Forum II: Archive 6 Page 3 of 5

Ex-Premie.Org

Forum II Archive # 6

From: Feb 13, 1998

To: Feb 20, 1998

Page: 3 Of: 5

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 23:49:11 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email: [email protected]
To: Everyone
Subject: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hi everyone. I had the joy of going to the Sierra for the weekend into the mountains above Lake Tahoe and cross-country skiing for hours on end. Lots of snow up there. It looks like California couldn't have another drought (my lawn is a virtual swamp) for at least another century, due to our good friend El Nino. Anyhow, while coursing through the deep snow, fantasizing that I was a handsome Finnish Olympic gold medalist, I thought more about what 'A Premie' was posting last week and the heated row we got into over why there even ARE ex-premies. 'A Premie,' refreshingly and unabashedly admitted that the whole point of Maharaji's trip is the experience of DEVOTION. Anyone who has been around this forum will note that this is in direct contradiction to ALL the other, much more official line, premies who have posted here, who contend that all that is going on with M is the experience of an internal beauty through meditation, and the associated expression of 'gratitude' for having been shown that. Appently M beats around the bush on that subject as well. No, 'A Premie,' who also said he or she was an instructor, came right out and said what we all know to be true anyway, despite the spinning and obfuscation of M and a lot of the premies. Several ex-premies pointed out that the 'devotion'was all a one-way street, going from the premies to M (all the way to the bank), but that nothing ever came back, and that since M didn't even know that most of the premies were even alive, and since 99.9% of the premies didn't know him at all, they were really devoted to a fantasy, an idol, to someone you could pin all your hopes and dreams on. In short, it was a big fake illusion, one that many of us wasted years of our lives, our resources, our relationships and to some extent our futures, pursuing, all at M's constant emphatic demands that we continue to do so, until some time in the late 80s when he stopped talking much about it. Anyhow, 'A Premie's' response to this was really quite astounding, although it was also illogical and nonsensical. He or she said that the problem with the ex-premies was that we never really experienced 'true' devotion and instead experienced a sort of 'fake' devotion, meaning that all those years of following M's agya, we had devotion to a fantasy, which is limited and ends, while he or she, and some unspecified number of other premies, experienced the 'true' devotion, which doesn't ever end, and hence they have continued along the shining path of devotion to M, the real, only unchanging force in the universe. We ex-premies, on the other hand have fallen into the confused hell of a non-devotional life, which, of course, we never really had in the first place. So, let me get this right. 'A Premie' contends that SOME premies, including he or she, received the real and true devotion from M and a bunch of the rest of us got shit. And since we know from hearing it endlessly from M over the years that devotion is a 'gift' and, like the song says we ask M to 'please, please teach' devotion, according to 'A Premie' M deigned to fuck some of us over big time, by just not giving us the true devotion, and instead gave us a fake devotion that we might mess around wasting time for a decade or so trying to pursue it. I guess this is a lila or something. And then, of course, on a few others M showered his grace and true devotion was given, and hence, the condescending, spiritually egotistical attitude of Mr or Ms 'A Premie' is justified because he or she is saved and we are not. Despite how this reflects on the spiritual teacher credentials of M, which is pretty negative, it appears also that the holier-than-thou feeling of the cult members is enhanced in this way as well. Comments anyone? 'A Premie?' Have you disappeared?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 06:40:59 (EST)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
He or she said that the problem with the ex-premies was that we never really experienced 'true' devotion and instead experienced a sort of 'fake' devotion, meaning that all those years of following M's agya, we had devotion to a fantasy, which is limited and ends, while he or she, and some unspecified number of other premies, experienced the 'true' devotion, which doesn't ever end, and hence they have continued along the shining path of devotion to M, the real, only unchanging force in the universe. I too have been accused of this by a couple of particularly stupid premies. Given the frightful neuroses of those who accuse me of 'not having truly surrendered' 'just going through the motions' 'not having a real experience' etc. (of course they all did) I am relieved that somehow I never reached the dizzy heights that have done them so much obvious good!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 09:04:57 (EST)
Poster: Rick
Email: [email protected]
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
When I was a premie, I remember explaining away how people could leave knowledge, with some similar thoughts as 'A Premie'. A premie has to be able to file away this tragedy and make sense of it, so it won't happen to them. I guess it's a defense mechanism. Without speaking in 'A Premie's' defense, I assumed from their post that they meant there was some little step on our end we didn't take to make the devotion complete; certainly not that maharaji gave us a different or lacking devotion. Now we know he gives the same empty devotion to everyone. I'd expect some response from premies that we were all given the same beautiful devotion, but it's what a person does with that devotion that makes it real. I suppose there isn't really a way to debate about it... I used to think that 'devotion' was beautiful. I strived for it and thought that if I had it, I'd have something real and true, and something that was the highest endeavor. Now I think that what was going on was obscene. It was like being in a somewhat sick relationship, where you get something out of it, but the cost is your dignity and sanity. When I was in the relationship, it was inherent that I not see that, for the relationship to survive. So the minute the person you're debating with can see your point, the debate is over. They have to think we didn't do the devotion right, or they have to jump ship because the good are tainted. But no matter how tainted the goods are, P.T. Barnum had it right, and we proved it. Sometimes when I read the rants of premies like 'A Premie' I see how sick I was.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 12:24:41 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
My Dear Brother in His Ultimate Lila! When you get right down to brass tacks, everything is a gift especially such a divine feeling as 'devotion' (after all, how could it be manufactured by our puny brains?) and so it's not our fault/or our decision that we became x's, it's all divine lila. Nothing is anyone's fault, nothing that anyone does is actually being done by that anyone, it's all 'the grace'. Welcome to the world and logic of Guru Maharaj Ji. Where nobody exists but to be played with by the guru. This is the ultimate realization. Everything is guru's grace. We are nothing but his puppets, here only to worship his divine lotus feet. All we can do at this point is revel in the realization that we have been spared having to devote this particular lifetime to chasing his lotus feet.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 12:55:04 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: [email protected]
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Joe, Maybe it's more of a Calvinist, Pre-destination thing. By M's grace, some were given the grace of devotion, while the rest of us were denied this. It was all set-up at the beginning of the world. Some Premies are in the Elect, and we Ex-premies are the condemned. It wasn't our choice or decision, it's just the way the Lord of the Universe planned it. Oh, to be among the Elect! Michael
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 13:34:38 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Joe, Maybe it's more of a Calvinist, Pre-destination thing. By M's grace, some were given the grace of devotion, while the rest of us were denied this. It was all set-up at the beginning of the world. Some Premies are in the Elect, and we Ex-premies are the condemned. It wasn't our choice or decision, it's just the way the Lord of the Universe planned it. Oh, to be among the Elect! Michael Maybe you're right. I think it's the only explanation a premie can give as to how, on the one hand, M is all powerful, etc., but thousands of premies have left him, calling him a charlatan, despite following his direction and devoting to him for years. It must be the fault of the departing premie, but that doesn't square with the belief that M is all loving and all powerful. It doesn't make any sense, but since when did that stop a premie's confused logic? I think it's called both 'cognitive dissonance' and 'compartmentalization' in psychology.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 19:06:12 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: [email protected]
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Dear JW, I think 'A Premie' may have taken the opportunity of the forum archiving to leave the building. Sorry about that!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 20:47:34 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: [email protected]
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Joe, Maybe it's more of a Calvinist, Pre-destination thing. By M's grace, some were given the grace of devotion, while the rest of us were denied this. It was all set-up at the beginning of the world. Some Premies are in the Elect, and we Ex-premies are the condemned. It wasn't our choice or decision, it's just the way the Lord of the Universe planned it. Oh, to be among the Elect! Michael Why are you all talking like devotion is the ultimate in human experience? I had the experience of devotion for many, many years, the ecstasy of darshan and being in his presence, etc. and to tell the truth, I'd much rather have my 'life' back, be able to think for myself, and stop chasing around after this person whom I imagined at the time had divine qualities. I prefer the devotion I feel for my cat, at this point. At least it leaves me free to be who I am. And as for why it stopped, I certainly wouldn't credit him for having withdrawn his 'grace', which implies he was the granter of the devotion in the first place. I think I just got fed up with mooning around after someone who didn't even know (or care) that I existed. It got boring after a years and years of it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 20:57:16 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hi everyone. I had the joy of going to the Sierra for the weekend into the mountains above Lake Tahoe and cross-country skiing for hours on end. Lots of snow up there. It looks like California couldn't have another drought (my lawn is a virtual swamp) for at least another century, due to our good friend El Nino. Anyhow, while coursing through the deep snow, fantasizing that I was a handsome Finnish Olympic gold medalist, I thought more about what 'A Premie' was posting last week and the heated row we got into over why there even ARE ex-premies. 'A Premie,' refreshingly and unabashedly admitted that the whole point of Maharaji's trip is the experience of DEVOTION. Anyone who has been around this forum will note that this is in direct contradiction to ALL the other, much more official line, premies who have posted here, who contend that all that is going on with M is the experience of an internal beauty through meditation, and the associated expression of 'gratitude' for having been shown that. Appently M beats around the bush on that subject as well. No, 'A Premie,' who also said he or she was an instructor, came right out and said what we all know to be true anyway, despite the spinning and obfuscation of M and a lot of the premies. Several ex-premies pointed out that the 'devotion'was all a one-way street, going from the premies to M (all the way to the bank), but that nothing ever came back, and that since M didn't even know that most of the premies were even alive, and since 99.9% of the premies didn't know him at all, they were really devoted to a fantasy, an idol, to someone you could pin all your hopes and dreams on. In short, it was a big fake illusion, one that many of us wasted years of our lives, our resources, our relationships and to some extent our futures, pursuing, all at M's constant emphatic demands that we continue to do so, until some time in the late 80s when he stopped talking much about it. Anyhow, 'A Premie's' response to this was really quite astounding, although it was also illogical and nonsensical. He or she said that the problem with the ex-premies was that we never really experienced 'true' devotion and instead experienced a sort of 'fake' devotion, meaning that all those years of following M's agya, we had devotion to a fantasy, which is limited and ends, while he or she, and some unspecified number of other premies, experienced the 'true' devotion, which doesn't ever end, and hence they have continued along the shining path of devotion to M, the real, only unchanging force in the universe. We ex-premies, on the other hand have fallen into the confused hell of a non-devotional life, which, of course, we never really had in the first place. So, let me get this right. 'A Premie' contends that SOME premies, including he or she, received the real and true devotion from M and a bunch of the rest of us got shit. And since we know from hearing it endlessly from M over the years that devotion is a 'gift' and, like the song says we ask M to 'please, please teach' devotion, according to 'A Premie' M deigned to fuck some of us over big time, by just not giving us the true devotion, and instead gave us a fake devotion that we might mess around wasting time for a decade or so trying to pursue it. I guess this is a lila or something. And then, of course, on a few others M showered his grace and true devotion was given, and hence, the condescending, spiritually egotistical attitude of Mr or Ms 'A Premie' is justified because he or she is saved and we are not. Despite how this reflects on the spiritual teacher credentials of M, which is pretty negative, it appears also that the holier-than-thou feeling of the cult members is enhanced in this way as well. Comments anyone? 'A Premie?' Have you disappeared? Maharaji gave me the opportunity to learn about devotion; it's still up to me to take him up on it. He doesn't give some a stronger dose than others; that's ridiculous. One's devotion is only as real and strong as the one doing the learning. It is a given that some will learn more quickly than others, and some not at all - this would be the same with any subject. I think it is dependant on an individual's thirst and willingness to be shown, and to be able to accept what they see. That's sometimes very difficult to do. For those who have stuck with it, nothing can top the experience of devotion. It is a bridge to joy that has no bounds. The gifts that come with devotion are priceless because they are endless. AND, it is endless because the devotee's love and commitment to know it more has no end. Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 21:06:55 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Katie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Dear JW, I think 'A Premie' may have taken the opportunity of the forum archiving to leave the building. Sorry about that! Dear Katie: What makes you say that? I DO hope 'A Premie' comes back. He or she was so much fun!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 21:13:46 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
When A Premie (not 'THE Premie'?) said: >Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think >to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is >to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath. I wanted to be the first to state the obvious -- sounds like just another addiction. Again, I'm reminded of Charlotte Rampling and Dirk Bogarde in 'The Night Porter.' Imagine, dear A, that you've bent your mind out of shape for twenty-five years thinking Santa Claus is coming to town. Songs, movies and festivals. Inner prayers. Devotional exercises. Smiles and tears, etc. Don't you think you'd burn a few emotional patterns in there somewhere? Now, come on, A, it's POSSIBLE, isn't it? Come on, I'm only talking POSSIBLE. Can you give me that? That maybe your devotion's just a learned trait? No? Well then let me ask you this -- what aspects of your world view do you think could possibly be incorrect? Is there anything? No? Well then let me try this -- if you walked in on Maharaji having sex with his mistress while Marolyn was down the hill on the beach, would your devotion be as sweet, not so sweet or sweeter still? Can't answer that? Don't know? Don't want to talk about it? Alright... forget I even asked.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 22:07:16 (EST)
Poster: Miss'Y'
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Why would 'ANY' worldly actions of the Master have any effect on the devotion of a true lover? I guess I'm just addicted to love . HoHoHo JIMBO!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 23:12:18 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Maharaji gave me the opportunity to learn about devotion; it's still up to me to take him up on it. He doesn't give some a stronger dose than others; that's ridiculous. One's devotion is only as real and strong as the one doing the learning. It is a given that some will learn more quickly than others, and some not at all - this would be the same with any subject. I think it is dependant on an individual's thirst and willingness to be shown, and to be able to accept what they see. That's sometimes very difficult to do. For those who have stuck with it, nothing can top the experience of devotion. It is a bridge to joy that has no bounds. The gifts that come with devotion are priceless because they are endless. AND, it is endless because the devotee's love and commitment to know it more has no end. Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath. Well, I can't argue with your beliefs, no matter how they completely contradict most of what Maharaji has said for the last 25 years, ESPECIALLY to people who are considering getting involved with him. I mean besides the fact that DEVOTION is the main trip here and that facrt is deceitfully withheld for new people, as is things like darshan. How many people would get involved if it was explained to them that you could renounce your life for 10 years, do exactly what M instructed and STILL not have the experience he promises? Especially, when he states over and over how simple, easy and beautiful it is and that absolutely everyone can and will experience it, upon receipt of knowledge. But really, I suspect that what you say is a revisionist attempt to justify a failure to objectively look at those for beliefs for years. I know it's hard; it's much easier just to rationalize forever. Are you with a straight face really saying that one can come to the perfect master, receive knowledge, give him absolutely everything, practice knowledge as instructed for 10 years, and never have an experience of what you claim is the essence of what M is giving? Especially when it has been the ideology of the Maharaji cult for years, as explained by M himself, that HE and only HE who is in control of who experiences what? Do you tell people THAT at an introductory program? And now you have introduced yet another concept. Strength. 'One's devotion is only as real and as strong as the one doing the learning.' You are an egotistical piece of cake, aren't you? Are you David Smith? So, now you change the story and say that ex-premies either weren't 'real' or weren't 'strong' and therefore didn't have real or strong devotion, whatever that means. Sounds like the same thing you were saying before about 'real' and 'fake' devotion. Look, premie you can't have it both ways, either M is a shitty master and loses most of his devotees, despite his grace, and lies to people about the availability of the experience, or you didn't and haven't experienced 'devotion' any different that I did, and are just retaining the fantasy for a longer period that I did. Somehow I believe the latter is true. And I think the presence or lack of 'thirst' or 'willingness to be shown' in anyone can't be judged by you and, again, I think those judgements on your part are nothing more that grasping rationalizations to explain away the fact that your guru is a big fat charlatan and fucked up a lot of people's lives and that many people have realized that fact, despite experiencing for years the supposed 'devotion' M offers. But moreover, all this crap you say is NOT said by M. He just says it's a meditation experience. I think it's just you who has embellised it for your own convenience.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 23:40:13 (EST)
Poster: JW to A Premie and
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
My Dear Brother in His Ultimate Lila! When you get right down to brass tacks, everything is a gift especially such a divine feeling as 'devotion' (after all, how could it be manufactured by our puny brains?) and so it's not our fault/or our decision that we became x's, it's all divine lila. Nothing is anyone's fault, nothing that anyone does is actually being done by that anyone, it's all 'the grace'. Welcome to the world and logic of Guru Maharaj Ji. Where nobody exists but to be played with by the guru. This is the ultimate realization. Everything is guru's grace. We are nothing but his puppets, here only to worship his divine lotus feet. All we can do at this point is revel in the realization that we have been spared having to devote this particular lifetime to chasing his lotus feet. Well, according to Miss Y, A Premie, what you are saying is not longer the case in the Maharaji cult. Rather, now it appears that some people are more 'real' have more 'strength' and have more 'thirst' and hence are better 'learners' of devotion, which is the ultimate prize. You see, all us exs, which amount to about 90% of the people who have received K, have learning deficiencies when it come to M and devotion. We just never got it, or we should have hung around another 20 years, might STILL not have gotten it, but then maybe we will. Hell, you could spend your whole life contributing to new expensive planes and residences for the lord and kissing his feet at every opportunity and never really get it. And, I guess his grace as nothing to do with it, it all has to do with your ability to learn.. So, we never really left anything. We never had the experience at all, and the omnisicent A Premie knows this, due to her advanced sprititual development
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 02:14:40 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email: [email protected]
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath. Yes, it does taste sweet, but it's sweet like saccharin, you know, the stuff made from coal tar? Tastes sweet as long as you keep sticking it in your mouth. But once you stop tasting and ask yourself what it tastes like, you realize it was really much too sweet, sickening really, and it leaves a really bad taste in your mouth.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 05:49:50 (EST)
Poster: Anon
Email:
To: A Premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath. More fear-mongering morose talk from A Premie. Maharaji said if you don't like it just walk away. Isn't it amazing how premies are SO heavy. Lighten up.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 09:25:50 (EST)
Poster: Katie
Email: [email protected]
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Dear JW, I think 'A Premie' may have taken the opportunity of the forum archiving to leave the building. Sorry about that! Dear Katie: What makes you say that? I DO hope 'A Premie' comes back. He or she was so much fun! Yeah, I know. That's why I said 'sorry about that'! I also thought that 'a premie' and Jim would really hit it off. Anyway, glad he or she is back, for your sake.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 10:21:00 (EST)
Poster: John K.
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
'Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath.' Actually, what I am haunted by, are the years I wasted. I do not remember in the last 15 years ever being haunted by the memory of 'devotion's sweet taste'. That's a very poetic turn of phrase. You sound like a real romantic. but isn't my innner craving for understanding from my creator sort of the same thing? Contrary to what you might think about ex's, I still do have a very high regard for my creator. In fact I would say that my feelings for my creator have not changed in the last 25 years. I simply do not worship gmj anymore. It's really no big deal. One's life really doesn't change all that much, it just becomes slightly simpler.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 12:58:33 (EST)
Poster: Mr Ex
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
>'Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. >But I think to reach that understanding and to walk >away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath.' I have exactly the same problem. It’s exactly like having an unconditional love for the best friend I ever had, and then discovering that friend is not ‘perfect’, that he/she doesn’t deserve that kind of love, that I’ve lost my time, my money, my friends & countless things with him/her, that he/she was not caring for me at all, etc. I am very disappointed to say the least. The type of reaction someone has in that case depends on your personality, your past experiences, etc It’s obvious it can go to the point of killing yourself, being furious, any ‘bad’ & negative feeling you can have. Now what can I do? I’m trying to heal my wounds. I hope it won’t last forever. I’m the kind of person accepting a therapist to help me. I’ve discovered therapy extremely helpful. I am not the kind of person who’s going to stay alone and mourn forever. I found it very helpful to talk about it with friends, my family, other ex’s, this web-site (thanks to Jim, the webmaster and all participants), and also doing what I think I can to stop this charlatan. Some people very likely tried to attack him physically. I can’t. Maybe I would if I could. I don’t know. That’s why he has such a huge security. He’s a chicken. I feel I’ve been abused. What do you do against people abusing you? Ok I’ve been stupid enough to follow him without questioning anything for so long. I’m a bit naive. He’s obviously taking advantage of naive and gullible people like me. Those who stay away enough don’t experience the same painful problem I imagine. I’ve been very naive believing that any guru could an answer my problems. I wasn’t aware of my problems at that time. He obviously took advantage of my situation. Maybe he was young at that time. He grew older, and supposedly wiser. I now know that he was aware of this long time ago. He never moved, he never changed his policy, he keeps abusing people hiding his cult behind a so-called meditation teaching. Once you’re hooked in this love/devotion bound, you can’t get away unless something weird and painful happens. That’s why I consider him very obnoxious. I’ve been at public conferences recently. I’ve seen these people (not that many BTW) coming and being fascinated by his rhetoric and all the BS around it. It’s disgusting. >I do not remember in the last 15 years ever being haunted by the memory of >'devotion's sweet taste'. That's a very poetic turn of phrase. You sound like a real >romantic. but isn't my inner craving for understanding from my creator sort of the >same thing? Contrary to what you might think about ex's, I still do have a very high >regard for my creator. In fact I would say that my feelings for my creator have not >changed in the last 25 years. I simply do not worship gmj anymore. >It's really no big deal. One's life really doesn't change all that much, >it just becomes slightly simpler. It’s not that easy for me. I love life and that special feeling within me. It’s got nothing to do with Mr Rawat.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 13:50:06 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
I don't think devotion is an ultimate anything, and with M it was really just loving a fantasy. I was just responding to Miss Y's assertion that devotion is the ultimate experience and that we exs never had it or we wouldn't have left. I agree that whatever that 'devotion' was, many ex-premies had it big time. We just discovered, painfully in some cases, that it was a sham, but a sham that might have felt good nonetheless. We experienced the 'love' flowing from us to Maharaji, never flowing from Maharaji to us (although we convinced ourselves that was happening) and it got us to do lots of destructive things in our lives, like 'serving' this person we didn't even know. I think most premies woke up from that and eventually left. But there are a bunch of us who wasted precious years pursuing that fake 'love' and M took full advantage of it, and has never even acknowledged that it didn't work out too well for a whole lot of people. HE, on the other hand, made out very well. Maharaji ALWAYS saw to THAT, if you count residences, luxury cars, airplanes, servants, toe-kissing and indicators of that sort.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 19:34:16 (EST)
Poster: lg
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hi everyone. I had the joy of going to the Sierra for the weekend into the mountains above Lake Tahoe and cross-country skiing for hours on end. Lots of snow up there. It looks like California couldn't have another drought (my lawn is a virtual swamp) for at least another century, due to our good friend El Nino. Anyhow, while coursing through the deep snow, fantasizing that I was a handsome Finnish Olympic gold medalist, I thought more about what 'A Premie' was posting last week and the heated row we got into over why there even ARE ex-premies. 'A Premie,' refreshingly and unabashedly admitted that the whole point of Maharaji's trip is the experience of DEVOTION. Anyone who has been around this forum will note that this is in direct contradiction to ALL the other, much more official line, premies who have posted here, who contend that all that is going on with M is the experience of an internal beauty through meditation, and the associated expression of 'gratitude' for having been shown that. Appently M beats around the bush on that subject as well. No, 'A Premie,' who also said he or she was an instructor, came right out and said what we all know to be true anyway, despite the spinning and obfuscation of M and a lot of the premies. Several ex-premies pointed out that the 'devotion'was all a one-way street, going from the premies to M (all the way to the bank), but that nothing ever came back, and that since M didn't even know that most of the premies were even alive, and since 99.9% of the premies didn't know him at all, they were really devoted to a fantasy, an idol, to someone you could pin all your hopes and dreams on. In short, it was a big fake illusion, one that many of us wasted years of our lives, our resources, our relationships and to some extent our futures, pursuing, all at M's constant emphatic demands that we continue to do so, until some time in the late 80s when he stopped talking much about it. Anyhow, 'A Premie's' response to this was really quite astounding, although it was also illogical and nonsensical. He or she said that the problem with the ex-premies was that we never really experienced 'true' devotion and instead experienced a sort of 'fake' devotion, meaning that all those years of following M's agya, we had devotion to a fantasy, which is limited and ends, while he or she, and some unspecified number of other premies, experienced the 'true' devotion, which doesn't ever end, and hence they have continued along the shining path of devotion to M, the real, only unchanging force in the universe. We ex-premies, on the other hand have fallen into the confused hell of a non-devotional life, which, of course, we never really had in the first place. So, let me get this right. 'A Premie' contends that SOME premies, including he or she, received the real and true devotion from M and a bunch of the rest of us got shit. And since we know from hearing it endlessly from M over the years that devotion is a 'gift' and, like the song says we ask M to 'please, please teach' devotion, according to 'A Premie' M deigned to fuck some of us over big time, by just not giving us the true devotion, and instead gave us a fake devotion that we might mess around wasting time for a decade or so trying to pursue it. I guess this is a lila or something. And then, of course, on a few others M showered his grace and true devotion was given, and hence, the condescending, spiritually egotistical attitude of Mr or Ms 'A Premie' is justified because he or she is saved and we are not. Despite how this reflects on the spiritual teacher credentials of M, which is pretty negative, it appears also that the holier-than-thou feeling of the cult members is enhanced in this way as well. Comments anyone? 'A Premie?' Have you disappeared? Maharaji gave me the opportunity to learn about devotion; it's still up to me to take him up on it. He doesn't give some a stronger dose than others; that's ridiculous. One's devotion is only as real and strong as the one doing the learning. It is a given that some will learn more quickly than others, and some not at all - this would be the same with any subject. I think it is dependant on an individual's thirst and willingness to be shown, and to be able to accept what they see. That's sometimes very difficult to do. For those who have stuck with it, nothing can top the experience of devotion. It is a bridge to joy that has no bounds. The gifts that come with devotion are priceless because they are endless. AND, it is endless because the devotee's love and commitment to know it more has no end. Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath. Could 'A premie' or someone reply? What is this experience of devotion anyway. From the posts I read, Devotion is some sort of trivia! And M never made it clear either, except doing Satsang, Service, and Meditation, live in the ashram, and dedicate your life to M. In my community at the time (1979-87) the inner experience was more the focus, and Devotion was not talked about very much. Have I missed something? If it's a gift, why some people were more previledged than others? We are not loved equally? Or is it what I suspect 'thin air'?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 19:58:09 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email: [email protected]
To: lg
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
/i>Could 'A premie' or someone reply? What is this experience of devotion anyway. From the posts I read, Devotion is some sort of trivia! And M never made it clear either, except doing Satsang, Service, and Meditation, live in the ashram, and dedicate your life to M. In my community at the time (1979-87) the inner experience was more the focus, and Devotion was not talked about very much. Have I missed something? If it's a gift, why some people were more previledged than others? We are not loved equally? Or is it what I suspect 'thin air'? If I remember correctly, 'devotion' and the related commaned to 'surrender' were the primary focus of what M talked about [and then, of course that's what the initiators and premies all talked about] during the period of approximately 1977 until about 1981 or so. That satsang I quoted earlier from Christmas 1979, you will note, does not talk about anything besides devotion. That is the goal, that is the ultimate experience, not meditation, not an internal peace, or anything like that. And the goal of practicing knowledge was not spiritual realization either, it was the opportunity to surrender to what M told you to do, which supposedly increased this mythical experience of devotion. The same for the ashram, the same for giving him money, doing service, etc. Hence, it was said that what M offered was a 'path of devotion.' Another way of saying it is that Maharaji heads a devotional, or personality, cult. Where the relationship to HIM is much more important than the spiritual practice. And I agree. Devotion was never defined by Maharaji. I think it is a combination of faith in M, much like one has faith in Jesus or 'god,' and 'love' for M, which, as several people have stated, since I never knew M personally, my 'love' for him was really an illusion, all going one way, reinforced by the 'group high' I got from programs. It's really easy to confuse that feeling with 'love.' But you're right it's really 'trivia.' It isn't real, but it can FEEL very real when you think you are experiencing it. Prior to about 1977, M's focus was more on knowledge and the practice of satsang, service and meditation, and his four commandments. After 1977, his focus was devotion and surrender. That's when hundreds, maybe thousands, of premies moved into the ashrams. The drumbeat to total dedication was rampant in the cult. But at the same time, the supply of aspirants nearly dried up. Propogation was almost nil, because the cult looked like what it was, a society of people into worshipping a fat little guy from India, who was fabulously wealthy, while his premies lived in poverty, and who dressed up in costumes and danced around while the premies went nuts, and they lined up by the thousands to kiss his feet. That is a scene unattractive to all but a very small handful of people, and many of those were pretty nuts. Especially after the 70s counter-culture era ended. So, at some point after that, maybe in the mid-80s or so, from what I understand, M stopped talking about that stuff so much. He toned it all down, but it appears that of late the devotion thing is coming back, with dancing, darshan and devotional love songs as part of the package. As the the 'gift' aspect of devotion, that's what I always thought too. But premies need some way to explain ex-premies, lest they might experience doubt themselves. So, Miss Y has come up with the novel theory that ex-premies just didn't ever 'get' devotion, either because M decided to be mean and not give it to them, or because, more likely, just weren't worthy of it. Nice theory, huh?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 17, 1998 at 20:40:26 (EST)
Poster: lg
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
/i>Could 'A premie' or someone reply? What is this experience of devotion anyway. From the posts I read, Devotion is some sort of trivia! And M never made it clear either, except doing Satsang, Service, and Meditation, live in the ashram, and dedicate your life to M. In my community at the time (1979-87) the inner experience was more the focus, and Devotion was not talked about very much. Have I missed something? If it's a gift, why some people were more previledged than others? We are not loved equally? Or is it what I suspect 'thin air'? If I remember correctly, 'devotion' and the related commaned to 'surrender' were the primary focus of what M talked about [and then, of course that's what the initiators and premies all talked about] during the period of approximately 1977 until about 1981 or so. That satsang I quoted earlier from Christmas 1979, you will note, does not talk about anything besides devotion. That is the goal, that is the ultimate experience, not meditation, not an internal peace, or anything like that. And the goal of practicing knowledge was not spiritual realization either, it was the opportunity to surrender to what M told you to do, which supposedly increased this mythical experience of devotion. The same for the ashram, the same for giving him money, doing service, etc. Hence, it was said that what M offered was a 'path of devotion.' Another way of saying it is that Maharaji heads a devotional, or personality, cult. Where the relationship to HIM is much more important than the spiritual practice. And I agree. Devotion was never defined by Maharaji. I think it is a combination of faith in M, much like one has faith in Jesus or 'god,' and 'love' for M, which, as several people have stated, since I never knew M personally, my 'love' for him was really an illusion, all going one way, reinforced by the 'group high' I got from programs. It's really easy to confuse that feeling with 'love.' But you're right it's really 'trivia.' It isn't real, but it can FEEL very real when you think you are experiencing it. Prior to about 1977, M's focus was more on knowledge and the practice of satsang, service and meditation, and his four commandments. After 1977, his focus was devotion and surrender. That's when hundreds, maybe thousands, of premies moved into the ashrams. The drumbeat to total dedication was rampant in the cult. But at the same time, the supply of aspirants nearly dried up. Propogation was almost nil, because the cult looked like what it was, a society of people into worshipping a fat little guy from India, who was fabulously wealthy, while his premies lived in poverty, and who dressed up in costumes and danced around while the premies went nuts, and they lined up by the thousands to kiss his feet. That is a scene unattractive to all but a very small handful of people, and many of those were pretty nuts. Especially after the 70s counter-culture era ended. So, at some point after that, maybe in the mid-80s or so, from what I understand, M stopped talking about that stuff so much. He toned it all down, but it appears that of late the devotion thing is coming back, with dancing, darshan and devotional love songs as part of the package. As the the 'gift' aspect of devotion, that's what I always thought too. But premies need some way to explain ex-premies, lest they might experience doubt themselves. So, Miss Y has come up with the novel theory that ex-premies just didn't ever 'get' devotion, either because M decided to be mean and not give it to them, or because, more likely, just weren't worthy of it. Nice theory, huh? Thank you JW for replying. I agree 100% in what you're saying, and maybe M is in need of $ these days to bring back the devotion trip again! He plays the game of power. I'm glad to be out of it all! I'l never give my power away again. M was up there and I was down there. No more of that non-sence. I've grown out of that.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 12:31:34 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: JW to A Premie and
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
My Dear Brother in His Ultimate Lila! When you get right down to brass tacks, everything is a gift especially such a divine feeling as 'devotion' (after all, how could it be manufactured by our puny brains?) and so it's not our fault/or our decision that we became x's, it's all divine lila. Nothing is anyone's fault, nothing that anyone does is actually being done by that anyone, it's all 'the grace'. Welcome to the world and logic of Guru Maharaj Ji. Where nobody exists but to be played with by the guru. This is the ultimate realization. Everything is guru's grace. We are nothing but his puppets, here only to worship his divine lotus feet. All we can do at this point is revel in the realization that we have been spared having to devote this particular lifetime to chasing his lotus feet. Well, according to Miss Y, A Premie, what you are saying is not longer the case in the Maharaji cult. Rather, now it appears that some people are more 'real' have more 'strength' and have more 'thirst' and hence are better 'learners' of devotion, which is the ultimate prize. You see, all us exs, which amount to about 90% of the people who have received K, have learning deficiencies when it come to M and devotion. We just never got it, or we should have hung around another 20 years, might STILL not have gotten it, but then maybe we will. Hell, you could spend your whole life contributing to new expensive planes and residences for the lord and kissing his feet at every opportunity and never really get it. And, I guess his grace as nothing to do with it, it all has to do with your ability to learn.. So, we never really left anything. We never had the experience at all, and the omnisicent A Premie knows this, due to her advanced sprititual development Ahh stop pouting JW. You didn't get it it - that's appearent to both of us. The thing you just CANNOT accept is that there may be something in this for people that is real. If you did accept that fact your whole trip would be blown. Some kinda 'open mind' you got there big guy!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 12:39:41 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
When A Premie (not 'THE Premie'?) said: >Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think >to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is >to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath. I wanted to be the first to state the obvious -- sounds like just another addiction. Again, I'm reminded of Charlotte Rampling and Dirk Bogarde in 'The Night Porter.' Imagine, dear A, that you've bent your mind out of shape for twenty-five years thinking Santa Claus is coming to town. Songs, movies and festivals. Inner prayers. Devotional exercises. Smiles and tears, etc. Don't you think you'd burn a few emotional patterns in there somewhere? Now, come on, A, it's POSSIBLE, isn't it? Come on, I'm only talking POSSIBLE. Can you give me that? That maybe your devotion's just a learned trait? No? Well then let me ask you this -- what aspects of your world view do you think could possibly be incorrect? Is there anything? No? Well then let me try this -- if you walked in on Maharaji having sex with his mistress while Marolyn was down the hill on the beach, would your devotion be as sweet, not so sweet or sweeter still? Can't answer that? Don't know? Don't want to talk about it? Alright... forget I even asked. Jim said: >>-- if you walked in on Maharaji having sex with his mistress while Marolyn was down the hill on the beach, would your devotion be as sweet, not so sweet or sweeter still? Can't answer that? Don't know? Don't want to talk about it?>> Jim What a stupid statement! About as dumb as me asking you, 'If you found someone poking you while bending over and picking up the soap, would you be able to admit you are gay?'. Well Jim, have you ever considered being with another man? Don't know? Don't want to talk about it? Hiding something? And you say you're open-minded.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 12:56:39 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Maharaji gave me the opportunity to learn about devotion; it's still up to me to take him up on it. He doesn't give some a stronger dose than others; that's ridiculous. One's devotion is only as real and strong as the one doing the learning. It is a given that some will learn more quickly than others, and some not at all - this would be the same with any subject. I think it is dependant on an individual's thirst and willingness to be shown, and to be able to accept what they see. That's sometimes very difficult to do. For those who have stuck with it, nothing can top the experience of devotion. It is a bridge to joy that has no bounds. The gifts that come with devotion are priceless because they are endless. AND, it is endless because the devotee's love and commitment to know it more has no end. Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath. Well, I can't argue with your beliefs, no matter how they completely contradict most of what Maharaji has said for the last 25 years, ESPECIALLY to people who are considering getting involved with him. I mean besides the fact that DEVOTION is the main trip here and that facrt is deceitfully withheld for new people, as is things like darshan. How many people would get involved if it was explained to them that you could renounce your life for 10 years, do exactly what M instructed and STILL not have the experience he promises? Especially, when he states over and over how simple, easy and beautiful it is and that absolutely everyone can and will experience it, upon receipt of knowledge. But really, I suspect that what you say is a revisionist attempt to justify a failure to objectively look at those for beliefs for years. I know it's hard; it's much easier just to rationalize forever. Are you with a straight face really saying that one can come to the perfect master, receive knowledge, give him absolutely everything, practice knowledge as instructed for 10 years, and never have an experience of what you claim is the essence of what M is giving? Especially when it has been the ideology of the Maharaji cult for years, as explained by M himself, that HE and only HE who is in control of who experiences what? Do you tell people THAT at an introductory program? And now you have introduced yet another concept. Strength. 'One's devotion is only as real and as strong as the one doing the learning.' You are an egotistical piece of cake, aren't you? Are you David Smith? So, now you change the story and say that ex-premies either weren't 'real' or weren't 'strong' and therefore didn't have real or strong devotion, whatever that means. Sounds like the same thing you were saying before about 'real' and 'fake' devotion. Look, premie you can't have it both ways, either M is a shitty master and loses most of his devotees, despite his grace, and lies to people about the availability of the experience, or you didn't and haven't experienced 'devotion' any different that I did, and are just retaining the fantasy for a longer period that I did. Somehow I believe the latter is true. And I think the presence or lack of 'thirst' or 'willingness to be shown' in anyone can't be judged by you and, again, I think those judgements on your part are nothing more that grasping rationalizations to explain away the fact that your guru is a big fat charlatan and fucked up a lot of people's lives and that many people have realized that fact, despite experiencing for years the supposed 'devotion' M offers. But moreover, all this crap you say is NOT said by M. He just says it's a meditation experience. I think it's just you who has embellised it for your own convenience. JW You really DO have a major bug up your ass. Are you so caught up in your personal explanations about what happened to YOU, that you can't be open AT ALL to another person's perspective? I said what I said based on what I've seen within myself for a number of years. And they have been years of close evaluation of personal motives and introspection. You bloody-well missed the point of Maharaji's message Joe. THAT IS A FACT BEYOND DISPUTE BY EITHER OF US. By me offering reasons for why and how you might have missed it is not my 'spiritual-ego' trying to get one up on you. But it seems to certainly rub your ego the wrong way. Take a look at it Joe: Why is that? And you can poo-poo anyone who has found a lasting enjoyment with Knowledge ALL YOU WANT. The enjoyment is still real. It is magnificent. And anyone who has stuck with it would not trade it for anything. Sorry Charlie...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 14:21:37 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Ahh stop pouting JW. You didn't get it it - that's appearent to both of us. The thing you just CANNOT accept is that there may be something in this for people that is real. If you did accept that fact your whole trip would be blown. Some kinda 'open mind' you got there big guy! So Dan, I'll ignore the 'pouting' comment since you ignore the spiritual condescension comment. But you got it wrong, Dan. I have never said that there might not be something real for people. So, clearly that admission has nothing to do with my 'trip.' So that's kind of an irrelevent statement, dear Dan. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to and I have no idea what your experience is and never tried to comment on that. No, my comments were in response to yours, that ex-premies were all inadequate learners of devotion, unlike you in your advanced state of learning and awareness. You, on other hand, just ignore what doesn't fit with you cult programming. That people went through the cult, and saw it for what it was for them. A cult. I don't know if you are having a wonderful time following the fat guy or not. That's your trip, not mine. I'm just saying there are a whole lot of people who tried following the fat guy and didn't like it, and have an opposing view to yours of who or what he is. Open mindedness goes both ways, Dan. I was never so close-minded than I was when I was a premie.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 14:30:49 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Played this game too many times with premies (and other religious zealots) to not see how one-sided it is. A premie scoffs at JW: '[T]here may be something in this for people that is real. If you did accept that fact your whole trip would be blown. Some kinda 'open mind' you got there big guy!' (Emphasis mine) Notice how he shifts from asking JW to stay open to the POSSIBILTY M's not a fraud, but then upgrades that proposition into simple FACT? Well, that's particularly stupid. But, even if he didn't do that, but instead only harped on the possibility M was legit, is that very open-minded? I've seen a lot of ex's toss that possibility around about as fairly as imaginable. But where are the open-minded premies willing to consider the alternative?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 14:52:35 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
/i>JW You really DO have a major bug up your ass. Are you so caught up in your personal explanations about what happened to YOU, that you can't be open AT ALL to another person's perspective? I said what I said based on what I've seen within myself for a number of years. And they have been years of close evaluation of personal motives and introspection. You bloody-well missed the point of Maharaji's message Joe. THAT IS A FACT BEYOND DISPUTE BY EITHER OF US. By me offering reasons for why and how you might have missed it is not my 'spiritual-ego' trying to get one up on you. But it seems to certainly rub your ego the wrong way. Take a look at it Joe: Why is that? And you can poo-poo anyone who has found a lasting enjoyment with Knowledge ALL YOU WANT. The enjoyment is still real. It is magnificent. And anyone who has stuck with it would not trade it for anything. Sorry Charlie... Who did you say had the 'bug' up the ass? Sounds bad, especially depending on the type of bug. Well, again, Dan, your own experience is your own experience. I can't argue with it and I still haven't. But I will argue with your characterization of MY experience and MY understanding. You just don't have any basis on which to make that judgment. You might do it anyway, but I think it takes a pretty big spritual ego to do so. That was my point. As I said, I will accept your experience at face value. But if you recall this whole discussion began because YOU wouldn't accept MY experience or the experience of other ex-premies at face value. If someone has a good time following M that's fine with me. And if one wants to talk about that good time, that's fine too. I really couldn't care less what you do with your life. I just think the other side of the story should be allowed as well. It's just free speech, Dan. But I do object to your statement that I 'missed the point' because you don't know me and aren't in any position to judge that. You still might, but believe me, I will at least object. As far as 'sticking with it' I guess the question is for how long one has to do that....Bill Patterson, Barbara Kolodney, Jim Hession, Michael Donner, Gary Ockenden, Bob Mishler....just to name a few. I guess they just 'didn't get it' either because they all rejected Maharaji? Is that what you are saying? And each of us is different, Dan. In my view, I traded being a premie for getting my life back and that seemed like a really good deal and still does. But, hey, that's just me, and I have a learning deficiency, so I can hardly be held responsible. And my name's not Charlie, it's Joe, and I have used my initials consistently when posting on this site, unlike some others.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 20:58:48 (EST)
Poster: A premie - not Dan
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Ahh stop pouting JW. You didn't get it it - that's appearent to both of us. The thing you just CANNOT accept is that there may be something in this for people that is real. If you did accept that fact your whole trip would be blown. Some kinda 'open mind' you got there big guy! So Dan, I'll ignore the 'pouting' comment since you ignore the spiritual condescension comment. But you got it wrong, Dan. I have never said that there might not be something real for people. So, clearly that admission has nothing to do with my 'trip.' So that's kind of an irrelevent statement, dear Dan. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to and I have no idea what your experience is and never tried to comment on that. No, my comments were in response to yours, that ex-premies were all inadequate learners of devotion, unlike you in your advanced state of learning and awareness. You, on other hand, just ignore what doesn't fit with you cult programming. That people went through the cult, and saw it for what it was for them. A cult. I don't know if you are having a wonderful time following the fat guy or not. That's your trip, not mine. I'm just saying there are a whole lot of people who tried following the fat guy and didn't like it, and have an opposing view to yours of who or what he is. Open mindedness goes both ways, Dan. I was never so close-minded than I was when I was a premie. Joe You tried it and didn't like it. I tried it and liked it. You not liking it doesn't make it fake - just means you didn't like it. THAT is the point Joe. You condescend to non-ex's by just implying such broad-brushed logic, so please stop calling the kettle black. Now, me saying you didn't get it has nothing to do with my 'advanced state of learning and awareness'. I AM saying that you didn't understand Maharji's message. Can you ever admit it when you don't understand something? Or is that too much for your ego to bear? Or are you truly so perfect given YOUR 'advanced state of learning and awareness' that you are beyond a misunderstanding?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 21:11:23 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Played this game too many times with premies (and other religious zealots) to not see how one-sided it is. A premie scoffs at JW: '[T]here may be something in this for people that is real. If you did accept that fact your whole trip would be blown. Some kinda 'open mind' you got there big guy!' (Emphasis mine) Notice how he shifts from asking JW to stay open to the POSSIBILTY M's not a fraud, but then upgrades that proposition into simple FACT? Well, that's particularly stupid. But, even if he didn't do that, but instead only harped on the possibility M was legit, is that very open-minded? I've seen a lot of ex's toss that possibility around about as fairly as imaginable. But where are the open-minded premies willing to consider the alternative? Very pedantic and technical argument. It is a fact for many; many who have stayed open to the possibility it isn't real but have come out of the analysis still holding it to be true. As I said to someone last week, view the whole thing as a skeptical outsider if you want but counterbalance that view with the joy it brings you (i.e., don't give up the joy to be skeptical). Only then can you see both sides, and only then can you truely say you are open-minded. If you have no joy in your heart to counterbalance with, then you missed it. Because there IS incredible joy! And you missing it doesn't make the joy of others fake. At least have enough temperance to concede that.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 21:36:32 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: A premie - not Dan
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hey premie, I'm starting to think you must be right. Joe never DID understand Maharaji's message. I don't know why he won't admit it. Espeically when he's so big on accountability and everything. Hypocrite or what? It would all be too much to ever figure out but, you know, I think you've done it. That is, I think you've hit the nail square on -- it's Joe's ego! Why didn't I think of that? Sometimes it takes a fresh eye to see through all the bullshit, doesn't it? Joe, it's time for you to come clean here. You simply did not get Maharaji's message as A here has proven. I don't see any point quibbling, he's got you fair and square. I'm assuming, of course, that he's got an argument to back up that assertion. You do, A, don't you? Well you must. No one, not even a premie, would be so ridiculous as to argue without argument. So, A, what is it? What's your argument?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 21:40:40 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
/i>JW You really DO have a major bug up your ass. Are you so caught up in your personal explanations about what happened to YOU, that you can't be open AT ALL to another person's perspective? I said what I said based on what I've seen within myself for a number of years. And they have been years of close evaluation of personal motives and introspection. You bloody-well missed the point of Maharaji's message Joe. THAT IS A FACT BEYOND DISPUTE BY EITHER OF US. By me offering reasons for why and how you might have missed it is not my 'spiritual-ego' trying to get one up on you. But it seems to certainly rub your ego the wrong way. Take a look at it Joe: Why is that? And you can poo-poo anyone who has found a lasting enjoyment with Knowledge ALL YOU WANT. The enjoyment is still real. It is magnificent. And anyone who has stuck with it would not trade it for anything. Sorry Charlie... Who did you say had the 'bug' up the ass? Sounds bad, especially depending on the type of bug. Well, again, Dan, your own experience is your own experience. I can't argue with it and I still haven't. But I will argue with your characterization of MY experience and MY understanding. You just don't have any basis on which to make that judgment. You might do it anyway, but I think it takes a pretty big spritual ego to do so. That was my point. As I said, I will accept your experience at face value. But if you recall this whole discussion began because YOU wouldn't accept MY experience or the experience of other ex-premies at face value. If someone has a good time following M that's fine with me. And if one wants to talk about that good time, that's fine too. I really couldn't care less what you do with your life. I just think the other side of the story should be allowed as well. It's just free speech, Dan. But I do object to your statement that I 'missed the point' because you don't know me and aren't in any position to judge that. You still might, but believe me, I will at least object. As far as 'sticking with it' I guess the question is for how long one has to do that....Bill Patterson, Barbara Kolodney, Jim Hession, Michael Donner, Gary Ockenden, Bob Mishler....just to name a few. I guess they just 'didn't get it' either because they all rejected Maharaji? Is that what you are saying? And each of us is different, Dan. In my view, I traded being a premie for getting my life back and that seemed like a really good deal and still does. But, hey, that's just me, and I have a learning deficiency, so I can hardly be held responsible. And my name's not Charlie, it's Joe, and I have used my initials consistently when posting on this site, unlike some others. OK you claim to accept my experience, but that's a crock. By you saying Maharaji is fake just because it didn't work for you, you are - not only exercising a powerful dose of ego - but you are also denying the relevance of MY experience. You condescend to imply I'm not capable of seeing the 'big charade' when you, being the wise and honest knower of self can. So stop taking a hissey-fit when the table is turned Charlie. And what does Bill Paterson, Barbara Kolodney, et al have to do with the truth. Forgive me but I'll use an over-used and condescending counter-argument here: If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow just because you thought they were in the know? A person's truth can only be known by the person who sees it. So unfortunately the subjective nature of it means there's no way of knowing for sure what the anther person's truth is based on. So are you saying theirs was truer than mine just because they were 'big names' and they came in multiples? Very shallow rationale Joe.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 21:59:54 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hey premie, Been here before. What if you're simply wrong in interpreting your own 'experience.' (I put the word in quotes because it has a particular meaning for premies and Maharaji, doesn't it? Although we all know that, even in meditation, the mind thinks, thinks, thinks, premies pretend that it stops and enters a purer, safer realm of ... well, can you even call it awareness? After all, 'awareness', I'm sure, includes cognition.) Anyway, what if you're just worked up in your own little fantasy world? Tell me something straight -- do you pray to Maharaji? Do you think he's 'in there' somewhere? That's a very straighforward question. What's the answer?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 1998 at 22:00:44 (EST)
Poster: Diver Dan
Email: [email protected]
To: A premie - not Dan
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Ahh stop pouting JW. You didn't get it it - that's appearent to both of us. The thing you just CANNOT accept is that there may be something in this for people that is real. If you did accept that fact your whole trip would be blown. Some kinda 'open mind' you got there big guy! So Dan, I'll ignore the 'pouting' comment since you ignore the spiritual condescension comment. But you got it wrong, Dan. I have never said that there might not be something real for people. So, clearly that admission has nothing to do with my 'trip.' So that's kind of an irrelevent statement, dear Dan. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to and I have no idea what your experience is and never tried to comment on that. No, my comments were in response to yours, that ex-premies were all inadequate learners of devotion, unlike you in your advanced state of learning and awareness. You, on other hand, just ignore what doesn't fit with you cult programming. That people went through the cult, and saw it for what it was for them. A cult. I don't know if you are having a wonderful time following the fat guy or not. That's your trip, not mine. I'm just saying there are a whole lot of people who tried following the fat guy and didn't like it, and have an opposing view to yours of who or what he is. Open mindedness goes both ways, Dan. I was never so close-minded than I was when I was a premie. Joe You tried it and didn't like it. I tried it and liked it. You not liking it doesn't make it fake - just means you didn't like it. THAT is the point Joe. You condescend to non-ex's by just implying such broad-brushed logic, so please stop calling the kettle black. Now, me saying you didn't get it has nothing to do with my 'advanced state of learning and awareness'. I AM saying that you didn't understand Maharji's message. Can you ever admit it when you don't understand something? Or is that too much for your ego to bear? Or are you truly so perfect given YOUR 'advanced state of learning and awareness' that you are beyond a misunderstanding? I've Iseem to have missed something ,I just got home and I see me carrying on a conversation that 'I'am not participating in I can only assume there is more than one Dan or someone has misunderstood (probably me), I only post as Diver Dan or on occasion when feeling frisky as the doubious Miss'Y'.....oopps..............
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 00:45:39 (EST)
Poster: JW To Not Dan and
Email: [email protected]
To: A premie - not Dan
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
You tried it and didn't like it. I tried it and liked it. You not liking it doesn't make it fake - just means you didn't like it. THAT is the point Joe. You condescend to non-ex's by just implying such broad-brushed logic, so please stop calling the kettle black. Now, me saying you didn't get it has nothing to do with my 'advanced state of learning and awareness'. I AM saying that you didn't understand Maharji's message. Can you ever admit it when you don't understand something? Or is that too much for your ego to bear? Or are you truly so perfect given YOUR 'advanced state of learning and awareness' that you are beyond a misunderstanding? Deat Not: Let me say this one more time in case you don't understand English too well. You are not in any position to say what I did or did not understand. How can you? You are not me and likely have never ever met me. I maintain that if you make that statement I can't accept it, and it reflects a high degree of spiritual arrogance or at least 'premie arrogance' [not that I haven't seen that before]. It implies some kind of omniscience that I don't believe you have. I don't know if you believe you have it or not. But I don't think you have that advanced spiritual development. I mean, hell, I would doubt it, since your own Guru says you're too stupid and confused to even give satsang anymore. I believe, to the contrary, that I understood M's simple message quite clearly, as did many other exs. And my 'trying it' and finding it fake DOES make it fake for me. Again, I have never said it's fake for YOU, because I don't know, I'm not able to get inside your head, but you seem to think you can get inside of mine and make judgments and then you get upset because I call you on it. That's pretty cheeky. I am not beyond misunderstanding, [I still don't understand what people see about Las Vegas, Celine Deone, or any movie with Steven Segal in it], but then you're not beyond misunderstanding either, or have advanced beyond that as well? And you are the one judging someone else's 'understanding,' not me. Talk about your own experience all you like. You're entitled to that, just don't tell me what mine is. Because, my dear, you don't know. If you are willing to say this M trip works for some people and not others, without the judgments about the character or understanding of those people, which you dont' know anyway, I CAN accept THAT.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 13:31:59 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email: [email protected]
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
OK you claim to accept my experience, but that's a crock. By you saying Maharaji is fake just because it didn't work for you, you are - not only exercising a powerful dose of ego - but you are also denying the relevance of MY experience. You condescend to imply I'm not capable of seeing the 'big charade' when you, being the wise and honest knower of self can. So stop taking a hissey-fit when the table is turned Charlie. And what does Bill Paterson, Barbara Kolodney, et al have to do with the truth. Forgive me but I'll use an over-used and condescending counter-argument here: If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow just because you thought they were in the know? A person's truth can only be known by the person who sees it. So unfortunately the subjective nature of it means there's no way of knowing for sure what the anther person's truth is based on. So are you saying theirs was truer than mine just because they were 'big names' and they came in multiples? Very shallow rationale Joe. I'm not quite sure whom I am responding to here, 'Dan', 'not-Dan,' 'Miss Y', and/or 'A Premie,' well, whomever it is, I think you're just a little too defensive. Lighten up. I think M is a fake. You say he's not. Fine, we can discuss why we each feel the way we do. But YOU said I only think M is a fake because I 'misunderstood' his message. But there is no way for you to know that. That was my point. I think it is just as reasonable to say I understood quite well and rejected him anyway. Maybe not to YOU, but objectively, I mean. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to and I am entitled to disagree. Just admit I'm entitled to my belief as well. You, of course, can disagree. But it's intellectually dishonest to assert that you know that my belief is based on some deficiency in me, because you can't know that. And my belief that M is a fake does not 'deny the relevence' of your experience (whatever that means), unless you want it to. My beliefs are my beliefs and you can disagree all you want. But let me ask you this: If you are so happy and fulfilled and sure about YOUR belief, why do you even CARE what I think? Why does it matter to you? You don't need my approval, after all. I came to the conclusion that M is a fake based on my own experience, not on yours. And I think you are likely an adult and can make your own decisions as to what is right for you. But, you see, I think just the EXISTENCE of people like me is offensive to you and it appears you see my existence as some kind of attack on your belief system. But that is completely up to you. And again, why do you care if you are supposedly so fulfilled and sure that it's all true? Perhaps thou dost protest too much? Actually, your last paragraph I agree with for the most part -- at least as to the subjectivity of experience. I listed those names because they were well known and I was objecting to your broad-brush statement, essentially that ALL ex-premies, not only me, just 'didn't get it.' They are just examples of others that you put that label on and, as you know, I don't think you have any right to do that, nor any basis to do it either. Regards, Joe
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 13:47:08 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email: [email protected]
To: Jim
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hey premie, I'm starting to think you must be right. Joe never DID understand Maharaji's message. I don't know why he won't admit it. Espeically when he's so big on accountability and everything. Hypocrite or what? It would all be too much to ever figure out but, you know, I think you've done it. That is, I think you've hit the nail square on -- it's Joe's ego! Why didn't I think of that? Sometimes it takes a fresh eye to see through all the bullshit, doesn't it? Joe, it's time for you to come clean here. You simply did not get Maharaji's message as A here has proven. I don't see any point quibbling, he's got you fair and square. I'm assuming, of course, that he's got an argument to back up that assertion. You do, A, don't you? Well you must. No one, not even a premie, would be so ridiculous as to argue without argument. So, A, what is it? What's your argument? Well, Jim, if that is true, if the student didn't learn what was being taught, communicated, drummed in, by 'the master,' especially when the student did his homework dilligently, and followed the course outline for a good 10 years, what does that say about the quality and ability of the teacher/master? Especially when you consider further that 90% of his students flunk? Most teachers would be fired if that was their track record.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 13:57:09 (EST)
Poster: JW
Email:
To: Diver Dan
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Ahh stop pouting JW. You didn't get it it - that's appearent to both of us. The thing you just CANNOT accept is that there may be something in this for people that is real. If you did accept that fact your whole trip would be blown. Some kinda 'open mind' you got there big guy! So Dan, I'll ignore the 'pouting' comment since you ignore the spiritual condescension comment. But you got it wrong, Dan. I have never said that there might not be something real for people. So, clearly that admission has nothing to do with my 'trip.' So that's kind of an irrelevent statement, dear Dan. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to and I have no idea what your experience is and never tried to comment on that. No, my comments were in response to yours, that ex-premies were all inadequate learners of devotion, unlike you in your advanced state of learning and awareness. You, on other hand, just ignore what doesn't fit with you cult programming. That people went through the cult, and saw it for what it was for them. A cult. I don't know if you are having a wonderful time following the fat guy or not. That's your trip, not mine. I'm just saying there are a whole lot of people who tried following the fat guy and didn't like it, and have an opposing view to yours of who or what he is. Open mindedness goes both ways, Dan. I was never so close-minded than I was when I was a premie. Joe You tried it and didn't like it. I tried it and liked it. You not liking it doesn't make it fake - just means you didn't like it. THAT is the point Joe. You condescend to non-ex's by just implying such broad-brushed logic, so please stop calling the kettle black. Now, me saying you didn't get it has nothing to do with my 'advanced state of learning and awareness'. I AM saying that you didn't understand Maharji's message. Can you ever admit it when you don't understand something? Or is that too much for your ego to bear? Or are you truly so perfect given YOUR 'advanced state of learning and awareness' that you are beyond a misunderstanding? I've Iseem to have missed something ,I just got home and I see me carrying on a conversation that 'I'am not participating in I can only assume there is more than one Dan or someone has misunderstood (probably me), I only post as Diver Dan or on occasion when feeling frisky as the doubious Miss'Y'.....oopps.............. Thanks for clearing that up Dan. I was confused about who was who as well.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 16:16:59 (EST)
Poster: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: [email protected]
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
JW wrote: 'Well, Jim, if that is true, if the student didn't learn what was being taught, communicated, drummed in, by 'the master,' especially when the student did his homework dilligently, and followed the course outline for a good 10 years, what does that say about the quality and ability of the teacher/master? Especially when you consider further that 90% of his students flunk? Most teachers would be fired if that was their track record.' ...Gee, Joe, maybe M's got tenure! Actually, 90% of his students DID fire him by leaving DLM, K, and M and moving on to learn and experience the real world! Regards, Michael
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 20:03:44 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: JW To Not Dan and
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
You tried it and didn't like it. I tried it and liked it. You not liking it doesn't make it fake - just means you didn't like it. THAT is the point Joe. You condescend to non-ex's by just implying such broad-brushed logic, so please stop calling the kettle black. Now, me saying you didn't get it has nothing to do with my 'advanced state of learning and awareness'. I AM saying that you didn't understand Maharji's message. Can you ever admit it when you don't understand something? Or is that too much for your ego to bear? Or are you truly so perfect given YOUR 'advanced state of learning and awareness' that you are beyond a misunderstanding? Deat Not: Let me say this one more time in case you don't understand English too well. You are not in any position to say what I did or did not understand. How can you? You are not me and likely have never ever met me. I maintain that if you make that statement I can't accept it, and it reflects a high degree of spiritual arrogance or at least 'premie arrogance' [not that I haven't seen that before]. It implies some kind of omniscience that I don't believe you have. I don't know if you believe you have it or not. But I don't think you have that advanced spiritual development. I mean, hell, I would doubt it, since your own Guru says you're too stupid and confused to even give satsang anymore. I believe, to the contrary, that I understood M's simple message quite clearly, as did many other exs. And my 'trying it' and finding it fake DOES make it fake for me. Again, I have never said it's fake for YOU, because I don't know, I'm not able to get inside your head, but you seem to think you can get inside of mine and make judgments and then you get upset because I call you on it. That's pretty cheeky. I am not beyond misunderstanding, [I still don't understand what people see about Las Vegas, Celine Deone, or any movie with Steven Segal in it], but then you're not beyond misunderstanding either, or have advanced beyond that as well? And you are the one judging someone else's 'understanding,' not me. Talk about your own experience all you like. You're entitled to that, just don't tell me what mine is. Because, my dear, you don't know. If you are willing to say this M trip works for some people and not others, without the judgments about the character or understanding of those people, which you dont' know anyway, I CAN accept THAT. First Joe, there's no need to be condescending with your reference to my understanding of the English language. I believe I am in a position to say some things about your involvement with Knowledge. I say that based on my own personal understanding of the subject matter. I liken it to two people trying to find their way to a destination based upon common directions given. One person finds it, the other doesn't. Can the person who didn't find it then say, in their arrogance, that the destination doesn't exist? And isn't their closed-mindedness highlighted when the one who found it tries to tell the other that the destination is real, but they want no part of hearing it? Now if they decide they really don't want to go to the destination and give up the journey, that's different. Could that be you Joe? Maharaji's Knowledge has worked for many rational, sensitive, and thinking people. You imply that the numbers who don't practice it have some bearing on it's validity. (BTW where do you get the 90% figure - is it based on anything other than supposition?) If you are the kind that follows the crowd then you may be swayed by numbers. If you're a little more singular in determining the direction in your life, hten who has come and gone before you has no bearing. Just an aside Joe: Do you have a self-esteem problem? You are very defensive about others judging your character. Just thought I'd ask.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 20:12:06 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
OK you claim to accept my experience, but that's a crock. By you saying Maharaji is fake just because it didn't work for you, you are - not only exercising a powerful dose of ego - but you are also denying the relevance of MY experience. You condescend to imply I'm not capable of seeing the 'big charade' when you, being the wise and honest knower of self can. So stop taking a hissey-fit when the table is turned Charlie. And what does Bill Paterson, Barbara Kolodney, et al have to do with the truth. Forgive me but I'll use an over-used and condescending counter-argument here: If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow just because you thought they were in the know? A person's truth can only be known by the person who sees it. So unfortunately the subjective nature of it means there's no way of knowing for sure what the anther person's truth is based on. So are you saying theirs was truer than mine just because they were 'big names' and they came in multiples? Very shallow rationale Joe. I'm not quite sure whom I am responding to here, 'Dan', 'not-Dan,' 'Miss Y', and/or 'A Premie,' well, whomever it is, I think you're just a little too defensive. Lighten up. I think M is a fake. You say he's not. Fine, we can discuss why we each feel the way we do. But YOU said I only think M is a fake because I 'misunderstood' his message. But there is no way for you to know that. That was my point. I think it is just as reasonable to say I understood quite well and rejected him anyway. Maybe not to YOU, but objectively, I mean. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to and I am entitled to disagree. Just admit I'm entitled to my belief as well. You, of course, can disagree. But it's intellectually dishonest to assert that you know that my belief is based on some deficiency in me, because you can't know that. And my belief that M is a fake does not 'deny the relevence' of your experience (whatever that means), unless you want it to. My beliefs are my beliefs and you can disagree all you want. But let me ask you this: If you are so happy and fulfilled and sure about YOUR belief, why do you even CARE what I think? Why does it matter to you? You don't need my approval, after all. I came to the conclusion that M is a fake based on my own experience, not on yours. And I think you are likely an adult and can make your own decisions as to what is right for you. But, you see, I think just the EXISTENCE of people like me is offensive to you and it appears you see my existence as some kind of attack on your belief system. But that is completely up to you. And again, why do you care if you are supposedly so fulfilled and sure that it's all true? Perhaps thou dost protest too much? Actually, your last paragraph I agree with for the most part -- at least as to the subjectivity of experience. I listed those names because they were well known and I was objecting to your broad-brush statement, essentially that ALL ex-premies, not only me, just 'didn't get it.' They are just examples of others that you put that label on and, as you know, I don't think you have any right to do that, nor any basis to do it either. Regards, Joe The existence of people like you is not offensive to me JW. But when you claim from the highest mole-hill that something I have experienced to be true is not and it's based upon a purely subjective viewpoint, then I have to ask for fairness. I admit, I am a bit offended by your arrogance. Re; the last paragraph, I'll repeat what I said in another post: Maharaji's Knowledge has worked for many rational, sensitive, and thinking people. You imply that the numbers who don't practice it have some bearing on it's validity. (BTW where do you get the 90% figure - is it based on anything other than supposition?) If you are the kind that follows the crowd then you may be swayed by numbers. If you're a little more singular in determining the direction in your life, then who has come and gone before you has no bearing.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 20:24:48 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: Jim
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hey premie, Been here before. What if you're simply wrong in interpreting your own 'experience.' (I put the word in quotes because it has a particular meaning for premies and Maharaji, doesn't it? Although we all know that, even in meditation, the mind thinks, thinks, thinks, premies pretend that it stops and enters a purer, safer realm of ... well, can you even call it awareness? After all, 'awareness', I'm sure, includes cognition.) Anyway, what if you're just worked up in your own little fantasy world? Tell me something straight -- do you pray to Maharaji? Do you think he's 'in there' somewhere? That's a very straighforward question. What's the answer? What if, what if, what if... Here's one for you. What if Maharaji and Knowledge are real and devotion is truly wonderful? What if you are really not 100% sure of all the premises upon which you base your conclusions about him? What if I'm not deluding myself and you really did misunderstand what he was trying to teach you? What if you're interpreting YOUR experience, and I'm not interpreting mine? What if my mind does really stop when I practise Knowledge, and I'm still cognisant of what I'm experiencing? Who I pray to is none of your concern.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 20:40:51 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: JW
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hey premie, I'm starting to think you must be right. Joe never DID understand Maharaji's message. I don't know why he won't admit it. Espeically when he's so big on accountability and everything. Hypocrite or what? It would all be too much to ever figure out but, you know, I think you've done it. That is, I think you've hit the nail square on -- it's Joe's ego! Why didn't I think of that? Sometimes it takes a fresh eye to see through all the bullshit, doesn't it? Joe, it's time for you to come clean here. You simply did not get Maharaji's message as A here has proven. I don't see any point quibbling, he's got you fair and square. I'm assuming, of course, that he's got an argument to back up that assertion. You do, A, don't you? Well you must. No one, not even a premie, would be so ridiculous as to argue without argument. So, A, what is it? What's your argument? Well, Jim, if that is true, if the student didn't learn what was being taught, communicated, drummed in, by 'the master,' especially when the student did his homework dilligently, and followed the course outline for a good 10 years, what does that say about the quality and ability of the teacher/master? Especially when you consider further that 90% of his students flunk? Most teachers would be fired if that was their track record. For God's sake man, take some ownership here. And it's not piano lessons you came to him to learn. You have raised the fact often about the *time* you have put into this. Somehow that supports a rationale of, 'You can't say I was not a good student because look at the time I put into it'. It's like the karate classes I attended when I was 17 where they gave out black belts just so people wouldn't get discouraged. But it was me who got discouraged! It just meant that the belts meant nothing. The kid couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I lost faith in the sensei because of it and quit. I know this is a sensetive question but I'll ask it: Was your devotion real, or did you just put in the time?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 20:55:49 (EST)
Poster: A premie
Email:
To: John K.
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
'Perhaps you can walk away from true devotion. But I think to reach that understanding and to walk away from it, is to be haunted by its sweet taste until your last breath.' Actually, what I am haunted by, are the years I wasted. I do not remember in the last 15 years ever being haunted by the memory of 'devotion's sweet taste'. That's a very poetic turn of phrase. You sound like a real romantic. but isn't my innner craving for understanding from my creator sort of the same thing? Contrary to what you might think about ex's, I still do have a very high regard for my creator. In fact I would say that my feelings for my creator have not changed in the last 25 years. I simply do not worship gmj anymore. It's really no big deal. One's life really doesn't change all that much, it just becomes slightly simpler. Can you say honestly that you didn't get anything at all out of the years you put in? If not what the hell were you doing there for 15 years? A person doesn't spend 15 years without getting something out of it in return. And please, nobody prevented you from leaving. If you didn't have the guts to make a move for 15 years, then you should take a look at your spine - it may need strengthening.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 19, 1998 at 21:48:13 (EST)
Poster: lg
Email:
To: A premie
Subject: Re: 'Real Devotion' and 'Fake Devotion'
Message:
Hey premie, Been here before. What if you're simply wrong in interpreting your own 'experience.' (I put the word in quotes because it has a particular meaning for premies and Maharaji, doesn't it? Although we all know that, even in meditation, the mind thinks, thinks, thinks, premies pretend that it stops and enters a purer, safer realm of ... well, can you even call it awareness? After all, 'awareness', I'm sure, includes cognition.) Anyway, what if you're just worked up in your own little fantasy world? Tell me something straight -- do you pray to Maharaji? Do you think he's 'in there' somewhere? That's a very straighforward question. What's the answer? What if, what if, what if... Here's one for you. What if Maharaji and Knowledge are real and devotion is truly wonderful? What if you are really not 100% sure of all the premises upon which you base your conclusions about him? What if I'm not deluding myself and you really did misunderstand what he was trying to teach you? What if you're interpreting YOUR experience, and I'm not interpreting mine? What if my mind does really stop when I practise Knowledge, and I'm still cognisant of what I'm experiencing? Who I pray to is none of your concern. Hey premie: You say: ' What if my mind does really stop'? My question is: Why in the world would someone want to stop their mind? What is so wrong with our mind. What is so wrong with what we are? Yeh. That was the 'talk' in those days when Mr. MIND was in the way! Remember? Let me tell you that I had my share of experience around the subjec,t due to some confused ashram premies. Later I learned that this practice was very dangerous! I remember... I had an incredible 'inner experience' when I let my mind free! This taught me a lesson, which is: Think and Analize. I would live in denial otherwise!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 19:47:44 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Everyone
Subject: Mili's Fundamental Confusion
Message:
I brought this up from down below. (Don't you all hate the 50 post limit?): (Referring to Mili's post where he babbles about Freud, Jung, the Nazis, me and the US Government) Mili, You have such a fundamental misunderstanding of rationality that it's kind of touching. You also either don't know or intentionally misrepresent Freud's theories, let alone proof. Jung doesn't impress. Rationality, Mili, is just logic that ties together facts and arguments. Nazis, murderers, why even the evil US Government (maybe you should lay off a bit of that Chomsky sauce)-- what does it matter? Anyone can be rational, so long as they draw logical inferences from assumed facts. It's not a moral thing. Your tirade against rationality, Mili, might as well be against math or electricity. All the evil geniuses of the twentieth century, I'm sure, have depended on both. So what?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 01:59:51 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: [email protected]
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Mili's Fundamental Confusion
Message:
I don't know, man, are you feeling threatened as the alpha male here, or something? This is not about rationality, it's about you hating me, Chris, Bobby, OP, or anyone who expresses a not-so negative view about Knowledge or Maharaji. So, why don't you be honest and say 'I hate your guts' ? Instead you weasel around with 'rationality'. O.K: So you hate me. So who gives a shit. 'Rationality, Weber saw, takes us down a road of rationalization to ultimately leave us in an iron cage.'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 13:43:44 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Mili and Mr. Ex
Subject: Re: Mili's Fundamental Confusion
Message:
Mili: 'Rationality, Weber saw, takes us down a road of rationalization to ultimately leave us in an iron cage.' While this is true Weber doesn't feel we can abandon rationality. Jurgen Habermas, probably the most influential social philosopher in the world right now, has embarked on a grandiose project to redefine what 'rationality' means, and to include such things as drama. One of the significant ironies that I think seriously indicts EV is the extent to which GMJ has 'rationalized' (in the strict Weberian sense) the workings of the organization. In other words, he has created an 'accumulation machine.' Those of us who have been around since the beginning can recount this process. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 13:50:58 (EST)
Poster: Sorry, I meant Jim not Mr. Ex
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Mili's Fundamental Confusion
Message:
Sorry, I addressed the previous post incorrectly. I should also say that there is not ary room for 'hate' here. The attacks between those who challenge rationality and those who challenge interpretivism are pretty extreme. Check out the Gadamer / Habermas debates if you doubt this. We don't need to be quite so personal, guys. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 14:56:58 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: [email protected]
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Mili's Fundamental Confusion
Message:
Mili: 'Rationality, Weber saw, takes us down a road of rationalization to ultimately leave us in an iron cage.' While this is true Weber doesn't feel we can abandon rationality. Jurgen Habermas, probably the most influential social philosopher in the world right now, has embarked on a grandiose project to redefine what 'rationality' means, and to include such things as drama. One of the significant ironies that I think seriously indicts EV is the extent to which GMJ has 'rationalized' (in the strict Weberian sense) the workings of the organization. In other words, he has created an 'accumulation machine.' Those of us who have been around since the beginning can recount this process. -Scott Your tirade against rationality, Mili, might as well be against math or electricity. All the evil geniuses of the twentieth century, I'm sure, have depended on both. So what? Notice above how Jim tries to peg me into his stereotype of the 'antirational premie'. Below, I was stating exactly the same thesis that he now tries to bring against me. I guess he thinks just because he understood what I said, he was the one who thought it. I am not anti-rational. I think and use the same language as you do, and I think I am pretty normal since I don't use drugs, and live an average lifestyle. I work as a teacher for adults, teaching them computer literacy, and I am pretty successful at that. It would be a hard job to do if I were an irrational fellow, don't you think? Rationality can be used to propound and implement the most immoral sentiments. Every terrorist has a completely rational (to them) justification for their actions. To the Nazis it was completely moral to do away with the Jews, and they proceeded to do it in a rational manner. So, if rationality is just a method, what is the basis of morality then?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 15:17:47 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Mili's Fundamental Confusion
Message:
Mili, you're the one who keeps talking silly about rationality. You still don't get it, do you? Why not argue that Nazis often drive to their rallies so we should outlaw cars? Silly, silly, silly! And morality? Reciprocal altruism. Nothing more, nothing less.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 15:34:08 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Mili's Fundamental Confusion
Message:
Mili: You seem quite rational to me. The thing that bothered Weber was the notion of 'calculation' and 'systematization' which were incorporated into the Puritan Ethic. That made them very successful, but it also eventually destroyed their virtue. This use of the word 'rationalization' has some linkages to the popular usage, which is to sort of 'explain away' or 'justify' one's immorality. But they aren't really the same thing. Weber is not talking about the process that the Nazis (or the Stalinists) used to justify their atrocities. There are some similarities between that and Weber's usage, but it's probably more important to recognize the differences. I guess at some point a successful Puritan would have to 'rationalize' excessive spending, but primitive tribalistic peoples use that same sort of 'rationalization' of their transgressions. I don't think that's what Weber was driving at. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 16:12:35 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email: [email protected]
To: Everyone
Subject: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?
Message:
I always thought that 'Elan Vital' was some kind of metaphor, taken from literature perhaps, and not carrying any great significance - a bit like 'joie de vivre'. Then I discovered the following reference. It would appear, in fact, that the Lord of the Universe has named his movement after a crank scientific theory: 'French philosopher and metaphysician Henri Bergson had a rich literary style, clothing his arguments in emotionally affecting language. His influential book 'Creative Evolution' (1911) was a treatise on evolution that purported to refute Darwinism on the basis of Bergson's intuitive feeling for a self-organising vital principle he called the 'elan vital'. '...Paleonologist George Gaylord Simpson said such theories 'do not explain evolution, but claim it is inexplicable and then give a name to its inexplicability: 'elan vital','omega', 'aristogenesis', 'cellular consciousness','holism'... As [Thomas] Huxley has remarked, ascribing evolution to an elan vital no more explained the history of life than would ascribing its motion to an 'elan locomotif' explain the operations of a steam engine.' (Milner, 1990) So there you go. Premies looking for an official philosopher of the Truth (see Mili's thread below), now have one: Henri Bergson. I'll stick with Huxley on this one, I think. And Bertrand Russell, of course, who offered the following little gem: 'What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 18:17:37 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?
Message:
>As [Thomas] Huxley has remarked, ascribing evolution to an elan vital no more explained the history of life than would ascribing its motion to an 'elan locomotif' explain the operations of a steam engine.' 'Elan Vital' has been battered about as a kind of philisophical footbal. You might also review 'entelechy' dating from Plato. Work has continued on these topics over a few thousand years. And the winner is ... >And Bertrand Russell, of course, who offered the following little gem: 'What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.' Yes, a wish with hope, never satisfied without a true experience. CD
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 18:30:04 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email: [email protected]
To: CD
Subject: Re: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?
Message:
>As [Thomas] Huxley has remarked, ascribing evolution to an elan vital no more explained the history of life than would ascribing its motion to an 'elan locomotif' explain the operations of a steam engine.' 'Elan Vital' has been battered about as a kind of philisophical footbal. You might also review 'entelechy' dating from Plato. Work has continued on these topics over a few thousand years. And the winner is ... >And Bertrand Russell, of course, who offered the following little gem: 'What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.' Yes, a wish with hope, never satisfied without a true experience. CD I am not well up on ancient philosophers, but I am not aware of anybody coining the phrase 'elan vital' before Henri Whatsisname. If, as my reference suggests he tried to use the theory as a refutation of Darwinism then he is indisputably a crank. Wouldn't you agree?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 18:53:43 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?
Message:
> If, as my reference suggests he tried to use the theory as a refutation of Darwinism then he is indisputably a crank. Wouldn't you agree? Without the details it is hard to say. Henri's arguments may have been misunderstood or twisted to win a debating contest. Or he may have been a crank using Elan Vital as the proverbial 'if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail' It is curious for example how people attempt to portray what Socrates and Jesus really really meant by their words. And what the heck was that Gita about anyway? >I am not well up on ancient philosophers, but I am not aware of anybody coining the phrase 'elan vital' before Henri Whatsisname. What has always amazed me is that a library such as UCSD central can have millions of books. So which one should we have read - g ? Somehow I don't think we know much more today about the human spirit than Plato and Pythagoras did. The philisophical debates are an interesting game. The title of this book by Bertrand Russell tells the story: 'Human Knowledge, its scope and limits' Not trying to make fun of your theory. Just offering some comments. Regards, CD
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 19:50:58 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: CD
Subject: Re: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?
Message:
Chris, You are absolutely wrong -- hey what's new? -- to think we hven't learnt much about the 'human spirit' that Plato didn't know. The only thing that's constant between now and then is the notion of 'mystery'. And that, of course, is by definition.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 18:10:10 (EST)
Poster: Nigel
Email: [email protected]
To: CD
Subject: No more mangoes, please. (Re: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?)
Message:
> If, as my reference suggests he tried to use the theory as a refutation of Darwinism then he is indisputably a crank. Wouldn't you agree? Without the details it is hard to say. Henri's arguments may have been misunderstood or twisted to win a debating contest. Or he may have been a crank using Elan Vital as the proverbial 'if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail' It is curious for example how people attempt to portray what Socrates and Jesus really really meant by their words. And what the heck was that Gita about anyway? >I am not well up on ancient philosophers, but I am not aware of anybody coining the phrase 'elan vital' before Henri Whatsisname. What has always amazed me is that a library such as UCSD central can have millions of books. So which one should we have read - g ? Somehow I don't think we know much more today about the human spirit than Plato and Pythagoras did. The philisophical debates are an interesting game. The title of this book by Bertrand Russell tells the story: 'Human Knowledge, its scope and limits' Not trying to make fun of your theory. Just offering some comments. Regards, CD Thanks for the comments, CD, though I'm not entirely sure what your point was. I'll address what you seemed to be saying. (1) OK, maybe neither of us has read Bergson, but you'll note that I did use the conditional 'if', saying something like: assuming 'Elan Vital' is Bergson's coinage and IF he used to it to refute natural selection then the man must be crank. I trust Milner's account since he is a meticulous researcher of sources, and not given to hyperbole or misrepresentation. (2) There are do many books, but which should we read? It's a good question. For me philosophy is only interesting to the extent it has shaped approaches to scientific thinking (as with Hume, Popper, Kuhn), or has led to the generation of testable propositions, and ultimately useful theories in psychology or biology. Thus Wittgenstein's work led to the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis; Descartes, Ryle, Searle, Dennet and others have discussed important issues concerning the Mind / Brain relationship; if you want to study 'Equity Theory' it helps to know a bit about Aristotle and Marx... etc, etc. This is probably why I know so little about the ancient Greeks, since nearly all the above are post-renaissance. On the whole, I have found that people with an encyclopaedic knowledge of all known philosophers only understand each one at a rather superficial level. I only pick up on them as they crop up in the context of other areas that interest me (NB> I am absolutely NOT suggesting for one moment the remark about a'superficial level' apply to anybody posting on this forum!). Ultimately, I suppose it simply comes down to what you want to get out of your reading. (3) You seem to be hinting at mangoes again when you mention the limits of human understanding - and the need to experience in your first reply. (When will Brian banish this blasted tropical fruit from the forum once and for all!?) I really don't see why people have to down tools and abandon serious investigation in the face of The Great Mango-Tasting Problem. There is more than one way of skinning a rabbit (as vegetarians love to say), and Knowledge, as presented by GMJ, is absolutely chock-full of testable hypotheses, in spite of its also being full of mangoes. If we take 'a mango's taste' as being any form of experience beyond the scope of rational analysis, then K probably holds at least half a dozen: each of the four meditation techniques, the experiences of satsang, of service, and of darshan. Take this last case, darshan. I am sure there are many people out there who can supply chapter and verse for all the times GMJ has spoken of the importance of the 'experience' for the devotee of being in the master's physical presence. This is an eminently testable hypothesis, and here is a suitable experimental design: - Two darshan lines are set up. On one throne sits GMJ, and on the other sits Jim Heller (if that's ok by you Jim!). They wear identical socks. - 100 premies are selected at random and assigned to one darshan line or the other. - They are then blindfolded and guided through to their respected toe-kissing experience. (H1) The 'Darshan as experience' hypothesis may be accepted if the premies know whose feet they are kissing. You could further elaborate the design, by telling half the members of each group that they are going to experience 'real' darshan from GMJ, and telling the other half of each group that they are merely being used as experimental controls. You now have four experimental conditions, (a standard 2x2 analysis of variance design) allowing comparisons between the self-reported experiences of bowing before the 'fake' versus the 'real' GMJ, and between the 'believed to be fake' and 'believed to be real' groups. (H2) I would confidently predict that reported experience of darshan would vary as a function of belief, but not as a function of guru. Ok, so the experiment it is far-fetched, impractical and probably unethical (even if Jim found it quite good fun). But you could easily dream up simpler experiments that could effectively disentangle, say, the other K experiences from their supposed relationship with M as giver of those techniques. Regards
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 18:53:05 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: No more mangoes, please. (Re: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?)
Message:
What about the envelopes?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 22:22:08 (EST)
Poster: Miss 'Y'
Email: [email protected]
To: Jim
Subject: Re: No more mangoes, please. (Re: 'Elan Vital' - crank theory?)
Message:
What about the envelopes? WHY? Are they SWEETER than mangoes? Just what does an envelope Taste like Jimbo?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:32:09 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: [email protected]
To: Everyone
Subject: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......
Message:
I had the wildest dream last night concerning several of my good premie friends from the past. I dreamed I went to Amaroo to visit with my friends at the festival (NOT to see M), and was there with two of my very best friends from my days in the ashram and IHQ. We're actually still in touch and I love these ladies a lot. In the dream we were wandering through crowds of people and I was thinking to myself, I wish I could see ___, my ex-boyfriend whom I'm also still very fond of and on very good terms with, except he lives in Europe, so I don't see him much. I've known this man for 30 years and he was actually responsible for bringing me to K., and is still a practicing premie. Then in the dream, he comes walking out of some room with a baragon and blanket under his arm, looking completely stoned and blissed out from some meditation review or something. He is very surprised to see me and we head off for a corner somewhere to have a chat. Then a stranger pokes his head over a wall and says, 'Hey ___, you don't want to be talking with HER now.' And I say, 'What do you mean?' And this guy says, 'Oh, everyone knows who YOU are.' This was some kind of cryptic reference to my posting on the site. I guess on some subconscious level I'm feeling guilty and paranoid about it. Fortunately, ___ did not heed his advice and I woke up shortly thereafter, in somewhat of a cold sweat! One of the strangest things about this dream was that it was peopled with crowds of premies everywhere, and in these crowds were faces of specific people I used to be around at IHQ or just at programs but didn't actually know very well. People I have not had a conscious thought about, ever. At least Maharaji wasn't in the dream, though I have had regular dreams of him ever since leaving almost 18 years ago. (The kind of 'darshan' dreams I would've LOVED to have had as a premie!) After waking from this dream I was left with the feeling of what a powerful experience of community we had, working, living and partying (if that's the appropriate word) and having religious experiences with literally thousands of like-minded people. There's nothing in real life today to match that, and sometimes I think I'm nostalgic for the experience, despite my dislike and distain for M (don't worry, I'm not about to go back to a program!). I think posting and reading this site so much is bringing up a lot of stuff for me psychologically, concerning my premie years. It's all buried somewhere, and thinking about it all in this context is bringing the whole thing back to the surface. Sometimes I think this is good, and other times not. Perhaps this site is some strange form of psychotherapy for us ex-s. And sometimes I wonder if I'll ever get over the whole thing, or if it'll just haunt me for the rest of my life.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 13:50:05 (EST)
Poster: Selena
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: Re: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......
Message:
Hi Joy I had a few dreams this month concerning being somewhere, it was Amaroo or Kissamee , but mine turned into nightmares of being chased by Stan's evil clone (from the South Park cartoon), and in the dream Stan's clone was a premie who was mad at me for posting here. In the other dream the premies were monks in robes, you couldn't see their faces, and at first they left me alone but then they started chsing me too. I think you are right, these are guilt feelings. The community experience was amazingly powerful, enough so to make me go back in 1990 after almost 10 years away from it. I was looking for that feeling again. It wasn't there. From what I have been reading , that social experience is more often than not why people join a cult. The funny thing is, the premies I know now will deny that and they say they are into it for the internal experience of K.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:39:55 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email:
To: Selena
Subject: Re: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......
Message:
Hi Joy I had a few dreams this month concerning being somewhere, it was Amaroo or Kissamee , but mine turned into nightmares of being chased by Stan's evil clone (from the South Park cartoon), and in the dream Stan's clone was a premie who was mad at me for posting here. In the other dream the premies were monks in robes, you couldn't see their faces, and at first they left me alone but then they started chsing me too. I think you are right, these are guilt feelings. The community experience was amazingly powerful, enough so to make me go back in 1990 after almost 10 years away from it. I was looking for that feeling again. It wasn't there. From what I have been reading , that social experience is more often than not why people join a cult. The funny thing is, the premies I know now will deny that and they say they are into it for the internal experience of K. Yes, you are right, the experience of community was incredibly powerful. I remember at my very first satsang looking around at everyone and thinking how these were people I wanted to know and hang out with. I have a girlfriend who has been a 'marginal' premie for these past ten years or so, still going to the occasional program because she wanted to experience 'that love' and missed her friends, despite having gotten married to a wonderful man and having two lovely children. When she began reading this site she 'snapped' into her 'right mind' and realized how she'd been chasing phantoms, hoping vainly to still find 'it' at a gathering of premies. At least I haven't been kidding myself that I'll still find 'it' at programs, but I certainly feel the lack of these premie friendships in my life sometimes, particularly when I hear reports of these big pow-wows, and people I know list off all the others we both know who were there. I feel like I'll never get to see most of these people again, whereas the few premie friends I have who still go to programs get to see them regularly, and somehow it doesn't seem fair. (Slight overtone of self-pity there, but it wasn't meant that way, it's just something I occasionally feel sad about.) But back to dreams (which the whole ashram/premie experience seems like sometimes). I have recurring dreams (nightmares?) of being back in the ashram and being trapped and unable to get out. Also, I have had many intense dreams with M. in them, even more than the ones I had as a premie. So I still feel connected in some strange, ethereal way. Since it was all such a big part of my past, my entire 20s, I feel like it'll always be with me. Maharaji, despite my feelings for the creep now, will always have been a main player in my life, by virtue of the fact that he took up so much of it. Sort of like an ex-spouse or something. I like to joke that other people have ex-husbands, I have an ex-guru. Maybe it'll become hip and fashionable!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 19:33:05 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Selena
Subject: Re: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......
Message:
You guys are so right. That's one reason why I have this appetite for looking up old premie comrades. Maybe that's even why we're here. I don't find too many people willing to talk in these terms anymore but I used to think that we were 'all one', kinda. I really tried to feel that way at times. Sure, I was selfish and lazy to the core but, still, I believed that just beyond my mind was a universal something which was looking out of your eyes as well as mine. What a fool I was to take any of that seriously when, all around me, there were other premie guys using 'the love' to seduce young premie chicks.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 20:53:47 (EST)
Poster: A Face in the Crowd
Email: inside@3rdtechnique
To: Joy
Subject: Re: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......
Message:
Hey Joy -- good connections are good connections. Nice to see your name now online -- maybe my face was one of those in yr dream -- i been dreaming of everyone too lately. i remember your paste uping (you and Bertha) -- we were acquaintances on AIID, -- and I remember your warm heart. Best wishes to ya. Life's a wonder.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 21:14:58 (EST)
Poster: Crowd Face
Email: shinytrinket@1sttechnique
To: Joy
Subject: Re: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......
Message:
typesetting i mean, not paste uping
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 01:23:38 (EST)
Poster: Joy
Email: [email protected]
To: Crowd Face
Subject: Re: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......
Message:
typesetting i mean, not paste uping Okay, Mr./Ms. Face in the Crowd, reveal yourself please. Someone who used to work in the graphics dept. at IHQ? Print Shop? It was a pretty fun crew back then, and we were one of the most stable sections of IHQ, because once you got into that kind of skilled service, you didn't tend to get transferred out. I think I did typesetting for almost seven years, pasteup of AIID, Divine Times and EV and transcribing of GMJ's satsangs for several more. Why are people so afraid to reveal their identities? You can e-mail me in private if you wish, but I'd like to know who you are, just out of curiosity. Have courage, it's daunting at first, but easy once you get your feet wet. Sometimes putting posts out here into cyberspace is a bit dreamlike, as you really don't know who is reading or receiving them, could be no one, or could be any one of hundreds or thousands of people from the past. This whole process is kinda wild, and I feel it's tying me up with my past in ways I didn't expect. Hopefully that'll produce some integration and I can 'take the best' and 'leave the rest' -- but for now, it's fun hanging out on this site!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 15:22:26 (EST)
Poster: VP
Email:
To: Joy
Subject: Joy, I dreamed I said Goodbye to M! (Re: I Dreamed I Went to Amaroo......)
Message:
Joy, I just had a M dream recently, too. Dreaming of M has not happened in a while. I think that being here on the site too late one night contributed. I dreamed I said goodbye to M. I was at a program and it was being held in this old abandoned nursery (for plants). All of the plants were straggly and there was this stage and M was up on it. All of the people there were from this small town nearby and they had all driven cars and trucks that were falling apart. There were less than 50 people there and M was up on the stage in a suit. He was dancing around and this music was playing. A few people were into it, but the majority of the people were just kind of watching. It was pretty pathetic and I remember feeling kind of sorry for him at the time yet also feeling that he was getting what he deserved. He started to talk and he looked at me and said something about how he would have more followers if some people would stop talking on the internet. (I don't think he said this out loud, it was more like telepathy) I got into my car with my cousin and left the scene. Goodbye to M.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:07:59 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: [email protected]
To: Everyone
Subject: Truth?
Message:
Can anyone help me out - I am reading a book on the history of philosophy and trying to figure out how come there are so many different schools of thought. There is stoicism, idealism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, logical positivism, pragmatism, scepticism, scholasticism, utilitarianism, ecleticism... How come there are so many different philosophies, when it must be obvious that there is only one Truth? How come all these thinkers have such a hard time agreeing about what the Truth is? Or does an absolute Truth exist at all? (Skepticism.)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:14:00 (EST)
Poster: Brian
Email: [email protected]
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Can anyone help me out - I am reading a book on the history of philosophy and trying to figure out how come there are so many different schools of thought. There is stoicism, idealism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, logical positivism, pragmatism, scepticism, scholasticism, utilitarianism, ecleticism... How come there are so many different philosophies, when it must be obvious that there is only one Truth? How come all these thinkers have such a hard time agreeing about what the Truth is? Or does an absolute Truth exist at all? (Skepticism.) Life has many difficult questions. Fortunately, there is a place where questioning minds can turn, where Truth can be discussed by those who have been 'given' MJ's great gift and yet still have the courage to question. Welcome to www.ex-premie.org, Mili.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 12:36:42 (EST)
Poster: lg
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Can anyone help me out - I am reading a book on the history of philosophy and trying to figure out how come there are so many different schools of thought. There is stoicism, idealism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, logical positivism, pragmatism, scepticism, scholasticism, utilitarianism, ecleticism... How come there are so many different philosophies, when it must be obvious that there is only one Truth? How come all these thinkers have such a hard time agreeing about what the Truth is? Or does an absolute Truth exist at all? (Skepticism.) Mili You will find all the answers to your questions in a book called: The Gods of Eden by William Bramley.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 13:04:58 (EST)
Poster: Sir David
Email: [email protected]
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Reproduction and evolution seem to be true. At each stage of evolution, the creature will perceive a different truth. For a fish, the truth will be the water and the next fish it can eat. For humans it is our life on earth and our bills to pay, children to look after, and our desires. Is there a truth beyond all of that? It has been said that our soul or life is an offspring of God. Therefore our soul will grow to become like its Father. This could be true. Any perception of truth is bound by our present perception. The fish can't understand computers. Can we understand God, if He exists? Following this line of reasoning, the best way to understand God would be to understand ourself, if we are an offspring of God. And understanding ourself and the way in which we relate and interact with others, brings more understanding. People think God is some massive infinite being and yet He could be as normal and ordinary as we are, since we are His offspring.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 13:14:04 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email: [email protected]
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Can anyone help me out - I am reading a book on the history of philosophy and trying to figure out how come there are so many different schools of thought. There is stoicism, idealism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, logical positivism, pragmatism, scepticism, scholasticism, utilitarianism, ecleticism... How come there are so many different philosophies, when it must be obvious that there is only one Truth? How come all these thinkers have such a hard time agreeing about what the Truth is? Or does an absolute Truth exist at all? (Skepticism.) Mili: Thanks for contributing this question. There is a common thread. At first the search was for an 'objective' truth. Then came Kant. After that everything turned inward. The focus was at first on the 'one Truth' (the cogito, etc.) After Kant the focus was on the experiencer. After that Wittgenstein abandoned the postivists (the unity of the sciences, one truth, etc.) and started to speculate about 'word games' and language, etc. Hermeneutics (interpretivism) actually came from the very ancient practice of interpreting scriptures, and is also the foundation of law. My feeling is that this is all sort of coming to a head with Derrida and the notion that everything is 'logocentric.' ...but I guess people have always thought that things were coming to a head in their own era. We leave behind an imprint, a mark. Writing. Language. But to what does that mark testify besides he who made it? How clearly, or badly, does it reflect who we are? Who I am... was... It is not clear whether Derrida is saying that the record reflects only the Logos, and that the Logos is us. I think it is implied, but he is evasive. I highly recommend the authorship of my sweet friend Thelma Z. Lavine, who retired last week. (Socrates to Sartre). Her perspective is that the truth doesn't lie with any one camp, but with the dialogue between them. We conduct this sort of dialogue because we feel it is beautiful. It attracts us. We like it. We find it entertaining and vital. Engaging in it had the very practical side effect of creating the civil society that we enjoy today. That's not a completely unambiguous legacy, but it's not bad. Thanks again for the great question, and giving me the opportunity to make a contribution. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 13:56:19 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: [email protected]
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Can anyone help me out - I am reading a book on the history of philosophy and trying to figure out how come there are so many different schools of thought. There is stoicism, idealism, materialism, empiricism, existentialism, logical positivism, pragmatism, scepticism, scholasticism, utilitarianism, ecleticism... How come there are so many different philosophies, when it must be obvious that there is only one Truth? How come all these thinkers have such a hard time agreeing about what the Truth is? Or does an absolute Truth exist at all? (Skepticism.) Mili: Thanks for contributing this question. There is a common thread. At first the search was for an 'objective' truth. Then came Kant. After that everything turned inward. The focus was at first on the 'one Truth' (the cogito, etc.) After Kant the focus was on the experiencer. After that Wittgenstein abandoned the postivists (the unity of the sciences, one truth, etc.) and started to speculate about 'word games' and language, etc. Hermeneutics (interpretivism) actually came from the very ancient practice of interpreting scriptures, and is also the foundation of law. My feeling is that this is all sort of coming to a head with Derrida and the notion that everything is 'logocentric.' ...but I guess people have always thought that things were coming to a head in their own era. We leave behind an imprint, a mark. Writing. Language. But to what does that mark testify besides he who made it? How clearly, or badly, does it reflect who we are? Who I am... was... It is not clear whether Derrida is saying that the record reflects only the Logos, and that the Logos is us. I think it is implied, but he is evasive. I highly recommend the authorship of my sweet friend Thelma Z. Lavine, who retired last week. (Socrates to Sartre). Her perspective is that the truth doesn't lie with any one camp, but with the dialogue between them. We conduct this sort of dialogue because we feel it is beautiful. It attracts us. We like it. We find it entertaining and vital. Engaging in it had the very practical side effect of creating the civil society that we enjoy today. That's not a completely unambiguous legacy, but it's not bad. Thanks again for the great question, and giving me the opportunity to make a contribution. -Scott Thanks for the brief, but poignant response, Scott. It managed shed some light on this jungle of ideas that I am struggling with here. Actually, the thing that drove me to this investigation was that that I realized that there are differences in interpretation of culturally conditioned universal ideas such as 'God' and 'Truth'. Also, language and perception are closely related. For an Eskimo, there are thirty different words for different kinds of snow, and yet to us, its just the same old white stuff. 'Snow' to a Kalahari bushman means jack-shit. Structuralism was anti-humanist and anti-existentialist. For structuralists it was not man who created meaning through language, but language which speaks man. The free will debate of humanist philosophy was negated by a concept of a system that wrote people in pre-determined scripts. Everything is fixed at the level of the system, not the individual expressing what they may think are rational independent thoughts. In other words language constitutes reality for us rather than creating reality through our use of language. Lacan said we acquire culture as we learn language. Who we are becomes a question of the person who enters into the structures of language. The unconscious part of us is another structure of language. Thanks for the other responses, guys 'n' gals. They were really sweet.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:12:52 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Mili: In other words language constitutes reality for us rather than creating reality through our use of language. This is the position taken by the interpretivists, or rather it is their explanation of the structuralist position. This viewpoint is not taken very seriously in the US, except in literary circles and sociology department faculties. I realized that there are differences in interpretation of culturally conditioned universal ideas such as 'God' and 'Truth'. True enough, but there are also commonalities. The sociologist Max Weber created the concept of an 'ideal type' as a description of a concept that remains constant across cultures and over time. For instance, there is such thing is 'historical individualism' as an ideal type for individualism that is constant throughout history, even in ancient and modern primitive societies. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:21:53 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: [email protected]
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Mili: In other words language constitutes reality for us rather than creating reality through our use of language. This is the position taken by the interpretivists, or rather it is their explanation of the structuralist position. This viewpoint is not taken very seriously in the US, except in literary circles and sociology department faculties. I realized that there are differences in interpretation of culturally conditioned universal ideas such as 'God' and 'Truth'. True enough, but there are also commonalities. The sociologist Max Weber created the concept of an 'ideal type' as a description of a concept that remains constant across cultures and over time. For instance, there is such thing is 'historical individualism' as an ideal type for individualism that is constant throughout history, even in ancient and modern primitive societies. -Scott This is extremely interesting, and I wish I had more time (besides weekends) to read stuff like Emile Durkheim, John Frazier's 'Golden Bough', Margaret Mead and Noam Chomsky. Maybe this is beside the point a little bit, but what do you think about the influence of Siberian shamanism in Tibetan Buddhist religion? Also, what do you think about the modern 'techno-shamanism' revival? To me it is just proof that our biological evolution proceeds at a vastly slower pace than the social one. We are still primitive savages at heart, don't you think?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 14:58:54 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Mili: I don't know much about the Siberian shamanism, Tibetan Bhuddist link, but it seems plausible. Tibetan Bhuddism is very different from mainline Bhuddist tradition. I also don't know much about modern 'techno shamanism' but it sounds reactionary. The Enlightenment, and the legal-rational society it created, places people in a bind. We used to be able to rely on traditionalistic norms, or what Ernest Gellner calls 'constitutional clauses' to regulate human behavior. As we place all of these clauses under scrutiny human behavior has the potential to became erratic and unpredictable, especially for those who are not actively and creatively engaged in the scrutiny. We are still primitive savages at heart, don't you think? There was a Polish novelist who certainly thought so: Joseph Conrad. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 15:00:08 (EST)
Poster: Go
Email: **
To: lg
Subject: fish (Re: Truth?)
Message:
Well thats quite a book review. Why don't you quote it some. Put the 4 gospels on your reading list. At the very least it makes for a good book.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 18:05:56 (EST)
Poster: CD
Email:
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
>I highly recommend the authorship of my sweet friend Thelma Z. Lavine, who retired last week. (Socrates to Sartre). Where is your review at Amazon. You have work to do. From Socrates to Sartre : The Philosophic Quest CD
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 19:23:57 (EST)
Poster: Jim
Email:
To: Mili
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Mili, in case you didn't know, Mead's been the embarrasing laughingstock of anthropology for years now. Do a net search. You'll see. Her account of Samoan life, the highly trumpeted proof of tabla rasa thinking for decades, is worthless. She was tricked by her mischievous Samoan friends. Chomsky's also capable of some really stupid thinking: the government benefits from activities like Pro Sports. As everyone knows Pro Sports are useless (??), the must only exist to distract the masses. Hence, the government, in cahoots with big business, hypnotizes us. That's as stupid as all the arab conspiracy theories. Like the one about Diana (i.e. that Diana's death must have been caused by those, like the Holy -- sorry Royal -- Family, who benefitted from it). I guess all this fallacious thinking might have been avoided if the arab countries had regularly run Perry Mason episodes. Chomsky must not like TV either.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 15, 1998 at 20:07:21 (EST)
Poster: Katie slightly off topic
Email: [email protected]
To: Scott
Subject: Book Reviews (Re: Truth?)
Message:
Hi Scott - what CD is talking about, in case you - or someone else - didn't know) is that you can go to amazon.com and write a review of any book that they carry, and they'll include it in their description of the book. I highly recommend people do this when they read books that they like. I buy a LOT of books from Amazon (I live in a college town but we really don't have a good bookstore here) and I rely highly on the customer reviews when choosing books. Popular books tend to garner a lot of customer reviews, but others don't.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 01:14:57 (EST)
Poster: Scott T.
Email:
To: Katie slightly off topic
Subject: Re: Book Reviews (Re: Truth?)
Message:
Hi Scott - what CD is talking about, in case you - or someone else - didn't know) is that you can go to amazon.com and write a review of any book that they carry, and they'll include it in their description of the book. I highly recommend people do this when they read books that they like. I buy a LOT of books from Amazon (I live in a college town but we really don't have a good bookstore here) and I rely highly on the customer reviews when choosing books. Popular books tend to garner a lot of customer reviews, but others don't. Katie and CD: Thanks for the tip about Amazon. To tell the truth, the book by Thelma is really almost a transcription of the video series. If you have a VCR I'd recommend that you check out the tapes from the library. They give you a better flavor for Thelma's rather quirky personality. I think her main contribution is that she puts the American philosophic tradition in the context of the larger debate: The pragmatists mainly, but also the transcendentalists. She also likes Habermas but feels he ripped off quit a bit from Weber and Dewey. Her view on Sartre is symptomatic of her whole perspective. The extremity of Sartre's views in Nausea led him to attempt to incorporate more and more of the ideas of his opponents, eventually leading to a 'conversion experience.' Any monistic point of view will have to incorporate the perspective of the opposing camp or else become impoverished. The farther out you get toward the edge the more you risk being converted. I'm not sure this always works, but she has a good feel for human nature. -Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 10:16:16 (EST)
Poster: Mili
Email: [email protected]
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Truth?
Message:
Mili, in case you didn't know, Mead's been the embarrasing laughingstock of anthropology for years now. Do a net search. You'll see. Her account of Samoan life, the highly trumpeted proof of tabla rasa thinking for decades, is worthless. She was tricked by her mischievous Samoan friends. Chomsky's also capable of some really stupid thinking: the government benefits from activities like Pro Sports. As everyone knows Pro Sports are useless (??), the must only exist to distract the masses. Hence, the government, in cahoots with big business, hypnotizes us. That's as stupid as all the arab conspiracy theories. Like the one about Diana (i.e. that Diana's death must have been caused by those, like the Holy -- sorry Royal -- Family, who benefitted from it). I guess all this fallacious thinking might have been avoided if the arab countries had regularly run Perry Mason episodes. Chomsky must not like TV either. Chomsky is stupid, Margaret Mead is an idiot, Desmond Morris is outdated and you are the biggest fool of all, Jim. I like these put-down posts of yours because that way everyone can see what a psychopath you really are.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws


Ex-Premie.Org	Forum II Archive # 6
From: Feb 13, 1998	To: Feb 20, 1998	Page: 3 Of: 5