|
From archives:
From Kelly
Here are some extracts from a recent satellite
broadcast. An amalgamation of two
ÒtrainingsÓ, Atlanta and Amaroo, plus
some other clips. These particular extracts are
from the Atlanta training in July 2000 called
ÒIntroducing the possibility of
knowledgeÓ This was the next to last
ÒdripÓ for me. I was watching a video
recording of it, on my own, in my house, and I just
hated it so much, I was screaming at the
screenÉ.some of it unrepeatable!! but
ÉÓ THATÕS IT, IÕM OUTA
HEREÓ
Anyway, I thought you might like to hear some of
it, so I transcribed thisÉ.
On screen heading, ÒThe
FundamentalsÓ
The following extract is a straight, uncut
sequence.
MaharajiÉ
ÒKnowledge, and all things associated
with it, are compliments of the Master. The Master
doesnÕt want knowledge sessions to happen,
Guess what? TheyÕre not happening. The
Master changes the rules, creates the rules,
disposes of these rules, as the Master wishes.
The possibility of knowledge is brought to you by
the compliments of your friendly Master. (laughter
and applause)
Now, IÕm not getting into the
logistics of it OK? I understand it is the people
who are interested make many of these things a
physical reality. But, the key frame here is,
compliments..the Master says, yes this is OK to do,
you may talk about knowledge, you may not talk
about knowledge. Both have to be taken with the
same stride. If youÕre borrowing your
neighbourÕs car, the neighbour says yes you
may drive it, then one day he may say ..No you may
not drive it, I want my car back.
You have to realizeÉ.Ownership of
knowledge resides with the MasterÉHearing
about knowledge is a privilegeÉ.Being able
to talk about knowledge is a privilege, itÕs
not a right, itÕs a privilege.
ÉReceiving knowledge is a
privilegeÉBeing able to practice knowledge
is a privilegeÉ..Being able to participate
is a privilege.Ó (Audience of invited guests
nodding and smiling)
Another extract entitled ÒA little
HistoryÓ
MaharajiÉ.
Ó When a lot of the Mahatmas came to
the West, they brought with them immeasurable
amount of concepts, and it kinda went wild, and
there was no stopping it. The backlash of that, I
had to directly bear. Because people would ask me
point blank these questionsÉÓAre you
this? Are you that, you know, What is this? What is
that? Ò
(IÕve missed a bit here)
ÒSo, thatÕs the good news, the bad
news is that the concepts have really gotten us in
a hole to this day, where weÕre still having
to defend ourselves, which I find pathetic (he
spits this out) having to defend ourselves and
say.. No.. these things are not true. So we cannot
afford to perpetuate any concepts.
Knowledge worksÉlook, you know, lets face
it, knowledge works. The Master, when given the
right environment, does his thing, and itÕs
great. It all works.
Whatever we forge for the future, we have to
remember.. where.. we.. came from, and we have to
remember, most importantly, how incredibly
dangerous, incredibly dangerous, this stuff
isÉ.. Shooting your mouth off is not
innocent by any stretch of the
imaginationÉ.What you say in
yourÉfuzzy feelingÉyou know what I
meanÉfuzzy feeling? When youÕre
feeling nice and oooh sooo inspired, can be deadly
dangerous. What you say cannot have any tolerance
for mistakesÉ..
What do you think?É.Does this far of the
history make any sense? And why IÕm bringing
this up? Because I see you in the same shoes.
ThereÕs a lot more of you than there were of
themÉ..Comprende?É..Just playing
Russian roulette with a lot more guns. Your chances
go up. I donÕt want to be in those shoes. I
donÕt think these mistakes have to happen
and I donÕt think these mistakes need to be
thereÓ
I expect you can imagine the way all this was
delivered, in that pompous, petulant, arrogant way
he speaks, with frequent long pregnant pauses and
raised eyebrows. So supercilious, so condescending,
so insulting to the audience who are all people who
have given up their lives to help him. Oh yes, I
forgot, itÕs a privilege!!! Anyway I could
comment on this forever, but IÕd be very
interested in your comments.
Kelly
Response from Pat W about these Maharaji
extracts .
Knowledge, and all things associated with it,
are compliments of the Master
Dictionary says: Compliments =Ó An
expression of formal respect, civility. A
presentÓ.
Thus M says, Knowledge, and all things associated
with it, are a given by him (to aspirants and
premies) civilly and respectfully. As he goes on it
becomes harder to see exactly where the civility
and respect part comes in.
ÒThe Master doesnÕt want
knowledge sessions to happen, Guess what?
TheyÕre not happening.Ó
He is the one controlling the giving out of
Knowledge and he can stop doing that whenever he
likes. There is a veiled threat that he may withold
giving Knowledge if anything (such as actions by
the premies listening) give him cause to do so. If
Knowledge sessions stop of course thatÕs
bad. Thus he engenders fear in the audience who are
acutely anxious that it not be their actions or
mistakes which lead to him making this clearly
dreadful decision.
ÒThe Master changes the rules, creates
the rules, disposes of these rules, as the Master
wishes.Ó
He can do as he likes and his pupils live in an
uncertain world. This is clearly not a
ÔmasterÕ in the healthy sense of the
word. It is well known that growing children (which
could be said to analogous of pupils of a master)
need an environment where their limits are well
defined. A household where the father is always
domineeringly changing the rules undermines the
confidence and security of the children.
The possibility of knowledge is brought to
you by the compliments of your friendly Master.
(laughter and applause)
Tries to soften the unfriendly implications of
his speech by suggesting that he is being
friendly.
Now, IÕm not getting into the
logistics of it OK? I understand it is the people
who are interested who make many of these things a
physical reality. But, the key frame here is,
compliments.
Belittles the fact that it is hugely thanks to
the tireless and dedicated work of followers that
he is able to do any of this. He wants to
disempower them in the equation completely and
empower himself above all.
ÒThe Master says, yes this is OK to
do, you may talk about knowledge, you may not talk
about knowledge. Both have to be taken with the
same stride. If youÕre borrowing your
neighbourÕs car, the neighbour says yes you
may drive it, then one day he may say ..No you may
not drive it, I want my car back.Ó
It is NOT your right to talk about Knowledge.
That is what without any shadow of doubt he is
saying here. This is very disturbing as it implies
that he wants to control what people say about
their own inner experience. Are we to suppose also
that this Knowledge, which is within inside us is
borrowed ? that our life itself Ð our very
existence is borrowed ?? from him?
What kind of a gift is it that someone gives you
that you have no right to talk about???
It is a gift with the condition that you follow
rules which change at his whim and you must not
talk about if he tells you not to. Of course the
Knowledge techniques are the prime secret that you
are beholden to him to keep. The right to talk
about it is stressed as being a privilege that may
be removed at a moments notice.
ÒYou have to realizeÉ.Ownership
of knowledge resides with the MasterÉHearing
about knowledge is a privilegeÉ.Being able
to talk about knowledge is a privilege, itÕs
not a right, itÕs a
privilege.ÉReceiving knowledge is a
privilegeÉBeing able to practice knowledge
is a privilegeÉ..Being able to participate
is a privilege.Ó (Audience of invited guests
nodding and smiling)
He owns your experience. Great. You are beholden
to him. The experience of your own Life Force is
NOT YOUR RIGHT.
It is not a human beingÕs birthright to know
their God, but a privilege that is LENT to him ,
without any assurance that he can even speak about
it, by this incontrovertibly imperfect man , who
clearly claims that he is the Perfect Master.
Another extract entitled ÒA little
HistoryÓ
Perhaps ÒA little revisionismÓ
would have been more apt.
Ò When a lot of the Mahatmas came to
the West, they brought with them immeasurable
amount of concepts, and it kinda went wild, and
there was no stopping it.Ó
Yes, and he tried SO HARD to stop it
didnÕt he?
The backlash of that, I had to directly bear.
Poor Maharaji had to suffer because all the
mahatmas misrepresented him and Knowledge. All by
himself -I think he may be trying to illicit a
little sympathy here. Premies will give him heaps.
ÒHow could we have allowed him to be so put
out?Ó Time to get the flagellatory whips
out.
IÕm sorry, but this line of blaming the
Indian Mahatmas is grossly unfair. You only have to
read MaharajiÕs fatherÕs satsang
speeches and you can see where all the Indian
concepts came from. Also it would not be hard to
prove, by dredging up MaharajiÕs own early
speeches, that he brought 99% of those
Ôimmeasurable conceptsÓ to the West
himself. He whose every word all premieÕs
took as gospel . He who clearly said that we should
dedicate our lives to him in the Ashram Ðbe
celibate (rule one) Ðbe vegetarian (rule 2)
Ð etc. etc.
Anyway, so these immeasurable conceptsÉ What
is he talking about exactly? Ð and tell me
someone please Ð what did the poor old Mahatmas
tell us that was so frightful ÐMine just told
me to meditate exactly as Maharaji himself
prescribed and to do everything else Maharaji
demanded himself endlessly. Nothing more that I
recall.
So MaharajiÕs revisionism fails to impress
me a jot. In fact I am appalled at his lack of
taking any responsibility for what he actually
demanded from us back then.
ÒBecause people would ask me point
blank these questionsÉÓ Are you this?
Are you that, you know, What is this? What is
thatÓ
He must be referring to the recurrentÒDo
you say youÕre God? YouÕre followers
say you areÓ question.
Well, clearly one can see that the
ÔMasterÕ whom he describes is
unmistably ÔGod-likeÓ given his
extraordinary powers and claimed authority. Next
heÕll be saying ÒI never said
IÕm a MasterÓ and accusing premies of
misrepresenting him!
ÒÉ the bad news is that the
concepts have really gotten us in a hole to this
day, where weÕre still having to defend
ourselves, which I find pathetic (he spits this
out) having to defend ourselves and say.. No these
things are not true. So we cannot afford to
perpetuate any concepts.Ó
Well. HeÕs hardly helping his defence by
spitting out the sort of thing that he has
apparently said - if these little extracts are
anything to go by.
I think he really badly needs to go a lot further
than just saying ÒNo, these things are not
trueÓ. OK, so he finds it pathetic to have
to be answerable to criticism (which does not
reasonably amount to attack - letÕs be clear
about this) . But he needs to go further and prove
that these things are not true...not just simply
claim ÒtheyÕre not true!Ó
Also, if he finds himself Òin a
holeÓ and feels Ôunder attackÕ
merely because some of his past, undoubtedly
sincere, followers want some straight answers then
what is so ÔpatheticÕ about showing
them a little deserved empathy and apologising to
them for subjecting them to so many unreasonable
ÔhinduisticÕ demands?
ÒKnowledge worksÉlook, you
know, lets face it, knowledge works. The Master,
when given the right environment, does his thing,
and itÕs great. It all
works.Ó
Yes, and my experience of late is that the
meditation part works well without the Master bit.
Sure the devotion and surrender stuff works well in
the right environment. A closed environment
where itÕs easy to brainwash people.
Whatever we forge for the future, we have to
remember.. where.. we.. came from, and we have to
remember, most importantly, how incredibly
dangerous, incredibly dangerous, this stuff
isÉ.. Shooting your mouth off is not
innocent by any stretch of the
imaginationÉ.
UhohÉheÕs sounding cross now.
ItÕs the Mafioso Boss warning his hoods not
to squeal. WeÕre definitely talking in terms
of someone who feels that they are in a Ôwar
of opposing sidesÕ hereÉ
Remember the World War Two slogan , urging the
populace of the dangers of idle chat because
HitlerÕs spies were rife
ÐÒCareless talk costs livesÓ
I believe that in Germany at this time the warning
had a more threatening tone in that if you were
judged responsible for such indiscretions you could
be shot or hung.
Maharaji says that if you betray him in any way
youÕre Ò not innocentÓ ie
YOUÓRE GUILTY. He leaves it to the poor
intimidated premie to imagine what might be the
punishment for this crime.
ÒWhat you say in yourÉfuzzy
feelingÉyou know what I meanÉfuzzy
feeling? When youÕre feeling nice and oooh
sooo inspired, can be deadly dangerous. What you
say cannot have any tolerance for
mistakesÉ..
Deadly dangerous??!! No tolerance for mistakes?
Not even a weeny bit?
I think he waxing a bit melodramatic here. How many
blissed out premies, that you have met, have said
something Òdeadly dangerousÕ ??
Deadly boring maybe, but life threateningly
dangerous Ðhardly. What does he want-people to
be so worried about saying what they feel that all
they are permitted to do is spout some safe party
line?
ÒWhat do you think? .Does this far of
the history make any sense?Ó
Excuse me, did I hear correctly? did you ask me
for my opinion??
I suppose, at this point in the proceedings, a
dozen hands shot up and people had the chance to
respond to this rare opportunity to answer Maharaji
Ð
ÒNo, it doesnÕt make sense O
Master. Actually I was rather wondering if you
could explain a little problem I have
aboutÉÓ
Of course not. This is not a real question. One
that you are allowed to actually answer. You are
merely supposed to nod assentingly and silently
Ð indeed like so many sheep.
ÒAnd why IÕm bringing this up?
Because I see you in the same shoes. ThereÕs
a lot more of you than there were of
themÉ..Comprende?É.. Just playing
Russian roulette with a lot more guns. Your chances
go up. I donÕt want to be in those shoes. I
donÕt think these mistakes have to happen
and I donÕt think these mistakes need to be
thereÓ
It sounds to me like heÕs bringing this
up because heÕs afraid that premies will
again put him in the situation where he will have
to ÔdefendÕ himself. Against what?
Some simple questions? The situation where he may
be called upon to answer some simple
straightforward questions seems to fill him with
dread. This suggests that he has no answers.
So all the premies are very likely going to
screw things up royally for Maharaji given half the
chance. He clearly doesnÕt want people to
talk about Knowledge or at least he is extremely
paranoid that people are going to fatally
misrepresent him and Knowledge. This is neither
respecful or civil. Why? Because it suggests that
those people who have Knowledge are so stupid that
they cannot possibly say anything sensible about
it. (even though they have supposedly experienced
it). Worse, they are more likely to be so off-base
that they will cause some ÔdeadlyÕ
repercussions.
Maharaji is counting on people giving him the
benefit of the doubt and that they will see this
ÔwarningÕ as a demonstration of how
ÔseriouslyÕ he takes his job as Master
and how he is reproving all his flippant, loose
tongued followers who are jeopardising his work and
how kind he is to let them play even a tiny little
part in his work. No matter how you read it, this
is a warning to keep the secrets.
IÕm probably too generous in my analysis
of MaharajiÕs words. HereÕs what my
dear innocent non- premie wife said when I read her
the extracts.
ÒMegalomaniac! Who does he think he is?
HeÕs got this thing called Knowledge. Once
youÕve given something to someone, you
canÕt rule their lives and tell them what to
do with it and who they can talk to about it! He
wants to control people. He feels threatened and
scared.Ó
MaharajiÉ.
ÒLet me put it very simply. Are you,
in your own self, content with not having to define
Maharaji? Maharaji is Maharaji. So how comfortable
are you with not having to define Maharaji?
ThatÕs the real question, are you
comfortable with that? Because if youÕre
not, youÕre gonna sit half way, half baked,
between the belief system and what Knowledge needs.
Until that happens, the history can never really be
cleared up, because it still lives in that era. The
shade of darkness still loomsÓ
I think this is more obfuscating on M's part.
Firstly he suggests that one should not define
Maharaji. The alternate to one having clear
understanding, definition of Maharaji's role in
one's mind, would seem to be to have a 'belief'
that he is beyond such definition. A 'belief' is
the appropriate word I think.
Then he tries to suggest that Knowledge doen't need
a 'belief system', so we're back to having an
understanding of him, which surely needs some sort
of definition. The 'darkness looming' bit is not
clearly explained, so as a warning of dire
consequences, it would seem to have been said
mainly to have effect through intimidation.
ÒMaharaji is MaharajiÓ
Again he is simply stressing that he can do
whatever he likes - he is beyong the limiting
definitions that the world puts on him. Hence he
can behave as he wishes, demand that his followers
accept whatever conditions he wishes and is
basically is beyond normal judgement.
As we know this is meglamaniacal talk, so either
he is God or he is a megalomanic. I think we tend
to think that his lack of kindness and partiality
to intimidation amongst many other things, suggest
that he is the latter.
|