Forum IV: The Ex-Premie Forum
Archive: 6
From: Tues, Sep 28, 1999 To: Sun, Oct 10, 1999 Page: 3 Of: 5


Jerry -:- To URL; Consciousness -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 09:03:18 (EDT)
__ URL -:- Re: To URL; Consciousness -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 20:27:17 (EDT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Re: To URL; Consciousness -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:44:32 (EDT)
__ __ __ Grace -:- Re: To URL; Consciousness -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:11:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ nigel -:- licensed to revise? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:45:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: licensed to revise? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 18:54:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Jeez, URL, sometimes I think you are beyond hope -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 19:34:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Re: licensed to revise? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 17:19:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Well said. Now try telling URL that... -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 19:42:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ URL -:- Re: To URL; Consciousness -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 20:28:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Grace -:- To URL; Consciousness, last post -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:13:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Ahem ... Mr. Url, sir? (Part 2) -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 21:29:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Jim esq., sir... -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:16:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- New age bullshit, Grace -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 11:17:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- No Jim -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 17:22:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Not new age -- left/right side brain function is scientific proof (nt) -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:50:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- I mean, let's look at the evidence, such as it is... -:- Thurs, Oct 07, 1999 at 15:18:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's dumb -- scientific proof my ass -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 19:20:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: That's dumb -- scientific proof my ass -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 21:17:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Bad analogy, Mr. Url, sir -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 23:13:56 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: Bad analogy, Mr. Url, sir -:- Thurs, Oct 07, 1999 at 14:03:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: Ahem ... Mr. Url, sir? (Part 2) -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 21:53:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's quite revealing, Url -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 22:11:52 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: That's quite revealing, Url -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:44:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Re: That's quite revealing, Url -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:23:30 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- How superficial do you like it, Grace? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 11:32:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Re: How superficial do you like it, Grace? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 17:27:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: How superficial do you like it, Grace? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 20:17:53 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- No way, Url. -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 21:19:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ URL -:- Re: No way, Url. -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 21:46:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Grace -:- Url, I agree with you. -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Your perspective's funny, if you think about it -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:45:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Jim, I've learned not to argue with attorneys... -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 14:53:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's lame and you know it -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 18:49:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Re: That's lame and you know it -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:03:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: That's lame and you know it -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:25:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Attorneys -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:04:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Grace, don't kiss up -- he doesn't warrant it (nt) -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:53:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Re: Attorneys-Last post from Grace, not Jim (nt) -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:05:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deja Vu -:- Deposition Time??? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 01:06:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Re: Deposition Time??? -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:08:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- So what does M have to teach about acupuncture? -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 00:35:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ UR -:- Give it a rest nigel! -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 15:30:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ nigel -:- See my post to Mili below. You're missing the point... -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 03:47:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- Re: So what does M have to teach about acupuncture? -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 04:50:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ nigel -:- Re: So what does M have to teach about acupuncture? -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:35:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- I loved 'The Matrix' -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 23:14:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ URL -:- Re: I loved 'The Matrix' -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 20:02:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Ahem, Mr. Url sir? -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 20:18:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek (aka Neo) -:- Re: I loved 'The Matrix' - Keanu (ot) -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 05:22:39 (EDT)

Nigel -:- Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:48:26 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- And a happy new breath to you! -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 22:18:09 (EDT)
__ __ kmdarling -:- Re: And a happy new breath to you! -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 15:45:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Dangerous new age frauds -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 19:25:02 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:25:23 (EDT)
__ __ The bloated Stoat -:- Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:37:40 (EDT)
__ __ __ General Manager -:- Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:59:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 19:32:51 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ GM -:- Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 20:32:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- She's a dangerous liar -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 05:55:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ GM -:- Re: She's a dangerous liar -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:18:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 04:22:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Catweasel -:- Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot) -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:55:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Looks good from here -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 09:30:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Catweasel -:- Re: Looks good from here -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 06:31:44 (EDT)

Jean-Michel -:- Here's a new one! -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 02:42:48 (EDT)
__ bee -:- Re: Here's a new one! -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:43:26 (EDT)

A must read!! -:- Anyone know this guy? -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 00:07:05 (EDT)
__ JW -:- Re: Anyone know this guy? -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 12:10:00 (EDT)
__ __ D_Thomas -:- Re: Anyone know this guy? -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 17:17:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ Grace -:- Money for Seats -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:12:26 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ D_Thomas -:- The Best Seat -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 07:25:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ B. Franklin -:- The Seats Are Worthless -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:43:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Re: Money for Seats -:- Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:39:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Grace -:- Re: Money for Seats -:- Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:26:14 (EDT)
__ Runamok -:- Re: Anyone know this guy? -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:36:24 (EDT)
__ __ Joey -:- Re: Anyone know this guy? -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:43:00 (EDT)
__ GmomSusan -:- for BB (OT) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 13:09:31 (EDT)
__ bb -:- JM -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:45:44 (EDT)
__ __ A must read!! -:- Re: JM -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:50:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ bb -:- Re: JM -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:46:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Joey -:- RJ, master of intelligence!?:) -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:50:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Chrissie -:- http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/Re: RJ, master of intelligence!?:) -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 00:52:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ bb -:- Re: http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/RJ, master of intelligence!?:) -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:55:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- I'm sorry -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 05:16:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Garbo -:- Re: I'm sorry -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 22:50:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Disinformation!! Here's a good one. -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:38:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Ayne -:- Re: http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/RJ, master of intelligence!?:) -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:03:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ayne -:- Re: http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/RJ, master of intelligence!?:) -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:08:25 (EDT)

Cap'n Dave -:- It can't be coincidence -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 21:20:11 (EDT)

Jim -:- New book 'How We Believe in God' -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:24:07 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- And here's the link -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:25:29 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- Chapter 3: The Belief Engine -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:37:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Good analysis, IMO. -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:12:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Chapter 7: THE STORYTELLING ANIMAL -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:47:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:42:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Cap'n Dave -:- Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 21:27:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:50:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:15:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:03:06 (EDT)

Many Recipes-No Cake -:- The Brainwashed Premie Mind -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:54:08 (EDT)

Enough -:- Coincidence? -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:53:29 (EDT)
__ Marianne -:- Happy as pigs in shit -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 21:49:31 (EDT)
__ __ Enough -:- Re: Happy as pigs in shit -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:46:22 (EDT)
__ Ben Lurking -:- Re: Coincidence? -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:20:28 (EDT)

Ben Lurking -:- Recommended reading -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:15:25 (EDT)

Businessmole -:- clarity & compilation -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 14:05:38 (EDT)
__ Runamok -:- Re: clarity & compilation -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:39:17 (EDT)
__ MR--No Cake -:- Re: clarity & compilation -:- Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:58:03 (EDT)
__ __ german chocolate -:- Marianne? -:- Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:49:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ Marianne -:- German chocolate -:- Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 19:17:55 (EDT)


Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 09:03:18 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: All
Subject: To URL; Consciousness
Message:
URL, I'm taking our discussion to the top of the forum because it's slow going pressing 'View All'. It's annoying.

You say that Knowledge has given you a deeper understanding of consciousness than science could. My question to this would be... how?

Consciousness, in itself is a given, like breath or a heartbeat. Do you think by meditating on your breath, that you will understand how the respiratory system works? Or by listening to your heartbeat, you'll gain knowledge of circulation?

In an earlier post you said that with Knowledge you 'see' and merge with consciousness. I don't think you can 'see' consciousness, not in the sense I think you mean it. What you 'see' with Knowledge, I would call inner phenomena which is subject to consciousness, not consciousness itself. Consciousness can be aware of itself, true, but it's not something you 'see' by focusing on your 'third eye'. What makes you think it is? I'm baffled by this. If there's any way you can clarify what you mean, I'd appreciate it.

If you want to enjoy consciousness, that's one thing. Just take stock of it. It's right there under your nose, every waking moment. But if you want to understand it, you're going to have to crack open the books, and learn what has been discovered about it up to this date. I don't see how you can do it any other way. It can be rough going, true. These scientists can really be a pain to comprehend, but I find that the effort is worth it. It's a true learning experience, and an enjoyable one when you grab hold of what these guys are saying.

That's my take on it, as it stands thus far.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 20:27:17 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: To URL; Consciousness
Message:
Jerry, awakening happens through many avenues. If reading about consciousness makes you more aware of your own consciousness, who can argue with that? I personally believe that there is a more direct route.

What you 'see' with Knowledge, I would call inner phenomena which is subject to consciousness, not consciousness itself.

I disagree. When I am immersed in the inner experience there is no longer 'someone' observing 'something'. There reaches a point when the observer and the thing being observed becomes the same thing. So in this case tell me, has the observed become the observer or has the observer become the observed? Practising Knowledge is like looking in a mirror and as you look the mirror fades and disappears leaving only the one who is conscious remaining, experiencing nothing but their own self.

I know this may sound like a lot of spiritual goop but it's really not that confusing when you experience it. It's kind of like this. I often wonder what goes through my dog's head. I'd like to be able for a moment to climb into her body (nothing kinky here - what I mean is transmigrate my consciousness into her body) so I could experience her awareness thereby gaining a greater understanding of what makes her tick. I'd like to see through her eyes, hear through her ears, smell through her nose, etc. -- that is, become one with her.

So tell me, in this example what's the difference between my dog and my consciousness? None at all. There's something inside of me that is peering out through these eyes, called consciousness. I need to become one with it in order to understand it's true nature. If one can accomplish that, they will understand consciousness first hand without the need for a cadre of scientists to interpret their experiments for them. I mean, scientists can give all kinds of data about dogs being color-blind, having an acute sense of smell etc., but until I become my dog, I will never understand what makes my dog tick.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:44:32 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: Re: To URL; Consciousness
Message:
There reaches a point when the observer and the thing being observed becomes the same thing.

No sir, there reaches a point when the observer becomes the observed, and by the observer no less. Maybe we're saying the same thing, I don't know. But this room of mirrors that the consciousness is does not reveal it's origins, only the fact that it IS. So what? Okay, consciousness exists and it really is something to marvel at, but...

WHERE THE FUCK DID IT COME FROM?! Aren't you the least bit curious? Didn't you ever ask where babies come from?

URL, I think that Maharaji's lessons that the mind can only impede us from realizing our 'true quest' is what gets in the way of an appreciation of scientific thought. I think that's sad. Unfortunately, I don't think any student of Maharaji can truly appreciate science without some need to treat it with disdain, in the interest of remaining in sync with the master. That's a shame.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:11:45 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: To URL; Consciousness
Message:
Jerry,

Maharaji hasn't talked about the evil mind in at least 10 years. You obviously haven't seen a video or heard the latest 'philosophy'. If you're going to argue a point, stick with the present (or at least speak in past tense).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:45:07 (EDT)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Grace
Subject: licensed to revise?
Message:
So in which video did he come clean and say it was a serious error of judgement on his part to teach premies to fear their own minds?

(Remember, around the same time he also dropped the commandment: 'leave no room for doubt in your mind'.)

Does he ever regret having given such appalling instructions? If so, why can't he just say so - like a normal human being?

And the 64,000 dollar question: when will he admit that he is, after all, just a normal human being?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 18:54:34 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: nigel
Subject: Re: licensed to revise?
Message:
So in which video did he come clean and say it was a serious error of judgement on his part to teach premies to fear their own minds?

Show me where he said to fear your mind? Healthy respect, yes. Wariness of its unpredictability, yes. But you see, if one knows what the mind he talks about is, this would be common sense. Anybody with a grain of humility can see that their mind is a limiting resource, and the truths it paints today will be the lies of tomorrow. If you want to trust such a thing, it's your choice.

And the 64,000 dollar question: when will he admit that he is, after all, just a normal human being?

How can he? He's not.

Don't you wish you'd chosen the blue pill?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 19:34:18 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: URL
Subject: Jeez, URL, sometimes I think you are beyond hope
Message:
Sometimes I think I might just sidle back over to the skeptic.com forum. They have an altogether more entertaining breed of creationist there (y'know, the kind who at least try to back up their arguments with evidence).
If you want evidence, URL, JM's site (yes that 'fucking deceitful wizard' - or whatever the choice phrase was you managed to rub both those brain cells together to concoct by way of answer to to a recent thread of his), has evidence in droves. We have cut and pasted it before for your express benefit - but it is not as if you even want to see the evidence is it..?

So what do you want?

I have to take a bit of a break for a couple of weeks. New term and teaching materials to prepare. Talk to you later if you really want to thrash this one out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 17:19:49 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: nigel
Subject: Re: licensed to revise?
Message:
Nigel, I think he just changes things and then suppresses the history. When a major shift occurs, you're just not supposed to talk about how it used to be. Then all the newer members don't know how it was and just learn the new system of thought for that time period. The evil mind thing ended late 70's or early 80's. Ask a newer premie about that message and they won't know what you're talking about. Maharaji just talks about the mind making us unhappy by continually producing desires to be fulfilled and refers to that part of the mind as your 'desire maker'. I think it's a cute concept and use the term at times when I'm in a 'buying mood' or am overwhelmed with wants from a store or catalog. M even tried to end the word 'premie' but it was too hard to keep us from referring to ourselves and each other by that convenient term, so he finally kinda gave in a did a few videos discussing what the term means. I guess that's one thing that wasn't in his control...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 19:42:04 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Grace
Subject: Well said. Now try telling URL that...
Message:
Nigel, I think he just changes things and then suppresses the history. When a major shift occurs, you're just not supposed to talk about how it used to be. Then all the newer members don't know how it was and just learn the new system of thought for that time period. The evil mind thing ended late 70's or early 80's. Ask a newer premie about that message and they won't know what you're talking about.

Exactly. Licensed to revise.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 20:28:08 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: To URL; Consciousness
Message:
WHERE THE FUCK DID [CONSCIOUSNESS] COME FROM?! Aren't you the least bit curious?

Funny thing. When the observer and the observed merge, curiosity gives way to gratitude. The lack that creates the question gets filled.

Unfortunately, I don't think any student of Maharaji can truly appreciate science without some need to treat it with disdain, in the interest of remaining in sync with the master.

That's pure shit Jerry! The two are NOT mutually exclusive. There are scientists with Knowledge, and science coexists with their practise of Knowledge without conflict. What you WILL encounter with premies are people who object to the blind worship of science as a vehicle to explain absolute questions. And I'll tell you why.

Because we've only got so many fucking years in one lifetime to find some very specific answers, and science just ain't coming up with those answers fast enough.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:13:22 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: To URL; Consciousness, last post
Message:
Amen.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 21:29:42 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: Ahem ... Mr. Url, sir? (Part 2)
Message:
Url,

This 'blind worship of science to explain absolute questions' comment is almost as inane as your 'sound premise' one. Either you're willing to use your critical faculties or you're not. Science is for people who are. Religion -- you know, the place for all your 'worship', blind or otherwise, and the warehouse of all them 'absolute questions' (whatever they are) -- is for people who aren't so inclined.

But, that's not my main point. My main point, Mr. Url, sir, is that you've exhibited a terrible misunderstanding again. Science isn't limited by the human lifespan. To say so would be to deny the history of scientific progress which is really quite overwhelming.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:16:03 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim esq., sir...
Message:
The problem, Jim, is that there are two sides to yourself and your stuck in one and denying the other.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 11:17:00 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: New age bullshit, Grace
Message:
Your problem, Grace, is that you actually think in those terms.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 17:22:07 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No Jim
Message:
The problem is you don't.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:50:08 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Not new age -- left/right side brain function is scientific proof (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 07, 1999 at 15:18:55 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: URL
Subject: I mean, let's look at the evidence, such as it is...
Message:
For some theorists, the verbal-spatial distinction defines the difference in the functioning of the two cerebral hemispheres, with the left hemisphere the 'linguist,' and the right hemisphere the 'map maker.' This model neatly fits the fact that performance on the various verbal tests is more impaired by lesions to the left hemisphere, while performance on spatial tests is more impaired by lesions to the right hemisphere (Levy, 1974). But other theorists suggest that the distinction between the hemispheres must be conceived differently. In their view, the right hemisphere is specialized for the organization of space, whereas the left hemisphere's speciality is organization in time. Thus, if language functions are found more in the left hemisphere, it is not because of a specialization for language per se. Rather, it is because language, like many other functions, depends crucially on precisely timed sequences of elements. The person who is insensitive to what comes first and what comes second cannot possibly speak or understand the speech of others. Tap is not the same word as pat, and the sentence 'The dog bit the man' is crucially different from 'The man bit the dog.' To summarize this view, the right hemisphere is more concerned with what goes where, the left more with what comes when (Bogen, 1969; Tzeng and Wang, 1984).

Although the space versus time hypothesis is rather speculative, it fits in well enough with the facts we have described in this chapter. The same is not true of the many accounts written for the general public. Some authors go so far as to equate left-hemispheric function with western science and right-hemispheric function with eastern culture and mysticism. In the same vein, others have argued that western societies overly encourage left-brained functions at the expense of right-brained functions and that we need special efforts to train the neglected right hemisphere (e.g., Ornstein, 1977). One author recommends 'Ten Ways to Develop Your Right Brain,' one of which involves drowning out the presentation of information with music (Prince, 1978, cited in Springer and Deutsch, 1998). There is, however, no persuasive evidence for any of these popular claims. In many cases, the distinctions being proposed-between the rational and the intuitive, the analytic and the artistic, or between western and eastern philosophies of life-are not so clear cut. In other cases, the distinctions fit badly with, or go wildly beyond, the available evidence. And even if these distinctions are sometimes useful, there is little reason to believe that each mode corresponds to the functioning of one of the brain hemispheres. After all, despite the mythic appeal of two modes of thinking, there may turn out to be five, or ten, or a hundred modes of thought, and this obviously would not map neatly onto the two hemispheres (Levy, 1985; Efron, 1990).

The popular misconceptions are particularly misleading when they imply that the two cerebral hemispheres, each with its own talents and strategies, endlessly vie for control of our mental life. Instead, each of us has a single brain. Each part of the brain (and not just the cerebral hemispheres) is quite differentiated and so contributes its own specialized abilities to the activity of the whole. But in the end, the marvelously complex, extraordinarily sophisticated skills that we each display depend on the whole brain and on the coordinated actions of all these components. Our hemispheres ate not cerebral competitors. Instead, they pool their specialized capacities to produce a seamlessly integrated single mental self. [my emphases]

(Gleitman, Fridlund & Reisberg, 1999)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 19:20:58 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: That's dumb -- scientific proof my ass
Message:
It's starting to look like the only science you and Grace have ever read is filtered through your favorite new age hucksters and pamphleteers. What do either of you really know about brain hemispheres? No, really, outside of some threadbare, embarrasingly simplistic (not to mention wrong) 'facts' .... look, this just isn't enough. You can no more tell me with any legitimacy that I'm a 'left-brained' person than you can say that I'm a Aquarius. Or that I'm a 'sound' person (as opposed to 'visual' or 'touch-oriented'). Or that I'm an 'autumn' (as in 'when was the last time you had your colours done?') These categories are all jokes played on the gullible and childish.

The really funny shit starts happening when you new agers get your hands on a few scientific terms. Fine. Have fun. But, please, leave me out of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 21:17:34 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: That's dumb -- scientific proof my ass
Message:
I don't have any data within my grasp at the moment but hold that thought until I get time to properly research my point. And believe me it has nothing to do with new age and everything to do with science.

And one more thing, you talk like you're a real expert scientist. Well how many scientific studies have you designed and executed. My guess is you're just another arm-chair wannabe? You don't come anywhere near walkin' the high and mighty shit that you're talkin'. It'd be like me pretending to be a lawyer because I watch Ally McBeal.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 23:13:56 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: Bad analogy, Mr. Url, sir
Message:
And one more thing, you talk like you're a real expert scientist. Well how many scientific studies have you designed and executed. My guess is you're just another arm-chair wannabe? You don't come anywhere near walkin' the high and mighty shit that you're talkin'. It'd be like me pretending to be a lawyer because I watch Ally McBeal.

I don't claim to be a scientist, I just respect the process and can think of no better source of knowledge about the world. If you got sued for something, you'd be right in thinking that a lawyer would have the best ideas for how to respond. That wouldn't make you think you were a lawyer. If you enjoyed watching lawyers in court or watching lawyer tv shows, that wouldn't make you a lawyer either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 07, 1999 at 14:03:51 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Bad analogy, Mr. Url, sir
Message:
I don't claim to be a scientist, I just respect the process and can think of no better source of knowledge about the world.

Good, we've established you're not a scientist. And your statement supports what I agree is the strength of science, that being a good tool to explain the world. Now, what about things that do not fall into one of the three physical dimensions? You know, those things that science hasn't yet been able to explain. What, they just don't exist?

Look Jim, I don't buy the whole new age explanation for the metaphysical either. In my opinion most of its practitioners are grasping at straws. I am not so naive however to believe science has all the answers. I have taken sciences throughout my formal schooling and have seen the evolution of scientific theory over the years. The fact that these theories are still evolving means for some things the jury is still hearing the evidence and are not ready to reach a verdict.

So my point: I don't have time to wait for a scientific explanation to prove what I already have seen with my own 'eyes'. I'm running with what I know. If you choose to only believe what is scientifically proven, you'll have a much longer wait for some things. But hey, maybe you don't care.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 21:53:21 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Ahem ... Mr. Url, sir? (Part 2)
Message:
Your worship of science is blind Jim, but that's your problem.

As for your 'science isn't limited to a human lifespan' comment: Yeah, but I have but one lifespan to get the answers to some specific questions that science has yet to come up with. I'm afraid I can't wait.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 22:11:52 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: That's quite revealing, Url
Message:
Your worship of science is blind Jim, but that's your problem.

Yeah, blind is right. Tell me, Url, how do you feel making the same knee-jerk argument we expect from fundamentalists and other know-nothings? You know, like creationists for example. Does it bother you that what you're saying doesn't really make sense? How can one 'worship' science? Tell me about this, Url. I'd love to hear it.

As for your 'science isn't limited to a human lifespan' comment: Yeah, but I have but one lifespan to get the answers to some specific questions that science has yet to come up with. I'm afraid I can't wait.

Very revealing. You sound desparate and exactly like the kind of person vulnerable to cult leaders like Maharaji. Read The Guru Papers, will you? You're all over those pages, believe me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:44:57 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: That's quite revealing, Url
Message:
Does it bother you that what you're saying doesn't really make sense? How can one 'worship' science? Tell me about this, Url. I'd love to hear it.

Oxford dictionary:
Worship: adoration, devotion
Devotion: great love or loyalty

Now that you mention it, you may be right -- you may not capable of devotion. Of course I could be wrong.

Very revealing. You sound desparate and exactly like the kind of person vulnerable to cult leaders like Maharaji. Read The Guru Papers, will you? You're all over those pages, believe me.

That's the second time in two posts to me you've deferred your argument to some third party treatise, and have not provided any relevance of your own to the discussion. Now THAT's pretty revealing. Getting lazy, or is it just no original ideas of your own?

You see Jim, I don't give a flying fuck what the author of guru papers wrote. Theories, ideas, generalities, a vehicle to get their Ph.D., all set to a perspective that affords a safe, clinical distance. A safe distance is imperative because if they got close enough to detect any truth in say one of the so-called 'cults' that they studied, their theories would have a serious challenge. If the author wants to climb into the trenches of my life with me and then offer his advice, fine -- I may take the time to listen. Otherwise, who gives a shit.

And yes I am desperate for one thing -- to be happy. Why aren't you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:23:30 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: That's quite revealing, Url
Message:
Jim,

Just because you're primarily a left-brained thinker and philosophical/spiritual matters don't affect you, doesn't mean that those it is important to are lesser. We are also not just suckers for cults, there are many different types of religions to flock to as well, or it can be our choice to seek our own answers, which many of us exes are now doing, sometimes using the tools M showed us (4K techniques). Just because K didn't fill a void for you, doesn't mean it can't fill that void for others, regardless of one's feelings about M.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 11:32:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: How superficial do you like it, Grace?
Message:
I can see that regardless of your feelings about Maharaji, you're fully mired in new age thinking. Too bad for you. It sounds like you're trying to keep the superstitious rabbit foot of 'Knowledge' alive. Good luck. Better not look into how this whole 'Knowledge' thing developed, let alone learn anything of what science has learned, and is learning, about the brain and consciousness. Instead, why not blurt out some, stupid new age pseudoscience about 'left-brained' or 'right-brined' people? That way you can pretend you've actually covered all your bases or something. You know, sound a little educated.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 17:27:55 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: How superficial do you like it, Grace?
Message:
Why are you assuming I'm not educated and don't know the subject matter I'm discussing. I've got a couple degrees (from real universities) on my wall, just like you, Jim. Just because I don't think like you doesn't mean I don't/can't think.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 20:17:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: Re: How superficial do you like it, Grace?
Message:
Degrees or no degrees, you say some pretty stupid things. First, your ad hominem attack on me based on, it turns out, some pretty silly and ultimately irrelevant cliches and stereoptypes. Second, your vapid attempt to dismiss me as a 'left-brained' person. Like, do you really know anything you're speaking about? It doesn't sound like it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 21:19:46 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: No way, Url.
Message:
Url,

Do you think that we're able to learn anything about consciousness through studying the brain? If so, do you have any idea what the state of our knowledge is today versus, say, twenty years ago? And do you think there's any reason to expect our exploration of the brain to hit a wall sometime? If so, when? What is the limit of our potential understanding of the brain?

Your problem, Url, is that your entire philosophy of consciousness is pre-scientific. So much so that you can't even allow yourself to peer over the edges and see what it is that science now knows on the subject. That's true, isn't it? Premies can't read up on neuroscience without seriously threatening their faith. Seems that way to me, anyway. So where does that leave you? In some Hindu fairy tale? No thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 21:46:17 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: No way, Url.
Message:
Your problem, Url, is that your entire philosophy of consciousness is pre-scientific. So much so that you can't even allow yourself to peer over the edges and see what it is that science now knows on the subject. That's true, isn't it? Premies can't read up on neuroscience without seriously threatening their faith.

Reading about scientific thought on any subject has never challenged my faith. You on the other hand leave no room for the validity of conclusions that are experientially based that pre-date modern scientific thought. You fall into the category of those very rigid and conservative thinkers that are only open to something if it can be touched with their senses.

For example there is a large body of traditional methodologies that science cannot prove but that still seem to work -- case in point acupuncture. Major hospitals around the world are incorporating this intervention into their patient care plans but nobody has been able to scientifically prove why it seems to work. So what would you tell someone who needs to manage their chronic pain but cannot tolerate narcotics, 'Sorry sir, we know it may work but we can't let you try it because we can't prove why it may work.' Or, 'You may really think this is helping you deal with your pain but it really is only a placebo effect so don't get too excited.'

No, your 'show me' mentality may give you a sense of bravado that existence comes in only black or white but move outside of Missouri and what do people call you? A backwater ultra-right wing hick. (Sorry to the Missourians in the crowd.)

BTW have you seen 'The Matrix'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:13:27 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: Url, I agree with you.
Message:
They also don't know why many of the psychotropic medications work--the exact actions or mechanisms by which they work, only that they do so they continue to prescribe them.

Re: consciousness, I can't say it any better than URL. Meditation is not just a premie thing, it is used in all religions in some form, even Christianity. Some religions and groups just have a better method than others.

It is not possible to learn about consciousness from a book in the way we desire to know it, any more than you can learn about love from a book. You have to have loved to really know love. I know this is not scientific or left-brained enough for you, Jim, but all in this world can not be comprehended thru scientific methods, and this could be argued until doomsday (1-1-2000?)!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:45:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: Your perspective's funny, if you think about it
Message:
Grace,

Can you imagine what a time line of science's advances over the past five hundred years, let's say, would look like? Just think about it for a sec. In almost every area we've ever tried to explore our learning's leapt far beyond what we'd ever hoped for. True, there are certain age old questions we haven't answered, like how to turn chickens into gold perhaps. Yet many of those questions now seem ill-founded and senseless. We've come up with new questions our ancestors would have never dreamt of. And all the while we're learning more about this same old world and the people in it.

So you're going to draw the line somewhere for us? Tell us where we've now really hit a wall and would be fools to try to keep going? That's what it sounds like. 'Oh no, you'll NEVER really understand the brain', 'you'll NEVER really understand acupuncture', and, I guess, 'you'll NEVER really understand meditation' leading up to the premie favorite 'you'll NEVER really understand the Master'. Grace, history isn't with you.

In fact, if you will, even the guru parade isn't really with you. Back when it was fashionable to try to glom onto science for religious effect (think early twentieth century; think Christian Science, for example), guys like Maharaji's own father tried to substantitate their superstitious hokum pokum by invoking the power of science. Take a look at Hans Yog Prakesh. Hey, Maharaji himself tried the same move. Take a look at all that sine wave and pineal gland garbage in Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?.

What sems to have happened is that as science continued to advance in the area of brain study, evolution and all that, it really started to threaten some of these spiritual guys. It wasn't so cute for them to try to hijack a bit of science for show and effect. Know what I mean?

But I don't know. I'm just speculating. Ask Maharaji why he no longer tries to justify his trip on a scientific basis. I only know that he once did.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 14:53:05 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, I've learned not to argue with attorneys...
Message:
they always win on the word battles (if they are any good, anyway). I still stand with my original view.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 18:49:07 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: That's lame and you know it
Message:
Tell me, Grace, what happens when two attorneys argue? Which one wins? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with whoever has the stronger argument, could it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:03:23 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: That's lame and you know it
Message:
When two attorneys argue which one wins? It's a complex issue and sometimes has to do with campaign contributions...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:25:29 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: Re: That's lame and you know it
Message:
Well, Grace, I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about lawyers. If you can't answer it, suit yourself but I've got to tell you I see this issue a little differently than you do. As a lawyer myself, I'm constantly discussing and arguing over things with other lawyers. If anything, I'd say that legal training makes one a fairer conversationalist.

But then maybe it's not a fair discussion you're looking for, is it? You know what you've chosen to be believe in and that's about it, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:04:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Attorneys
Message:
Jim,
Seriously Jim, I didn't mean to antagonize you or anything.
I am good friends with 2 lawyers and they are just trained in arguing and win the word battles so I just am cautious when I verbally spar with an attorney. It's actually a compliment! I realize that attorneys are trained to be able to argue both sides of any point and think fast on their feet, which makes it difficult for us mere mortals to do well. Have you ever seen a pro se argue a case in court? It's funny and sad.
Anyway, we can argue consciousness issues forever and get nowhere, so I choose not to get into it.
Hey, if you give me your email address, I'll send you a couple lawyer jokes sent to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 16:53:03 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Grace, don't kiss up -- he doesn't warrant it (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:05:55 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Attorneys-Last post from Grace, not Jim (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 01:06:00 (EDT)
From: Deja Vu
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Deposition Time???
Message:
Well it seems that Grace really has a strong dislike for lawyers.

In fact, if you really press her too hard Jim.... she might have you contact her OWN lawyer::::))

Just a hunch.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:08:20 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Deja Vu
Subject: Re: Deposition Time???
Message:
No, actually two of my best friends are lawyers. I respect their skills. No need to make it a civil case.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 00:35:04 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: URL
Subject: So what does M have to teach about acupuncture?
Message:
Major hospitals around the world are incorporating this intervention into their patient care plans but nobody has been able to scientifically prove why it seems to work.

'Seems to work' says it all. Have you heard of the placebo effect?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 15:30:28 (EDT)
From: UR
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Give it a rest nigel!
Message:
Seems to work' says it all. Have you heard of the placebo effect?

Duh, no nigel, never heard of such a thing being emmersed in a cult and all.

Now, you wouldn't be totaly refuting the potential benefits of acupuncture with the old 'placebo effect' argument, would you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 03:47:03 (EDT)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: UR
Subject: See my post to Mili below. You're missing the point...
Message:
again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 04:50:19 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: So what does M have to teach about acupuncture?
Message:
Science is sooo great. Yes, now 'we' can finally understand how the mind works. Wow. Thanks, Nigel.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:35:48 (EDT)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mili
Subject: Re: So what does M have to teach about acupuncture?
Message:
Thanks for that useful contribution, Mili (and for publicising my forthcoming website, yet again. I have done an improved version of that bitmap, if you intend to keep pasting it all over the web...)

Would you be interested in whether acupuncture is any more effective than, say, 'random puncture' where the practitioner merely applies needles according to no particular system?

If acupuncture 'works', it works for reasons that are NOT beyond the reach of medicine and psychology. At least that should be our starting assumption until someone can demonstrate that the mystical theories of Chinese medicine are correct to talk about non-physical healing forces etc.

Expect sales of rhino horn to plummet once viagra reaches the orient.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 23:14:21 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: I loved 'The Matrix'
Message:
Yes, Url, even Keannu Reeves' 'acting' couldn't destroy the movie. But trust a premie to fall for its hokey 'philosophy'. I know; I've been there myself. In 76 or 7, when Star Wars first came out and the word went out that this was an 'okay' movie for premies to see, I saw it. Yes, I saw it even though it meant enduring the 'satsang' of people like Pierre Mesmejean (who I always liked notwithstanding his strident serious, dour approach to the otherwise fairly straightforward goal we shared of trying to obliterate our individual maya-based indentities on the lots feet of our Lord, Guru Maharaj Ji). Pierre, if I recall, thought we shouldn't go.

Anyway, I recall getting all excited about how even Hollywood seemed to know -- subconsciously, of course -- all about the 'word'. Where else would they get the 'force' from, right? God! How embarassing! Mind you, I was twenty-three then. Old enough to know better but, well, I was still wetting the bed at that age too. (not!). But now? Please, Url, don't go there. Next you're going to tell us that Forrest Gump represents the perfect premie or something. Url, just don't do it, okay?

So it's acupuncture, is it? And what's your point? (Ha ha ha...). That acupuncture's legit yet somehow evades science's rigid stare? Okay, Url, what's a stake here? If you can be persuaded that, in fact, acupuncture's bunk, will you call Maharaji right now, that's right, immediately, at 310-457-5561 and tell him:

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

I mean, what's at stake here anyway?

Url, the fact is there's all sorts of research and study of acupuncture that's helped us understand it. For one thing, we now appear to know that -- surprise, surprise -- the Chinese meridian philosophy behind it is worthless. Nonstarter to put it mildly. On the other hand, there does seem to be some sort of analgesic quality to acupuncture, nothing of the magnitude its proponents boast and, like I say, not at all confirming the Chinese hoopla associated with it. I know you might not agree with what I'm saying here. Maybe you're not aware of these particular studies and papers. There was a most interesting article in Skeptic last year explaining what I'm saying about acupuncture proving out as having some pain relieving power although not at all of the magnitude or for the reasons bandied about by the Chinese. If you like I can try to find it again.

But, assume just for a moment, will you, that I'm right. Think of the implications. Couldn't it be that K does indeed offer a sweet respite from thinking or otherwise having your mind engaged in the world but that benefit is nothing at all as enormous as Maharaji has touted ('purpose of life','answer to your problems', 'true love' and, best of all, 'salvation') and, to the extent it does work, it has absolutely nothing to do with Maharaji's hokum?

I mean, really, Url, think about it. All those times you sang arti, all those darshan lines, all that screaming satsang ( in the old days, of course) about the evil mind and the beauty of fatso -- hey, all those yeras in the ashram if you had the pleasure -- they just might have been as superfluous to enjoying this little mental relaxation technique as tuxedos and words like 'hocus pocus' are to a magic.

Wouldn't you like to get to the bottom of this, Url, before you send your next donation? Or is it all a matter of superstition to you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 20:02:48 (EDT)
From: URL
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: I loved 'The Matrix'
Message:
Jim in reading the fruit of your mental exercise I come away with the same conclusion I've come away with on numerous other occasions. That you are stupid by choice not by nature. But what just hit me today was how you use your brains and training to try and LOOK intelligent. Hey, you do fool a lot of people but it's kinda like smothering delicious turkey gravy over a piece of shit, and trying to pass it off as food. Your twisting and spinning of the English language doesn't disguise the fact that the premises upon which you base your arguments are far from being sound.

You see, if you never use your intelligence to foster real understanding, your understanding will NEVER have a solid foundation. And what is the symptom of a lack of solid foundation? No depth, and no wisdom. Bingo, you fit that profile perfectly Jim! Do you have anything close to the depth and wisdom of a Kabir, of a Rumi, or of a Kalil Gibran? You're so far away it's shocking.

No, to be sure you're an intelligent guy with a good sense of humour. But your reality is based upon flimsy mental constructs that require your very diligent effort to keep them propped up and maintained -- which explains the importance for you of thinking. Like the matrix, you require your computer program to always be running in order to support your reality. And like the matrix, your reality is TOTALLY virtual. Heaven forbid should there be bug or worse a system failure.

Don't you wish when asked you'd chosen the blue pill?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 20:18:26 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: URL
Subject: Ahem, Mr. Url sir?
Message:
Your twisting and spinning of the English language doesn't disguise the fact that the premises upon which you base your arguments are far from being sound.

There's no such thing as a sound premise. Might not be any sound premies either but there certainly aren't any sound premises.

Here's an excerpt from an article called 'Critical Thinking Core Concepts' you might want to read:

Soundness:

In discussing arguments, we need to distunguish between deductive arguments- arguments where the truth of the premises will guarantee the truth of the conclusion and inductive arguments - those arguments where the truth of the premises will only make the truth of the conclusion highly probable or likely, but not certian.
Another way to identify a deductive argument is to refer to it as a Valid argument. As we read above, Validity refers to the formal structure of the argument- a valid argument is one in which the form is such that:

IF the premises are all true, THEN the conclusion Must be true.
If it is possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to still be false, then you have what is called an Invalid argument. An argument could be invalid and still be a good Inductive argument, or it could be one which commits a Deductive fallacy. Once it is determined that an argument has a Valid form (it is a Deductive argument), the next step is to determine if all of the premises are indeed true. This is done in a variety of ways, depending on the type of premises we are dealing with. The different types of premises are discussed below, but for now, if all of the premises of a Valid argument are true, then the argument is said to be Sound as well as Valid. Only Deductive or Valid arguments can be sound or unsound.
Thus, an argument is sound if and only if :

it is a valid argument, and
all the premises are true.

Critical Thinking Core Concepts

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 05:22:39 (EDT)
From: Roger eDrek (aka Neo)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: I loved 'The Matrix' - Keanu (ot)
Message:
That's Keanu Reeves, Jim! Show some respect by getting his name right, eh?

You just have to trash everybody. Well, I think that CNN movie reviewer Paul Tatara bests you on his trashing of Keanu Reeves in this review the 1997 film, The Last Time I Committed Suicide, co-starring Mr. Keanu Reeves. The story is based on a letter that was sent by Neal Cassady to Jack Kerouac in the late 1940s, when Cassady was working at a Goodyear tire factory in Denver.

Tatara says this about Keanu Reeves:

Then there's Keanu Reeves. Reeves is an absolute mystery to me, an actor so openly void of talent I wouldn't let him near a senior class performance of 'The Egg and I.' But here he is again, reciting his lines as if they're non-related words strung together as a memory exercise. He's an actor who begs for a Burger King uniform, but his hunka-hunka burnin' looks will keep him periodically in front of me for the rest of my life ... unless, of course, I outlive him. I'm going to start working out right now, just to make sure.

From Tatara's review of Review: The Odd Couple II a rancid rehash

There are no sex scenes in "The Odd Couple II," and thank God for small miracles. There's also a bit of unexpected, and somehow inappropriate, profanity. They really shouldn't have done this to Matthau, but look at it this way: every dollar they give to him is one that Keanu Reeves won't be able to pocket. PG-13. 90 minutes.

From Tatara's CNN - Review: To see, or not to see, Shakespeare in Love' - December 10, 1998.

Eventually, we start getting longer sequences that feature Shakespeare's melodious dialogue, since much screen time is taken up with the rehearsals. Affleck briefly plays the self-absorbed actor Ned Alleyn, and the best thing you can say about his wavering accent is that at least he isn't Keanu Reeves. He is given a couple of amusing lines, though, and he never made me flinch.

And from Tatara's review of Devil's Advocate starring Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves:

Let's face it, if Keanu Reeves walks in and announces that he'll be defending you in your triple murder case (as he does for Craig T. Nelson in the movie), you would be wise to run out and buy 30 or 40 cartons of Marlboros. You'll be needing them in jail.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:48:26 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: All
Subject: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
'I wish to state categorically that, yes, there are individuals on this planet who no longer obtain nourishment from food,' declared Jasmuheen, as she invited the audience to attend the Breatharians forthcoming international conference in Noosa Lakes, Queensland. 'I am one: I have not eaten a meal for six years, although I do occasionally eat some chocolate or a few biscuits, just for a taste orgasm.'

The Breatharians (a cult whose members renounce food and are instead 'pranially nourished' by the air) plan to go ahead with this year's gathering, despite facing a lawsuit for unlawful killing, after a follower died of dehydration during a twenty-one day initiation. 'Let us get things into perspective, ' said Jasmuheen. 'According to UNICEF statistics, a child dies every second because of hunger--related disease. In light of these statistics, assuming that it is possible to be sustained from another source of nourishment, it would be morally irresponsible for us not to share this information with the world. Living on light could solve the world's hunger and starvation problems, and I am living proof that a human can survive on light alone.'

The audience were later told that guests would include the Norwegian musician Erik. Berglund, a singer and harpist with an affinity for angels.

'Gourmet meals will be provided for visitors,' promised Jagmuheen. 'I don t expect everyone to go without food, just because I do.'

(Brisbane Sunday Mail, 1/8/99.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 22:18:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: And a happy new breath to you!
Message:
Let them eat air:
Breatharians claim to live on cosmic
light alone, although their leaders have been
dogged by rumours of furtive snacking.

OLIVER BURKEMAN

The Guardian
Saturday, October 2, 1999

London -- As off-the-wall millennial fads go, breatharianism doesn't so much take the cake as put it firmly back in the package and throw the whole lot in the garbage along with the rest of the larder's contents.

Followers of Jasmuheen, the 43-year-old former businesswoman based in Brisbane, Australia, who spearheads the movement, claim to subsist on air and light alone. Using meditation and visualization techniques, they say, 'reprogramed' their bodies to require no food or drink. Breatharians call it 'pranic nourishment' and argue that they have discovered not just a source of enhanced energy, better health and a more fulfilling sex life, but a viable solution to world hunger.

Conventional nutritionists call it madness.

So far, so eyeball-rollingly new age. But this improbable tale of fresh-air freakery was cast in a more sombre light last week by the sad story of Verity Linn, 49, whose body was found near a tent overlooking a remote loch in the Scottish highlands. Police believe she died from hypothermia and dehydration several days before she was discovered. A copy of Jasmuheen's best-selling breatharian primer, Living on Light: A Source of Nutrition for the New Millennium,was among her possessions. And her diary suggests she had embarked on the 21-day initiation program recommended in the book -- beginning with a week of abstention from food and drink.

If that is what happened, she will not have been breatharianism's first casualty. Last summer Lani Morris, a 33-year-old Australian, died in a Brisbane hospital after following the regime. It has also been linked to the death in 1997 of Munich kindergarten teacher Timo Degen, who was 31.

The body, unsurprisingly, does not take kindly to such deprivations. Experts differ as to the absolute maximum length of time that human life can continue without water. But the broad consensus rests at somewhere between seven and 10 days -- though severe dehydration and confusion (due to the build-up of sodium and potassium in the brain) would set in sooner. In the desert, of course, lack of water can kill in a matter of hours.

'It depends on the climate, and how much exercise you're taking, but if you're lying in bed you would probably be just about all right for a week,' says Dr. Charles Clarke, who specializes in high-altitude survival medicine and has accompanied British climber Chris Bonington on expeditions to Mount Everest.

'But toward the end of the first week, you'd become pretty gravely ill. Your blood would become thicker, your kidneys can't cope. Multiple organ failure follows, you get hypothermic and eventually you die.'

Two decades of research established that the body replenishes half of its water every 10-12 days, according to Benjamin Caballero, president of the Society for International Nutrition Research and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

'Somebody who is not consuming any water at all would therefore lose half their body water after about 10 days,' he says. 'That's probably lethal. After all, even a 10- to 15-per-cent loss of body water can cause severe dehydration in children, and 20 per cent can lead to a coma.'

But scratch the surface of the breatharians' boldly implausible claims and a very different story emerges. Rather crucially, far from living on 'prana' alone, the movement's leading lights eat and drink.

Jasmuheen freely admits to drinking orange juice regularly and occasionally nibbling chocolate cookies for a 'taste sensation.' In the past she has described her diet as including tea with honey and soya milk, chocolate, potato chips, soup and the odd piece of fruit. Theoretically, a diet consisting of those foods in small amounts could represent a calorific intake to which the body could adjust without significant weight loss.

More intriguing is the litany of rumours and anomalies that have dogged the movement since its earliest days. In 1983, Wiley Brooks, founder of the Breatharian Institute of America, caused horror and mass resignations within his organization and hilarity outside it when he was reported to have been spotted -- depending on whom you believe -- ordering a chicken pie in a hotel restaurant or buying Twinkies from a 7 Eleven store. Mr. Brooks, now in his 60s, has consistently denied the allegations, and attributes them to the resentment of a woman he'd just finished dating.

Reporters visiting Jasmuheen's Brisbane home have been bewildered to find her fridge well stocked with vegetarian food which, she says, belongs to her partner, Jeff Ferguson, a convicted fraudster. And a British journalist accompanying Jasmuheen to her check-in desk at Heathrow last December was astonished when the British Airways clerk asked her to confirm that she'd ordered an in-flight vegetarian meal.

'No, no,' she replied. 'Well, yes, okay, I did. But I won't be eating it.'

At the end of last year, on a speaking tour of Britain, Jasmuheen repeatedly offered to put an end to the speculation with a scientifically monitored 'Breatharian Retreat.'

It never happened. A terse E-mail this week from a staff member at Jasmuheen's Cosmic Internet Academy stated that 'the Breatharian Retreat was cancelled.'

There's no evidence of malicious intent on the part of Mr. Brooks or Jasmuheen. Instead, eating-disorder specialists believe, some breatharians may themselves be suffering from a dietary delusion common among obese people trying to lose weight.

'Breatharianism is a fraud, but breatharians may be deluded,' says Dee Dawson, medical director of Rhodes Farm Clinic in north London, which treats young children with eating disorders. 'Every obese person who comes into my [clinic] says, 'Doctor, I can't understand why I'm not losing weight -- I haven't eaten all week.' Then I say, 'What did you have for breakfast?' 'Oh, just three pieces of toast.' 'And lunch?' 'Just one sausage and a few chips. . . .' Add it all up and they've eaten 2,000 calories that day.'

Ms. Dawson argues the movement's self-publicizing antics are damaging the efforts of those working to treat dietary problems. 'They're nutters,' she says. 'This silly woman going around saying such stupid things is not helping those children.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 15:45:02 (EDT)
From: kmdarling
Email: unlimited@aol.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: And a happy new breath to you!
Message:
I've met a breatharian recently, although she doesn't call herself that. She’s Chinese, and a follower of a Chi Gong master called Li Tieng that a lot of my friends have hung out with. He has this technique for eating Chi (you know, universal life energy also known as AAAAARGH! “elan vital“ in French) instead of food. Most people who hang around him haven’t even tried the chi instead of food path because, after all, food is available. This one woman, a very humble, beautiful woman who only speaks Chinese, met the teacher and immediately embarked on the non-eating path for her own reasons. I went and had two healings from her a few weeks ago. She is totally humble, and never tells anyone she doesn't eat. She treats people for almost nothing in the back of her garment business in Chinatown. Only the people who live with her will tell you that she hasn’t eaten for three and a half years. She drinks water and tea. Doesn't look thin or fat. When I went to see her she correctly diagnosed quite a few of my physical problems just by looking at me for a few seconds.

The healing was very powerful and weird.

I don’t want to be closed or judgmental towards people who are exploring non-consensus paths, just because I was scammed. Baby, bathwater, etc.

There are more things twixt heaven and earth...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 19:25:02 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: kmdarling
Subject: Dangerous new age frauds
Message:
On the way home tonight I dropped into our British version of 7-11 and there on the news-stands was the pretty face of singer Lena Zavaroni on all the front pages of the newspapers. Lena was always a pocket sized power singer, full of life (chi) and love and a warm heart for everybody.

She's on the front page because she's just died of anorexia-nervosa. She was young, in her twenties and what a terrible waste.

The new age frauds who tell us to live by impossible standards are dangerous sharks to the unwary and the gullable. Such sharks appear to be living beyond the realm of ordinary people, possessing powers that we can only dream of. Such sharks thrive on claiming the impossible in order to get publicity. Better a thief shall steal your money rather than get taken in by one of these new age frauds who certainly DO have powers.

Powers to mislead and lead people into nonsense. Power to make money by pretending to be somebody special and getting people to buy books, join a course, a seminar or a weekend retreat in order to gain self improvement or knowledge when all the time the pockets of the sharks are being lined, thank you very much.

There will always be people claiming wild things. Many of these people have a screw loose and we'd do best not to listen to them. If we look closely at these people we can often see that there's something very peculiar about them. Do we want to be like them? That is the question.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:25:23 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
I heard Jasmuheen talking on the James Whale show on Talk Radio, a few months back. She came across as a very intense, manically happy, bullshit artist. She really does claim that there is no need to eat but that you can just live off your 'prana' or breath or lifeforce or whatever.

Her disciples attain a state of non eating, and live for years without eating or so she claims. Some people phoned in on the show and said she was being very irresposible spreading such lies when many people suffer from eating disorders such as anerexia-nervosa etc.

She's barmy but people actually believe her and she is laughing all the way to the bank with her crazy ideas.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:37:40 (EDT)
From: The bloated Stoat
Email: Noosa.....$350 US a night
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
She'll be right up there in Queensland.You have to learn to live on the smell of an oily rag up there anyway.We'll shove a few four xxxx's down her throat for good measure to wash the Lithium down . Sounds like her and Pauline would get on just fine , what with Pauline surviving politically at the moment on lashings of hot air! Ahhh Queensland;the Dark Ages one day,wacko alternative the next! Makes yah proud!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:59:23 (EDT)
From: General Manager
Email: None
To: The bloated Stoat
Subject: Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
Dear Stoat, I detect a hint of skeptism, sarcasm with lashings of pride thrown in. I met some guys running a Health Food shop in Innisvail QLD, 20 years ago, who claimed to be doing this. I think one of the newspapers or radio stations is going to do a controlled study to see if she is indeed bullshitting. Stranger things have happened, just look at the spread of Christianity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 19:32:51 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: General Manager
Subject: Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
'I met some guys running a Health Food shop in Innisvail QLD, 20 years ago, who claimed to be doing this'

Listen to what you're saying! Their shop would soon go out of business if they preached the doctrine of not eating. It's physically and biologically impossible to sustain a human on fresh air. The lady Jasminwhateverhernameis was not thin and emaciated when she was on the radio over here. She is obviously eating food but talking pure crap.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 20:32:27 (EDT)
From: GM
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
Ok Dave, I take your points and your probably right. But consider this. If say 50 years ago, I said to you, that we would one day be putting people on the moon, you would of called me an idiot (probably), yet today it's no big deal. All I'm saying is that what seems impossible today, may very well be common place tomorrow. Besides, the lady in question has agreed to undergo a test, set by sceptics, so we should know one way or the other soon.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 05:55:12 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: GM
Subject: She's a dangerous liar
Message:
Read the posted article from The Guardian which Jim posted above. Of course she eats and she's very dangerous if she has convinced some people that they don't have to.

Yes, it was a bad analogy. 41 years ago the Russians crash landed a rocket on the moon - they were the first to actually get some hardware up there. 54 years ago the Germans had rockets which went beyond the atmosphere and into outer space and over 100 years ago Jules Verne predicted that people would get to the Moon and his book was a best seller!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:18:04 (EDT)
From: GM
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: She's a dangerous liar
Message:
Yeah, it was a bad analogy, but I was in a hurry and it was the best I could come up with. If she really does eat and it's all a pack of lies, and her book caused people to die, then that would be tantamount to murder in my eyes. I may sound naive, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would do that, but people do strange things.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 04:22:12 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: GM
Subject: Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
But consider this. If say 50 years ago, I said to you, that we would one day be putting people on the moon, you would of called me an idiot (probably), yet today it's no big deal. All I'm saying is that what seems impossible today, may very well be common place tomorrow. Besides, the lady in question has agreed to undergo a test, set by sceptics, so we should know one way or the other soon.

I think this is a very weak analogy, GM. Fifty years ago scientists such as Von Braun, the guy who invented the V2 rocket, would probably have said that landing on the moon would be theoretically possible, but as yet beyond their capabilities. They would have understood the kind of technology that would be required, as well as the quality of the mathematical calculations needed.

Living without food is not even theoretically possible, and Jasmuheen is about as likely to undergo a test by skeptics as Maharaji is to demonstrate his powers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:55:50 (EDT)
From: Catweasel
Email: And there racing!
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: Happy New Breath, Aussie style(ot)
Message:
Have you yet decided the origins of the species my good man?
You may yet be able to assist us ! How good do you think the Godolphin stable star Kayf Tara, winner of the Irish Derby, is? Australian Bookmakers currently rate the beast a 4/1 shot for our richest race..The Melbourne Cup. Give us the mail or we'll all end up breatharians down here sport!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 09:30:04 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Catweasel
Subject: Looks good from here
Message:
Kayf Tara won the Goodwood Cup in July very easily as follows;

Settled in 4th, closed 4f out, shaken up to lead well over 2f out, soon clear, 8l ahead when edged right over 1f out, eased last 100y

That was its last race and it was 3rd about six weeks before that at Ascot. Seems like it's been saved for your race over there. 4-1 looks like a good bet to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 06:31:44 (EDT)
From: Catweasel
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Looks good from here
Message:
Chances are that on the day the price will likely be 8/1 or better. The betting pool in Australia on this race alone is over $25million. We are kind of INTERESTED you could say!
Any roughies? Ill send you a list of those noble steeds from the old Dart engaged to run . Thanks [I was initiated into the punting fraternity at birth]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 02:42:48 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Here's a new one!
Message:
I've just found this in my mailbox:

Elan Vital? this is a new one on me it sounds like a mineral water. I
received the 'knowledge' in 1972 and there is no doubt in my mind that prem
pal singh is a fraud. I saw the light after the 1974 festival in Denmark, in
1978 after the family split I went to visit his eldest brother in India who
told me about the deliberate choosing of the youngest son after sri Hans
died, the story of fat boy hearing his fathers voice telling him he was the
next sat guru is just that. I could tell of so many lives fucked up by this
bastard and more than one suicide but what would be the point. I just hope the fat fucker rots in hell, Jai sat chit anand-pete

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:43:26 (EDT)
From: bee
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: Here's a new one!
Message:
JM, see if you can let him know why it would be
good for him to tell more of his story. For the sake
of others around the world.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 00:07:05 (EDT)
From: A must read!!
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Anyone know this guy?
Message:
His name is 'Jean Marie Bonthous', and he's a pam who lives just down the hill from m, in a house which he purchased from Van Halen for $1,500,000
circa 1995.

If you haven't heard of him, don't feel bad. Its little wonder why this JM would choose to remain rather obscure and in the background within the world of m and his premies.
Jean Marie is a corporate consultant specializing in economic intelligence, particularly in the pharmaceutical and telecommunication industries.

Hmm. I wonder how m uses this guy's talents!!

In any case if you want to learn more on his take on intelligence matters, you can order his book from Barnes and Noble, or at least try to:)
Here it is:
__________________________________________________

'Revealing the American Language of Intelligence'
Jean-Marie Bonthous

bn.com Price: $35.00
Special Order: Ships 3-5 weeks
Format: Paperback, 83pp.
ISBN: 0962124133
Publisher: Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals
Pub. Date: March 1996

Please note: This title needs to be ordered directly with the publisher and usually ships within 3-5 weeks. There are occasions where the titles may go out of print or the publishers may no longer carry stock. If we cannot fill your order, we will notify you within 1-2 weeks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 12:10:00 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: A must read!!
Subject: Re: Anyone know this guy?
Message:
In the early 80s, Jean Marie was in charge of planning M's tours. I remember in 1981, we scheduled an 'introductory program' at Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco. I remember showing Jean Marie, who was there in advance of the program by a week or so, and I remember he said it was the most beautiful hall he had ever seen. I'm sure Jean Marie is rich, in fact it was my understanding that he had lots of family money, like a number of others who worked closely with Maharaji. Funny about that being the case. Wonder why?

Anyhow, we had this program, raised thousands of dollars to put it on, the jet-set premies from Malibu and Beverly Hills showed up for the program and I brought a woman I had met in SF. Maharaji came and gave his usual incoherent 'talk.' A grand total of seven people followed up by showing up at follow-up program and I think of them, only one of those continued in the 'aspirant program' thereafter.

The fact that I listened to Maharaji through my friend's eyes and he didn't make any sense, and the fact that there was such tiny interest in what was supposed to be an experience of the essence of life, were more 'DRIPS' for me. Most people saw through his self-aggrandizing trip and weren't interested.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 17:17:47 (EDT)
From: D_Thomas
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Re: Anyone know this guy?
Message:
Yes, I remember. It was a really big thing since Maharaji hadn't been to the Bay area since '76. I went to a service meeting at the Oakland brothers' house. An ashram sister was giving satsang about how they had found the 'Perfect' hall for M to give satsang. I signed the list of premies wanting to do service for the program, but I was never contacted. I was probably on some 'Bongo Premie' list.

Instead, I went out to the airport to see if I could catch M's plane as it landed. I thought maybe I could have a chance to have a few words with him. I never saw anything.

So, I went over to the hall in SF. The line was really long, so to wait it out, I went to a restaurant to have something to eat and a few beers. I arrived just before the program began. My preassigned ticket was for the last row of the upper-most balcony. I looked through my binoculars at the front row and there were all the prominant premies in the community, the organizers of the event.

I very often get the last or the last few rows at events. I consider it an honor. I figure initiators or PAMs get reserved seats in the first few rows. I have a reserved seat in the last few rows. Therefore I am as distinguished as an initiator, only in reverse.

D_Thomas

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:12:26 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: D_Thomas
Subject: Money for Seats
Message:
I noticed that when I checked the box to give a contribution in additon to my seat cost, I got better seats.
At first I thought it was just a fluke, but noticed the more I gave, the better seat I got (though never really good, as in main floor). The best I've done is dead center on one of the lowest tiers near the floor. It kind of irked me that this was how seating was done, instead of 'random' like they announce.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 07:25:01 (EDT)
From: D_Thomas
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: The Best Seat
Message:
It's chiefly a status symbol thing. A few times I got lucky and sat very close to the front. But it really doesn't make any difference in terms of the quality of experience you are having.

The person you really want to get close to is the person whose body you live in.

D_Thomas

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:43:48 (EDT)
From: B. Franklin
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: The Seats Are Worthless
Message:
Money counts in the Maharaj world and always has, but when one discovers that the seats are, in fact, worthless, one does not care if one is near, far or not in the hall at all. What freedom and financial independence!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 05, 1999 at 19:39:09 (EDT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Grace
Subject: Re: Money for Seats
Message:
Grace: Just like Enough said down below, I guess some of us are 'more equal' in the eyes of the Lord, depending on the size of our wallets, eh? Grace, where did you live? Were you in the ashram? Want to tell us a bit about your Journey? As I usually say when I poke into peoples' lives who post here, feel free to ignore these questions if you are uncomfortable giving out personal information. I am always interested though. Nice to have you here.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:26:14 (EDT)
From: Grace
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Re: Money for Seats
Message:
Marianne,

I'll send you an email, I have your address.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:36:24 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: A must read!!
Subject: Re: Anyone know this guy?
Message:
If you prefer to read this book without lining the guys pockets, you can use your local library. Most libraries have a service called interlibrary loan which can borrow from bigger library within a large radius.

No reason to support the guy..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:43:00 (EDT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Re: Anyone know this guy?
Message:
If you prefer to read this book without lining the guys pockets, you can use your local library. Most libraries have a service called interlibrary loan which can borrow from bigger library within a large radius.

No reason to support the guy..

Excellent point! Thank you for making it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 13:09:31 (EDT)
From: GmomSusan
Email: None
To: A must read!!
Subject: for BB (OT)
Message:
I got your email and I responded to the address you gave me. I hope you got it and not this Bothous guy. Susan
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:45:44 (EDT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: A must read!!
Subject: JM
Message:
JM, is this the guy who was head of elan vital during
the mid eighties?
You know who I mean right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:50:19 (EDT)
From: A must read!!
Email: None
To: bb
Subject: Re: JM
Message:
Sorry bb, but I don't know if we're talking about the same guy, although it may be entirely possible that we are.
( I personally wasn't around much during the mid eighties...I was on a sabattical from the cult during that time, if you know what I mean))
I do believe that these days he's in charge of m's 'intelligence' operations. Namely obtaining information on and screwing around with m's adversaries, alot of them as you know appearing on this forum.
Of course, he'd like to remain as transparent as possible...and thats exactly why I posted the information in the above post.
Thanks for your reply bb.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:46:14 (EDT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: A must read!!
Subject: Re: JM
Message:
That was good for a laugh, 'm's intelligence operations'.

Raja ji used to head up that outfit.
My first encounter with the royal corps was at the
millenium 73 declaration of the start of the millenium
for those who want it.
Mata ji and BBj and Bhole were among the first that
bailed out of the millenium. Which only came about for
you if you
attended satsang, saw M, convinced the mahatma, got knowlege, moved in the ashram, did ss&m, surrendered,
became an instructor, and even then, you were only
scratching at a 900 foot thick wall of solid steel
and your only chance was guru maharaj ji's grace and
even then, you may have done something that you dont
even think was a problem but IS a problem to guru maharaj ji and he will NEVER forgive you.

The kingdom of heaven is only for those with more
dedication and time to spare than the turncoat JM was
able to muster.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:50:02 (EDT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: bb
Subject: RJ, master of intelligence!?:)
Message:
That was good for a laugh, 'm's intelligence operations'.

Raja ji used to head up that outfit.

And thats even a bigger laugh:::)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 00:52:12 (EDT)
From: Chrissie
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/Re: RJ, master of intelligence!?:)
Message:
I know this guy
He used to live in Miami in Rivo Alto, he was doing productions and videos when Dennis Marciniak was head of EV. His name spells Jean-Marie Bontoux. I edited videos with him for 2 years. If the book was written by a Bonthous, it is not the same person. The Jean-Marie Bontoux I knew in Miami in the 80s moved back to France last year. A friend of mine spoke with him about a year ago, he now lives in the South of France and I heard he does not practice anymore.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:55:43 (EDT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Chrissie
Subject: Re: http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/RJ, master of intelligence!?:)
Message:
That is the one I knew.
I lived with him and others in a house on rivo alto Island.
It was a house that was fixed up to be 'the office of guru
maharaj ji' then he didnt use it like that and they
fixed it up with beds to be a house for in town instructors.
Then that didnt happen and so they put in guys from
the community that would pay the rent. Great place,
nice view of m driving by in the boat sometimes,
I would spend the days just hanging out at the bay or
the airport to see m either engageing in daily water
sports or flying.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 05:16:23 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Chrissie
Subject: I'm sorry
Message:
Maybe you're right after all, my info is older than yours, if this is true.

IF he left, I'm very glad for him. Maybe he's seen a bit too much finally.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 22:50:20 (EDT)
From: Garbo
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Re: I'm sorry
Message:
Sorry JM,

Her info is off. Jean-Marie still loves M very much.

GG

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:38:01 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: jmkahn@club-internet.fr
To: Chrissie
Subject: Disinformation!! Here's a good one.
Message:
Hey,
I know Jean-Marie well enough.
The last time I've met him was in 95 or 96 at the Amsterdam organizers' conference.
We travelled back to Paris together with another friend in the same car.
He was living in Malibu at that time, and told me about his mansion on the hill. He's proud to be Rawat's neighbour.
From what I've heard, he's one of Rawat's top consultants, along with Tim Gallwey.
They've been working together on EV's team management for a few years, as it looks like EV's taken a turn.
Changes on their way!!!!
I like the guy. IF Rawat's listening to him, maybe he's going somewhere, but I don't believe much in this.

JM is totally fascinated by Prempal, and it's more likely that Rawat's using him and Tim to achieve HIS agenda.

I think Rawat's been very much impressed by the new management techniques they're now using in businesses, and he's been trying to apply those to EV.

Like Sitaram said,

Have you read Foucault? Consistent with his theory of discourse I would say that you would discover more about the origins of the DLM in the Indian politics of the 60's and 70's than in all the history of Indian religious movements. The connections are horizontal rather than vertical.

I guess this also applies to EV today.

Hi Jean-Marie, why don't you call me? We've always had interesting conversations, and I still like you !

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:03:19 (EDT)
From: Ayne
Email: None
To: Chrissie
Subject: Re: http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/RJ, master of intelligence!?:)
Message:
I think you have the wrong guy Chrissie.

Thanks for the address:
http://www.anonymizer.com/3.0/index.shtml

A

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:08:25 (EDT)
From: Ayne
Email: None
To: Ayne
Subject: Re: http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/RJ, master of intelligence!?:)
Message:
Chrissy,

Interesting cookie too! You will find that JF is usually on target when it comes to his hunches.

A

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 21:20:11 (EDT)
From: Cap'n Dave
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: All
Subject: It can't be coincidence
Message:
Maharaji really is the Lord. I set up my web site putting a few of the Geocities banners on some of the pages at random and not knowing what would appear on those banners.

So here it is; proof that Maharaji is the Lord and tell me this isn't grace!

P.S. Refresh the page to see the miracle of THAT grace appear again and again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:24:07 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: All
Subject: New book 'How We Believe in God'
Message:
Here's a site for a new book by Michael Shermer ('Why we Believe Weird Things'). The book's called 'How we Believe in God' and I'm gonna read the site now myself.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:25:29 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And here's the link
Message:
Funny how you can't add a link in an inital post. I guess the Lord really does work in mysterious ways.
How We Believe in God
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:37:39 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Chapter 3: The Belief Engine
Message:
[Here's a preview of one of the chapters]

THE BELIEF ENGINE
How We Believe

Instead of the metaphor of a “module” to account for such cultural phenomena as religion, I would like to suggest that we evolved a more general Belief Engine, and that it is Janus-faced: under certain conditions it leads to magical thinking, under different circumstances it leads to scientific thinking. We might think of the Belief Engine as a central processor that sits beneath more specific modules. Allow me to explain.

Humans evolved to be skilled pattern-seeking creatures. Those who were best at finding patterns (standing upwind of game animals is bad for the hunt, cow manure is good for the crops) left behind the most offspring. We are their descendants. The problem in seeking and finding patterns is knowing which ones are meaningful and which ones are not. Unfortunately our brains are not always good at determining the difference. The reason is that discovering a meaningless pattern (painting animals on a cave wall before a hunt) usually does no harm and may even do some good in reducing anxiety in uncertain situations. So we are left with the legacy of two types of thinking errors: Type 1 Error: Believing a falsehood and Type 2 Error: Rejecting a truth. Since neither of these errors will automatically get us killed, we can live with them. And we do, on a daily basis—witness the aforementioned Gallup Poll statistics of magical thinking. The Belief Engine is an evolved mechanism for helping us survive, because in addition to committing Type 1 and Type 2 errors, we also commit what we might call a Type 1 Hit: Not believing a falsehood and a Type 2 Hit: Believing a truth.

It seems reasonable to argue that the brain consists of both specific and general modules, and the Belief Engine is a domain-general processor. It is, in fact, one of the most general of all modules because at its core it is the basis of all learning. After all, we have to believe something about our environment, and these beliefs are learned through experience. But the process of forming beliefs is genetically hard wired. To account for the fact that the Belief Engine is capable of both Type 1 and 2 Errors along with Type 1 and 2 Hits, we can consider two conditions under which it evolved:

1. Natural Selection: The Belief Engine is a useful mechanism for survival, not just for learning about dangerous and potentially lethal environments (where Type 1 and 2 Hits help us survive), but in reducing anxiety about that environment through magical thinking—there is psychological evidence that magical thinking reduces anxiety in uncertain environments (Vyse, 1997), medical evidence that prayer, meditation, and worship may led to greater physical and mental health (Schumaker, 1992), and anthropological evidence that magicians, shamans, and the kings who use them have more power and win more copulations, thus spreading their genes for magical thinking (Harris, 1974).

2. Spandrel: The magical thinking part of the Belief Engine is also a spandrel—Stephen Jay Gould’s and Richard Lewontin’s metaphor for a necessary by-product of an evolved mechanism. In their influential paper, “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm” (1979, 581-598), Gould and Lewontin explain that in architecture a spandrel is “the tapering triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two rounded arches at right angle.” This leftover space in medieval churches is filled with elaborate, beautiful designs so purposeful looking “that we are tempted to view it as the starting point of any analysis, as the cause in some sense of the surrounding architecture. But this would invert the proper path of analysis.” To ask “what is the purpose of the spandrel” is to ask the wrong question. It would be like asking “why do males have nipples?” The correct question is “why do females have nipples?” The answer is that females need them to nurture their babies, and males and females are built on the same architectural frame. It was simply easier for nature to construct males with worthless nipples rather than reconfigure the underlying genetic architecture.

In this sense the magical thinking component of the Belief Engine is a spandrel. We think magically because we have to think causally. We make Type 1 and 2 Errors because we need to make Type 1 and 2 Hits. We have magical thinking and superstitions because we need critical thinking and pattern-finding. The two cannot be separated. Magical thinking is a spandrel—a necessary by-product of the evolved mechanism of causal thinking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:12:41 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Good analysis, IMO.
Message:
Try this: masturbation, worshipping Maharaji and meditation are spandrels. They may even be connected.

That fact that humans must have sex to leave offspring requires humans who can enjoy sex regardless of whether it makes kiddies or not.

Falling in love increases the probabilty of a human's having sex, and the frequency of their having sex. Therefore it is necessary that humans enjoy being in love (even if it is only with their guru) regardless of whether love leads to sex.

People 'see light' or 'feel the earth move' during sex (though my partners might have been lying..!). Again, these factors increase the probabilty and frequency of a human's having sex. Therefore humans must be able to see light or feel the earth move, irrespective of whether they are having sex. Meditation effects are by-products of our being able to stimulate, or tap into experiences which natural selection has made possible by equipping the brain with the requisite feel-good chemicals.

The spandrels argument is stronger than the natural selection argument for explaining phenomena that are not human universals. Not everybody falls in love. Not everybody masturbates. Not everybody sees light, whether during sex or meditation. Similarly we are all capable of religious belief but are not hard-wired to be religious. There would be no atheists if faith in God had itself been 'selected for'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:47:08 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Chapter 7: THE STORYTELLING ANIMAL
Message:
THE STORYTELLING ANIMAL:
Myth, Morality, and the Evolution of Religion

One widely recognized purpose of religion is to create stories that address three of the deepest questions we can ask ourselves: Where did we come from? Why are we here? What does our ultimate future hold? These stories come down to us in the form of myths. A second purpose of religion has to do with providing social cohesion for the most social of all the social primates; that is, with constructing a moral system and enforcing it. Why did this capacity to tell stories, create myths, construct morality, need religion, and believe in God evolve?

Telling stories and constructing myths about animals has obvious survival significance to humans living in a paleolithic environment. Most simply and directly, it is a form of pedagogy and a medium of knowledge transfer of important information about the flora and fauna of the local ecology. A simple story can relay to a child that a particular food is poisonous or a certain animal is dangerous. A myth codifies this knowledge into the permanent record of a people’s store of wisdom. Anthropologist Melvin Konner, for example, in his study of the !Kung San people of Africa, observed that their knowledge of the local ecology was “detailed and thorough enough to astonish and inform professional botanists and zoologists” (1982, 5). And this knowledge, he noted, was often exchanged around the campfire in the form of storytelling and mythmaking (171):

…everything from the location of food sources to the behavior of predators to the movements of migratory game. Not only stories, but great stores of knowledge are exchanged around the fire among the !Kung and the dramatizations—perhaps best of all—bear knowledge critical to survival. A way of life that is difficult enough would, without such knowledge, become simply impossible.

As Edward Wilson observed: “Storytelling may be central in language because, in simulating real experience, they bring into play all of the cognitive and emotional circuitry evolved to deal with real experience. In other words, narrative is the best mnemonic procedure; it maximizes rate of learning and understanding” (personal correspondence, July 7, 1998). It seems reasonable, therefore, to argue in a Wilsonian style as follows: Some individuals inherited an epigenetic rule for mythmaking, in this case myths related to animals, that enabled them to survive and reproduce better in the surrounding environment and culture than individuals who lacked these rules, thus spreading the rules. As part of gene-culture coevolution, myth culture was reconstructed each generation collectively in the minds of individuals. When oral myths were supplemented by written myths, the culture of myth grew indefinitely large, but the fundamental influence of the epigenetic rules for myths remained constant. Since some myths survived and reproduced better than competing myths, this caused mythic culture to evolve in a track parallel to, and faster than, genetic evolution. This quicker pace of mythic cultural evolution loosened the connection between genes and culture, although the connection was never completely broken. Thus we witness the plethora of modern myths, and our fascination with them.

What has all this to do with religion? Religion is a social institution that evolved as an integral mechanism of human culture to encourage altruism, reciprocal altruism, and indirect altruism, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperate and reciprocate among members of the community. That is to say, religion evolved as the social structure that enforced the rules of social interactions before there were such institutions as the state or such concepts as laws and rights. We would do well to remember that the history of the modern nation-state with constitutional rights and protection of basic human freedoms can be measured in mere centuries, whereas humans evolved as social primates over the course of millions of years, and human culture itself dates back at least 35,000 years, if not more. The principal social structure available to facilitate cooperation and good will was probably religion. An organized institution with rules and morals, with a hierarchical structure so necessary for social primates, and with a higher power to enforce the rules and punish their transgressors, religion evolved as the penultimate result of these pattern-seeking, storytelling, mythmaking animals.

We have seen how humans evolved from pattern-seeking to storytelling to mythmaking to morality and religion. Where does God fit into this sequence? In short, everywhere. God is a pattern, an explanation for our universe, our world, and ourselves. God is the key actor in the story, “the greatest story ever told” about where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. God is a myth, one of the most sublime and sacred myths ever constructed by the mythmaking animal. God is the ultimate enforcer of the rules, the final arbiter of moral dilemmas, and the pinnacle object of commitment. And God is an integrant of religion, the most elemental of all components of religion. God and religion are inseparable. People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking, storytelling, mythmaking, religious, moral animals.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:42:01 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE
Message:
[Here's a preview of Chapter 8]

GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE:
The Eternal Return of the Messiah Myth

Why, it seems reasonable to ask, would these similar myths recycle through dissimilar cultures and distinct ages? Cultural diffusion may explain some thematic similarities, but a broader hypothesis is that there are a limited number of responses to perceived oppression and the general hardships of the human condition, and the belief in a returning Messiah who will deliver redemption is one of the most common. The specifics will vary with varying cultures, but the general theme will return again and again. Why?

History is an exquisite blend of the specific and the general, the unique and the universal. The past is neither one damn thing after another (Heraclitus’ river), nor is it the same damn thing over and over (Spengler’s life cycles). Rather, it is a series of generally repeating patterns each one of which retains a unique structure and set of circumstances. History is uniquely cyclical. As I have shown elsewhere, wars and battles (1993), witch crazes and social movements (1995), and holocausts and genocides (1997) recycle through history with remarkable periodicity. The reason is that while there are an infinite number of combinations of specific details, there are a limited number of general rules that channel those details into similar grooves. Every historical event is unique, but not randomly so. They are all restricted by the contingencies and necessities of the system. Such events recycle because the internal components of the system and external conditions of the society periodically come together in parallel fashion.

When those external conditions include oppression of a people, there is the chance that the internal response will be the belief in a rescuing Messiah delivering redemption. The Messiah Myth, like all myths, may be a fictitious narrative, but it represents something deeply nonfiction about human nature and human history. To this extent it is an important component in the answer to the question of why people believe in God.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 21:27:44 (EDT)
From: Cap'n Dave
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE
Message:
I wouldn't worry, Jim. All those years spent as a devotee of who you thought was the living Lord; I'm sure God will have a grand welcoming reception waiting for you in Heaven.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 09:50:23 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Cap'n Dave
Subject: Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE
Message:
Dave,

You don't think Shermer's ideas have any crediblity? I think he might stretch the principles of evolutionary psychology a bit, but overall I think his theory is pretty well thought out and worth considering.

Why do YOU think people believe in God?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 10:15:55 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE
Message:
I think a lot of people believe in God because it's part of civilised and also uncivilised culture. People have always believed in or worshipped something greater than themselves, whether it be the Sun, Moon, Emperor, god or goddess of myth etc; there has always been an endemic need for people to believe there was something greater than them and life beyond death.

Shermer's ideas don't contadict any of that, they just add a more detailed set of suppositions. They give some ideas about how or why people would invent the idea of God.

But for me, this is far from proof that God doesn't exist because it merely tries to explain how we could have invented God.

But there is one cold hard fact that is indisputable; either God exists or God doesn't exist. Nobody can prove it one way or another, it seems.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 12:03:06 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Chapter 8: GOD AND THE GHOST DANCE
Message:
I don't think Shermer is trying to prove that God doesn't exist. The burden of proof doesn't fall on his shoulders in that respect anyway. He's just giving some sound ideas on why FAITH in God exists. They're worth exploring. I think I'm going to get this book.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:54:08 (EDT)
From: Many Recipes-No Cake
Email: Cake@ex-toe-kisser
To: All
Subject: The Brainwashed Premie Mind
Message:
Recently, a premie acquaintance told me that (s)he realized that Maharaji was not the Lord. Maharaji had as much as said so with the following:

I can't figure out why premies would want to trash the whole thing. Just because you figured out how something works, it doensn't mean it's not still beautiful.

Good grief! How dumb does he think people are. What's worse is that he's right they're still there! Lifers, I tell you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:53:29 (EDT)
From: Enough
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Coincidence?
Message:
As we all learned early in our premie life, there are no coincidences. All events are a result of the Lord's lila(I always liked that song).

Anyway, the discussion this week concerning the agya to not go home for Xmas and that some PAMS just ignored it, had me thinking about Orwell's Animal Farm. The quote I always remember(and secretly thought of often as a cult member) was, 'All pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than other pigs'.

So, by COINCIDENCE, I discovered that ANIMAL FARM is on TNT(cable) tomorrow night(Sunday). Those who haven't read the very short book will surely recognize many PAMS and even TOP DOGS from their cult days.

So check your local listings!
Is this purely a coincidence?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 21:49:31 (EDT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Enough
Subject: Happy as pigs in shit
Message:
Enough: I love you! That is hilarious. Thanks for making me laugh, momentarily, about something that still makes me feel that I let my mom down when she needed me the most.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 03:46:22 (EDT)
From: Enough
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Re: Happy as pigs in shit
Message:
Hi Marianne,

Glad to make you laugh. That whole parent issue is something I'm dealing with too. Sometime, I'll tell you what I told my father in 1981 while he was in a coma dying.

In a less serious moment, I should also relate what my father(the WWII Okinawa marine)said after I got him to go to Satsang at Ashram in 1974.

I like reading your posts.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 16:20:28 (EDT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Enough
Subject: Re: Coincidence?
Message:
To quote Renee Davis in many of his satsangs 'the coincidence factor is out of hand'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:15:25 (EDT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: God@getafreelife.com
To: All
Subject: Recommended reading
Message:
Go to http://newmedia.com/newmedia/99/10/backflip/Life_is_Free.html
Excellent article on the merger of GetaFreeLife.com and Procter & Gamble, Amwat and Churches.
For more info contact the God Group:Shut your eyes and think real hard.
this is a great press release and will be the future!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 14:05:38 (EDT)
From: Businessmole
Email: None
To: All
Subject: clarity & compilation
Message:
I have just found this site - and have spent the last hour or two trawling through a lot of dross - to find a few golden nuggets.

I am interested in compiling information on SEVA, Antext and any other businesses - what do you guys know about UCM, Executive and Estate Management Ltd - and the Channel Island registered company that owns Amaroo (or at least used to)

There are some firms of accountants in the UK who may be interesting to talk to.

I'd be interested to see if we can put together a map of the financial position.

Its a good game.May win prizes.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 17:39:17 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Businessmole
Subject: Re: clarity & compilation
Message:
Businessmole, what is your actual interest in the info?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 15:58:03 (EDT)
From: MR--No Cake
Email: None
To: Businessmole
Subject: Re: clarity & compilation
Message:
May I suggest you go to WWW.ex-premie.org. There are many interesting tidbits regarding MJ's businesses and shopping bags full of undeclared donations. It will take you a day or two.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:49:01 (EDT)
From: german chocolate
Email: None
To: MR--No Cake
Subject: Marianne?
Message:
Can you run a tracer on those companies?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 19:17:55 (EDT)
From: Marianne
Email: MarianneDB@aol.com
To: german chocolate
Subject: German chocolate
Message:
German chocolate: Send me an email and tell me who you are and then I'll decide if I care to answer this question on the Forum. I don't want those DLM/EV snoops to know EVERYTHING I do! I'd also like to know who businessmole is (cute name). If you want to tell, fine. If not, that's ok too.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index