh Jim...
Message:
Jim,
We always get in this situation: I defend other people, you don't agree with my defense, and I get farther and farther out on a limb because I don't know what the person I am defending thinks or feels. I have no idea how Scott feels. Maybe he IS showing off. Maybe he wants to tell everyone about all these thinkers that he thinks are great.

All I meant to say is that after I've been doing a bunch of scientific writing I feel like I can't express my own opinion without footnoting it, and I thought maybe Scott was feeling that way.

Regards,
Katie

P.S. Are you OK? Seriously, you seem to be a bit irritable lately, and I was wondering if everything was all right.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:35:42 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I'm okay
Message:
I'm okay, although, once again ------yes, that's right, I'm spending too much time here and pissed off at myself for it. There, you have it.

Besides that, though, Katie, why don't we just ask Scott? Scott, tell me honestly, do you really think that your peers HERE have the right backgrounds and contextual frameworks to follow so many of your academic allusions? Are you SOMETIMES guilty of talking over peoples' heads for effect, maybe? Or, did it never occur to you that most of us bumpkins aren't academics, just a whole lot of interested citizens?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:49:20 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'm okay (off topic)
Message:
Glad you are okay, Jim. I mean it. I'm not sure what to do about the posting problem - block or limit your ISP, maybe? Turn off the internet on your work computer (keep e-mail)?

Also, I wanted to clarify something that I might have implied above. I am not trying to brag about having an advanced degree. The reason that I have one is because it is almost impossible to get a decent job in most of the earth/life sciences without a M.S. (at least). In fact, I don't have a decent job NOW, because we had to move so my husband could get a decent job. It's even harder to get a decent job with a Ph.D., to which I am sure Scott can attest.

Oh yeah, the other reason I stayed in school was because I was having a great time. I spent five years of my youth as a high school dropour premie, which meant working full time at very boring minimum wage jobs. After this being in college was like paradise, and I did get to experience some of the things I'd missed when I was a premie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 02:41:42 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Polyarchy is for realists
Message:
Jim,

Polyarchy jump started my mind and brought back memories of Politics, Economics and Welfare.
Yes, I did study a bit of Dahl and Kissingers work and even dabbled a bit in hegemony, revolution, planned economic systems, always conscious of the fact that foreign policy was made by statesmen who operated in a specific historical, cultural, and political context that shaped their goals and limited their options.
What you need to supply is an overview of the development of realist theory, beginning with Thucydides and continuing through the Sophists, Machiavelli, and twentieth -century realists like Morganthau, Niebuhr, and Waltz.
Maybe memes have a place in the evolution of democracy from the agricultural roots of Europe.
This site could have some rigorous underpinnings after all.
Knowledge is power.

Glad that you brought up Canadian case law.
Now thats certainly a lively drinking topic for bumpkins and interested citizens!

To the races,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:42:28 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: CD can show off too!
Message:
Chris,

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about. Care to ....(laugh).. sorry, I'm going to try to say this with a straight face. Let me start again...(laugh, laugh)...

Okay, let me get a grip. Got a glass of water, maybe? Okay, I'm fine now.

Care to... (heavy laughter, tears in eyes laughter)...

Care to (still laughing but I'll blurt it out anyway) EXPLAIN YOURSELF, Chris?

Oh no, I can't take it! This is too funny. (Laughter, etc.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 07:33:35 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'm okay
Message:
Jim we all have ways of staying safe. Scott changes all the time, just like you do, in my opinion. There are lots of different sides to him, it's just that he feels more secure being an intellectual. It's like you like being a lawyer. I like being an idiot.
Each to his or her own - frankly I have only just realised how often I butt in to protect one from another. I have decided it is due to my childhood with parent's who fought a lot (which was terrible to me). All I have to do is make some unthinking sarcastic comment to my daughter about 'her dad' and she freaks.
Personally I obviously still think confrontation is 'bad', even though for adults it is probably very healthy.
I am sure Scott would probably choose to consider your point for is own personal growth. Or maybe he figures now he has his dissertation (don't even know what that is..duh...) he has finally climbed the mountain?
I dunno, I think most of it is projections, as you neatly pointed out to me once. We all do it. I appreciate you wearing mine so generously, when I dig at you.
I was thinking today about you, and I thought, because someone said once here I think, that you are a Scorpio (and my ex is too) that I have just been waiting for you to start hating me. And then it occured to me, every time I make some sort of dumb comment, you are actually very patient (with me, for some reason - maybe just for your own amusement?). And I thought - duh - he's not like that other scorpio I dislike so much at times (my ex)....
In fact I havent' even begun to appreciate what individuals each person here is. So unique. What a treasure, to begin to be able to distinguish more subtleties about each person here.
I don't think I want to meet anyone in person (though it would be fun) because I think appearances make me really judge people too. It is a novelty for me to start to get to know some of you, and yet appreciate I don't know you. Enough said.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:58:30 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: Judex re Scott
Message:
Judex,

I think Astrology's poo poo and I use the term in the specific, technical sense (see Watkins on Woo Woo 1983).

No, serioulsy, I never said I thought it was the end of the world that Scott was showing off. I've shown off lots here. We even have excuses, in a way. Maharaji made idiots of us. I think we're all interested in showing that we've been through some sort of rehab.

I just was particularly pissed off that Scott would self-aggrandize at the expense of three people whom I respect, and who I think deserve respect if not full agreement, Kramer, Alstad and Dawkins. His comment 'that wasn't too hard to dispatch, was it?'
made him sound like an egghead thirteen year-old in a video arcade. Frankly, I think he could have picked more worthy targets.

So now where is he? Is he off sulking? Is he pissed off? Is he going through the archives to find the MANY examples of my own strutting. Oh no! Father, save me from myself for I have sinned.

Really, I do like Scott. Of course I do. I mean that sincerely. Still, ... well, you know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:44:26 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: Katie
Subject: MS married to PhD
Message:
Dear Katie and all,
Hey honey, just listening to Cash (can't remember her name right now, big suprize!)
I have been flip flopping around the forum, not doing it justice lately and I saw that post on Scott showing off and just let it go but I agree with you Katie, that Scott is never showing off, he is just being himself. Thought that was a big part of the forum Jimbo. Personally I learn a lot reading Scott's posts even if some of them are beyond me they give me something to strive for.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 06:16:29 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: MS married to PhD
Message:
sulfur biogeochemistry in tidal marsh soils
dear katie, I live near a tidal mangrove area. it is really beautiful. there, we discussed it on the forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 19:07:11 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: quit showing off, Scott
Message:
Well, Bob Dahl was all the rage in Political Science back in the 70s when I was an undergrad. Never had much time for him. He was in that quantification school so popular at the time.

Charles,

Governments and cults are two different things. Clearly, cults don't have the MEANS to foment as much destruction as a government could, with all the power of a modern state. But your point is irrelevent and makes no sense. Some governments may be more destructive than some cults, so?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 20:35:03 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: quit showing off, Scott
Message:
I think my point must have been obscured by all of my inflammatory rhetoric, but I did make it and I will be redundant. For me it is nothing more than a matter of establishing priorities. I may have gotten into the habit of inflammatory statements to try to nudge people off of their either obviously conformism driven beliefs or their utter lack of an ability to think critically at all. And I also do think this is related to the quest for enlightenment which had a lot to do with why I sought to be initiated. I guess I do believe that oppression in any form and by any entity is designed to stifle that quest and even if it is not so designed or premeditated the result is the same. Of course this is merely my way of pursuing it. I do not know what is in other peoples thinking other than what I am willing to infer from the evidence inherent in their actions, and words are actions in my book. So what I am saying is don't forget the big guys and girls.
Please go and read a lecture Gerry turned me on to about memes. It's at http://www.memes.org.uk/meme-lab/DART96.HTM I'm not saying there is any support in there for what I am saying, but it is relevant.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 12:44:24 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: quit showing off, Scott
Message:
I couldn't agree more that authoritarian systems tend to stifle the quest for any form of enlightenment. That is one of my big problems with BM. When people get indoctrinated in his cult, they tend to STOP searching for much of any form of enlightenment, be it spiritual or otherwise, because they mistakenly believe, and BM tells them this over and over, that they have already found it. Hence, premies tne to be some of the most closed-minded people in the world, and BM likes that just fine.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:38:09 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: bullshit, Charles
Message:
No cult ever EVER! has visited upon humankind the murder, torture, oppression (physical, mental, psychological, spiritual) that government in all of its forms has and these people of the initials had the usual boring tendency to validate the overwhelming and everpresent authority (probably keeping an eye on their necks) while they pandered to another red herring in the shell game of morality and convention/tradition.

Charles,

You are arguing the ultimate red herring, Charles, I'm afraid. Of course governments are more powerful than piddly little cults and able to throw their weight around. The point here isn't about that at all, it's about commandeering peoples' minds.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:39:31 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: bullshit, Charles
Message:
Yes I think it may be a form of denial being used, in fact m i n i m i z a t i o n (after all, someone else did it a lot worse!)

But I still thought it was a good point - it is easy to lose perspective or to leave things out of the argument in order to 'win' the point, but if the aim is more to explore and hence to gain more out of this than just slam M over and over, and all cults,..we might gain the confidence/faith in ourselves the author would point out most cultists (people) are lacking.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:56:41 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
Jim:

By their definition a 'cult' is a group with an unconstrained leader. My problem is this. A leader that is constrained by traditions, or by legal/rational rule systems, could not really start anything fundamentally new. Therefore, unconstrained leaders have a function, and in a certain sense are inevitable. Was Washington really constrained from becoming an emperor? I think that if he was, it was partly his own doing. Surely, he could have become a short-lived emperor. Perhaps he would have been able to last longer. Some of the federalists, like Hamilton, would have jumped with glee.

But Washington, himself, was not seduced. Instead of donning that authority he acted to institutionalize it. To do this he had to leave the stage of power. They say that Jesus did this as well, but it's difficult to say from our vantage point. Did he step off the stage intentionally, or was it just a lucky break that the Romans (and the Hebrew establishment) picked on him? Is there some way we can pick out the Washingtons over the Bonapartes?

It's easy to just say, 'They're all fakes,' but it also may be deadly. We have so little to go on, and I don't think any of us is immune. In Houston I did not feel that my capacity to learn to defer to Maharaj Ji was a weakness. I still don't think it was. But, it's a problem.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:12:26 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
I know that I sound like a little old man in tennis shoes (read irrational wacko with small foundation in fact for his rantings) and maybe I am. But I know they defined their terms before getting into it. I appreciate that attempt to calm the waters before setting sail and I am not fooled by it. The waters are not calm and any attempt to present them as such is sophistry. 'When confronted with a choice between the real and the hypothetical always choose the real.' Joan Baez The predations of government and tradition are real and present and have a very long history. For an amusing and entertaining look at this see Fiddler On the Roof. (I just had the privilege of playing the rabbi.) And I suppose I am saying that institutionalized authority is the most oppressive kind because veritably everyone climbs on board and what comes of it is a religion that doesn't call itself a religion rather 'the will of the people'. It's just that I think the people are duped and disempowered with 'the handshake and the pat on the back'. And Washington was a Mason was he not. Maybe he was more constrained behind the scenes than by events. I am proud to say that as a 12 year old boy I was offered to the masons and found them wanting. I couldn't believe this room full of self important fuddy duddies. But since we have mentioned Washington I will risk an aside to wonder about the plethora of attempts recently to demonize Jefferson. What's up here? I'd say 'something is rotten in Denmark'. So I would say that institutionalizing the authority is not exactly a self effacing act since I will guess that it was a premeditated attempt to perpetuate a point of view and set of values. '...wise as serpents' but maybe not 'gentle as doves'.
I suppose most of us hope were not immune. From my vantage point as dowdy old nobody that is amusing.
Now, as for Maharaj Ji and learning to defer to him I would have to say of myself that I only hoped to defer in total to fall utterly in love. I had learned of and accepted the importance of guru well before being initiated but I am constitutionally hesitant. Even so I like being swept away. Who doesn't?
I still think that (largely in a metaphorical sense) they were watching their necks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:41:13 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
Charles:

So I would say that institutionalizing the authority is not exactly a self effacing act since I will guess that it was a premeditated attempt to perpetuate a point of view and set of values.

Indeed, as the world's first modern democracy, and the first nation founded on a set of values rather than an ethnic identity, the United States government had no traditional legitimacy of its own. What it had was the charismatic legitimacy of Washington, so George invested the fledgling experiment. There is good reason to believe it might have failed had he not done so, and the alternative was a world of absolute and marginally conditional monarchies who ruled 'peoples' of specific ethnic descent. (After all, we had that notorious counter-revolutionary government to the north.) It may have been self serving, but not in the way that we usually think of it.

I wasn't aware of a concerted attempt to demonize Jefferson. Are you exaggerating, or is there a movement I've neglected? T.J. was a man of his times, who transcended those times to some extent. He also committed the unforgivable sin for an American: failure to manage his economic affairs. Anyway, I enjoyed your thoughts on the subject of tradition. Weber claims it is the least stable form of legitimacy, but it's hard to imagine a system that does away with tradition and still manages to survive for long.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:34:53 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
Yes, i agree, it was not self serving in the sense that is normally meant. I am a devotee of the radical tenets of democracy that promote and validate participation - participatory democracy.
I live in a small town where i do participate some and am dismayed at the level of control exercised even in this small polity by the forces of darkness: economic interests and suburbanizing conventions. In the town that is a collection of trophy homes and a Playboy Feature Vacation Site ski resort just up the hill from us there is a case on its way to the Supreme Court questioning the right of people who merely own property here but do not live, register, here to vote here. I housesit for the lawyer handling the case and have read some the the petition for writ of certiorari. I am apalled that any american could even raise such a question, the Mountain Village plutocrats that is. I think of it as a return to the days of the Magna Carta and priveleged voters - the barons and dukes. Of course theirs was a new privilege and a step in the right direction but this is an ill disguised attempt to return to those days.
Thomas Jefferson is being attacked now in Inquiry and recently in The Atlantic Monthly. The route usually taken is via his ownership of slaves and dalliance with same or even long term relationship with same. Oh yeah, there is a book for teenagers I think that covers the same ground, Julia's something i believe. I found it in the Free Box. I guess I put it back. But they got to his radical political views in the Atlantic article and I haven't seen the Inquiry article yet. I am reminded of the line from Tennyson from Idylls of the King, In Love, If Love Be Love (Vivien to Merlin) It is the little rift within the lute,
That by and by will make the music mute,
And ever widening slowly silence all.
I think there is a movement afoot to silence him as a political force. You know, it was Freud who said that every time he broached new territory he found the poets there before him.
Of course no system of governance whether overt or implicit would continue if its principles did not become traditional.
Tzeitel: Young people can't decide these things for themselves.
But of course they went on to do just that and everything came apart. Not because of that, but coincidentally. And I still wonder what happened to Perchik and Hodel.
Lately I looked for Kropotkin, Marat (one of my favorite plays is Marat-Sade) Danton, et al in our library to no avail. I couldn't even find articles about them or synopses of their writings.
But isn't that poem interesting with reference to Maharaj Ji and Knowledge?
e,
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:07:59 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
It is the little rift within the lute,
That by and by will make the music mute,
And ever widening slowly silence all.


yes i have had that thought in relation to M. not that thought in those words, mind you!

It's a kind of conscience thing. Should I attack the bird for not building me a house.

And if the bird lied, well it's only a bird...but then...

What about I think it's Keats -
to paraphrase - truth and beauty lie on a foundation of ugliness, remove the ugliness and all are lost -

underneath everyone here is a spirit which made us seek that love and divinity and to seek higher values. Gratitude is a very healing attitude when aimed in the right direction, I find. For example, it has in a big way cured me of the affliction which made me want to use drugs. Even if my life seems tremendously unsatisfactory (and right now it is feeling good) - when I started to use gratitude for life as my framework, it really changed the way I feel about everything. I guess I was missing that before.

Some say: Take what You need and Leave the Rest

I just cant help but feel that M's 'downfall' (in our eyes anyway) is inevitable due to the structure he has created for expressing his divinity - but what is the alternative to One getting up and saying he is God - the mistake he has made I think is not perhaps not getting off the stage but not saying 'you too are God' enough. The student always has to leave unless they become a victim of the teachings especially if the master forgets he can learn from the student, too.
But Ido feel grattitude for what I learned from M, and maybe I will learn more from others who at least had the heart to look.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:51:08 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What you said!
Message:
There is poetic beauty and truth in your words, Jude. Thankyou for the gift of their expression. carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 23:18:18 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
I feel a strong empathy with your post Jude.
In a way I feel you have hit 'a' nail on the head.
Maharaji needs to empower others at the expense of his
own pride.
It is not the humility of the premies that is so vital here;
but M's own humility.
I agree, that a problem seems to emerge when divinity
manifests as an organizational structure.
But the idea of particapatory democracy needs to be somehow
integrated into the processes and structures of a
fellowship like EV.
Otherwise a hierarchy spawns that is really like a
dictatorship with its 'yes' people given power over the
workings and doings of the disempowered majority(the bulk of the followers).
But this is not so simple. We are dealing here with
a spiritual tradition.....although cloaked in new outer forms......that cannot function exactly like a particapatory democracy. No-one voted Maharaji into power by way of a popular vote. He is self-empowered.
And someone in his position calls the shots!
Therefore, the capacity to reasonably democratise EV(for example) and empower premies(by way of encouraging them to freely debate with each other, for example) is entirely in Maharaji's hands.
And this is where I find myself drifting away from Maharaji's mortal, finite realm , even though I still acknowledge the Knowledge itself and the essential and sincere drive that M has to bring K to people everywhere.
If Maharaji humbled himself to me for all to see then I would experience a transformational change in consciousness.
If he would let me give darshan to him, for instance,
(a half joke intended here!) I would respect him and love him and trust him all the more.
A bit like Jesus washing the feet of the disciples.
It feels to me like M has got caried away a bit with propagation. Too many hamburgers and not enough hamburger quality control.
Regards , Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:13:14 (EST)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: Maharaji's mistake..
Message:
Dear Jude,

Yes, absolutely, right-on. The beauty which I can (sometimes) see inside myself and within others, like you all here, melts me, dissolves me, inspires me and gives me courage. My sense of gratitude and wonder that this is within me was somehow hijacked by Maharaji by his imposition of the guru/devotee contract at the moment of maximum vulnerablity.

Instead of setting me free, instead of allowing me to understand that this revelation was my rightful inheritance as a human being, he demanded a return, a drip..drip..drip of constant material and emotional payment which has bankrupted me. Worse than this, he has made sure that those of us whose natural inclination is to serve (another discussion) have imposed the self-same deal on others through propagation.

I can deal with my pain and hurt (in time), but I have a real problem with the shame I feel about how much hurt I have inflicted upon others in his name.

'nuff said.

Richard
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:53:18 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
It's good to put things on the map though, isn't it. Makes us take a look at the old maps as well. Possibly the mood of society is that the whole authoritarian stucture thing is being questioned (due to changing moral values did they say? - is that commercialism and consumerism?) and unveiling M as just another patriarchy goes with that territory.

But I wonder what will replace the old structures. For example some 'Values' that were taken for granted as expected, as part of the turf, can now be bought and sold. I'm not well educated at all but I have seen how people make money by turning something into a saleable commodity that was once 'free'. These people are quick to take advantage of the fall of an old structure, leaping in and offering new solutions and pocketing the monopoly money. For example someone selling arms in a war.

Personally I am sad to say I am almost at the stage where I prefer enlightened tradition (and dusty corners) to the bright menacing unflinching light of consumerism marketing values like just another donut.

PS CHarles I really enjoy reading your opinions, your way of thinking and approaching issues is thought provoking and obviously based on your life experiences (and they can't be bought and sold or institutionalised, hey?)

Hope I haven't rambled on incoherently (I have no intellectual discipline I know. I must beat myself up about that some time!).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:59:39 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jude
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
Dear Jude,
Please don't beat yourself up!!!! I think, education or no, you are very intelligent and I find your posts thought provoking or resinating within me. I have skipped over the heaving readings so far today just trying to get caught up in general after 3 glorious days of NO WORK! Hope you had a good weekend Jude, as I see you also have 2 jobs and they don't seem to do you in as much as me.
Take care,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:18:02 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
thanks Robyn. My two jobs are both part time, so i work three long days (for me) then get 2 afternoons off before I spend with the weekend with my daughter.
I seem to still need some time alone just to keep my balance. Even if i just do the housework, walk the dog on those 2 afternoons or go shopping alone, then I am ready for my next job as parent!

I've been juggling everything for a long time. luckily now things are looking much better. I really like both jobs and they are both different, so I am not doing the same thing for long hours. I enjoy contributing in short, focused periods of time and having some 'free' time in between. Because my mind gets tired! It's really funny, having had a breakdown 5 years ago or so.
Sometimes a flash comes through of the old me (eg television producers assistant in my 20's) and then another time I can't quickly learn the simplest task. it must confuse people! sometimes my mind feels like it goes out of focus a bit, and then it just pops back in again! ha ha this is hard to describe.

anyway, I am so glad you have had some glorious time for your glorious self. That is so essential, isn't it?
Yes I have been having trouble reading all the posts but I always feel I might miss something really good if I don't. Also I usually am all alone when I log in - you guys are all asleep! Like right now it's 3 am - I had a good sleep and now I am enjoying reading and posting.
Yes, heaving posts is a good description! Quite a day wasnt it!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 15:19:29 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: Jude
Subject: typo!!
Message:
Dear Jude,
That was a typo! I meant to write heavy, god knows where my head is/was! Like Carol said sometimes it is fun to see how a mistaken word fits into the context. I kind of worked here! Tomorrow for the Guru Papers and JM's entries.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:13:20 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Scott, Jude, & Jim
Subject: the bullshit rambler
Message:
Scott: I forgot to ask for a reference to Weber. Never heard of him. I agree, however, that tradition is the least stable form of authority and would like to read what he has to say about it.
Jude: I too, having written what I just wrote to Scott, feel a tendency to find solace and even asylum in traditional principles. Of course I am getting old and look as well to traditional practices to defend me. Maybe they won't. Maybe the big wheel is going to turn.
Jim: I just can't see a criticism of government and the conventions that attend it as a red herring. The ship of state is the one that floats/drags red herrings. We return to the idea of getting off the stage when your bit is over. And I agree with the Native American activist/poet/performer who says, 'Turn em over, they're done.' I will remember his name and post it later.
Thank you all. This is so much fun and so enlightening.
Charles
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:05:39 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: Focus, Charles, focus
Message:
Jim: I just can't see a criticism of government and the conventions that attend it as a red herring. The ship of state is the one that floats/drags red herrings. We return to the idea of getting off the stage when your bit is over. And I agree with the Native American activist/poet/performer who says, 'Turn em over, they're done.' I will remember his name and post it later.

Charles, I've got no idea what the last part of your comment means. If you do, kindly advise. As for the first, let's go back to your original comment on the interview:

No cult ever EVER! has visited upon humankind the murder, torture, oppression (physical, mental, psychological, spiritual) that government in all of its forms has and these people of the initials had the usual boring tendency to validate the overwhelming and everpresent authority (probably keeping an eye on their necks) while they pandered to another red herring in the shell game of morality and convention/tradition.

Yes, Charles, you seem like a cranky old man in tennis shoes. Is there anything in particular that they say you don't agree with? Yes, yes, I know you're absolutely incensed that they didn't join you in taking up the cudgel against the horrifyingly repressive American regime but, Charles, that wasn't what they're talking about. They were simply talking about the ways people trick other people into unconsciously accepting their authority. If you think representative democracy's a sham, fine, suit yourself. Maybe it is. But that's only tangetially relevant to the subject matter here and is certainly no basis for blasting Kramer and Alstead. You know, as much as you feel overwhelmed by the power of the state, you're allowed to think, speak out and question that authority. Kramer and Alstead are discussing power games that demobilize the brain from doing that. What's wrong? Don't you find that worth talking about, especially here in this forum?

I'm sure there are all sorts of people on the web and maybe even here on this site who would love to discuss the foibles of our 'so-called' democracy. You could even trakc down the Chomskyites who'll agree that our thoughts aren't really thoughts, or they're not really ours, they're just rented billboard space for the diabolical masters of the universe who run the Superbowl. Kramer and Alstead, though, are talking about people who manipulate other people into consciously suspending their critical faculties in deference to certain authoritarian powers. By the way, Maharaji does that. Remember him? He's kind of what we're talking about, I think.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:23:24 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Focus, Charles, focus
Message:
Jim:
Let's see if I can focus for you. I tend to let my output be influenced by my insight and feeling, thus I gather associations in what I know is a very random manner.
I did want to address this issue of conventionality more cogently since i have some caveats here.
1. I do agree with the participant who said that authoritarian structures tend to cut us off from useful and necessary information and, etc. But I do not hesitate to continue to criticize the government and the chamber of commerce as being one of the principal if not the principal perpetrators of this evil practice. I am not incensed over anyone not joining my view of this. I am apalled. I can't believe anyone could be that stupid or unaware. As a matter of fact I DON'T believe anyone is. My term for this is 'willful ignorance'. Well, I'm quoting myself. All I think is necessary is a sincere try at a balanced report. For example, they mentioned David Koresh and the Davidians but said nothing about ATF, bureau of, et al.
As for leaving the stage and the virtue inherent in it i refer you to an earlier post in a discussion I was having with Scott T. I think it is time, er, past time for some of the powers that be to leave the stage. And we do talk a lot about that possibility wher Maharaj Ji is concerned.
Now finally to the point in all this above: Let's begin with an image: Say someone is pounding on your foot with a hammer or has only even delivered one hard blow to your foot with a hammer while simultaneously someone is pricking you in the arm with a needle. I dare say you will be completely unaware of the needle pricks. That's it. That's the reason for giving your greatest attention to the one who is the most abusive. And I will further say that to not give you attention to the most abusive is to be either psychotic or cowardly or both.
But of course all of this is really about the authoritarian actions of Guru Maharaj Ji. This site is, in large measure, about that. I get that as one of the primary criticisms of him, whereas, I have to admit that I am most interested in Guru Maharaj Ji as guru and not as administrator. Offerings that assist me in my lack of understanding and ineptitude in that area are my greatest interest. But I do enjoy (obviously) discussing issues of liberty and social standing. I think they actually intermingle with the quest for enlightenment in very significant ways, eg: one of the words for enlightment is liberation and radical spiritual insight is more threatening to established power (read government and religion) than any political force; that is, it is liberating. And I am also a little touchy about attempts to minimize (it's a z) this insight as just so much woo woo or unrealistic fantacizing. And when people in positions of temporal power begin to go one step further and demonize it i think they are likely being machiavellian; that is, decietful and cowardly inasmuch as they are deflecting attention from themselves and their own premeditated oppressive and manipulative actions. But, having exhausted that for the moment, lets return more closely to the topic of Knowledge. I am looking as carefully and extensively as I can for insight into what I have gotten myself into. If Guru Maharaj Ji is not an enlightened one then of course I have no use for him. But more important is whether I can hear my inner being and know the truth if it was there with me. This is what I want and this is what I wanted when I recieved Knowledge. At this point I am definitely confused but learning. And to refer to Guru Maharaj Ji's direction, well, he told me to 'clear your confusion'. I have been helped with that immensely in a mere matter of days while reading and posting here.
I will have to look up the Chomskyites.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:01:09 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: Paragrah, Charles, paragrah
Message:
For example, they mentioned David Koresh and the Davidians but said nothing about ATF, bureau of, et al.

What the hell? Look, Charles, we're talking 'mind control', get it? Not government powers, market domination or any 'related' topic, far or near. We -- or at least Kramer and Alstead, in their SHORT, summary interview -- were talking about authoritarian leaders who stifle questioning. Koresh, I believe, was an excellent example. But the ATF? Give me a break.

Be careful of inflammatory, figurative rhetoric's ability to blur real world distinctions. That's my advice.

Oh yeah, and paragraph a little, will ya?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:55:51 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Paragrah, Charles, paragrah
Message:
yeah, lack of continuity is a definite weakness of mine.
But the ATF?: Not authoritarian? Not stifle questioning? Well...
I was in the army and in a few other places where leadership or powership was unquestioned and where dumming down, etc. We are off the point.
I realize the Kramer and Alstead interview was short. I probably do give them short schrift, and maybe I do not. For me, that will remain to be seen. But I do not agree that my rhetoric is inflammatory, not yet. That would put me in the position of a demagogue and nothing could be farther from the truth. I do have some contempt for 'well reasoned arguments' when they seem to me to be just a tiny bit self serving, and my brief introduction to Kramer and Alstead led me to the conclusion (interim) that they were enjoying doing just that. (See, I actually wrapped it up with the specified reference to the topic sentence in the closing sentence and even mentioned my tendency to be a bit inflammatory)
I swear to god I could hear you in my ear just now advising me to calm down or some such. What a laugh.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 19:27:26 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
In Houston I did not feel that my capacity to learn to defer to Maharaj Ji was a weakness. I still don't think it was. But, it's a problem.

I didn't think it was a weakness either, but I do think that's because as Kramer and Alstad say, it was being hidden by a 'mask.' In retrospect it clearly WAS a weakness, in the sense that I was young and gullible and willing to turn over my better judgment.

I think the key element of what Kramer and Alstad are saying, which isn't being much discussed here, is that cult leaders mask their authoritariansim, and allow people to believe they are self-directed, and not living in a system that does not allow for dissent or even objective analysis. The system is such that cult-members filter all information in the context of holding the cult-leader above any criticism. But at the same time, they are completely controlled by him. Most people who live in an authoritarian state, for example KNOW that is what is happening to them, and hence, at least in their own minds, they can criticize, disagree with, and process information differently than what the leader would prefer. Not so in an authoritarian cult.

Yes, BM can make any changes he wants and those truly programmed followers will adjust reality to comply and the change is apparently seamless to them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 20:07:26 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Well said, JW
Message:
Yes, that's it. Even the North Koreans probably know they're being screwed. Apparently most Chinese did throughout the Cultural Revolution. The real mind control sets in in cults like ours, Heaven's Gate, the Japanese guys or the ATF.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 07:49:18 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Guru Papers interview (Part 2)
Message:
Extremely good point. And as I think Brian pointed out, the fact of attaching a lie to a truth is another way of masking what is happening.

Perhaps it's like the nice doctor putting you under anaesthetic so you don't feel anything (after all you elected to have the surgery)
However at least people undergoing operations have some concept of what will happen to them after undergoing it, and what the result is likely to be.

If you see someone like M, only the good, perfect stage figure, and believe you will be more like him - well, you can't becaue it's a myth.

People pointing out many times that in private M was nothing like he is 'in public'enabled to me to realise the kind of game this whole thing is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:09:34 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Free Inquiry
Message:
Here's a link to a magazine dedicated to promoting secular humanism called 'Free Inquiry'. This particular issue has some neat stuff including an on-line article by Richard Dawkins called 'When Religion Steps on Science's Turf'. I liked it, you might too:

Free Inquiry
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:15:45 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oooo, I'm so steamed!
Message:
Jim:

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. ...

All I have to say about this is that Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit and the discoverer of Java man, would have agreed with the Pope. He probably would not have agreed, however, when it came to the Pope's notion of evolution, for de Chardin was convinced that evolution is incremental. And I can think of perfectly reasonable ways to resolve the meat eating thing. Eating anything that's ever been remotely like a human is just nasty. Why? Just the way we're built. True, there are some hunter gatherers that eat monkeys, but few that munch on any of the great apes. It's a matter of having alternatives, I suspect. Not too difficult to dispatch that one, was it?

A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.

Fundamentally, and qualitatively, yes... but not quantitatively. That's what's important. Gould, rather wisely, has decided not to make the claim that everything real is measurable. Dawkins, rather foolishly in my view, unabashedly makes the claim. What he needs to do is to return to the history of ideas and study the 'evolution' of the Vienna Circle. The logical positivists were the last influential group to make this claim, and became something of a laughingstock. Wittgenstein left the circle and came up with the concept of 'word games,' which in later manifestations has shown a distinct tendency to nihilism and a compulsion to saw off the branch upon which it is sitting. This trick was learned from the logical positivists, who actually sat upon a twig as it turns out.

How much of the universe is measurable? Only that part that is 'radiant' or entropic. How could it be otherwise? First principles. That is the limit of empirical science. Do we survive physical death? I have no doubt that we do, based upon my personal experiences that were, and are, unmeasurable. No duration, no size, no measurement. I am certain there are some things that are not energetic, or entropic, but can I prove it to you? Only if you can believe that I'm both honest and discerning. Empirical science can't inform us about those things that are not measurable. This is not rocket science. What's the matter with Dawkins? I personally believe there must be another door, equivalent to science, that has some answers in this realm. I think this might have to do with revelation, or with the transrational, but I'm just speculating. Dawkins is silly to think he can usurp this turf. I mean, really silly. Really arrogant. And hopeless.

He apparently doesn't realize that the branch upon which he is building this wonderful edifice has already been severed from the tree, and is lying on the ground. That's why it seems so secure and safe. And I know enough about politics to know there is an agenda behind these claims. That's my scientific compulsion, to consider why one might make such claims and why others might support them. I suspect it's nothing more than the career payoff you get from expressing an extreme, unequivocal and uncompromising point of view. Ironically, one finds the same thing on the opposite end of the twig, coming from Feyerabend the radical hermeneuticist, who says scientific method has absolutely no validity at all. But, the question is: Are they putting the car in a higher gear, or slamming it in reverse? If this article is an example of Dawkins at his best, then he's on a dead end street, headed the wrong way.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:23:16 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: You're scarin' me
Message:
Dammit Scott, now I've got to go and read that Dawkins tripe again, AND go finish my undergrad degree.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:33:02 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gerry
Subject: undergrad degree
Message:
Dear Gerry,
I wanted to know how your interview went but didn't want to press it here but I am glad to read you are, or are considering finishing your degree. For me anyway, it gave me a big shot of self esteem, to see I could work hard and be successful using my mind! Best of luck.
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:45:40 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Oooo, I'm so steamed!
Message:
Some religions make existence claims or even only most sects within most religions make existence claims but not all religions and certainly not all sects make existence claims. This kind of philosophy gets so wordy and convoluted that it trips on itself or falls asleep in the resultant nest. Madhyamika, Chan, and even Tantra make no such claims. annata
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:13:00 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: charles
Subject: Oooo, I'm so steamed!
Message:
Charles:

Dawkins, for reasons known only to him, seems to be attacking Catholicism. Reminds me a little of Irma Bombeck. Perhaps Richard Dawkins is a 'recovering' Catholic?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 10:16:33 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Oooo, I'm so steamed!
Message:
Yes. I did go and read the article and found it amusing. Does Irma Bombeck have a broadside (intended) at the church? I'd like to see it. I'm sure its much funnier than Dawkins.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 11:50:33 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Hubris, Scott
Message:
What's the matter with Dawkins? I personally believe there must be another door, equivalent to science, that has some answers in this realm. I think this might have to do with revelation, or with the transrational, but I'm just speculating. Dawkins is silly to think he can usurp this turf. I mean, really silly. Really arrogant. And hopeless.

Strong words, Scott. Unlike you, I'm not an expert in the field. So I'm content to approach the field and see how all those who know so much more than me consider matters. That is, assuming they're not all hostage of some repressive mental hierarchy and unable or unwilling to see when their 'emperor's' aren't as well dressed as they claim to be. I assume that biologists and other scientists who think about evolution are a little sharper than that. I assume that they're not captivated by some limiting assumptions or agreements, tacit or otherwise, that obviate their critical faculties.

I'm aware of the debate between Gould and Dawkins but I've never seen any supporter come close to diss'ing Dawkins as you do. Is that because they just don't have your guts? Or is it your vision? Please tell me Scott how I should approach this becuase, for now, I'm left thinking that you're just some guy who's quite proud of your recent academic successes and can't help really feeling that, like I mean, really feeling it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:36:40 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Jim & Scott
Subject: Hubris, Scott
Message:
I assume that they're not captivated by some limiting assumptions or agreements, tacit or otherwise, that obviate their critical faculties.

Excuse me, may I butt in?? (elbow elbow)

Jim in my humble opinion i think there may be a limiting factor in the scientists minds, which is to explore everything in a physical way. That may not be a valid point.

Scott, I liked what you suggested very much. I like the way you use your mind to accept that there are more possiblities than you now know, and you reach out always to embrace more. (I think) For example that (not recommended reading) author Jane Roberts who channelled an 'entity' called 'Seth', or perhaps another part of her own mind - talked out the science of consciousness as being a new field in the future - and for example perhaps there being 'dream' scientists who explore new realms inside.
I don't know why humans always want to keep exploring but I suppose we must be amazed at times at how far we have come already. What can we do with our minds/senses.
I was thinking about a novel called 'The Magus' by John Fowles when you referred to the magician tradition several times. There is a poem at the beginning of that I think by Eliot (or maybe Pope? or someone who's name is on the tip of my brain...) Who said we leave something and go on a big journey and then end up back where we started, only to know it for the first time.
Do you think all our journeys end this way?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:47:18 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: What do you suggest, Jude?
Message:
Jim in my humble opinion i think there may be a limiting factor in the scientists minds, which is to explore everything in a physical way. That may not be a valid point.

How else can scientists approach their subject matter, Jude? Please answer as specifically as you can. Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 00:25:31 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What do you suggest, Jude?
Message:
I'd like to butt in too.
Jim, hubris has many faces.
One such face is the scientific, skeptical face of
your type of atheistic rationalism.
Pot calling the kettle black if you ask me!
Jim, how free of hubris are you?
How honest do you think you can be about that?
My 'hubric' view of you is ......
well, I know who I am but who in hell are you???
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 01:00:04 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: So fundamentally wrong, Keith
Message:
Jim, hubris has many faces.
One such face is the scientific, skeptical face of
your type of atheistic rationalism.


This is so patently wrong. You're turning the necessarily open-mindedness of science on its head, Keith. You don't know what you're talking about. Proof? Your last line:

I know who I am but who in hell are you???

Who are you Keith? What do you mean by 'who' anyway?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 04:53:59 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What do you suggest, Jude?
Message:
Dear Jim
for example going into a dream state to explore that realm. There are suggestions of ways of doing this, some of which are pretty far out, for example, R. Monroe, Journeys Out of the Body (I think it's called) - details supposed astral travels.

There is a thing called 'conscious dreaming' , I think it comes from native americans, where you attempt to 'wake up' in your dream. Some say primitive man, before the left side of the brain was more developed, could go on a visual 'journey' and 'see' where the hunt was, rather than have to chase it.

There are also people like the well known Edgar Cayce, a farm boy who found he could diagnose and treat people's physical ailments as well as a doctor after doing into a meditative state.

what about dreams themselves? do you dream significant dreams? do you ever get deja vu's?

There is more to life than the 'physical' dimension. But I didn't really intend to get into all that 'hooey' stuff because I had enough of that shit when I was looking for answers. It never helped me, never changed me, never did one thing for me I can see, so those particular answers may be all illusions.

But I still think it is good to think outside of the square. Are there new ways to think about things? To do that, you have to think differently. To think differently, you have to suspend believing that the way you think is the only right way.
It could be a matter of being playful, almost. Isn't that how a lot of inventions and natural laws been realised?

Jim, please don't tear me apart here. I didn't mean to insinuate earlier that we are doing something wrong by slamming M here, and that we should just move on and think interesting thoughts!
I think there is great value in everyone's perspective and without each participant here the Forum would not be as effective as it is.

It is good to be able to 'kill buddha' as Charles mentioned. It is also good to not have to turn things into: either: or. Creative souls like moi get all sooky when we can't play a bit!
(waiting for storm to break over head)
Jude
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:12:59 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: A slight shower
Message:
It is good to be able to 'kill buddha' as Charles mentioned. It is also good to not have to turn things into: either: or. Creative souls like moi get all sooky when we can't play a bit!
(waiting for storm to break over head)


Jude,

It's also good to be able to respect peoples' integrity and abilities when, on the surface anyway, they seem to be sincere and dedicated. No, I'm not talking about me or you; I'm talking about all those humdrum, unimaginative, venal and cowardly scientists. The ones who don't have the simple, human virtue to see outside the box like all the more rounded, adventurous souls who can see the new age dawning. There must be at least one or two real people hiding in the fields of lab coats, don't you think?

No, really, Jude, how would you expect scientists to study any of the phenomena you've mentioned? Are you aware of the research that IS done about this stuff? Do a net search for Susan Blackmore, if you like. She's an interesting woman who's a major researcher of the 'paranormal'. She started out as a 'believer' but after many years gave up hope of ever confirming any paranormal hypothesis. Now she studies how the brain facsimilates psychic experiences and so forth. Live and learn, huh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:29:45 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A slight shower
Message:
I don't know what it's doing in BC, but it's pouring here in the Harbor...and Jim, you've rained on my parade again. I wanna believe in cool stuff like aliens and esp. The truth is boring. Viva la delucionnes!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:54:54 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim won't like this
Message:
''Perhaps what is needed is greater lucidity throughout life, waking and sleeping. Only then can we see through the pervasive illusion that we are unitary conscious beings inhabiting a solid and real world.'' Susan Blackmore

Uh oh, sounds somewhat less than rational/material to me, Jim.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:17:35 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Maybe I will
Message:
Full quote/ context please?

Oh yeah, it's overcast and intermittently drizzling.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:50:48 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Maybe I will
Message:
http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/luciddreams.htm
The quote at the end end the article.

Jim, have you seen this SB article?
http://www.memes.org.uk/meme-lab/DART96.HTM

This article really and truly is a mind blower. OMIGOD! memes!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:38:43 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: I'll read it
Message:
Gerry,

Why not actually link these pages when you find them? I just started doing that myself. It's easy. The instructions are on the forum help page. I've found that I've been having a much richer experience ever since. Oops, sorry! I forgot we're not supposed to compare.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:08:31 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Persecution Simplex
Message:
OHHHHH those instructions. I hate instructions. The shrink told me I had a problem with authority, Sister Angelus said I was a dangerous person and now your telling me to read the damn instructions. Will it ever end???
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:41:00 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thunderbolts in Gray's Harbor
Message:
I'm sitting here in a state of stunment (if that's a word) Something has clicked inside my brain. Dawkins, Blackmore why didn't you mention them before?!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 14:51:31 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: I did, my child, I did
Message:
Oh my cross is heavy but my burden is light. Yes, Gerry, I have spoken the truth here before. Alas, we each come in our own time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:12:59 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I did, my child, I did
Message:
Is it kinda like, I mean when the teacher is ready the student will come? er, something. Never mind.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 01:30:07 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The speed of light
Message:
Dear Jim
I like your answer, and it is a good one. You are right about the good scientists.

On that point, what about seeing light when you practice knowledge? One friend told me there are yoga practices which open up the head chakra; the kundalini (which is the male/female column of energy they see going up the spine to the head - channels the energy right through the brain, opening the 'cocooned' energy sphere of the 'highest' chakra. He warned the person can be lost in bliss but also people go crazy from doing it too much. This doesn't sound like knowlledge, which is probably a lot more gentle and grounded.
That is one theory - we are 'seeing' light with an inner eye. Like I believe blind people dream. Are we seeing another dimension? How to describe it?

Another persepctive is like when I took LSD and saw this immense all-encompassing brilliant white light taht I could barely look at. Yet I was there, in its presence. I felt a huge amount of awe, that this was somethign sacred. And when I came back from the 'trip' i felt I had some kind of 'knowledge', in fact I would not look at anyone in case what they saw in my eyes would scare them! Wow! But the point is, not only did I see something but i felt something. I knew something deep inside of myself.

They talk about 'knowledge' or finding the right master for yourself as being a kind of recognition. You already know it, in one way and yet the other 'you' is ignorant.

So I think it is very interesting; how can you analyse somethign with the part of hyou that doesnt know, how can you deny what you 'know' in the true sense. Likea baby knowing it's own mother, like you knowing your heart beat.

At first I had this experience with Maharaji, and I felt while watching videos at tiems an experience like the premies were 'vibrating' at a higher speed than me. They seemed to be here, yet not here. I only had that experience once, when i was quite far down the track as an aspirant.

Maybe Maharaji raised my 'vibrational rate' somehow. I don't know these answers but I know I have been changed by the time I spent with him. That doesnt' change the way I feel now.

A thought, did someone say you might be going to listen to him 'in person'? I was wondering if somehow it could possibly be a healing experience for you in some way. After all these years, maybe you could forgive yourself for what you did feel.

You can trust your feelings. It's just that 'where' the beloved/divine is being revealed changes, it's not always in the same person or the same thing. That's from 'dancing in the light' by Shakti Gawain. Just a bunch of thoughts. Kick me if you don't like them! (please?!)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 11:21:07 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: The speed of light
Message:
I did say I might go see Rawat. I did say that. I used to call him by those titles. I think part of the cleansing even if it is only of my own confusion will be to dump those titles from my speaking and thinking.
What you said about your own experience with light and LSD may be adequately explained in Susan Blackmore's lecture. Consider the fact that you can experience this overwhelming world that we all agree is experienceable and furthermore agree is beyond comprehension still. Science is a matter of our collective and individual energies devoted to increasing our comprehension. Now set the experience of light beside that. And I also think it is a good idea to keep the company of people who will question any experience you have from the position of being experienced themselves and who have gotten beyond being impressed or awed. I offer, as an aside, that I do not think it is useful to out of hand dismiss the possibility that such people may exist.
I used to be so obsequious that I was convinced that calling Mr. Rawat by his name was disrespectful. Wow, what nonsense.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:48:42 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jude
Subject: It's Eliot
Message:
Dear Jude -
If I am correct, the quote you are looking for is from T.S. Eliot's 'Little Gidding' (from 'Four Quartets', which is a serious of poems.) Here is the quote:

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 05:43:27 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: It's Eliot
Message:
Yes, that's the one.

Thank you - it's lovely to read it again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 21:14:33 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Dawkins is cooler than Gould..
Message:
...sometimes.

Ok, Jim. I won't defend SJG just this once.

I have been watching Dawkins and Gould take potshots at one another for years - it's a great spectator sport, and, patriotic considerations notwithstanding, I am usually more persuaded by Gould than Dawkins on most issues (eg, 'punctuated equilibria', gene-level selection for human behaviour, sociobiological explanations of altruism etc...)

A cynic might argue that their battles are designed such that nobody should be the ultimate winner, since they both need the game to continue for the sake of their publishing careers (Dawkins more so than Gould, actually, because Gould still makes a reasonable living from doing science. Hey! - remember science, Dickie D?). I also believe that they love and respect each other far more than most people realise.

Just this once, however , I find myself profoundly uncomfortable with SJG's cozying up to the pope, and the suggestion that science and religion might enjoy 'a respectful, even loving concordat' is repulsive, IMHO.

I am not about to defect wholesale to the Genies, but this time I have to say that RD is spot-on. More power to his elbow.

The question of when god started injecting a soul into animals is good one, and entirely on-topic for this forum. When in our evoluionary history, please, John Hammond-Smyth, Doc, George etc. - and by what mechanism - did living perfect masters start to gain the advantage over their devotees? Why did the entire neanderthal species evolve, survive and prosper for hundreds of thousands of years (bigger brains than us), only to
go extinct at the last hurdle without ever knowing the divine grace of a single living satguru? Why do the Vedas teach that once upon a time human beings used to enjoy lifetimes that lasted one hundred thousand years, when this is obviously patent nonsense? Why did Shri Hans believe a load of rubbish? Why should any twentieth century educated person believe in anything that is load of rubbish...?

(This is definitely my last post for a while so I might as well get into it!)

...Why, premies, has your guru no powers whatsoever when faced with everyday misfortunes such as family illness? - especially given that once upon a time we used to be told that His Grace was instrumental in manipulating every small detail of his devotees' lives? Why does your guru have to drink lots of brandy when there is an eternal river of perfection flowing right through him?

Why, premies, are you clocking-in here every night, when there is a world of infinite bliss you might as well be exploring? Why do you talk such crap?

So many questions, and none of them ever answered... I'm outa here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 05:54:36 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Dawkins is cooler than Gould..
Message:
Alcohol, when used in excess, and other substance abuse is looked at by some as being about a spiritual crisis.

A person, craving to fill the emptiness they feel inside, seeks to fill it in a physical way, and 'neither flesh nor spirit is satisfied.'

The basis of addiction/co-dependence is thought to be a craving to fill the emptiness inside, in this way of looking at things. But you can't fill this emptiness with physical substances. Alcohol and drugs affect the mind and nervous system.

Alcoholics are often people who have a frustrated spiritual need or longing. One affect of alcohol is the critical side is dulled and it boosts up the ego. Therefore all the 'big' talk you hear from alcoholics.

I don't know about anyone in particular, just making a general comment about a non-substantiated proposition/idea.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:18:59 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Yes, Gould's simply wrong
Message:
Just this once, however , I find myself profoundly uncomfortable with SJG's cozying up to the pope, and the suggestion that science and religion might enjoy 'a respectful, even loving concordat' is repulsive, IMHO.

Yes, I agree. 'Repulsive' isn't too strong at all considering how much better Gould should have known and how disappointing this compromise is on his part. An emotional Rodney Kingism probably.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 19:41:07 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hubris Shmubris
Message:
Jim:

My pride in academic success would probably not take the form of an attack on Dawkins. No money or sex in it. I really view the position that 'only what can be measured is real' as arrogant. I thought I had read in another article by Dawkins that he chooses personally to believe in God, and makes a distinction between that personal choice and scientific inquiry. This is a very generalized form of duality, but it's not a problem for me. It is enormously tempting to try to get a handle on Descartes' dream of the unity of all the sciences, and it may be this that motivates Dawkins from time to time to overstep, or go too far. But people take those trespasses as conquering forays, because of his prominence. If they are more along the lines of experiments they are less problematic for me. But, he is not as controversial in this area because much of this stuff has already been resolved. What we haven't resolved is what a more expansive version of rationality would look like, that might be able to bring these worlds together. Dawkins is 'nomologic' here, just as are the radical deconstructionists on the other end of the spectrum. Neither group can see the merit of the other's argument, but both are a little bit scared the other may not be completely nuts.

Incidentally, did you see the cosmological discussion on Nightline a few nights ago? It appears that something called 'dark matter' could make up as much as 90% of the universe. I just can't figure out why they insist on calling something 'matter' that has none of the properties of matter. i.e. it's existence can only be inferred because it is not measurable. I agree that we can infer that some dad-blamed thing is there, but what it's properties are is a dad-blamed mystery (apart from the fact that it kicks up a big ruckus). I call it 'syntropy' because that makes more sense to me than 'dark matter.' It is also more hopeful, and less threatening somehow. I've just got a hunch we went wrong when we started re-constructing the universe out of squares and cubes. Who knows? Maybe they're just highly efficient suitcases.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:06:46 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott, a more detailed reply
Message:
All I have to say about this is that Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit and the discoverer of Java man, would have agreed with the Pope. He probably would not have agreed, however, when it came to the Pope's notion of evolution, for de Chardin was convinced that evolution is incremental.

Scott,

Who cares what some Jesuit had to say about evolution? Maybe I've overlooked it, but I don't recall his mention in any of the stuff I've read on the subject. Did he discover Java man? Well that's interesting. But does that make him an expert in these matters at all? Why do you cite him? And from how long ago? And why do you say that's 'all you've got to say' as if his opinion is so important to as if de Chardin was some walking bottom line?

And I can think of perfectly reasonable ways to resolve the meat eating thing. Eating anything that's ever been remotely like a human is just nasty. Why? Just the way we're built. True, there are some hunter gatherers that eat monkeys, but few that munch on any of the great apes. It's a matter of having alternatives, I suspect. Not too difficult to dispatch that one, was it?

Well, I'm not so sure how well you've dispatched anything here, Scott. Dawkins, discussing the Pope's discussion about some ephemeral 'moment of transition', said:

In plain language, there came a moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a previously animal lineage. (When? A million years ago? Two million years ago? Between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens? Between 'archaic' Homo sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens?) The sudden injection is necessary, of course, otherwise there would be no distinction upon which to base Catholic morality, which is speciesist to the core. You can kill adult animals for meat, but abortion and euthanasia are murder because human life is involved.

His point, as I read it, is merely the obvious one that Catholicism condones meat-eating because animals precede that magic 'moment of transition' wherein hominids become human. That's all. He's not talking about why we don't eat meat but why we do. You seem to be talking at cross-purposes with him. Again, I'm all ears. What am I missing?

Gould, rather wisely, has decided not to make the claim that everything real is measurable. Dawkins, rather foolishly in my view, unabashedly makes the claim.

What????????? I've read the article a few times now, Scott. Where does Dawkins say anything of the sort?

Do we survive physical death? I have no doubt that we do, based upon my personal experiences that were, and are, unmeasurable. No duration, no size, no measurement. I am certain there are some things that are not energetic, or entropic, but can I prove it to you? Only if you can believe that I'm both honest and discerning.

Now let me get this straight, you are absolutely positive about this? You're completely sure that you've eliminated all the more mundane explanations for whatever you've experienced and have indeed experienced.... what? What have you experienced tht you know for sure is a harbinger of an afterlife? Would you suggest that all research into brain simulation of psychic experiences end, full stop? Can the whole world count on your honesty and discernement, Scott? Can I?

What's the matter with Dawkins? I personally believe there must be another door, equivalent to science, that has some answers in this realm. I think this might have to do with revelation, or with the transrational, but I'm just speculating.

Maybe Dawkis just needs a good shake, that's all. Okay, let's be careful here, you believe there must be 'another door'. It may be amongst the things you mentioned. Any other candidates? And again, are you absolutely sure your brain itself might not be the culprit?

And I know enough about politics to know there is an agenda behind these claims. That's my scientific compulsion, to consider why one might make such claims and why others might support them. I suspect it's nothing more than the career payoff you get from expressing an extreme, unequivocal and uncompromising point of view. (emphasis mine)

Again, is that 'know' as in 'completely certain'? Your 'scientific compulsion' as yu call it sounds like you've got a question and a hypothesis. Why bother when you're starting off with an answer as well?

If this article is an example of Dawkins at his best, then he's on a dead end street, headed the wrong way.

I'd have to say the same thing about you here, Scott.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 23:14:00 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dawkins
Message:
I begin, as in butting in, with acknowledging that I know no more of Dawkins and his views than what I have read here, in the Inquiry article, and in the lecture by Susan Blackmore.
I thought the Inquiry article was a somewhat humourous and oft repeated, by scientists, ridicule of the Catholic church. But Dawkins would seem to have no quarrel with Buddhism. I often think when reading the work of psychologists anyway that the buddhists were here first by a thousand years or so. It seems the same is true of evolutionists. Or at least there appear to be no embarassing divergences. Buddhism: no soul, the human being as a mere concatenation of effect and a developing phenomenon. But the buddhists would go on to say that all of this is a matter of appearances and that you, if you are disciplined enough, can find that out for yourself. The only place a serious divergence occurs is in the area of proof. One can prove it to one's self and act accordingly but one cannot prove it to another. The Tantrics may even disagree with this idea because their claim is the claim of the sorcerer or magician. I believe them but only base that belief on a vision/experience. So I think Dawkins appears to be discovering by way of theorizing informed by scientific investigation what the buddhists were saying long ago. There is a lot of this going on now in science and it is being talked about in numerous popularizations of same. Don't you scientists read these things or are books by Dossey (medicine), Capra (physics),Christian Ratch (ethnobotany), Jung (psychology), etc. considered spurious? I'm not speculating.
Neither am I speculating about dreaming. Try to awaken in a dream. It can be done. I have done it and am approaching doing it again after awakening from the exclusivist (authoritarian) view I had of meditation and satsang. I have predicted with some success and no basis other than my inner sense. I have seen and described in great detail a person I have never seen with my eyes and had a friend of his confirm my accuracy. I was as blown away as he was. I have not done any of this except the dreaming in many years. I gave up all discipline to develop such abilities because I was convinced they were harmful distractions. Dreaming is a method. Give it a try.
Now I return, as I am sure you knew I would, to Scott's assertions about politics. Are you telling me you do not know this? I mean this is not woo woo. This is obvious. This is easily observable. One needn't even be disturbed by it to see it. It has descended to the level of common knowledge. One hardly has to pay attention to know it. Hidden agenda, hidden even from the perpetrator/actor, is not a new idea either or itself a hidden one. Hidden agenda is spoken of everywhere in literature, psychology, political science, martial arts. And delusion or the hidden agenda that is hidden from the actor is nearly as well known. It is the territory of the con artist and we know there are plenty of them around. So are you saying that it is not possible that Dawkins may be manipulating his approach just a little for effect or that we have good reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. I bet he prides himself on his subtlety.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 20:19:45 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Devil is in the details
Message:
Jim:

De Chardin is as much a walking bottom line as Dawkins. 'All I've got to say,' means that's all I have time for at the moment. The Pope is not the last word on Catholic perspectives. So the Pope is wrong about something. Glad Dawkins pointed it out. What does that have to do with the generalizations Dawkins makes? You can't generalize from that example that science gets to take over this 'values' turf. Frayed Knot.

His point, as I read it, is merely the obvious one that Catholicism condones meat-eating because animals precede that magic 'moment of transition' wherein hominids become human. That's all. He's not talking about why we don't eat meat but why we do. You seem to be talking at cross-purposes with him. Again, I'm all ears. What am I missing?

So, he's not generalizing? He's just saying catholic theology is silly? If that's the case then I've no problem. I thought he seemed to be using Catholicism as a foil to make a more general statement. Isn't that what is meant by the title of the piece? Am I missing something?

Gould, rather wisely, has decided not to make the claim that everything real is measurable. Dawkins, rather foolishly in my view, unabashedly makes the claim.

Here is where he makes the claim:

A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims.

So he is saying that science has something to say about whether or not a supernatural presence exists. Or am I wrong? Looks like to me that's what he's saying. Are we reading this differently? Maybe he's not saying anything?

Now let me get this straight, you are absolutely positive about this? You're completely sure that you've eliminated all the more mundane explanations for whatever you've experienced and have indeed experienced.... what? What have you experienced tht you know for sure is a harbinger of an afterlife? Would you suggest that all research into brain simulation of psychic experiences end, full stop? Can the whole world count on your honesty and discernement, Scott? Can I?

I'm about as close to 'absolutely positive' as it's possible to get. This is merely a descriptive analogy rather than an argument, but how is a house different from a piece of paper? Physical world = piece of paper. What I experienced = House. I can probably fold the paper to look something like a house, and that actually might be worth doing as an analog. Can the world count on my experience? Frayed knot. But, if I'm right we all know this stuff somewhere anyway. I mean, it wasn't as though I had to 'believe' in order to have the experience or anything. Belief had NOTHING to do with it, as far as I can tell.

Someone convinced of my honesty and discernment might be open enough to alternative explanations that we might be able to expand the known universe a bit. Just a little bit. Like the quarters one surrenders in heaven for masterbation, or the quarters one recieves for a kind word here or there, they might add up to a fortune one day.

I don't know a great deal about Dawkins, but this article did not seem very inspired. Nuff said.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 17:38:42 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Breaking free from the One
Message:
I'd like to say one thing about the power someone like M has. I'm not saying he does this but I want to point something out.

A spiritual dictator has the power to isolate his/her followers. Since they can't/won't relate/engage with anyone outside of him and their group (in a meaningful way) about it they have no way of comparing what is happening or of getting any perspective on themselves or their own life.

Secondly, there is a fear of the unknown - what will happen if you leave. There are no 'spiritual police' to protect you if you go against grace! There are no laws to protect people's spiritual liberties. The realm of life/death is open to anyone who wants to say they know, and are charismatic. There is no proof/disproof. They can have an enormous amount of power over their followers, without them even realising it. Because the stakes are so high (they believe). Even though he says the door is always open, other premies will suggest various sad or tragic things that happened to others (who fell off the edge of the world). Another example, Richard mentioned making a vow on pain of death(he believed - correct me if I am wrong, Richard). So when you find something like this Forum, and see that others have left and are doing just fine, and nothing terrible has happened and in fact they are a lot more interesting and independent than the premie mind-set - well - you finally have a real yardstick.

By the way, there are 'protectors' out there - people like psychiatrists - can be mastesr of helping you strip away illusions (and they can be the three faces of creator/destroy/sustainer too, I found. They destroy illusions, sustain the child within, and help create new ways of thinking). Oh, and the one thing a good one won't do, ever, is tell you what to think. But I acknowledge that being in a cult is not necessarily a mental illness, and a doctor is just one (usually humble) person.

Also, before you seek help you have to recognise you have a problem. And to say you have a problem with knowledge is to admit you are not getting the same gold that thousands all over the world are (and it's proved in the videos!) I'm just using the example of a psychiatrist to show there are other powerful 'Friends' in the world who aren't out to get a following of thousands.

Anyway, a powerful antidote, to me, is a group like this, each supporting one another in continuing to see through the lies and half-truths. I am going to get my notes on denial, by the way, to help me see more clearly when someone is trying to manipulate the truth. People who come from dysfunctional famlies (the key factor being denial) have been sold a line all their lives and are used to it. It's very hard for them to go against they loyalty (as they see it) and to expose the denying loved one.

So 3,000 cheers to the honest souls on the Forum who have shown me again and again that it is okay to just say 'bullshit'!

And PS, I suspect Doc has had the nod from M to come in here. As soon as I read him, I just had that feeling. But, that's my intuition, right or wrong!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 15:18:21 (EST)
From: GEORGE
Email: smithgs@ext.missouri.edu
To: Everyone
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
I have read these forum comments over the past week and here are my comments. I am a current follower of M and have been since 1973; so I do have a historical perspective. I have never (Thank God) lived in an ashram, but did live for about a year or more in a 'premie' house. I have never been an instructor, don't know M personally, have not worked on his house or plane, but have spent some personal time with Charnanand. I would like to address some of the comments that have been aired by ex-followers.

1. 'Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you peace'. Now what exactly do you think these words mean? For all of you old ex-ashram, ex-premies, I bet it meant give up your free will, no longer be responsible for your actions, work a minimum wage job and live carefree in an ashram devoting your life to M. Well, I think you missed the boat and your spiritual dream became the nightmare you created for yourself. So now you blame M. This sounds so familiar to me. 'ALL MY PROBLEMS ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT'. I would surmise that if you understood what these words meant then you would see that throughout all religious traditions, philosophies, etc., this message is spoken. To know your true self you must surrender your false self. Then true peace can be found. Personally, I found the vast, vast majority of ashram premies to be nuts! Everything was 'GoomRaji's Grace'. What a crock of shit! So I have little sympathy with your disallusionment.

2. M is fat, rich, married his secretary who is 10 years his senior, drinks Cognac, drives fancy cars, flys his own jet, etc. etc. These are all reasons he CANNOT be the Master. You guys need a dose of reality in my opinion. I say a big SO WHAT!!! Ever since he went through the change of life M has been overweight, no more nor less in the succeeding 30 years. I can't say this for myself. Wasn't BUDDHA fat? I guess we really don't know about Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, etc. M was rich in India and he still is rich. To run the size organization he does and travel as much as he does, he should have the wealth to do this. Someone said he had to spend a month's time at his residence because he did not have the funds to travel. Well, that's not his fault; it is our loss. He married (and is still married to) a woman 10 years older than him. SO WHAT! He drinks Cognac, maybe eats meat??, maybe gets drunk?? SO WHAT? Ghandi used to sleep naked with 2 young women each night. Now he claimed he didn't screw them, but try that today and see if anyone believes you.

3. KNOWLEDGE is Free!!! How anyone can claim differently is beyond me. And M's support comes from donations, sales, ivestments. Personally, I think he has to be a pretty shrewd and astute businessman to accomplish what he has. His HOLY brothers drive a taxi, are in Indian politics, and one follows in his coattails. Regardless of what you think happened when Shri Hans died, the fact is that only M has perservered and spread K throughout the world. Now if you chose to give all of your money, inheritance, lottery earnings, etc. to M, that was YOUR choice! Hell the TM Guru charges $75? for a mantra. Some one said there were 30 other gurus giving these techniques. Well where are they? Personally, I am grateful that M came to my country and gave me K for free. Tell me where else can one attend a 3-day event on personal growth and pay only $25 for a seat for all three days? Most seminars, events I see advertised by various New Age groups cost between $200 - $1,000. I think your arguments and claims just don't hold water.

4. Is M God? What a stupid question! God is God. However, is M Aware, Conscious, one-with God, Enlightened? In my experience YES, YES, YES, and YES. And I will say, I have personally, on several occasions, sometimes completely alone, sometimes in his presence, experienced this. They were the most real experiences of my life. They were not mass hypnosis. Read the New Testament and count the number of times Jesus was labeled the Devil. Notice that he got mad, yelled at people, told them to follow him and disown their family, cried, worried, doubted God, etc. Seems to me you people have some unrealistic ideas of how a Master is SUPPOSED to be.

5. The experience of Knowledge. Well it is perfect and if you have ever crossed through the inner doors that the techniques point you towards, then you will know this also. For the person who said M now teaches the 'Lite' version, well you and I have been hearing 2 different messages. M's message has not changed in the past 30-40 years. Yes, he has dropped much of the Hindu stuff (Bully for Him), but the core Satsang, Service, and Meditation is still there (and if you will read, these are the core of any Master's or religions teachings). Christians call them Witnessing, Sevice, and Prayer. M asks that a person practice the 4 techniques for a MINIMUM of 1 hour a day. Now if you are truly sincere about 'finding GOD' or 'Surrendering the Reins of Your Life' then this is not such a huge request. But if all you do is meditate, then YOU MISSED THE BOAT!!!!! What the hell do you do with the other 23 hours? Try spreading a little love through your actions and words and you may find your life becomes a glorious, magical journey.

Finally, I really don't see what you people's problem is? What has M ever done to you? He has done nothing but give to me; good gifts! If you are bitter about getting trapped in DLM and the ashram vibes, then you have my sympathies. But don't blame this on M (well I guess you can blame everything on him if you want to). But that doesn't change the fact that you have life, choices, and a finite time to experience both. Enjoy what time you have. Find God (your heart) however you choose. But don't begrudge those who have found the Keys to the Kingdom through Knowledge and M's teachings. Personally, to whoever created this web site, I would say GET A LIFE! Your personal (or collective) vendetta against M is a waste of your time and energy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 17:28:19 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Thank you, I appreciated your honesty. I must admit to all here that I too have had many doubts about the posts here. I myself have been an 'ex' for a long time and have posted my anger and bitterness here for a while, but I will remain anonymous.

George, I used to feel quite good when I did in fact experience the knowledge. And also have to admit that maharaji always was an inspiration. I guess I was feeling sorry for myself and had to find someone to blame.

What you said has made me think that I might try again. There is another post here that made me think as well, something about my motivation in getting knowledge.

I am going to find out when maharaji might be in the Miami area again and will try to see him again, after so long, with a new perspective. Having gone through this site, and all.

Maybe I should start a new site for 'ex' ex-premies.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:12:11 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Anon and George
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Both interesting posts.
George, essentially I agree with all you wrote , but your post does not deal with the issues I'm trying to deal with right now.
An instructor said to me recently that Maharaji has made mistakes(especially in the earlier years of being in the west).
Why would he not still make mistakes?
He may have 'blind-spots'.
Your post was like one end of a pole.....but there is another end....another face, if you like, a more human face.
Knowledge and enlightened consciousness expresses or manifests into all the realms that exist; mental, emotional, physical.
Like a mandala fanning out from its center.
The whole mandala is of significance, not just the center.
How about the sychronization of the human individual?
That's called integration.
That includes the free development(unhindered) of all my faculties.
To guide that integration process is surely what is needed.
No particular faculty is the enemy as such.
Maharaji for instance has a really strong intellect , and so do I.
But no member of the team should be ridiculed.
Do you understand?
Mind should not be ridiculed; rather premies and aspirants should be assisted in their understanding of how to integrate mind with 'self' or the 'divine' etc.
Most people who respond positively to Maharaji have reasonable minds anyway.
I think so. At least to the degree that can be encouraged ,
rather than discouraged.
Individuals are so different in their make-ups.
Some people are very intellectually inclined , others are not.
Some people are more artistically inclined, or practically inclined.
All should be able to participate and discover a fulfilling experience in the participation.( the ideal of service????)
I have never felt that 'service' provided me with an opportunity to experience the flowering of my potential to really give of my self... or really receive of the real gift of other peoples flowering.
It is rather a controlled and regulated experience of selfless service, which is very useful in itself, but ultimately falls short of my deepest needs.
Maharaji is driven by really profound needs, isn't that so?
So those primary needs should be acknowledged and allowed an outlet to create , express or manifest.
To stifle those energies is to create another religion; another group that tries to fulfill itself by conforming (synchronizing???) to a set of principles imposed from outside,
and such a phenomona surely goes against the message of go within and discover your own truth.
I want to synchronize with those free spirits that I feel a mutual respect with. Those who even despite our differences ,
feel an essential intimacy (a oneness) that expresses naturally as a caring .
By and large premies do not feel or sound like free spirits.
Anon, I personally feel it's courageous to be open to all possibilities.
Good luck to you.
And George, I do appreciate you sharing what you did.
Respects, Keith.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:30:26 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Keith???
Message:
Keith,

I'm not sure about a 'really strong intellect' but I trust you've got some common sense. You seem to be developing it these days, at times anyway.

So, how in the world can you say to George, 'essentially I agree with all you wrote'? Are you crazy or something?

Everything Geroge said is wrong, everything. So, without repeating it all, let me ask you instead to tell me specifically what you think he got right. Would you mind?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:37:28 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Keith???
Message:
Jim, you drive a hard bargain.
I'll re-read Georges post and respond more specifically to the points he made.
Just for you,
Keith.
Ps; MIGHT TAKE A WHILE!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:49:48 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: ANON and Anon
Message:
Keith -
You are a nice guy who I feel is honestly seeking the truth (seriously). Thus I hate to see you get jerked around by these people who won't use their own name - OR a consistent pseudonym - on the forum. As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) the 'ANON' who posted the 'KNOWLEDGE AND THE MASTER' message is the same person who previously posted as 'DOC'. It is not the 'Anon' who ordinarily posts here. It would be nice if everyone could stick to one pseudonym here, folks, and without using other people's pseudonyms. Please!

Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:16:23 (EST)
From: The real Anon
Email: None
To: Anon
Subject: Hey! That wasn't me!!
Message:
Thank you, I appreciated your honesty. I must admit to all here that I too have had many doubts about the posts here. I myself have been an 'ex' for a long time and have posted my anger and bitterness here for a while, but I will remain anonymous.
George, I used to feel quite good when I did in fact experience the knowledge. And also have to admit that maharaji always was an inspiration. I guess I was feeling sorry for myself and had to find someone to blame.
What you said has made me think that I might try again. There is another post here that made me think as well, something about my motivation in getting knowledge.
I am going to find out when maharaji might be in the Miami area again and will try to see him again, after so long, with a new perspective. Having gone through this site, and all.
Maybe I should start a new site for 'ex' ex-premies.


Just to avoid confusion. I, the inimitable 'Anon' who has posted here often, am not responsible for the above. Whoever it is, can't you call yourself 'Anonny' or something to distinguish yourself???
If you are pretending to be me then you should know I would never say 'Having gone through this site, and all'
That is very American!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:28:35 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: The real Anon
Subject: Hey! That wasn't me!!
Message:
Thank you, Anon. I thought as much (I wasn't sure what you'd be doing hanging around Miami, for one thing), but I wasn't sure.
Regards,
Katie

And:
To the OTHER (U.S.) anon: Have a good time in Miami. You might want to check with someone in EV before setting up an ex-ex-premie website, because it's been my impression that Maharaji does NOT want premies talking about him on the internet.

Just a suggestion,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:14:56 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: The real Anon
Subject: Hey! That wasn't me!!
Message:
Whoever it is, can't you call yourself 'Anonny' or something to distinguish yourself???

May I suggest Aninny?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:59:56 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: The real Anon
Subject: Hey! That wasn't me!!
Message:
I was right, I knew that wasn't you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:58:12 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Anon-the fake one
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
'I myself have been an 'ex' for a long time and have posted my anger and bitterness here for a while, but I will remain anonymous.'

Who are you? You certainly aren't Anon, because his posts are far from seeming angry or bitter. So you have been an angry bitter poster here for a while? Hmmmmmmm
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 17:40:55 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: See, Doc? Here's another one
Message:
George,

Of course you suffer from the same maladay as Doc (please see Doc, here's my diagnosis). You never had the guts, stupidity, naivite or simple bad luck to trust Maharaji back then. Now nothing could be more convenient for you or him than to try to whitewash the past. After all, he's embarrassed that he demanded so much and you're embarrassed that you never bit the bait.

George, you can say whatever nonsense you want here, the fact is that if you ever sat down to actually hash this out with anyone hip to your guru's silly tricks, you'd lose. You just can't do it. There's too much historical record for you to explain away or ignore. That is, he said too much and did too much that you'd be unable to justify.

Already, your post above is a travesty of callous superficiality and distortions. For example, you ask what 'Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you peace' really means and then offer your interpretation: 'I would surmise that if you understood what these words meant then you would see that throughout all religious traditions, philosophies, etc., this message is spoken. To know your true self you must surrender your false self.'

But it's not your interpretation that matters, George, it's Maharaji's. Now you must remember that once upon a time he allowed premies to ask him questions. Do you recall? Why, Maharaji even had special ashram satsangs -- closed to people like you, by the way,-- where he clarified himself further. In every case that I remember, Maharaji made it really clear: surrender meant giving it all, physically and mentally. But, like I say, you weren't listening.

You call the vast majority of ashram premies 'nuts' but really, George, who were they but people like you who got Knowledge but, unlike you, trusted Maharaji implicitly? You just weren't there fella. Nuts? Well the world sure thought so but, et tu, Brute? Really, this is remarkable.

As for comments and criticisms about Maharaji's lifestyle or physique, George, you leave out the best parts. A number of people here have alleged that Maharaji's been unfaithful to Marolyn and, if you read Frank's post below, you'll see that some say he's even assaulted her. And drinking isn't the issue, a drinking problem is. Eating meat? Hey, who cares about that shit? Well, I'll tell you who:

I know one thing. What you eat, so you become. I'm not telling you a lie. I speak from experience. I'll tell you one thing, since it's not meant for humans to eat ... and there is a very logical explanation. Maybe you even now it, you know?

The beings that are supposed to eat meat, like cts, lions, animals like that, they always lick their water. They don't suck the water. They always lick it. They take their tongue out like a cat -- you have seen how a cat drinks water, and how a dog drinks it. But beings that suck water don't eat meat. And that's the way it's supposed to be.

And man sucks water, he does not lick water, since he is not supposed to eat meat. And God ahs provided him, and made him the king of all nature not to kill other things, but to ... He has given him all the fruits in the world, anything he wants, a big head up here ... So, don't you think he should try to utilize it and try to understand the the beauty, and to graps the beauty of the fruits God has given us? Becuase I'll tell you, it's really healthy too. Body can just really accept it. And that's the way it is.


Yeah, you guess it. Now did this guy know anything bakc then? And if he doesn't agree with this bullshit now, did he ever retract this statement? Did he ever admit he was wrong about anything?

You deal with the 'God' question as you do everything else -- superficially and with an ugly disregard for truth. You say, in fact, '. Is M God? What a stupid question!

Well, George, it wasn't too stupid a qeustion for Mahararaji to deal with:

Q - To whom should we give our devotion?

A - Guru.

Q - Shouldn't we give our devotion to God?

A - What is God?

Q - Well, Guru is a personification of God in this Earth, right?

A - I told you yesterday: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? **** When God has come here, then what is the need to give devotion to God there?

Do you have any idea how many quotes there are where Maharaji claimed that he, and he alone, was God in human form? Here are a few more:

1)Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion?

2)Guru Maharj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destoryer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.

3)I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy?

No, I think you're a little off-base on that point, George.

George, just dealing with the ashram thing again, you suggest towards the end of your post that people who are pissed off about the ashram not blame the matter on Maharaji. But you never say why. So I'm asking, why? Is it because he never pressured us into staying there? That's clearly wrong and, if you actually think that, just proof that you don't know what you're talking about. The 'closed' ashram satsangs, George. What do you think he talked about there?

Is it because he didn't intend them to be S,S & M sweatshops? Really Geroge, what do you know about anything?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:24:25 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: See, Doc? Here's another one
Message:
Let me say one thing Jim,
I feel you are owed responses and/or answers to your questions.
I was the wrong one to try and answer those questions which pertain to a past I was not involved with.
But those who were involved should take your words seriously.
That's my view.
Regards, Keith.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:26:14 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: To George
Message:
Nice try, but I ain't buying. The guy's a fat cat scam artist. And getting slicker every year. You can't really expect me to believe you just went on your merry way and weren't constantly dunned by the organization for more, and more and more. Gee you really are special George. Did you realize knowlege in two weeks like your master did? Can I send you a donation?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 18:55:42 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: To George
Message:
Jim, I shall try and deal with each point George made ,one by one.
His first one was:

'1. 'Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you peace'. Now what exactly do you think these words mean? For all of you old ex-ashram, ex-premies, I bet it meant give up your free will, no longer be responsible for your actions, work a minimum wage job and live carefree in an ashram devoting your life to M. Well, I think you missed the boat and your spiritual dream became the nightmare you created for yourself. So now you blame M. This sounds so familiar to me. 'ALL MY PROBLEMS ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT'. I would surmise that if you understood what these words meant then you would see that throughout all religious traditions, philosophies, etc., this message is spoken. To know your true self you must surrender your false self. Then true peace can be found. Personally, I found the vast, vast majority of ashram premies to be nuts! Everything was 'GoomRaji's Grace'. What a crock of shit! So I have little sympathy with your disallusionment.'

Since reading the above and posting my response, I have read your response to George and this has certainly modified my view.
You recall Maharaji specifically telling you and the other ashramites what it meant to 'surrender the reigns of your life to Guru Maharaji'.
I think George ought to respond to that.
I agreed with the following:
' I would surmise that if you understood what these words meant then you would see that throughout all religious traditions, philosophies, etc., this message is spoken. To know your true self you must surrender your false self. Then true peace can be found. '

Maharaji is echoing the above in his own way , but it is not as simple as just that.
Okay, I was a little rash and rushed.
Actually, I never found all the ashram premies to be nuts.
I feel that is just a cheap excuse to try and justify the notion that people like you were always missing a quid(a few screws missing) anyway.
So Jim, I do not agree with everything George said.
Thankyou for bringing me to heel here.
I shall consider Georges other points a little later.
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:28:10 (EST)
From: MARY
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
THANK YOU GEORGE!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:38:42 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: George and Master Baiting
Message:
Let's see, hmm what can I find to agree with George...Other than M is fat, drives expensive cars, drinks, and flies a jet (hopefully not at the same time!) what can I say is 'true' here, as in 'universal truths'?

To know your true self you must surrender your false self. Then true peace can be found.

Jeez, George, I was going to accuse you of mixing in recognized truths with cult bullshit as most cultist do so well, but you've even failed on that score. One statement. That's it.

Thanks for stopping by George, and stick around some more. One week isn't enough to undo 25 years of brainwashing, er I mean conditioning, right Anon?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 19:56:30 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: jim
Subject: George's second point
Message:
Jim, George then said;
'2) . M is fat, rich, married his secretary who is 10 years his senior, drinks Cognac, drives fancy cars, flys his own jet, etc. etc. These are all reasons he CANNOT be the Master. You guys need a dose of reality in my opinion. I say a big SO WHAT!!! Ever since he went through the change of life M has been overweight, no more nor less in the succeeding 30 years. I can't say this for myself. Wasn't BUDDHA fat? I guess we really don't know about Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, etc. M was rich in India and he still is rich. To run the size organization he does and travel as much as he does, he should have the wealth to do this. Someone said he had to spend a month's time at his residence because he did not have the funds to travel. Well, that's not his fault; it is our loss. He married (and is still married to) a woman 10 years older than him. SO WHAT! He drinks Cognac, maybe eats meat??, maybe gets drunk?? SO WHAT? Ghandi used to sleep naked with 2 young women each night. Now he claimed he didn't screw them, but try that today and see if anyone believes you.'

I agree with George that all these human-all-too-human tit-bits
are besides the point and I feel do no favour to your main arguments...OR others who post deflamatory posts of that nature.
I agree with George. SO WHAT?
KEITH
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:02:27 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: George's third point
Message:
Jim,
George then went on to say;
'3). KNOWLEDGE is Free!!! How anyone can claim differently is beyond me. And M's support comes from donations, sales, ivestments. Personally, I think he has to be a pretty shrewd and astute businessman to accomplish what he has. His HOLY brothers drive a taxi, are in Indian politics, and one follows in his coattails. Regardless of what you think happened when Shri Hans died, the fact is that only M has perservered and spread K throughout the world. Now if you chose to give all of your money, inheritance, lottery earnings, etc. to M, that was YOUR choice! Hell the TM Guru charges $75? for a mantra. Some one said there were 30 other gurus giving these techniques. Well where are they? Personally, I am grateful that M came to my country and gave me K for free. Tell me where else can one attend a 3-day event on personal growth and pay only $25 for a seat for all three days? Most seminars, events I see advertised by various New Age groups cost between $200 - $1,000. I think your arguments and claims just don't hold water.'

Jim, I do essentially agree with this.
What is there to disagree with?
Knowledge is free!
I have never been pressured into giving anything to Maharaji.
Even small registration fees can be waved if one can't afford to pay.
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:17:57 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
Jim, sorry if I am not responding with a whole lot of words , but I did say I 'essentially' agree with George and I don't see a reason to analyise all the details, which are too far away from where I am moving at this time.
Anyway, George's forth point was;
'4.) Is M God? What a stupid question! God is God. However, is M Aware, Conscious, one-with God, Enlightened? In my experience YES, YES, YES, and YES. And I will say, I have personally, on several occasions, sometimes completely alone, sometimes in his presence, experienced this. They were the most real experiences of my life. They were not mass hypnosis. Read the New Testament and count the number of times Jesus was labeled the Devil. Notice that he got mad, yelled at people, told them to follow him and disown their family, cried, worried, doubted God, etc. Seems to me you people have some unrealistic ideas of how a Master is SUPPOSED to be. '

Well you will disagree with me here Jim, but I have experienced Maharaji's grace and percieved his divine status on many occasions. Not that he is god.....I agree what a silly idea
.....but the divine manifesting in and through him.
But I have experienced the divine manifesting in and through me too and others too.
BUT, that is not a sign of total perfection and infallabilty.
George seems to be placing Maharaji in the same league as Jesus, Krishna, and so on.....and I tend to agree with this.....but who were these sages? Really??????????????????
Jesus did fart sometimes I'm sure.
Krishna probably did pick his nose sometimes.
Godliness is of godliness.
But give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.
Integration is the goal, but I doubt if it can ever be absolutely perfected as long as there is a material existence.
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:42:14 (EST)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
Keith,

You state I have experienced Maharaji's grace and percieved his divine status on many occasions. Not that he is god.....I agree what a silly idea.....but the divine manifesting in and through him.

Can you elaborate on that please? In what ways have you perceived M's divine status? Does he just look divine or something? Just because you got blissed out at a program or in a darshan line does NOT confer divine status on M. Read The Guru Papers yet? I always keep asking you that, sorry, but it so explicitly addresses this phenonemon of group 'experience'. Were you around M privately when you perceived these divine aspects of his personality? I've felt pretty damn good (and transcended, and yes, even blissed out) in the presence of, say, the Grateful Dead, but certainly don't infer from my experience that they are divine (though I do recall a 'Garcia is God' movement, now that I think about it, as well as Clapton being God back in the 60s). A good movie or book or concert of another type can also do the same. Why do you specifically think M is divine, any more so than anyone else?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:15:23 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
Good question Joy.
But a bloody difficult one to respond to.
I shall elaborate on a few points I've already made.
I perceive, understand or whatever it is I'm doing that the Divine is our true status.
So it is for a cabbage and a frog.
But they have not evolved to the same manifestation as a human being.
And humans have an opportunity to realise, experience and understand this real status.
Consciousness is the bridge.
Jai-Sat-Chit-Anand... what do these words point to?
Joy to the one who can be conscious(Chit)of the Truth(Sat)which is the delight of being(Anand).
This is my interpretation...or one of them!
Maharaji in my opinion is very conscious of this Truth and truly enjoys it.
And I have witnessed that in various subtle ways.
In his interaction with others, in his eyes, in his energy field, in his actions ,and sometimes in experiences that transcend the normal to such a degree that I choose not to share them, at least not on the internet.
I can say mystical.
Now having said all that I realise that all these type of experiences are subjective....and I cannot proove to you anything.
But I ask you Joy , have you not experienced such things?
And if you have , what is your understanding?
And finally , to reiterate the point again , experiencing the divinity within any living creature, including humans, is no absolute proof of infallability, except of the Divinity Itself.
We are dual....divine and undivine...or lesser divine.
Immortal and mortal.
I have seen both in Maharaji.
Regards, Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:29:48 (EST)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
Keith, Carol's post below this one says exactly what I would say in response to your question -- that the divine experience is within you already, and you are projecting it onto M. I think this capacity to experience the mystical is within each of us, and can be accessed in a myriad of ways, and that the group experience and 'high' people get from a program (which is why premies run around to so many of them) is just them projecting onto M their fantasies of someone divine. I heard recently--and can't remember for the life of me where, there's so much information floating around these days what with the internet and all--anyhow I definitely heard about a sect of Hinduism somewhere in India who get darshan from a rock. I kid you not, this special rock is brought out at certain times and people actually get the experience of darshan from it and become ecstatic. Now, where do you suppose that experience is coming from, the rock itself?

In thinking about it, I really don't mind all that much if premies want to get their mystical experiences from M., it's just all the proclaiming of his divinity to the world in general, and his whole attitude about himself that rankles me. People have an inherent right to have whatever religious experience suits them, in my opinion, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, but I guess I just feel M is deceiving people into thinking he's something he's not, and laughing all the way to the bank doing it, at the expense of a lot of innocent and gullible people (of which I was one for ten years).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:00:56 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
In thinking about it, I really don't mind all that much if premies want to get their mystical experiences from M., it's just all the proclaiming of his divinity to the world in general, and his whole attitude about himself that rankles me. People have an inherent right to have whatever religious experience suits them, in my opinion, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, but I guess I just feel M is deceiving people into thinking he's something he's not, and laughing all the way to the bank doing it, at the expense of a lot of innocent and gullible people (of which I was one for ten years).

Yes, Joy, my sentiments exactly. And M has obviously hurt a lot of people, and he doesn't seem give a shit about that. I imagine he gets off on all the adulation and probably even experiences bliss at times. But then it might all be a big show, too.

I loved the rock story. Maybe I could fine a ''Sacred Stump'' here in McClearCut and start charging admission.

Do you want to get together with a few other locals and crash the bash in Seattle when the Big Poobah sweeps into town? Might be fun.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 01:52:30 (EST)
From: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: Gerry
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
Hi Gerry,

I'd like to attend the Big Do on July 11th but am leaving for vacation a few days before, so won't be around, alas. Otherwise it might be fun, especially with another 'ex' for moral support (maybe we could bring along some rocks and actually get a darshan experience). When I tried to go on my own to a program once, I didn't last long. But it'll have to wait till the next Seattle gig, which might be years, I don't think he rolls around this way very often (or should I say jets in via Gulfstream). Oh well, you'll have to be our spy and report back, unless Jim decides to come down from Victoria. E-mail me if you'd like to coordinate the passing on of the LOTU video, I believe I'm next in line for it, then you. --Joy
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:41:43 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
There is a story about a respected teacher who lived in a new age community and meditated by a river near a rock each day. One day, the rock rolled down and killed him.

Just felt like telling that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 04:04:54 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: George,Keith,Bruce
Subject: George's fourth point
Message:
To George and Keith and anyone who think they have seen the divine in Maharaji:
I posted this to Bruce on a thread about to run off the end. It applies here too.

Bruce,
You get to believe whatever you choose to believe. Did you ever consider that what you 'see' as a divine expression in Maharaji, or 'a glimpse of his real form' is beng experienced inside yourself and projected onto Maharaji. The same divine self is within every person whether they know it or not. If you feel Maharaji emanating power, it is still your own feelings that you are feeling and your mind creating perception. It is sort of like when you are in love with a particular person, she/he may look radiant and glowing and emanating love to you. The love comes from you and it changes your vision.
You may truly believe that Maharaji loves you in particular, and who can argue with it; but simply believing that he does creates a field of experience in you in which YOU emanate love, and that is what you feel! (As a human being, Maharaji has the same capacity to feel love for others.) The trust and belief are the catalysts to the experience that already is within you. You can experience that love and wonder and joy because it is part of you! All devotees love their teachers.
I no longer believe Maharaji is 'the master of our time', but you get to believe anything you want. It becomes an issue when you tell others what they should believe or what is the 'absolute truth'. (This site is not here to convince premies that they are wrong, although that will probably happen if you come here to argue that we are wrong!)
Carol

To:

Subject:
Return to Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:09:23 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Carol, Joy, Jude, and all
Subject: George's fourth point
Message:
I do not disagree with what you've all said.
Did I not say that I have experienced the divine in others and in myself too.
It's the same energy.
Within it essentially unmanifest.
Without (external) it is also manifest.
Divine is a state of consciousness (understood from one angle) that is both internal and external.
I do not credit Maharaji with being THE ONE who possesses this divine quality. He is A ONE.
Please try and understand what I'm saying.
Because many things are being projected onto me that are nothing like what I'm meaning to say.
My position is not extreme.
I have not rejected Maharaji out of hand.
Only I choose to not be a premie....or support Him in his present direction.
My elaboration of George's points were only made in response to Jim request....'what do I agree with in George's post?'
Jim did not ask me 'what do I disagree with?'
This is what can happen when discussions get too microscopic.
One can lose the bigger picture.
I may continue with this theme in a post above a little later.
Regards, Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 06:04:07 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's fourth point
Message:
Dear Keith,

I empathise with the changes you are going through. I think you had more courage than me to go and front up and ask your questions directly. That was very honest and up-front of you. I am glad you have seen your own differences of opinon about the EV 'scene'. Everyone has their own private feelings about love and 'god' and should we take away all the external projections, we would probably be talking about the same thing, the same experience. That is what makes us hum together when we feel it in a group.
How beautiful that feeling is, I still love it, and I haven't lost it. Even though I am not even practicing any more I still feel wonderful, and whole. I have ceased being afraid that M will somehow hurt me or punish me. I really see that my power is my own. I felt reasured - I know I can't have it both ways so this is sneaky - but I felt reassured to read in the Shri Hans posts that once you receive knowledge from the master, you can never lose it.
So my soul is not lost. The only time I ever thought it was was when I was a drug addict. Then my soul was in pieces. That was many years ago, and my fear was that if i died, god would not find me or recognize me because I was all in pieces. I love and value the tender thread of the heart and I will never lose it again.
Strength to you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:54:10 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's forth point
Message:
Keith,

'God' is, in my opinion, a bullshit concept from the get go, so don't get me started. But the point here is that Maharji claimed that he was and now Geroge here denies that. Dumb? Worse! Read the quotes. (Then read The Moral Animal)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:51:11 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's third point
Message:
Keith,

That's like a con man saying that no one was ever forced to give him anything. Get real.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:24:24 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's second point
Message:
Keith wrote:
Jim, George then said;
2) M is fat, rich, married his secretary who is 10 years his senior, drinks Cognac, drives fancy cars, flys his own jet, etc. etc. These are all reasons he CANNOT be the Master. You guys need a dose of reality in my opinion. I say a big SO WHAT!!! Ever since he went through the change of life M has been overweight, no more nor less in the succeeding 30 years. I can't say this for myself. Wasn't BUDDHA fat? I guess we really don't know about Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, etc. M was rich in India and he still is
rich. To run the size organization he does and travel as much as he does, he should have the wealth to do this. Someone said he had to spend a month's time at his residence because he did not have the funds to travel. Well, that's not his fault; it is our loss. He married (and is still married to) a woman 10 years older than him. SO WHAT! He drinks Cognac, maybe eats meat??, maybe gets drunk?? SO WHAT? Ghandi used to sleep naked with 2 young women each night. Now he claimed he didn't screw them, but try that today and see if anyone believes you.'

Keith wrote:
I agree with George that all these human-all-too-human tit-bits
are besides the point and I feel do no favour to your main arguments...OR others who post deflamatory posts of that nature.
I agree with George. SO WHAT?


Dear Keith - I agree with your essential argument - SO WHAT! And it would indeed be 'SO WHAT?' if Maharaji had not asked the ashram premies (and other devoted premies) to give up sex, drinking, and so forth in his behalf. The ashram premies had to take a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience, and I think some of them feel angry about this in light of Maharaji's subsequent activities.

I never lived in the ashram, but a lot of my very dear friends were ashram premies and they suffered very much under the regimen of poverty, chastity, and obedience. It really bothers me that Maharaji just minimizes all this now, and that his actions imply that HE can do it, but the premies can (or could) not. Otherwise, I'd not have much of a problem with his drinking, eating meat, and so forth (except that I was a vegetarian before I ever came in contact with M, and I remain so). I certainly wouldn't have a problem with M being overweight, except that we used to worship 'his golden body', and so forth (we were NEVER allowed to mention that he might be a little bit heavy!)

As far as the money - I am still a little judgemental about this, and it would be hard for me not to be. I cannot imagine why someone would actually NEED enough money to lead Maharaji's lifestyle when there are people who are starving in this world. But there are lots of other people who lead as lavish a life as M, so as George pointed out, I have no room to criticize M without also criticizing those people. This is true, except I would never nowadays CHOOSE to follow a guru who was as rich as Maharaji. Does god have to have gold plumbing fixtures? I don't know, but I hope not!

Just another opinion, Keith
from Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:53:07 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: George's second point
Message:
Point taken Katie about the 'hypocracy(my word) 'of Maharaji saying one thing and doing another , at least in the 70's and early 80's.
That point should be responded to....I feel.....by Maharaji.
What is his perspective on this.
The instructor said to me that Maharaji was influenced by those around him in those earlier years in the west(I assume by the Mahatma's, especially) and that some of M's unwise decisions and/or words were as a result of such influence.
Well, if that is so, then Maharaji should tell those ashram premies who got hurt later on about what was really going on back then.
It was and is still is His responsibility foremost, what He did and said.
If no-one got hurt then it would not matter.
But that is clearly not the case.
Saying one thing and doing another for someone in Maharaji's position is no light thing to pass by and suggest is of no import.
Just my present view on this , although like you Katie, I was not around to experience these things first hand, which is why I feel altogether more comfortable discussing things that I have first hand exerience of.
Warm regards to you Katie,
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:01:20 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's second point
Message:
The instructor said to me that Maharaji was influenced by those around him in those earlier years in the west(I assume by the Mahatma's, especially) and that some of M's unwise decisions and/or words were as a result of such influence.

Could this be what George means when he says:

This sounds so familiar to me. 'ALL MY PROBLEMS ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:10:59 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's second point
Message:
Dear Keith
I appreciate that you didn't want to ask the instructor about the ashram premies (how could you even know, right?). Although I didn't personally live in the ashram, I got knowledge in 1972 (I am a year older than Maharaji), so I did know a lot of people who lived in the ashram. They really went through the things that I describe. If you want to know more, talk to JW, or Jim, or Joy, or John K, or Anon, or whoever you trust that posts on here.

I really don't like the new 'party line' that says that M was controlled and influenced by the mahatmas, or by his mother (Mata Ji). For one thing, who does this make M - a puppet of the mahatmas, or of his mother? Does this mean he might be a puppet of someone else now? For another, Mata Ji, two of Maharaji's brothers, and all the mahatmas who followed them went back to India in June of 1974. Maharaji dissolved the ashrams in the early 80's. It seems to me that this is an awful long time for someone who is supposedly realized to decide to do something.

I could go on and on (for example, about the summer of 1976, when Maharaji ALMOST closed the ashrams, but decided to have the premies 'rededicate' themselves instead), but I won't. I had an idea that you would hear some of these things from the initiator/instructor that you talked to. This bothered me, but I know that you're sensible enough to make up your own mind, and to decide what's best for you personally.

Warm regards to you too, Keith,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:23:39 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's second point
Message:
I'm sure BM was influenced by this mother and the mahatmas in the EARLY years, befoe 1974. But by 1974 his brothers and mother had split, BM was newly married to Marolyn, conceiving children and was in firm control of the mission. If anything, his organization got MORE cultish, and MORE devotional between 1974 and 1983, at least, which is when I left. The ashrams were openly encouraged by BM and many people moved in. He further INCREASED the number of darshan lines, dancing in Krishna outfits, and demands for money. He also went hog-wild materially, increasing the number of residences, fancy cars and all the rest. No, it is truly a lie and a terrible misrepresentation for that instructor to tell you such misinformation. Truly dishonest of that instructor to do that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:49:50 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: George's second point
Message:
Keith,

Did you read Maharaji's answer about eating meat? The point there is that he was full of shit. He pretended to know what he was talking about, now has compeltely abandoned that position and has never said anything about it. On the larger question of the guru's lifestyle, sorry, I don't buy the notion that his every move is lila, etc. Try that tired nonsense on someone else, thanks.

Maharaji's a GREEDY person and has accumulated AS MUCH AS HE POSSIBLY CAN in his lifetime. Give me a break, a big one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:53:13 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: George's second point
Message:
Maharaji's a GREEDY person and has accumulated AS MUCH AS HE POSSIBLY CAN in his lifetime.

On the back of his ''premies'' I might add, lest anyone forgets.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:04:16 (EST)
From: Anon
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
George wrote:

‘Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you peace'. Now what exactly do you think these words mean? For all of you old ex-ashram, ex-premies, I bet it meant give up your free will, no longer be responsible for your actions, work a minimum wage job and live carefree in an ashram devoting your life to M. Well, I think you missed the boat and your spiritual dream became the nightmare you created for yourself. So now you blame M. This sounds so familiar to me. 'ALL MY PROBLEMS ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT'. I would surmise that if you understood what these words meant then you would see that throughout all religious traditions, philosophies, etc., this message is spoken. To know your true self you must surrender your false self. Then true peace can be found. Personally, I found the vast, vast majority of ashram premies to be nuts!

Maharaji clearly stated that the Ashram at that time was the place where you would best develop as a devotee. Your sweeping judgement that we who write here had selfish motives when we surrendered ourselves in this way is puerile, offensive and frankly bodes that the rest of your post may be similarily narrow-minded. However I did and...

4. Is M God? What a stupid question! God is God. However, is M Aware, Conscious, one-with God, Enlightened? In my experience YES, YES, YES, and YES. And I will say, I have personally, on several occasions, sometimes completely alone, sometimes in his presence, experienced this. They were the most real experiences of my life. They were not mass hypnosis. Read the New Testament and count the number of times Jesus was labeled the Devil. Notice that he got mad, yelled at people, told them to follow him and disown their family, cried, worried, doubted God, etc. Seems to me you people have some unrealistic ideas of how a Master is SUPPOSED to be.

No, I agree that M considers that the Perfect Master is ‘one with God’ and that he gets mad with people, yells at them and tells them to follow Him etc. I just don’t happen to like being yelled at and being told that I should surrender. I just plain don’t trust that this is a loving God who demands so much respect. OK so you believe in an Old Testament God and MJ fits the bill. Fine. You are not alone in expecting an authoritarian Lord.

5. The experience of Knowledge. Well it is perfect and if you have ever crossed through the inner doors that the techniques point you towards, then you will know this also. For the person who said M now teaches the 'Lite' version, well you and I have been hearing 2 different messages. M's message has not changed in the past 30-40 years. Yes, he has dropped much of the Hindu stuff (Bully for Him), but the core Satsang, Service, and Meditation is still there (and if you will read, these are the core of any Master's or religions teachings). Christians call them Witnessing, Sevice, and Prayer. M asks that a person practice the 4 techniques for a MINIMUM of 1 hour a day. Now if you are truly sincere about 'finding GOD' or 'Surrendering the Reins of Your Life' then this is not such a huge request. But if all you do is meditate, then YOU MISSED THE BOAT!!!!! What the hell do you do with the other 23 hours? Try spreading a little love through your actions and words and you may find your life becomes a glorious, magical journey.

Been there, done it. My life is more of a magical journey now that I am facing up to the contradictions and denial that I was living as a premie...and yes..that was MY problem and I accept responsibility for the way I was. However I don’t think it is realistically possible to seperate Maharaji from the whole process. He was, and set out to be, a powerful influence on us all. I agree that his message does not change fundamentally.

Finally, I really don't see what you people's problem is? What has M ever done to you? He has done nothing but give to me; good gifts! If you are bitter about getting trapped in DLM and the ashram vibes, then you have my sympathies. But don't blame this on M (well I guess you can blame everything on him if you want to). But that doesn't change the fact that you have life, choices, and a finite time to experience both. Enjoy what time you have. Find God (your heart) however you choose. But don't begrudge those who have found the Keys to the Kingdom through Knowledge and M's teachings. Personally, to whoever created this web site, I would say GET A LIFE! Your personal (or collective) vendetta against M is a waste of your time and energy.

That’s a bit more like it. But remember, the intention of this website isn’t necessarily to wage a personal or collective vendetta against MJ. For many it is quite definately a way of expressing suppressed doubts and feelings that have not been addressed or answered through Maharaji’s set up or by practising Knowledge. The fact is that there are many who feel suspicious about Knowledge and Maharaji and it seems to me perfectly legitimate and wholesome that we should freely conduct discussion about it with others. I know Maharaji said in Miami that there were only 25 people writing here or something, but so what?? Actually I personally know more people than that in my home town alone, who have received Knowledge but do not practice and who are sympathetic to the feelings of these mysterious and objectionably outspoken 25 people!
As for begrudging others their experience, well that is not the main agenda here either.
Be reasonable George.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:17:20 (EST)
From: JACK
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Refreshing dose of honesty. Well said!!!

Jack
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 20:35:56 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Okay Jim, onto George's fifth and final point;
'5. The experience of Knowledge. Well it is perfect and if you have ever crossed through the inner doors that the techniques point you towards, then you will know this also. For the person who said M now teaches the 'Lite' version, well you and I have been hearing 2 different messages. M's message has not changed in the past 30-40 years. Yes, he has dropped much of the Hindu stuff (Bully for Him), but the core Satsang, Service, and Meditation is still there (and if you will read, these are the core of any Master's or religions teachings). Christians call them Witnessing, Sevice, and Prayer. M asks that a person practice the 4 techniques for a MINIMUM of 1 hour a day. Now if you are truly sincere about 'finding GOD' or 'Surrendering the Reins of Your Life' then this is not such a huge request. But if all you do is meditate, then YOU MISSED THE BOAT!!!!! What the hell do you do with the other 23 hours? Try spreading a little love through your actions and words and you may find your life becomes a glorious, magical journey. '

I agree that Maharaji's central message hasn't changed, as far as I can discern.
Again , for me , what is there to disagree with here?
Therefore I mostly disagree with major parts of George's first point.
And I re-iterate , George's post did'nt address the criticisms that I am making in my posts of late.
The truth is , as much as I may criticize Maharaji, I would also find heaps to criticize in your ideas too.
And I also would agree with and have the highest respect for many of Maharaji's views and in some of yours too.
What a world of convergence and divergence we live in.
And yet I perceive the possibility of harmony nonetheless.
I just don't feel any exclusive sectarianism is the highest expression of that vision of harmony!!
I am a universalist who believes also in the glory of individual expressionism and creativity.
The One and the many!!
Regards , Keith.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:05:18 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Keith -- all over the place
Message:
Keith,

I'm getting tired trying to make sense of you. It seems that you still have a lot to figure out and that you're planning to do it, step by step, through discussion here. No reflective house-cleaning on Keith's part!

Well, frankly, I don't want to to this. I suggest that you read The Guru Papers and really think about things a bit. Look, everyone here commends you for sincerely trying to understand things (key word - 'trying') and I, too, congratulate you for addressing these matters frankly with the instructor. That miight have taken a bit of gumption, given cult conditioning, and you should feel proud of yourself for that.

But Keith, enough is enough. Please do some reading and thinking for a bit. Know what I mean?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:21:50 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim-- all over the place
Message:
Jim,
with respect, it was you who asked me to respond to George's post . Have you forgotten?
I really did that mostly for you ,
so in regards to your latest posts to me ,
I say , with respects, up yours matie!!
Perhaps you should sail the calmer waters of scientific certitude .
Give me a big break to because,
I know who I am but who are you??????????????
Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 12:15:32 (EST)
From: DOC
Email: None
To: Keith
Subject: Jim-- all over the place
Message:
I commend you for not allowing yourself to be bullied into believing the 'EX' philosophy, as directed by Jim. It seems Jim will not be satisfied till he gets you (and all others) to agree that HE is correct and his 'guru papers' are his bible! His method of dissuading you from maintaining an OPEN mind is one of fear and name calling???!!! I wonder if he actually ever was a premie? Or ever practiced K?

I respect your questioning, and see that it is sincere in wanting answers to the concerns that other's have brought up. Some of those questions will never be answered however.... for whatever reason.

Flaws will always be found (if one looks hard enough), but George's points are well taken and your response shows you are wanting to see through the surface and see what M's messege truly is.

I personally have been in the ashram ( and LOVED it) and know some of those that feel that M ripped them off by being in the ashram... As I said before, there were plenty of people in the ashram that wanted the easy way out, to live off of the community support, have a menial job, accumulate debts without regard of the financial responsibility, etc etc. There were plenty that were in the ashram that were lazy and confused as to what they were there for. Yes they may have been sincere, but they also may have been there for the wrong reasons. Again MOTIVE needs to be evaluated.

So when M wants to correct something that isn't correct, no matter how it is done it will receive critisism. He also had advisors(Directors) that also had their own agenda!!??!! M's agenda has NOT changed... to offer K to all that sincerely want it.

His lifestyle is not the issue, (unless you want to make it one), and neither is my lifestyle, or yours. Exp K and allow your own feelings to develop.... enjoy the positive... drop the rest... for YOURSELF. When I encounter someone that I don't like, I usually avoid them rather than dwell on what I don't like about them... and I certainly have no use in name calling, or attempts at an expose` of that person.... I have a life.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:49:27 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: DOC
Subject: Jim-- all over the place
Message:
I respect your questioning, and see that it is sincere in wanting answers to the concerns that other's have brought up. Some of those questions will never be answered however.... for whatever reason.

Well it sounds like you have some, too. Do questions always need answers, or might they be a doorway through which you yourself personally could claim more of your own identity?

Why need to have them all answered by someone who tells you that they are of no consequence.

I personally did not have much experience with Knowledge. So takign it to the whole world may not be such a noble cause - and if 'enlightenment' is something you can give to someone else, like another way to blow your nose. Maybe if M was a proponent of 'what's inside' but it didn't need to all hinge around the famous four secret techniques, which are supposed to be 'the way', yet keep changin!

That soothing tone you use is like a mummy going 'shhh' to a baby. Well maybe the baby is realising it is alive and doesn't want to shut up!

Oh by the way, I sincerely wanted it. There was not a shred of doubt in my heart that I wanted what I thought he was offering. I respect who you really are, Doc. Do you need to keep protecting M or why not give yourself some room to breathe on your own?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 22:02:04 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: DOC
Subject: Jim-- all over the place
Message:
Hey, Doc
Sometime in your busy life, read Jim's Millenium letter. It's in the archives somewhere. There's the proof of the premie in him. To say that he was not ever sincere is wrong.

Keep that open and positive mind of yours :)
Sincerely, VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:20:59 (EST)
From: JOHN HAMMOND-SMYTH
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Well said George. Of course Maharaji is One with God and anyone who doubts this is not only blind, but a fool. Maharaji is the true master and everything He does is for our benefit. He is totally selfless and the most caring and loving person on the planet.

These deluded ex-premies are beyond His help. In fact, they are beyond anyone's help. They will never be able to know what love is. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time on them. Just look to Maharaji who is the supreme Lord of the Universe. He will save them, if He feels like it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:29:54 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: JOHN HAMMOND-SMYTH
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
God, I love this guy! More, more!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:32:31 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: All
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Hey, I just noticed something. How come all the ''students'' put their names in CAPITAL LETTERS? Is this some sort of code or something?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:37:16 (EST)
From: JIM
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Hey, I just noticed something. How come all the ''students'' put their names in CAPITAL LETTERS? Is this some sort of code or something?

Don't be so paranoid, Gerry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:47:06 (EST)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: JIM
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
JIM

Hey, I just noticed something. How come all the ''students'' put their names in CAPITAL LETTERS? Is this some sort of code or something?

Don't be so paranoid, Gerry.


E tu BRUTE??
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 21:31:07 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JOHN HAMMOND-SMYTH
Subject: John H.S., I should have known
Message:
Yes, of course. That's who was missing here, Sir John Hammond-Smyth.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:13:23 (EST)
From: blind fool
Email: None
To: JOHN HAMMOND-SMYTH
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Hey wait a minute,I always thought that Ray,my drycleaner,was the most caring and loving person on the planet.Now you've gone and made me all confused.

Whoever you are,you are very funny and your postings are getting even better.

On the other hand,why haven't you told them 'bout how he'll breathe fire on all who cast doubt.

All these ingrates here,these vile fornicators and servants of the darkness.What do they know?They oughta kneel down and beg for salvation lest he get pissed off and smite them....smite them all he will!For ours is an angry...(o.k. you know the rest-at least for your own sake I hope you do)

Funny as you are;as a premie I find your postings insulting and damaging as they give off the false impression that this is some kind of wacko cult with a charismatic leader who some think is god.Now,you wouldn't intentionally be trying to make premies look ridiculous would you?I mean you are a premie,right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:26:18 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: blind fool
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Dear B.F.
Just on the off chance that I might have known you by another name, I wonder if you are now calling yourself a premie. Last time I checked, you were neither a premie nor an ex-premie.

If you're not the person I'm thinking of, then never mind...

Regards,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 16:27:20 (EST)
From: BF
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
'sometimes you feel like an ex,sometimes you don't'-remember that 'almond joy' commercial?
Katie,what gave it away?I wasn't even reading/posting from my usual isp so, what;are you psychic or something?Do I speak in that much of an identifiable way?I find this quite interesting.

This is something I never really wanted to hash out publically but since you asked,and since you're Katie;I'll give it a shot.

As I've made clear;I don't feel I fit either label to a 't'.Reading JHS's posts I started feeling like hey,this guy's definitely not a premie and although I found his posts hilarious from the get go,it seemed unfair that interested people should come here and really believe that JHS was somehow representative of typical premie thinking.I don't think he is.He's clever however
and it's possible that people could take him seriously.

As for my 'status'-I never left M/EV in a huff.I never felt abused or taken advantage of.I just drifted away.The way I see it now,it's all a matter of perspective.Is the glass half empty or half full?What I mean by this is that I could examine every EV/M related experience I've had and depending on which perspective I choose to look at them from I could shape them to fit the 'destructive cult' mold or the 'innocuous religion' mold. Example:Let's look at the aspirant process.From the ex's perspective the aspirant period is seen as the beginning of the thought reformation process or brainwashing.From the premie perspective it's a necessary process to prepare you for receiving K,and the time during which you will come to understand through an emerging recognition of a place within,that K is real,and that when you finally have your session you'll appreciate what you were just shown as opposed to just thinking 'that's it?',because in the time leading up to the session you felt things similar to what you felt in the session and you'll know that it's all somehow part of the same arena.

Let's look at the vows.'Don't reveal the techniques,give it a chance,keep in touch.'From an ex's perspective I could say'wait a minute that's not fair:I'm a trapped creature here- because in all the aspirant process you were never told of any pre-conditions,so when you're finally in a room with M and just before he shows you K he brings up these conditions,well at that point who in the world would actually change their mind and leave the room?The aspirant process has brainwashed you to the point where there's no way you'll leave because you won't recognize this secrecy to be the insidiously damaging thing that it is due to the inherant separation it causes between yourself and everyone else on the planet who's not been initiated.
A premie would say:'K is real.M is authentic.He's merely carrying on this K tradition the way its always been done.This secrecy is an ancient practice and in no way takes away from the validity of the experience.You know it's real as you've experienced it yourself so why not have just a little smidgen of faith that M knows what he's doing'I think that's valid as well for a person who HAS experienced something.

Anyway,these probably aren't the best examples.It still boils down to perspective.I had meditated for years(not K;other techniques) before ever seeing M.I had a very strong connection with M and definitely experienced wonderful things (Natural synchronization of being.Bliss really.)just from attending satsang.Half the time I couldn't even tell you what the hell was said.I just left that room and something was different.I felt different.Better.Closer to contentment...etc.Lots of incredible experiences.I didn't go to programs to hear what he was saying,I went to feel some bliss.I never understood how that worked but I knew that for some reason I was experiencing amazing things when I came into contact with the world of K. Many things happened away from programs when I wasn't even thinking about M that were quite mind blowing.I don't want to bore people with all the cosmic experiences I had,and actually they're quite personal anyway so I'm not entirely comfortable discussing them.

Suffice to say that enough happened for me to know that 'something' was up with M.This was not all talk.In fact the refreshing thing for me was that I was no longer having theories about what various states of consciousness were within me to experience-No,I was in those states,there was no need to read about it anymore,no reason to theorize about the possibility anymore...No,this stuff was real and I was living it.All those years of reading,meditating,theorizing,trying to intellectually understand these things,....nothing could hold a candle to actually experiencing what the hell all the books were trying to explain.

So for me it was a funny thing with K.Through the whole process of coming to the actual K session I never once doubted that M was for real,I didn't understand what exactly he was,but I didn't care because I had personal reasons for Knowing he was the real thing.In fact,I always saw the whole EV set-up as a big pain in the ass.A barrier between me and M/K.I knew the goal was real so I put up with all the bureaucracy because I had my eye on the prize.I figured all these things/systems keeping me from an immediate K session were a sort of inside joke and it was like M was saying 'O.K. Now you know.You still have to go through all this stuff though.Nudge nudge,wink,wink.' Maybe it was all crazy conjecture but that was how it felt. All along though I did wonder why he had bothered with his whole crazy set-up but was willing to do it exactly as he'd set it up.I played along to get in that room with him.I don't mean that I bs'd anyone-I never did.It's just that I never vocalized my opinion of the ridiculousness of parts of the set-up.

I know that M is real.I know that K is real.I have some real problems with the set-up though.IMO there's no reason on gods good earth why we can't all discuss EVERYTHING openly like is done here.That's what I missed most when I was an active premie:debate,discourse.It felt like there was this conspiracy of silence or something.Whatever,I put up with all that too because my connection was with M,not other premies.

So,what does all this tell you?That I'm somewhat confused about EV?Probably.Towards the end of my actively going to programs...etc, I started getting a little cynical about M.My feeling was that 'o.k.,I see.You're real and can dole out whatever dosage of this experience you feel like to anyone at anytime,but you want to get paid!' Hey we've all got to make a living but....
Maybe he's the yuppie guru or something.

Bottom line:In certain ways I can relate to ex's more then premies because open thought is accepted and encouraged here.I feel it's important to discuss EVERYTHING out in the open about all this and that includes how cult like this whole thing appears.I am disgusted with much of the EV set-up and feel like M needs a good pr person or something because he's got something here and if only he could remove all the cultish stuff.Or actually he could start by ending the secrecy.The secret initiation is a hallmark of a potentially destructive cult.So Ev,if you're not a cult;then why walk and talk like one?

Wierd set-up,but it's an extraordianry experience so why should I expect all that surrounds it not to be strange?

Remember my 'what would you do?'question?Aside from ending the secrecy I'd tell him to address all the disgruntled ex's very valid questions/concerns.I'd say:'Prem,the thing is that they're not going to go away.Ignoring them won't help.I know that it's pretty much a no win stuation for you so you remain silent,but you are sincere and you owe it to them to at least acknowledge them.Tell them how you see/saw things.They won't like it I'm sure,but you have a moral obligation to give your side of the story.'

Anyway,it's all very odd.Today I feel this way,tommorrow I could feel like there are scientific/psychological explanations for all the so called 'experiences' I had.Depends on where I'm seeing it from.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:05:27 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: BF
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Hey bf - Thanks for your post - I really liked it. In fact, I'm not even going to comment on it much right now - I want some time to think about it. One thing that it did make clear to me is that there are a lot of people like you - we've been calling them fence sitters, which isn't exactly flattering, but I can't think of a better name. I am talking about people who have received K, believe that M is some kind of master of something, but don't buy into the whole trip as promalgated by EV and possibly as promulgated by M.

Anyway, I am not psychic. I have a good memory, I read all the posts (usually), and you have a certain way of using punctuation which is a good identifier. That, coupled with the b.f., made me think that it was you. (I can be more specific if you want me to!)

Thanks for the post,
Katie

P.S. I don't know if I should tell you this, but I really liked your series of 'Dayglo' posts. Still laughing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:30:40 (EST)
From: bf
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Yeah,see he said '....is a blind fool' in his post so I took it as my name and it was a play on bftb and I actually wondered if you specifically would pick up on the 'inside joke' and you did!As far as punctuation goes that makes sense as well because I know that I don't punctuate properly.Actually I take great license with punctuation and I use it how I think it'll serve how I'm trying to speak.I also consistently(sp?) misspell(sp) words (like license,licence,lisence for example)

I'm glad you liked the 'day glo' posts.I'll have to go re-read them now.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:13:33 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: bf
Subject: punctuation
Message:
Dear bf -
Actually, I have never noticed that you don't use punctuation correctly - but what I have noticed is that you do not put any spaces between your punctuation and the subsequent text. This is really noticeable, especially with commas. [I can't spell license, either, along with many other words, so I probably wouldn't notice that. Also, I use parentheses excessively. (have you ever noticed...?)]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 19:55:20 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: bftb
Subject: another question for bf
Message:
Hey bftb -
I'm still thinking about what you wrote. One question that I have for you is who (or what) do you think M is? Human? Divine? Same as everyone else? Different than anyone else?

If you read the Hans Yog Prakesh excerpts in one of the threads above this one, you can get an idea of what M was TOLD he was while he was growing up. That's interesting to me. Lots of M's old satsang about himself (or about 'Guru Maharaji Ji' sounds like it came straight out of Hans Yog Prakesh.

Regards,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:11:46 (EST)
From: bftb
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: another question for bf
Message:
At different times he has seemed to be all of those things.Seperately and/or in combination.

Then again,it could all just have been in my head.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:37:12 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: bftb
Subject: Thankyou
Message:
A wonderful post Bf(tb).
I found a kindred voice in most of what you wrote.
Thankyou. Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:11:55 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: bf
Subject: Blind fool sees what?
Message:
I know that M is real.I know that K is real.

What does this mean? That you're not in the same boat as any of Satpal's people or that you don't want to think about that?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 20:16:34 (EST)
From: bftb
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Blind fool sees what?
Message:
Be clearer because I'm really not sure what you're asking me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:28:01 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: bftb
Subject: Blind fool sees what?
Message:
Sorry for not being clearer. You had said:

I know that M is real.I know that K is real.

I wonder if you think Satpal's followers would say anything different about him? You know, the organizer I spoke with in England, the guy who'd been following Satpal for 15 years and was co-ordinating his Rugby program (that's Rugby like the town, not the sport, of course) sounded every bit as smitten and confident in his devotion as any premie I ever knew. For us, the whole Satpal thing is a big joke. Like, who's really going to take this guy seriously? But the Rugby guy sure wouldn't see it that way. I have no doubt whatsoever that, if asked, he would say that he might not know much but he does know that HIS Guru Maharaji is 'real'.

Well, BF, unless you think it's possible that both Maharaji and his brother are 'real' something's gotta give, wouldn't you say?

Devoted premies usually deal with this question (vis - a - vis Satpal, Guru Mayi, or any other master) by NOT dealing with it. They just retreat to repeating themselves and, for all intents and purposes, the subject is closed. I'm asking you, though, how do you handle it? In other words, what are you really saying when you say 'M is real'? Can that sentiment really stand up as anything but an expression of will?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 10:39:51 (EST)
From: bftb
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Blind fool sees what?
Message:
Oh I see.Sorry;I thought 'satpal' was M and that's what confused me.Satpal is his brother who's also a guru.Nepotism?

I know all followers of whichever 'spiritual leader' think that their guy/gal is it.THE 'it'.I think it's possible that we're all 'it'.

When I say M is real,that's a personal opinion,not a statement of objective fact.Of course it could never stand up as anything other then my opinion or whatever we choose to call it.I can't prove a damn thing about it and I really wouldn't want to try.It would become silly.In fact if I were to relate various experiences I've had in relation to the arena of K I would almost certainly be branded a delusional wishful thinking loony.And it's possible that I am a loony!

See,for me that's the puzzling thing about all of this.I agree with almost everything said here that relates to this thing being like any other cult.And things would be much easier to discount had I never experienced certain things.Trouble is those experiences are the fly in the ointment.

Now,I'm actually open to the line of thinking that says that all those experiences can be explained away as wish fulfillment,meeting of expectations...etc,but the thing I can't wrap my head around is how could I have created an experience that
I'd never even conceived of before it actually happened.And after it happened I knew that it was something brand new for me and went beyond any thought I had ever had in my life.I couldn't have created it because it was a state that had literally not even ever been conceived of by myself before I was in it.In fact I've never since had a repeat of that experience.However it did happen in relation to M/K.

So,it's like,yeah-so much of this thing is a pile of shite.And yet stuff happened.All the explanations of expectancy,group dynamics...etc still can't satify as an explanation for some of my experiences.These experiences were beyond even my own consciousness(mind).

In the end it comes back to the god thing.First of all;I'm not even sure that I believe in god.I waver.My wavering however has less to do with whether or not there is in fact a propulsive progenerating energy behind all material existence,then it does with whether or not that power is in fact conscious.

Can we as humans,who are simply the products of where evolution has taken us to this point,actually experience,or tap into the part of ourselves (life,energy,or if you prefer:finite living cells...etc)that I honestly feel animates us?And if we can do we really need another human to show us how?Can another human show us? Well these guys from India seem to think so.The thing is,once they've shown you,why do you then owe them something?If it's a gift it's a gift.You don't give a gift with results expected.

Jim,I really don't know how this works.It doesn't make any sense.Like;why would creator manifest perfectly in this one guy who will only ever be able to reach the tiniest fraction of a percentage of people alive?Seems incredibly innefficient!I don't buy it that M is THE one.I think creator is all of us but some people just seem to be immersed in a constant remembrance of that basic fact of life.M struck me as one of those people.The thing is though,when I answered Katie that at times he has seemed 'divine' to me,I should have qualified that by saying that I've seen that divinity manifest in lots of humans and I DON'T think that M has an exclusive licence on this stuff.

Look,it's also possible that God is real and knows when humans are sincerely seeking him/her/it so god will reveal itself to anyone even if it means using peoples teachers as a tool.Unfortunately people confuse god with the teacher.

O.K.,see how silly all this sounds.And is?I know it's ridiculous and it's all in the way we choose to look at it.Maybe the whole god thing isn't such a big deal after all.Maybe it's natural.Maybe it's all conjecture.Maybe nothing I've ever experienced really matters.Maybe we are just a collection of cells continuing to survive.Maybe that's all that's really happening.I'm open to everything.In fact believe it or not I lean towards feeling that there is no conscious creator and that the need for this creature man to have invented an omnipotent power is somehow a coping mechanism needed for survival.

So I guess ultimately I'm not really a premie.That is if premie means someone who believes that M is the sole representative and embodiment of a conscious creator and that the only way to even begin to experience that creator is to go through him.Really I think all of that is an arrogant crock.

However I still have had the experience of something extraordinary around him so I'm not prepared to say that the very experience itself is a crock.It's even possible that M has no clue how it all works either.Like a guru savant or something.

Maybe it IS a game of wish fulfillment.Maybe everybody with every teacher(satpal included)is just having an experience that has nothing to do with anything other then the similar dynamic of each teachers set-up and the naturally occuring outgrowth of that dynamic are all these so called experiences that are in fact nothing more then predictable psychological reactions.

Hey I'm open to that.I just don't know for sure is all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 12:20:34 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: bftb
Subject: Blind fool sees what?
Message:
Hey, bftb,
Thanks for answering Jim's question, as you answered a lot of the questions that I had for you as well. I have been thinking about the things you brought up all night and trying to synthesize them with things that other people have said about Maharaji. (Jim says sythesis can be a fallacy, but i don't think it is always. It's something I do, anyway.) I really respect the fact that you are speaking from your personal experience - I take what you say seriously.

I never had the kind of experiences that you did around Maharaji (although I did have them with another person, as you know) but I know that a lot of people who post on here have, and are trying to integrate that. I really liked Mark A.'s post today (it's not under his name, which I assume is by accident). It helps me understand the experiences people have had a bit more.
Still thinking about this stuff - and it might take me a while. Thanks a lot - again - for sharing your experiences.

Regards from Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 13:39:03 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Thanks bf
Message:
Yeah, thanks for your answer bf. I once would have said just what you have, there's every reason to slam the door on M but still, to be honest, some inexplicable experiences. Could they mean...? Well, what DO they mean?

I've drifted since then into believing -- not knowing, but believing -- that they're all brain phenomena. Of all the different possible explanations, I think that's got the best odds by far. Say mankind's still around 40,000 years from now. My imagination, which once would have envisioned a perpetual guru picnic (really not that much unlike those funny Watchtower covers, everyone looking like U.N. delegates and simple, 1950s white folk, getting ready for lunch, with a few lions and lambs in the shade), now is more inclined to think that we're going to know a LOT more about the brain, to say the least. I think we'll find a lot of explanations for 'spirituality' therein.

But that's just MY imagination. At this point, no one knows for sure. I'm just hpapy betting against Maharaji. It feels good.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 15:06:29 (EST)
From: bf-kinda off topic to jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks bf
Message:
Man you made me laugh with your perpetual guru picnic description.It reminded me of something that happened when I was a naive spaced out 'Everything's one man' type of loveable infuriateingly flaky person.I was hiking in this area near Marin community college(At least I think that's what the place was called-t'was a long time ago)and before the hike one of the people I was with and myself went into the building.Well wherever we were on the campus(cafeteria?can't remember exactly) there was this giant mural tribute to John Lennon.It was quite tacky but impressive still for the obvious effort that had gone into it.Basically it was an image of this circle of 20,30,70? people or so,holding hands in a beautiful grassy picnicky type surrounding with the image of a giant john lennon face sort of looking over the whole thing and an inscription that read : 'imagine all the people living life as one'(or whatever the exact verse was)-so I'm staring at this thing thinking 'Wow...This is really beautiful man....' and my friend (who was in no way shape or form flaky,trippy,or whatever)turns to me and asks : 'Those are all the people?'

I laugh to this day.And was he ever right.

If only things were that simple!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 17:31:57 (EST)
From: carol
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks Jim
Message:
Dear Jim,
Your view is looking more appealing to me at this time. It would be one way out of the fear and pain I sometimes find myself in, but could I/would I stay in that mindset? I doubt it. A wise high school biology teacher once said to the class: The only thing constant is change itself. That has been true for me, many times over, so maybe that is the only truth!
carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 06:12:25 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks bf
Message:
we're going to know a LOT more about the brain, to say the least. I think we'll find a lot of explanations for 'spirituality' therein.

In my opinion the brain is just an organ of perception. Perhaps spirituality is just a mode of expression. For example everyone present at a birth, will feel awe, in normal circumstances.
There is something miraculous about birth, it's not a function of the brain. The awe could be described as spiritual. Where does life come from, the presence of a little soul in a body? How come you feel a beautiful, special feeling? A soft light seems to be present. As someone else said here, my mum told me that feeling is present at death too. (I haven't been with someone dying but she did and she said it was.....spiritual is a word she would have used I guess.)
We are all seeing, witnessing, being in something, I think. One great living wave, which in a way, is us. The brain is one creation or aspect of it. It is not the 'answer'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 28, 1998 at 06:02:42 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: bftb
Subject: Blind fool sees what?
Message:
thank you for opening up to your doubts, questions and thoughts, and sharing some of them here with us. I for one appreciate your sincerity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 22:20:18 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: None
To: JOHN HAMMOND-SMYTH
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
These deluded ex-premies are beyond His help. In fact, they are beyond anyone's help. They will never be able to know what love is. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time on them. Just look to Maharaji who is the supreme Lord of the Universe. He will save them, if He feels like it.

....speechless. That was absolutely.... I don't know where to start.

John you are an absolute treasure. Please waste a little more time on us so we can get as many of these snippets stored in the archive as possible.

BTW: Has nobody told you that Big Mac has moved the goalposts? - About ten years ago, to tell the truth. You are now making claims on His Divine Behalf that the He would be embarrassed to see printed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 06:16:23 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: nigel
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Nigel don't know if you are ever coming back, but thank you, moving the goal posts is another symptom of the dysfunctional family/denial syndrome.

PS anyone got a copy of Melody Beattie on codependcy? I think it's she who has a good clear list of this type of stuff.

We are the denial inquisition!
Our tools are, lies, manipulation, and self-deceit!
(Monty Python, anyone?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 at 22:11:19 (EST)
From: charles
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Let's be polite for a change and impersonal and respond to you point by point even if after the second reading I did get a distinct flash of pinstripes. (the first reading left me on the ropes of guilt having the attraction I do for sincerity or apparent sincerity)
1. a. Ashram premies, etc
I did live for a short time in an ashram in the woo woo 70's. Shame on me. I, however, have fond memories of the people I lived with then. They were bright, hard working, clean, devoted, and very service oriented. I was privileged to spend the time with them that I did. I remember us also having some real satsang and genuine spiritual experiences to go with it.
b. surrender your life to me and I will give you peace.
throughout all religious traditions, philosophies, etc. this message is spoken.

Not all George. See Zen Buddhism, Sufiism, Wicca, really all of Buddhism except the Nichiren evangelizers. One key word here is 'ME'
2.
Gautama was, if anything, a little skinny. Your ugly american side is showing.
I wonder why you are so familiar with that saying: ALL MY PROBLEMS ARE SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT
As for 'SO WHAT?' I have said the same on this site. I felt I had to back and apologize for the selfishness of it. In a way it is 'so what'. In another it is not. Think about it. I refer you to John Donne.
3. I must preface my general remark about this point by saying that I personally feel no regret over having given whatever small amount of $ i gave. I'm sure it was small as I never had much to spare. But I do want to address the issue about choice. Every relationship has an element of choice as well as an element of influence or even coercion. No relationship and the deeds that comprise it is one sided. Responsibility, in other words, cuts both ways. And, if someone is claiming leadership and responsibility and even responsibility for ALL OF EVERYTHING then it gives one some pause as to assigning responsibility for what happened.
4.Most of this is your testimony. Thankyou for sharing. I think I have as well experienced the direct impact or influence of Guru Maharaj Ji's kindness without anyone else's immediate company. Of course I can also remember that I, myself, on my own rose up in real praise and devotion and gave of myself ever so willingly. What I'm saying is that I played a part, an essential part, in the experience i cherished. I did it!
Those are just the long after the fact renditions of what Jesus did. I think a Master is simply supposed to be a Master, you know, do the job or resign. I have people who actually overrate me and my abilities as a wise person or teacher and I never fail to clear that up for them. About Guru Maharaj Ji i just do not know at this time. I am putting my experience, small as it is, to the test. I am allowing 'room for doubt in the mind.'
5. I have been a terrible slug when it comes to meditation. And I have also practiced for extended periods of time in the prescribed manner. I have never passed through those doors. Intrestingly enough, in a metaphorical sense, my first and continuing for some time experience of meditation was like the very uncomfortable sensation one gets in an extremity when it has gotten numbingly cold or gone without adequate circulation and is just reviving. But I have done my best to do service and I think I have done well. I could send you some of the accolades i have in writing. And I have listened to a lot of satsang.
Now to get to your last paragraph. Is it apparent that I have no vendetta against Guru Maharaj Ji? I hope so. As for this site being populated with vendettas of that kind I will beg to differ. I have never been more encouraged to do meditation (I know nine techniques now and I honestly think one of them was working for the first time ever) than I have been here. I have a life. I found friends here who were happy to let me say my piece without shaking their finger at me; and, more than that, were there with truly helpful sharing and advice. Guru Maharaj Ji does get criticized, but I have done the same and quite vehemently. He is the master is he not. You mean to say the master can't take a little criticism or even answer it. How do you know this is a bad trip? Do you go through those doors and does someone or something there tell you that?
Charles
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:10:34 (EST)
From: George
Email: smithgs@ext.missouri.edu
To: charles
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
To everyone that responded. Keith, Jim, Gerry, Katie, Charles, and those I forgot to mention. I enjoyed your comments, or most of them. I few comments off the top of my head. M has made, makes, and will make mistakes. Of course. Too err is human, to forgive is divine. M is a human being isn't he? To the one that quoted M on the questions about God and Guru. I have no quarrels with M's answers. In the entire history of humanity, IF there is a God, he/she communicated herself through human beings. If one believes that we are all evolving towards perfection (or full consciousness, whatever you call it) then it would make sense that some become perfected or aware before others do. Because God expresses herself to man through man, then for all practical purposes the Guru IS greater than God, because the Guru reveals God. Now M promised me that he could reveal God, and He delivered on that promise to me. And Yes, I have played a critical role in all this; namely that I chose to try with my effort. Bully for me! I'll tell all of you one thing; I have met thousands of people from all religions, ages, sexes, philosophies, etc. and not one of them has experienced (in a quantitative sense) the divinity that M showed me was inside myself. Many have seen 'the other side' but it was spontaneous or they never knew how to get back to that experience.

One more thing. I get really pissed at the attitude expressed by some that 'we believers are all duped by this charlatan' and if we were as intelligent as you then we would see the error of our ways. Your arrogance knows no bounds!!!! I am a scientist and I believe a critical thinker. I spent the first 15 years after I received the techniques trying to prove that M was a fake. I COULD NOT!!!!! And nothing that has been offered on this web site proves your case. If you are going to skewer M, then steer clear of allegations and hearsay. They are not admissable in court. Get your facts straight before you advertise the cross building party. M's valet is gay, he beats his wife, he is unfaithful to his wife, etc. etc. Give me a break!

Lastly, for those of you that got burned by the ashram experience, I do hope you were able to make some lasting friendships. But my experience of ashram premies was less than spectacular. If it had not been for M and K, I would have left the premie world decades ago. How does one respond to female ashram premies who are in heat for M, who meditate for him, etc. ad nauseum! Or Male ashram premies that tell you that you are worthless scum because you won't 'dedicate your life to him and give up everything'. I told them to Go to Hell! Hell, I just figured that ashrams were for really fucked up people who needed the extra help. Actually, I am being a little harsh here, because I knew some neat, cool people in ashrams. But one last thing. The word guilt shows up frequently in these chats. My advice, DISPENSE with guilt and your life will instantly improve for the better. I know this is simplistic, but even if it takes years, free yourself from the chains of guilt. There is a saying 'For God has willed that no soul shall perish'. This is so beautiful to me. We are all going home; stay true to your heart, and enjoy the journey! God Bless to all of you. I hope we can meet some day!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 00:41:56 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: George
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Dear George -
I have no quarrel with those who chose to follow Maharaji and feel satisfied doing so. It's up to you - if you are happy doing so, then do it. The reason I post on this web site is that a premie who I loved very much committed suicide because he was unhappy. I have since found out that there are a lot of other people like him - people who have not found happiness following knowledge. Surely you cannot mind if we gather together and try and support each other.

The one thing that I really did not like in your original post was the remark 'Get a life'. For one thing, that remark is repeated by many, many, premies who find this site. For another, there are a lot of people posting here for whom knowledge did not work as promised. If you've been around since 1973, you will know that lots of us were promised that knowledge would cure all our ills, and so forth. I realize that people are not promised this anymore (at least not explicitly), but there are lots of people wallking around with this conception, and there are a lot of people who feel/have felt that it is 'their fault' that knowledge did not work. I personally have found better ways to meditate than with the knowledge meditation, and have found teachers that I could relate to more than I could to Maharaji. I wish I could communicate this to every premie who isn't experiencing anything, and who is feeling like they are somehow to blame for their lack of experience.

Regarding ashram premies - I also knew people who were messed up and lived in the ashram because they needed the supportive environment. However, some of these people were really great people, and were left adrift when Maharaji closed the ashrams. I also know that there were many responsible and self-sufficient people who had plenty of resources to make a life apart from the ashram who CHOSE to devote their life to Maharaji in this way. You may encounter some of them if you keep reading this forum. Almost all of them have gone on and made really good lives for themselves, but sometimes wonder WHY they ever lived in the ashram for ten years. Wouldn't you?

I appreciate your kind words at the end of your message. I truly wish that I could free myself from guilt, but (as you said) it's not as simple as just saying it. As you said, guilt is one of the things we discuss on here frequently, and although you may not realize it, we ARE freeing ourselves from guilt by talking about it and sharing our experiences.

Regards from
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 04:21:28 (EST)
From: Keith
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: Social animals
Message:
I don't agree with Maharaji's put down of those who claim that human-beings are social animals.
For I feel we are social animals....TOO.
We are not even born alone, we are born into a social enviroment.
Premies are social animals.
Otherwise why even bother relating to Maharaji.
Maharaji seems to be anti-social.
Not in his own daily doings, but in his opinions about others.
This I feel is just one idea that Maharaji has expressed over the years that I disagree with.
How liberating it is to disagree with someone who has been regarded for years as a type of ultimate authority on everything.
There is no-one alive (or dead) that I totally agree with about anything; not even myself !(ha bloody ha).
But I almost made an exception with Maharaji.
Okay, I'm out of steam for now.
Regards, Keith
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:22:53 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: George
Subject: Ghandi smeared by George
Message:
I know of Ghandi as be a tireless worker for non-violence and human equality. His grandson, Arun Ghandi, continues to work for the values he brought to consciousness by the way he lived his life (I saw him speak at our church recently). You're assinuations about him sleeping naked with 2 girls are assinine! Merely allegations and hearsay and in no way comparative to those made about Maharaji which you acknowledged.

carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:53:46 (EST)
From: Jude
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Ghandi smeared by George
Message:
Well Carol I read the same thing. Apparently, he started doing it when he was quite old. He said it made him feel young (he didn't have sex with them, that is what he said - he just liked to sleep that way!

Maybe Selena could try that with a couple of nice warm bodies on either side?? Selena I hope that doesn't freak you out or anything!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 15:20:31 (EST)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net
To: Carol
Subject: Ghandi smeared by George
Message:
Hi Carol,
Ghandi was my hero as a youth, and I read almost everything I could find on him in English. What George is reporting is not a smear; Ghandi did sleep between two young girls. As I remember, this was a means of testing his dedication to celibacy and chastity. Of course, the rest of the stuff George says is BS, but he is correct regarding Ghandi.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 18:18:14 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Ghandi smeared by George
Message:
It may be true, but his insinuation(I spelled it wrong before) was that he molested them and I don't believe that. Besides he was side-tracking the issues about M.
carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 15:49:00 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: George
Subject: George, whatever you are
Message:
and despite your bold assertion to the contrary, you are no critical thinker! Scientist, you say? What kind? Really, I find that prospect frightening.

Alright, let's respond.

M has made, makes, and will make mistakes. Of course. Too err is human, to forgive is divine. M is a human being isn't he?

First, we agree, M has made mistakes. Why won't you spell them out for us, though? Seems you're stepping a little gingerly, George. Exactly what mistakes do you attribute to him?

Second, forgiveness is always but for what? You need to specify what you think M should be forgiven for. Are these things that he himself admits he's been wrong about? Or are they things that you're just trying to clean up for him? I couldn't imagine forgiving someone for something that he hasn't even acknowledged as an error let alone apologized for. Could you?

To the one that quoted M on the questions about God and Guru. I have no quarrels with M's answers. In the entire history of humanity, IF there is a God, he/she communicated herself through human beings.

What's going on here, George? Can't you read? M didn't claim to be a 'channel' for god. He claimed to be god. Please be honest here. Now, would you like some more quotes confirming that assertion on his part? Shouldn't need them, one should suffice. Pleae deal with the problem before you and not an easier one you which you understandably might prefer.

If you are going to skewer M, then steer clear of allegations and hearsay. They are not admissable in court. Get your facts straight before you advertise the cross building party. M's valet is gay, he beats his wife, he is unfaithful to his wife, etc. etc. Give me a break!

You may be a scientist but I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that hearsay is certainly admissable in court. There are all sorts of rules in different jurisdictions designed to ferret out clearly unreliable out-of-court statements but they just reflect common sense. Here in Canada the rule's gotten much simpler and more flexible than it used to be. Hearsay is now admissable if it meets certain criteria of relevance, necessity and reliability. Take Mishler, for example. His recorded story is clearly relevant to a determination of 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?' and it would be necessary to the extent that his perspective was unique. He shared a lot of private time with M and describes private discussions between them that no one else could 'testify' about (besides M himself, of course). And he's dead so there's no other way we're ever going to get that testimony. Necessary.

The big question is, is his story reliable? Well, that's always a more interesting call. Was Mishler subject to any known ulterior motives beside simply telling the truth? How would telling the story have affected him personally? Was there some obvious measure of self-interest at play? Did Bob have a reputation for honesty? My opinion, given what I know of the situation, is that Mishler would certainly make the reliability test as well. Sure, you can specualte all you want about his secret, hidden agenda but that's just wishful thinking on M's front. The fact is, Bob actually spoke out against his self-interest to some extent. After all, he might have been exposing himself to risk of harm, and he might have suffered some embarrassment at publicly admitting that he'd been duped as long as he had by the man he'd once touted as 'Lord of the Universe'.

But that's just an example. The point is, hearsay is often admissable. You're wrong.

As for the general concern you raise about accuracy, just how do you propose people go about getting their 'facts straight'? Maharaji had a chance to answer Mishler when he was alive and did so by having Joe anctil tell the L. A. Times that Bob was crazy. We're talking information control, George. Maharaji's free to answer for himself or even have someone do it for him. You can't because you're neither his agent nor privy yourself to the answers regarding all sorts of matters complained of here. Face it, fella, even as a friend of Maharaji, you wouldn't be able to get any answers from him. Why, his own brother, Raja Ji, told me that even he couldn't get Maharaji to talk straight!

As for the ashram, well, George, I'm not impressed with either your sensitivity nor recollection. I won't even bother talking with you about this. You simply don't have a clue. Scientist, you say?

Oh yes, I almost forgot,

I have met thousands of people from all religions, ages, sexes, philosophies, etc. and not one of them has experienced (in a quantitative sense) the divinity that M showed me was inside myself.

Are you familiar with the work of Susan Blackmore and other researchers into the brain's capacity to feign 'spiritual' experiences? Scientist? Really?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 13:38:07 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: GEORGE
Subject: KNOWLEDGE and THE MASTER
Message:
Hey, George, I have a couple of comments, and must add that your revisionist bullshit, is similar, though perhaps not so blatant, to what I have heard from a couple of other premies, who propogate the same lies about BM and his past. They have the typical element that the premie simply ignored what BM told them to do for years, and think other premies were nuts for ever taking BM literally. It's a pretty contradictory and stupid argument, because it basically implies that BM hasn't known what in the hell he was doing and saying all those years. I also became a premie in 1973, lived in the ashram for 10 years and served in a number of DLM service posts over the years, so I have some experience with this as well.

For example, you said:

I do have a historical perspective.

Yes, I would call it a perspective, but it is highly inaccurate and revisionist. Also, if you never lived in the ashram, I posit that you are patently unqualified to speak about what it was like to live in one, nor are you in any position to judge the mental stability of those who gave up their lives to dedicate to BM in that way. This is because you don't know what you are talking about.

'Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you peace... Personally, I found the vast, vast majority of ashram premies to be nuts!... Everything was 'GoomRaji's Grace'. What a crock of shit! So I have little sympathy with your disallusionment.

Hey, you dip, no one is asking for your sympathy so you can just shove it. You also seemed to have missed a lot BM had to say over the years, like when he repeatedly demanded total surrender and devotion and when he said, also repeatedly, that absolutely NOTHING, including a leaf falling from a tree, happened without his GRACE. In fact, you couldn't even practice knowledge, have any experience or even approach BM without his grace!

You also apparently didn't attend those ashram meetings in the 70s and 80s he held with the ashram premies in which he said that the ashrams were essential and that one should never even think about leaving. So we ashram premies did have some encouragement from BM to be so nuts to be poor, celibate and obedient, and to continue doing so, until one day he just ended the whole ashram 'experiment' without explanation.

I agree with you that BM's grace is, as you say, 'a crock of shit.' You are absolutely right. That's what makes BM's repeated claims to those powers so reprehensible and what makes him such a fraud. Thank you for pointing that out.

Yes, many of us did 'miss the boat' by being so stupid as to believe that BM was telling us. Silly us. We should have been wise like you to realize that what he was saying was 'a crock of shit.' I would have wasted a lot less of my life if I had done that. Hey, George, why didn't you tell the rest of us if you were so smart? And I think your revisionist interpretation of the 'surrender' quote is, shall we say, cute. Again, how smart of you to not take anything BM said literally. What a resounding vote of confidence in him as a true and effective master!

Is M God? What a stupid question! God is God.

Yes, you are right. It is a stupid question. BM clearly said he was greater than god.

Finally, I really don't see what you people's problem is? What has M ever to you?

If you are bitter about getting trapped in DLM and the ashram vibes, then you have my sympathies. But don't blame this on M (well I guess you can blame everything on him if you want to). But that doesn't change the fact that you have life, choices, and a finite time to experience both.

I doubt 'bitter' is the right term. I think it's more a sense of justice and a desire to not let BM bury his past that keeps some premies talking about it. But I don't want your sympathies, but I guess I should be giving you mine, considering where you appear to be coming from and how confused you sound.

As far as 'blaming' BM and the 'free choice' bullshit, your statement reflects a real misunderstanding of the operation of BM's 'total surrender' cult when I was a premie. I mean, he claimed to be the 'perfect master' didn't he? He claimed to be 'the superior power in person' and the 'lord of the universe', right? I mean he claimed to be in charge of his devotees and 'the master.' Maybe he was just lying and incompetent, as you imply by wisely ignoring what he had to say. But some others, like me, were pretty young and idealistic when we got in his sway, and tended to believe him, and had limited means to criticize if we followed his COMMANDMENT not to doubt!

So, George, good for you to have come through the whole BM cult experience unscathed. But bear in mind that others weren't so lucky, and BM hasn't ever acknowledged that such things even happened, let alone taken any responsibility whatsoever. But maybe he expected everyone to be like you and not believe what he said anyway, and is just as surprised as you are that a bunch of people believed his fraudulent bullshit.

JW
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 26, 1998 at 17:16:52 (EST)
From: *>*.......b
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: The rock called JW
Message:
JW how can you say, even sarcastically, 'I am glad you came
out of the cult so unscathed'
The guy is a total wreck.
His delusion is complete and he is so blind to rawat
that I wouldnt be surprised if one or more of these guys IS rawat.
This guy is a complete apologist for a narcissist.
The condensention and fraud of these guys is real revealing.
THIS is the fruit of rawat. Guys that arent men. Liars
that are blind. These guys make perfect propagation tools.
Normal people can spot thier wierdness.
Thier extreme delusion annoys us here because we know the truth.
But dont let them bother you too much, laugh at the insanity.
Kieth will make it. We will always have this type of hallucinating
visitor drop by here. Have fun, they are deaf anyway.

You are a funny guy. Fight with your humor.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 27, 1998 at 02:02:44 (EST)
From: *>*...b
Email: None
To: *>*.......b
Subject: The rock called JW
Message:
now that I read some of thier posts i am off on a humorless
glazed eyed assault myself.
my above post felt right this afternoon, but now that I read this
pile of posts by insanity it is a bit TOO revisionist for
me to stomach cheerfully. excuse my intrusion if it seems like
one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index