Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 1

From: Apr 4, 1998

To: Apr 11, 1998

Page: 5 Of: 5



David -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:41:57 (EST)
__Scott T. -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:33:48 (EST)
____Jim -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:39:59 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- An Maharajia Apologia -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 23:06:32 (EST)
________Jim -:- An Maharajia Apologia -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 23:21:40 (EST)
__________Scott T. -:- An Maharajia Apologia II -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 01:49:37 (EST)
____________Scott T. -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 09:22:34 (EDT)
______________Robyn -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:19:28 (EDT)
______________JW -- my argument -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:02:25 (EDT)
________________Robyn -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:11:39 (EDT)
________________Jim -:- Excellent, JW -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:30:22 (EDT)
__________________JW -:- Excellent, JW -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 17:37:54 (EDT)
____________________Jim -:- Excellent, JW -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:01:24 (EDT)
______________________JW -:- Excellent, JW -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:16:56 (EDT)
________________________Jim -:- Not so fast, premie ji! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:36:52 (EDT)
__________________________JW -:- Not so fast, premie ji! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:28:07 (EDT)
____________________________Jim -:- Not so fast, premie ji! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:46:49 (EDT)
______________________________Jim -:- To get to the other side -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:51:39 (EDT)
________________________________JW -:- To get to the other side -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 22:05:59 (EDT)
______________________________JW -:- Not so fast, premie ji! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 20:19:31 (EDT)
________________________________Jim -:- Not so fast, premie ji! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 21:02:27 (EDT)
__________________________________JW -:- Not so fast, premie ji! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 21:39:51 (EDT)
____________________________________JW -:- Not so fast, premie ji! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 22:17:59 (EDT)
____________________________________John K. -:- Joe you're a riot! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 22:42:52 (EDT)
______________________________________JW -:- Joe you're a riot! -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 23:45:02 (EDT)
______________________________________Katie -:- Joe is a scary premie! -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 18:18:12 (EDT)
________________John K. -:- A generic X's reply -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 16:39:17 (EDT)
________________Scott T. -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 17:40:16 (EDT)
__________________JW -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 17:56:55 (EDT)
____________________Scott T. -:- The Sirens of Devotion -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:16:35 (EDT)
______________________Scott T. -:- The Sirens of Devotion -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:10:19 (EDT)
________________________JW -:- The Sirens of Devotion -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 20:05:56 (EDT)
________________VP -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:45:50 (EDT)
__________________JW -:- M.A. II, a weakness. -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 01:14:04 (EDT)
__Jim -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:42:14 (EST)
____David -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 09:52:46 (EDT)
______Rick -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 10:46:48 (EDT)
______Katie -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 11:15:53 (EDT)
______Jim -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:27:58 (EDT)
______Mili -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:32:09 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:38:09 (EDT)
__________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:43:44 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:55:00 (EDT)
______________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:08:09 (EDT)
________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:15:17 (EDT)
__________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:28:08 (EDT)
____________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:38:44 (EDT)
______________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:48:41 (EDT)
________________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 15:12:27 (EDT)
__________________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 15:51:35 (EDT)
____________________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:13:58 (EDT)
______________________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:39:20 (EDT)
________________________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 19:54:11 (EDT)
__________________________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 00:24:20 (EDT)
____________________________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 11:51:39 (EDT)
______________________________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:46:08 (EDT)
________________________________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:49:43 (EDT)
__________________________________________Rick -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 14:57:21 (EDT)
__________________________________________VP -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:37:13 (EDT)
________________________________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 16:49:14 (EDT)
__________________________________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 01:39:04 (EDT)
____________________________________________Jim -:- Cut the Jihad, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 11:27:52 (EDT)
______________________________________________Mili -:- Cut the Crap, Jim -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 13:19:38 (EDT)
________________________________________________Jim -:- Cut the Crap, Jim -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 13:51:13 (EDT)
__________________________________________________Mili -:- Cut the Crap, Jim -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 16:16:14 (EDT)
____________________________________________________Jim -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 16:24:24 (EDT)
______________________________________________________VP -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 17:47:18 (EDT)
________________________________________________________Katie -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 18:31:35 (EDT)
__________________________________________________________Jim -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 18:42:48 (EDT)
____________________________________________________________VP -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:04:46 (EDT)
______________________________________________________________Katie -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:13:32 (EDT)
________________________________________________________________Jim -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:30:19 (EDT)
________________________________________________________________VP -:- Disgusting post, Mili -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:36:50 (EDT)
__________________________________________________________________VP -:- The Heller Dream House -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:49:35 (EDT)
____________________________________________________________________Jim -:- The Heller Dream House -:- Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:52:47 (EDT)
____________________Scott T. -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 16:36:32 (EDT)
______________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 16:50:51 (EDT)
________________________Jim -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:36:00 (EDT)
__________________________Mili -:- Conversation with Mili -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:51:17 (EDT)
______Robyn -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:23:48 (EDT)
________VP -:- This won't buy me many friends -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 14:04:20 (EDT)
__________Robyn -:- VD -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:18:00 (EDT)

Scott T. -:- Links not changing -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:55:26 (EST)
__Scott T. -:- Links not changing -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:18:33 (EST)
____Brian -:- Links not changing -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:38:13 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Links not changing -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 09:20:11 (EDT)
__Robyn -:- Netscape after 4.0 -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:31:31 (EDT)
____Scott T. -:- Netscape after 4.0 -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:19:19 (EDT)

VP -:- Unanswered question -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 17:38:46 (EST)

Jim -:- What's an inactive index -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:27:29 (EST)
__Brian -:- What's an inactive index -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:35:09 (EST)
____Robyn -:- Brian -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:50:55 (EST)

Jim -:- Mili's brain disorder -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:09:13 (EST)

Jim -:- Vacol offers a true discussion -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:54:41 (EST)
__Paula -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:44:43 (EST)
____Jim -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 14:01:06 (EST)
______Paula -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 14:44:10 (EST)
________Jim -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:49:51 (EST)
__________Paula -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 18:17:21 (EST)
____________Jim -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 18:47:12 (EST)
____________David -:- Please stay, Paula -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:26:47 (EST)
______________Jim -:- Please stay, Paula -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:49:37 (EST)
________________David -:- Please stay, Paula -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 10:10:08 (EDT)
__________________David -:- God in human form -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:05:41 (EDT)
____________________Scott T. -:- It was really G.B. -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 20:50:52 (EDT)
______________________David -:- No it was Charlton Heston -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 05:57:56 (EDT)
________________________Scott T. -:- What about Jimi? -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 09:26:14 (EDT)
________bill -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:29:15 (EST)
__________Paula -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:59:53 (EST)
____________Katie -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:25:20 (EST)
________Paula -:- For Paula:debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:16:09 (EST)
__________Scott T. -:- Typed 'Paula' in the from box -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:21:19 (EST)
____________Robyn -:- Paula, Rick, Scott, Robyn -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:32:35 (EDT)
__________Paula -:- For Paula:debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:14:14 (EST)
____________Scott T. -:- For Paula:debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:26:39 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:35:16 (EST)
________Jim -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:58:57 (EST)
__________Scott T. -:- debate & competition -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:11:13 (EST)
__Vacol -:- My reply to Jim -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:04:23 (EST)
____Jim -:- My reply to Jim -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:11:58 (EST)

larkin -:- The Song of Liarwatha (part 1) -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:38:34 (EST)
__Brian -:- More! More! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:46:51 (EST)
__Jim -:- A new Charles Cameron? -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:24:43 (EST)
____larkin -:- Primordial howdy'all -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 17:32:21 (EST)
______Katie -:- Primeval howdy'all -:- Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 11:21:28 (EDT)
__VP -:- The Song of Liarwatha (part 1) -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:24:53 (EST)
__Robyn -:- The Song of Liarwatha (part 1) -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:49:29 (EST)

Brian -:- Random notices -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 11:35:25 (EST)
__Katie -:- Sheesh, Brian! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:11:28 (EST)
____Brian -:- Sheesh, Brian! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:49:10 (EST)
______VP -:- Sheesh, Sheesh,Sheesh! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:21:10 (EST)
____Paula -:- Sheesh, Brian! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:47:43 (EST)
______Katie -:- Sheesh, Brian! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:10:39 (EST)
________Paula -:- women jokes -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:42:45 (EST)
__________Katie -:- women jokes -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 18:17:12 (EST)
__________Robyn -:- women jokes -:- Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 10:02:35 (EDT)
____Robyn -:- Sheesh, Brian! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:53:25 (EST)
______Katie -:- Sheesh, Brian! -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:12:20 (EST)

Brian -:- It's Open -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 07:26:46 (EST)
__David -:- It's Open -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 08:56:15 (EST)
____VP -:- It's Open -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 09:41:26 (EST)
__Brian -:- Last Forum II Archive online -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 08:58:12 (EST)
__Scott Talkington -:- It's Open -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 10:01:45 (EST)
__Katie -:- It's Open -:- Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 10:07:27 (EST)


Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:41:57 (EST)
From: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
Except one maybe. But speaking of debate, I have found Mili to be the most reasoned and understanding when I have had a 'debate' with him. When we've got past the chest thumping and scabre rattling, I have found he has tried to see and reason with my point of view.
I think we have to understand the experiences that a person is coming from before we can truly have a reasonable discussion. Mili's past experience of Maharaji and DLM has been a good one. It was far removed from all the heavyness that beset a lot of us other ex-premies. If you can understand his different perspective then it's easier to see his point of view. This is true of all people, of course. Simple, I know, but then worth saying.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:33:48 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: David
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
David:

My experience of Maharaji's mission and Knowledge have been, on balance, good. It might seem ungrateful that I don't credit MJ with that. Actually, I've developed an argument about Maharaji that no premies have put forward yet. I may present it in the future. What bothers me about the premies posting here is that they seem genuinely demoralized. I say that because they don't even seem to engage in the debate, as though it's somewhat illegitimate to do so. It's easy for me to say, for instance, 'name one unambiguously noble selfless thing MJ has done,' and then sit back and watch them fail to meet the challenge. I haven't observed them working very hard at it. I don't believe I can avoid the requirement to judge M by some sort of standard, regardless of whether his mission was good to me. Conan Doyle, in one of the Holmes episodes, said 'after you have dismissed all of the explanations possible, the one that remains, no matter how improbably, must be the truth. I think there is an argument to be presented for Maharaji. I just haven't seen any premies do it, possibly because all they know is the party line. I may have to do it myself. That argument, however, does not leave Maharaji unscathed, nor does it leave him in the position of 'satguru' or 'perfect master.' That's the part that doesn't fit, no matter how you arrange the evidence. In the final analysis you can make the argument that 'someone had to do it,' but you can't make the argument that it took anyone 'special.' This, I believe, is ultimately why premies don't engage.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:39:59 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
Scott,

I'd love to hear your Maharajia Apologia. Why not give it a whirl?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 23:06:32 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: An Maharajia Apologia
Message:
Jim:

Well, let's see. I could actually do some research to see if I could find examples of selfless, noble acts by Maharaji. However, to do that I'd have to risk the possibility of not finding anything. However, let's assume that there are no such examples (a fairly reasonable assumption under the circumstances). Do you not find this, in itself, somewhat provocative? I mean, even politicians and car salesmen occasionally indulge in what seem like unselfish acts as the 'price vice must pay to virtue.' It could be argued that MJ does not indulge in such acts 'by design.' Have you a problem with this, so far?

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 23:21:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: An Maharajia Apologia
Message:
Not sure I follow you, Scott.

I was really inviting you to sketch out your Maharaji defense which, you say, no premie's done yet. This here is something different, isn't it?

But to answer your question, I think M could comfortably argue that, unlike salesmen and politicians who must appeal to the minds they find, gurus challenge concepts, dumbfound minds, etc. Good works might only get in the way of that.

Mind you, in the DUO film M did say he wanted to feed and clothe the world. That's got to count for something, doesn't it?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 01:49:37 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: An Maharajia Apologia II
Message:
Jim:

Well, as much as I could use a new suit I'm not holding my breath concerning MJ's expressed intent to help 'clothe the world.' He may not, in other words, be leveling with us. It is difficult to determine his subjective state if this state involves a strategic attitude that's related to the 'third world' of ideas. What I'm trying to develop is an argument for an inner state that is not inconsistent with his actions. He is not constrained by the enlightened self interest of public opinion, as are politicians. That's true. This provides another explanation for his lack of virtue, however it doesn't settle the question of his intent.

Given the evidence so far I have no way of knowing whether his lack of virtue is intentional or unintentional, but the net effect is that at a certain point in one's development it is possible to take a hike, in spite of the validity of one's experience of Knowledge. I don't think much of NVs 'coach' argument. He is a horrible coach, but he does manage to motivate some intensity. If Knowledge is more than a relaxation technique (and here you and I may differ), and it's therefore important to create a population who have practiced with some intensity, then it might be useful to have a flawed person or persons responsible for that propagation.

Useful to whom? I don't know. Perhaps 'useful' is the wrong word. If Knowledge is the result of design then it might be part of a divine plan. If Knowledge is an evolutionary development then MJ, Elan Vital, Paul Twitchell, the whole Sant Mat tradition may be an evolutionary development that allows the four families of innate 'neurocharms' to become a more conscious influence in our lives. There is some real empirical evidence that backs up the idea that human cognition conforms to a certain pattern of inter-related capacities that are surprisingly universal. At any rate, we don't have much use for flawless leaders. Indeed, a flawless leader would have to appear to be flawed in order the leave the 'prize' in our hands. This last, somewhat whimsical, case is only one of a number of possibilities that have no direct bearing on our circumstances, but would conform to Godel's proof that some contextual truth cannot be proved. My argument is that, true or not, it has no disparate impact. In the long run it doesn't matter whether you or I follow Maharaji or not. What's important is that a certain critical mass of people follow someone like Maharaji.

I'm not sure if this sort of argument is entirely compatible with an evolutionary perspective. As you know, that's a very complicated picture but in order to remain transparent I have to admit to a certain predisposition to believe in teleology, or design. Ultimately, strategic action is compatible with teleological action, and there is an element of strategy that overlays the whole thing. The argument you, I, and a number of others have raised against MJ involves judgments based on normatively regulated action. Do his actions embody norms, and if so are those norms good for us in general? This is apart from the value of Knowledge itself. It is a sort of double edged sword. Are actions justified in terms of norms, and are norms justified? We can make the first determination more or less objectively, according to a 'direction of fit.' However, if his actions embody norms I can't figure out what they are. Perhaps I'm just dense. At any rate I'm relieved of the obligation to make the second determination, unless I've some reason to doubt that gluttony and avarice are unacceptable as norms. So, what I'm left with is some sort of strategy, or evolutionary development, that has MJ as a conscious or unconscious instrument.

Now, here's the crux. If this argument, even with its holes, makes some degree of sense, then you already have no use for Maharaji. If you've sufficient experience and confidence in your own capacity to tap these cognitive resources (and this confidence is at least the primary 'intent' behind the strategy) then you've nothing more to gain by following a leader with no virtue. At that point you can make your own determination about what constitutes virtue without consultation, and you can afford to commit and take responsibility for your own mistakes.

Do you think this will win me any friends?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 09:22:34 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
All:

Well, since no one else has bothered to respond to this little Apologia I felt it incumbent to point out the weaknesses myself. The primary weakness is that we don't need a 'virtueless' guru to be able to escape the process of receiving and practicing Knowledge with the 'prize' intact. It would work even better if the guru were 'transparent' from the beginning, not only admitting flaws but also being free to practice virtue. As someone pointed out below, the Yogananda and Rhada S groups took this route. What I'm left with is the speculation that perhaps the two types of groups appeal to different types of people, and that to obtain the broadest and deepest distribution it might be necessary to have both. I'm not overly confident about that speculation though. I see problems with it.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:19:28 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
Scott,
Have you seen Anon's updated journey's entry. It makes my long letter look like a post-it note but very good. He showed students the med. tech. and of course didn't protray himself as having any power over their experiences. They did have experiences. This leads me to my long felt conclusion that our 'minds' do have the capacity for experiencing this meditation and countless other 'not of this world' experiences.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:02:25 (EDT)
From: JW -- my argument
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
Scott:

Here is the argument I would make for the value of Maharaji and what he offers, and I think it dovetails with your statement that 'virtue,' whatever that might be according to cultural and religious norms, is irrelevent to the 'prize' he offers. It might be a bit rambling, but this is, I think, the hardest position I know to respond to.

As a premie, I would just say that receiving and practicing knowledge has the means of giving a human being the experience of 'devotion' which is an advanced evolutionary state for human beings -- it is the highest form of 'love' and an experience that humans are always hungry for. Some might say it is the experience of 'god' that is inside every individual. It is not truly available except with a 'master' who has the power to both be the object of the devotion and who can, because of his powers, 'pull' the devotion out of a human being who is open to it and the human being has the experience of the devotion WHEN it is 'pulled out' by the power of the master. The 'master's' power to 'pull' the devotion is unrelated to whether he has any virtue or not, or whether he is even a very nice person. But you can't just get the meditation techniques from anyone and get the full experience -- you need the master to do the 'pulling.' It is a new experience to most people, wonderful but in some ways counter to the way we have lived our lives, and how we have thought about god and love previously. Meditation can relax you and even give you a transcendental experience, but it's purpose is really to make you more open and hungry for the experience of devotion.

Individuals can remember the experience of devotion when not in the presence of the master, but they also need his presence so his 'pulling' power can be manifested. Anecdotal 'good' experiences people have had around Maharaji are due to his power to pull the internal love out of someone.

Because 'devotion' cannot be forced, since it's love, it can only occur when one is willing. So, individuals have to be free to abandon the experience of it, and focus on other experiences as well. This implies that premies can leave or reject the experience if they want to, for whatever reason, usually because they fear abandoning the beliefs they grew up with, and can even denounce the master if, for example, one thinks his behavior conflicts with long-held values, or for whatever negative changes occurred in his or her life because of efforts to pursue the experience. But, the 'master' always serves as a reminder that the experience exists, and a reminder that the individual has had the experience before, and can again, and hence he will always remain attractive. So, ex-premies are almost an inevitable by-product of what he does, but they can always come back. And the fact that ex-premies continue to focus on him, even in a negative way, only shows how attractive the devotional experience is, which they once had and are looking for again, even if they are not conscious of it.

Maharaji, therefore, is just a person who has a power that others don't have. He isn't moral or immoral, he is more amoral, in the sense that it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't do in his personal life because that doesn't diminish the powers he has. All he needs to do is see that people receive knowledge, to be the object of their devotion, and let his power manifest. Period. He is not here for any other purpose, including what might be considered any other social good. [Like clothing the naked and feeding the hungry.] He could do those things, but they are not directly related to his true purpose.

And since he is limited to a human body, he is limited in what he can do to involve more people. He has physical and psychological limitations. For example, he might be thin-skinned when it comes to criticism from the media and hence avoids it, and he might surround himself by sychophants, have a reticence to admitting mistakes,etc. Just about everything he does is trial and error, because there is no blueprint on how he should act or proceed.

And he has tried a lot of things to get people to see what he can offer, including presenting himself as some sort of god, to saying he will bring peace to the world, to keeping his nature vague so people can think of him whatever they want to. He tries to relate in the culture he is in, but this leaves him open to being accused of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He also tries to change his mode of operation, the organization, etc., and this also leaves him open to criticism for being inconsistent, but these external trappings are not directly related to what he has to offer. Since Maharaji was young and uneducated, he just sort of followed what his father did in India and that sort of worked for awhile and then it stopped working. So, he changed.

On a larger scale, I might also argue that a human being likely has to evolve to a point where he or she is even ready or open to a devotional experience, and hence one has to be 'ready' to go down that path. It isn't for everyone, but the experience is still the universal experience that everyone is after, each in his or her own time.

I really think that the only argument an ex-premie can make to this, is to say that this 'wasn't my experience.'
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:11:39 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: JW -- my argument
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
Jim,
I am just wondering if that argument is one you discovered in response to Scott's or was it the way you truly felt as a devoted premie. Just curious.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:30:22 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW -- my argument
Subject: Excellent, JW
Message:
Joe,

Besides misspelling 'sycophant' (I never misspell, I only tpyo), I think the Maharajia Apologia Whalenia is great. Really good work.

And how much fun to argue the other side for a change, huh? Listen, as you're obviously so thirsty to give satsang again, I wonder if you'd touch on a few areas I'm still a little foggy about.

You mention 'evolution', oh learned one, yet I seem to recall some mention of a cyclical grand-scale history that suggested taht we've 'done this all before'. Why, like in Atlantis, for example. Or in one of those other yugas we used to hear about. What sayeth M about this?

Also, what is the mind?

Would you, please?

Ever willing to prostrate at the right feet for the right price,

Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 17:37:54 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Excellent, JW
Message:
Jim, being a thoroughly modern premie, I don't believe in things like Atlantis. I think it was probably just a fairy tale. It might have existed, but I doubt it. As for reincarnation, I don't really believe in that either, but I don't know for sure. Since I don't believe in it, I'm not going to waste the chance I've got in this life, thinking I'll get another chance in another one.

Maharaji has talked about reincarnation, but mostly in just off-hand comments, almost jokingly. I think that comes from his Hindi background. Maharaji isn't here to preach religious principles or talk about an afterlife. I think if you were to ask him now about reincarnation, he would tell you that you can believe in it if you want to, but it doesn't have anything to do with what he is about.

I think there have been other masters in the past who gave a similar experience to a number of people. But I don't think they ever reached as many people as Maharaji. I think that's what he meant when he said he had never come into the world with so much power, and that, especially as a child, he found it overwhelming.

Remember, those masters in the past had relatively few followers shen they were alive. It was only after their deaths that big religions might have formed.

Regarding 'mind.' I tend to think of it in psychological terms because that is my background. I think 'mind' might also be called 'ego.' It has nothing to do with intellect or intelligence. It's basically a set of defense mechanisms formed to protect you from things that happen to people in their lives. It's absolutely necessary to live in the world, otherwise you would get destroyed. I's formed by experiences of fear, loss, rejection, abandonment, ridicule, abuse, etc. that happen to most humans, especially as children when we are least able to deal with those things. 'Mind' is only bad in the sense that in addition to providing protection, it also tends to make you less open to experiencing the true love inside yourself. It's the thing that tells you that is impossible, and to settle for that which is material and predictable, and that feels like a safe place to live ing. The insidious thing about 'mind' is that it appears to be aiding and protecting you and it seems so familiar, but at the same time it is limiting to your experience of the ultimate. You can't fight with your mind, you can only still it in meditation and in Maharaji's presence so the love can come through.

Can I answer any other questions, Jim?

And blessings to you and all the ex-premies, sure hope I don't end of like one of you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:01:24 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Excellent, JW
Message:
Joe,

Thanks for reply. I really have a lot of questions so, if you don't mind, I'll ask a few:

1) How do you deal with the fact that Maharaji once said that any one of his then 'Holy' Family could take over the dealership should something happen to him? He often said they were all 'realized' in the Knowledge and I got the impression, silly me, it was almost a blood thing or something. After all, all those old, experienced Indian mahatmas worshipped them just like Maharaji. Know what I mean?

So I guess what I'm asking you is how could Maharaji have been so wrong as to think these guys were even close to his perfect level of surrender and realization?

Or is the summit that slippery? And if it IS that slippery is it possible for Maharaji himself to fall?

Maybe I'll wait for some answers to these questions before going any further.

Thanks again,

Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:16:56 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Excellent, JW
Message:
Jim:

I don't know how long I can keep this up. It's a little scary seeing how easily you can slip back into the programming.

Regarding the family. I don't recall M ever saying that (really!) and if he did, I'm not surprised, he was probably 10 or something and almost completely under the control of his family at that time, and I'm sure they and the mahatmas who were loyal to them told him such things. I'm not surprised he would say they had as much power as he said they did. (Did his father say anything like that?) He was really dependent on them, and needed them, and at that point, I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking it was some kind of package deal.

But like I said, I think it was trial and error for him, especially at the beginning. Later, when he felt he could run things on his own, and saw the the rest of the family only confused things because they wanted to continue to run things (multiple masters) he dumped them, so there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the master was.

It was convenient for M that he came to the west, married an American and therefore could legally break the ties with his family that way. Can you imagine how much weirder things would be if he hadn't done that?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:36:52 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Not so fast, premie ji!
Message:
That's the problem with you guys, isn't it? You want to talk about Maharaji, you just don't really wnat to think about him.

Look, sir, and this is really pissing me off, M clearly said that his family was realized and, it wasn't until they split that he stopped our worshipping them. Even the fact that I have to type this is just pissing me off more and more and, well I think I'm going to have to switch to block letters, if you CATCH MY DRIFT!

NOW I'M IN BLOCK LETTERS AND, EX-PREMIE AS I AM, THAT'S EVEN PISSING ME OFF MORE. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW SICK AND TIRED I AM OF PREMIES DENYING THE TRUTH. I'M SO SICK THAT IF I KNEW THE HTML CODE FOR MAKING THINGS LARGER, DON'T YOU TIHNK I'D DO IT? YOU BET I WOULD! WHY, I NEVER EVEN USED EXCLAMATION MARKS BEFORE ALL THIS HAPPENED! NOW LOOK AT ME!

Okay, premie ji, I just calmed down, enough anyway to ask you why it took Mata Ji splitting before Maharaji told us all that he alone was the source of 'agya'. Remember?

Also, while we're talking, did you read that satsang Maharaji gave when his dad died? The one where he said he'd manifest Maharaji for them at 9:00 sharp? What do you think that was all about?

Safely in my mind,

Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:28:07 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Not so fast, premie ji!
Message:
God, you ex-premies are just so vindictive and negative. But I'm not surprised, given how filled with anger and self-pity you are. But why don't you just get a life? Instead, you just bring up every itsy, bitsy, thing Maharaji has ever screwed up, lied about, or pretended never happened.

So what if he said at 9:00 he'd manifest his father; I'll bet he didn't say 9:00 in what YEAR, now did he? God, you ex-premies twist and distort EVERYTHING! It's just like the entire website. It is nothing more than lies and distortions. I'm just so angry I may go yell at my premie kids: Darshan and Lila. [BTW -- We named the new twins, being children of the 90s, 'Understanding' and 'Gratitude.']

And I'm not surprised that it wasn't until M got to the states and got his own, independent, source of income that he dumped that old cow Mata Ji. I mean she could be a real bitch! Could you imagine what she would have done if Maharaji told the premies to ignore her agya (remember it was SHE who said we couldn't talk in the kitchen, hence every ashram kitchen said 'It is that (old bitch) Mata Ji's agya to keep silence in the kitchen'). I mean, he would have gotten his ass kicked, maybe had his driving and soap-opera-watching privileges limited. Let the premies go on following her agya, what the hell differnce did it make?

But then, when Marolyn came around ...... I mean, there was ANOTHER reason not to want your mother in the house!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:46:49 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Not so fast, premie ji!
Message:
Premie Ji,

Your reference to Marolyn makes my blood boil. Yes, I'm that angry. We called her Durga Ji and now you seem to be denying everything. Sometimes I have to ask myself is this the same cult I slaved away in? Or, more to the point, is this any kind of cult I'd like to spend the next eight years of my life nipping at the heels of?

Well, that's my problem. I don't expect you guru lovers to understand. How can you when you never ask any questions? Come on, guru lover, answer the fucking question, will you? See? Cowards... all cowards.

Alright, you want another question, let's see what I've got.

Here's one: why did the premie cross the street?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:51:39 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: To get to the other side
Message:
Get it? To get to the other side. Pretty funny, eh?

Okay, guru lover, you want a real question.

How about this: Is Maharaji capable of making mistakes? If so, what kind?

Does Maharaji have a 'perfect' personality? If not, why doesn't he apologize for errors, ommissions, indisrections and transgressions?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 22:05:59 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: To get to the other side
Message:
Yes, I think Maharaji is capable of making mistakes, and I'll have to admit, a few of them have been DOOZIES!

He seems to have problems with math, for instance, like when he inflates the number of his followers and the number of people who come to one of his programs. And then he did mispronounce 'Athens' and there was that dinosaurs and oil thing that was kind of a boo boo. And he never got the hang of 'beginning' even after being in the West for 20 years.

I heard he also really screwed up a project in woodshop, but, being the perfect master he was, he told off the shop teacher by saying, with great derision, something like: 'Do you really think that I'm going to waste my time being a wood worker? Do you really think I come to such a high class school to learn to work with wood?' I'm sure the teacher felt very small, although M did drop out of school right after that.

That Boeing 707 thing was kind of a major mistake, as were the ashrams, the 'Fakir incident,' 'the Millennium festival,' letting Bohle Ji wear that suit, be anywhere near a musician or be in charge of anything, calling himself the 'Lord of the Universe' and the 'superior power in person,' that 'bare-chested Krishna outfit' (I think this was Durga Ji's idea), although a lot of these things seemed like good ideas at the time, especially if you believed that Maharaji was 'all powerful' and 'all knowing' and that his 'grace' would take care of everything. I guess those things were kind of big mistakes, too.

But I think Maharaji is also responsible for the intense flatulence we ashram residents had to experience in the meditation hall every night resulting from the large quantities of soybeans we had eaten at dinner. This is something I am still angry about and for which I will never forgive him. I STILL have nausea because of those experiences. And I'm sure they kept me from merging into cosmic bliss. Drat!

I don't think Maharaji has to take responsbility for anything (except the good stuff) because he is the perfect master so nah, nah nah! And also because nobody pushes him on it. I mean, be honest, if you could get away with never admitting any error, wouldn't you?

And, yes, I think Maharaji does have a 'perfect personality.' Isn't it obvious?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 20:19:31 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Not so fast, premie ji!
Message:
Jim, how DARE you say I don't answer your questions. The problem is, like it says in the instructors' manual, you just don't know what the REAL question is you are asking. THAT is the question I'm answering, the one you are REALLY asking, not the one you asked.

You see, you were asking about Maharaji's family and their agya and shit like that, when I KNEW that your REAL questions was:

'What is the capitol of Vermont?'

The answer is 'Montpelier.' Now that your TRUE question has been answered you are ready to receive knowledge, but since you already have it, I guess it doesn't matter.

Jai Satchitanand!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 21:02:27 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Not so fast, premie ji!
Message:
Well I never!! And you thought I was angry before!

( Aside: Oh if only I had a way to control this wicked mind! It's like a monkey always on my back. It's like a genie but, I tell you, I feel like I'M the slave. Oh Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?

If I were to walk on the beach and one set of prints going out, and then saw two coming back, what if there were three going out again? Does this mean, Lord, that you've brought your friend? But again, I have so many questions...)

Okay, Premie Ji, I'll ask you the one question you can't deny comes from my heart: can I come home? Please, will he take even me, who dared to ask the questions of the mind?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 21:39:51 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Not so fast, premie ji!
Message:
I always thought the mind was like a pig in a poke, or maybe a raisin in the sun, or was it something about going to Carolina. I'm not sure. I must be in my mind or I'm sure it would be clear to me. But maybe it's because I'm not CLEAR! God, the ultimate disaster for a premie, that, and being NEGATIVE. Oh, horror, talking to you ex-premies has made me CONFUSED.

That beach parable sounds very deep and shows that you have come a long way in your understanding. So, can you explain to me what the hell the point is of that 'take your 25 cents and go to hell' joke Maharaji used to tell endlessly in his satsangs? I could never figure out what the point was. Does it mean that I shouldn't give money to panhandlers or I might go to hell? Please, this has been bothering me for years and I can't sleep at night just wondering. Since you have developed such clarity, and are feeling so surrendered, maybe you can see the truth.

But I do know that you can always come home, Jim. You have always had the power within inside of you, (and Toto too!) by the grace of Maharaji. You got lost because you just let anger, desires and attachments rob you of eternal life. And in the river of bondage to maya, you got swept out to sea. It could happen to anybody. But guru's,... I mean, Maharaji's boat is the holy name and in seconds he will set you free. Also, a watched pot never boils and a stitch in time saves nine. So, don't put it off until tomorrow. You can do it today.

Yes, Maharaji will always take you back, just don't forget your checkbook and credit cards.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 22:17:59 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Not so fast, premie ji!
Message:
Also, at the next program, wear your best suit, bring a flower and a big smile and don't forget your Visa Card, because in Maharajiworld they don't take American Express!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 22:42:52 (EDT)
From: John K.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Joe you're a riot!
Message:
Hey Joe, you ever thought of taking your show on the road? I mean the comedy club circuit. I'm sure this is a niche that hasn't been filled yet: a comedian to relate to all the ex-cult members, or even people who have known cult members, you know relatives, friends, must be millions who could relate in some way to it. And just think, you'd have an endless amount of material to work with.

It's interesting that in that 'argument of devotion' you presented that you actually talked like the premie you used to be. I'd like to hear the kind of satsang Jim used to give. I bet it was in the fire and brimstone style.

It really is impossible to discuss all of this guru stuff and keep a straight face anymore. It's just too damn simplistic and mindless.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 23:45:02 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: John K.
Subject: Joe you're a riot!
Message:
Thanks, John. I have to admit Jim gave me some great opportunities. Jim makes a great 'straight man,' I mean, for a straight man that is.

Actually, it was a little weird writing that 'satsang' and then defending it. As I mentioned to Scott, I think it is basically what I believed during the last few years I was a premie, although I don't think I ever expressed it that way back then.

But what's weird is you can see how easily you can fall back into the programming, and how you can get so defensive in trying to defend my 'beliefs' even though I don't really believe them anymore. Just goes to show that you can be conditioned into believing almost anything.

But Scott pointed out the same problem with that argument that I have. And I think you did too. Namely, it requires a belief that one-way devotion to someone you never met is really okay and that it is fulfilling to be subjugated to that same 'person.' It took a long time to realize that it wasn't okay and that it was just so stagnating and costly but it's confronting to face that for many people. So, I can see why some premies still haven't done it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 18:18:12 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Joe, John K. & all
Subject: Joe is a scary premie!
Message:
I agree with John, Joe - your satsang is great! It was so good that it scared me a little. I kept having to look up at who the post was from to reassure myself that it was you writing it. You must have been really good at convincing people back in the olden days.

I'd like to hear Jim's satsang too, if he could do it with a straight face! I'd love to hear him argue the pro position.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 16:39:17 (EDT)
From: John K.
Email: kreilkamp@mindspring.com
To: JW -- my argument
Subject: A generic X's reply
Message:
Joe:
So, the purpose of human life is to experience devotion, it is not to meditate and become 'clear', or become a nicer person, or a better person, or someone who will clothe the naked, feed the hungry etc.
Right?
And actually, we all know this is true from our years with the guru.
The guru is not into teaching moral values. Reference: His famous story about the guy who tried to get into heaven because of his good deeds. God told Peter, give him his money back and tell him to go to hell.

[BTW, my father, who is a devout christian, read that story in one of the magazines I gave my parents to look at, and he was forever scornful of the guru's teachings.]

Also, the object of devotion, the guru, does not have to actually exhibit any personal attention back onto the devotee.

Okay, so the purpose of life is for the devotee to worship the guru and never expect anything back.

So, here is the argument the generic x can use:

Dear generic premie:

That's the most ridiculous notion of how to spend one's life I have ever heard!
I believe that just the opposite is in fact the case. We evolve when we grow more capable of 'sharing' in an experience of 'mutual' devotion. Without the give and take of loving other real human beings on equal terms, the devotion is meaningless. Anyone can worship someone or something from afar, but it's the difficulties and tests that arise from day to day living that truly create an environment that one can grow spiritually in.

The creator did not design us in such a simple manner. We want and actually must have more from 'this' life than just to give endlessly to something that will never respond to us.

We are created to do more than simply fill a seat in an auditorium
where we can worship the guru. I would go so far as to say that devotion is the fast track to zombieland.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 17:40:16 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW -- my argument
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
JW:

I can't really comment on the ultimate validity of what you're saying except to say that it's just not true for me, and therefor quite possibly the subjective motivational sequence you outline is not universal. I'm enough of an evolutionist to ask what value the devotional experience has. Longing leads some humans to jump off cliffs. Durkheim developed an entire sociology out of the study of suicide. Perhaps what you're talking about is related to that? For me, I have to introduce some control into that longing. As primordial as it seems it is only beneficial to the extent that I can link it to other more pragmatic goals. I have a poet friend who thinks this perspective ridiculous, so my conclusion is that some people are simply not pragmatic, by nature. Those people usually end up needing the care of others, which they may or may not receive. In the long run I don't think they are the wave of the future. They are extremely fortunate if they happen to find an object of devotion who is virtuous. Perhaps I can improve their odds, is all...

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 17:56:55 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
No, Scott. I don't think 'longing' has anything to do with it. And I am a very pragmatic person. I can't argue with your personal experience either. But I would suggest that you have gotten involved in things that your, for whatever reason, value more than the experience you had with Maharaji.

It's not as if one has to become vacant and suicidal before one can be open to the experience Maharaji has to offer. In fact, I think many people come to Maharaji feeling that they are basically happy and are, for some reason perhaps due to some evolutionary process, are open to experiencing ultimate love.

To the contrary, from my experience, people who are living in the dregs, either materially or emotionally, usually have a harder time being open to Maharaji and what he has to offer.

I don't think the devotional experience has an evolutionary component, if you mean better survival for the species. Although I think you could argue that ultimately there is one, in the long term. No, I think the devotional experience has always been around, and not something that has evolved, although humans may evolve enough to be open to it. But I, and Maharaji, say the spiritual path has highly individual thing and people may be progessing (or be stuck) at their own points on the path.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:16:35 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: The Sirens of Devotion
Message:
JW:

Regarding: It's not as if one has to become vacant and suicidal before one can be open to the experience Maharaji has to offer. In fact, I think many people come to Maharaji feeling that they are basically happy and are, for some reason perhaps due to some evolutionary process, are open to experiencing ultimate love.

Well, this is the way I felt (ultimate love) at the time. There was a sort of 'purity of motive' associated with it. This, to me, would be the focal point of longing. As such it might have an evolutionary component. Purity of motive would be associated with the verification of a certain class of 'truth claims' that have to do with subjective experience. It sort of 'rounds out' the human condition and perhaps protects us from a tendency over rationalize or adopt a strategic approach to all action. But this is the central problem involved with Charisma.

I can't help thinking of the story of Ulysses who, wanting to hear the song of the sirens, but realizing the danger, had his crew stop their ears and tie him to the mast. This was basically a cooperative enterprise, and a clever way to 'have your cake and eat it too.' However, it does involve the proper use of rationality. Perhaps there is such a thing as a healthy dose?

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 19:10:19 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: The Sirens of Devotion
Message:
JW:

I should add that I still don't buy the idea that the 'real' story is devotion. I could get very metaphysical about this, but suffice it to say that, for me at least, devotion is just a sort of infatuation. It is not inherently good or evil, and can be either. It is 'bad' in the sense that it places you at the mercy of something that may have the power to hurt not only yourself, but others as well. Ever read R. Buckminster Fuller's 'No More Secondhand God,' written as Hitler and Mussilini were coming to power?

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 20:05:56 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: The Sirens of Devotion
Message:
Scott:

I couldn't agree more. The subjugation that is required for that kind of 'devotion' is the inherent problem and the reason it is so destructive. At least it was destructive for me. That's why I don't buy my argument. But I still think it's the hardest one to argue with. And, in response to Robyn, I think it's pretty close to what I believed during my later years as a premie.

And like John K said, nothing ever came back from the 'devotion' I gave. It was all a one-way street and that is also very destructive, in my opinion.

The trap is, 'devotion' can feel very good while it's happening. I think that's because it allows one to regress to being a child and to 'surrender' to what you believe is a more powerful being. As I have said before, the only times I have experienced something similar is in sex, although some of my sexual experiences have been a lot more intense than any guru-program, no matter how devotional they were.

And the problem also is, that I think many premies just live in the world of 'it feels good (sometimes) so I continue to believe in it, no matter what.' It often sounds to me like addiction.

But the 'child' regression is very limited, and it feels, after awhile, very stagnating, because you can't really grow. And everything M says and is about seems like it is intended to keep one from growing. I think that is the 'suffocating' experience I felt so much in my last few years as a premie.

Joe
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:45:50 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: JW -- my argument
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
JW,

That post is so real it's scary. It's also the defense of M that makes that most sense to me. Okay, now I know why NV says that I never received knowledge. So the devotion to M is the 'real' knowledge and the knowledge is just a tool. Does this mean that any ex-premie (or premie for that matter) who mentioned that they didn't or couldn't accept devotion to M never received knowledge either? VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 01:14:04 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: M.A. II, a weakness.
Message:
It's the best argument I can come up with, but as Scott pointed out, I reject it because it requires a subjugation to the 'master' which I think is a destructive relationship for most people.

I think 'devotion' is only gradually presented to people in the current aspirant process, which is a very controlled, and restricted system. People start out just being told it's a beautiful experience and meditation is involved. It isn't until near the end that the idea of devotion to the master is introduced. And of course, they AREN'T told about how thousands of people line up to kiss Maharaji's feet. Oh, no.

But I would think that is very important information for someone considering getting involved, because the fact that he holds darshan lines would be a good indication of who or what he thinks he is.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:42:14 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: David
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
Just when did you have any of these reasonable dialogues with Mili? I don't recall seeing them.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 09:52:46 (EDT)
From: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
Several times when I have clashed with Mili and we've continued discussion, he has appreciated my point of view. Some months ago we were discussing why I couldn't in all sincerely, follow Maharaji. I mentioned programs and festivals I had been to where M had danced and premies had gone wild while I had just stood there feeling rather awkward and out of place and unable to relate to what was happening. Mili agreed that such a thing would prevent someone from wanting to follow Maharaji.

On the other hand, I understand Mili's fondness for Maharaji. Where he lives in Croatia there was never the heavy trip layed on premies that happened in Britain and the USA (or Canada). It was a cool scene with guitar strumming premies and the occational festival with Maharaji. Mili said he had a good time in the seventies and could understand that in other countries, premies didn't have such a good time. Now Mili missed the early seventies 'Come with more power' stuff and was chilling out when the late seventies 'surrender or die' was happening. So he is gonna have a totally different perspective.

Naturally, since Mili's experience has been a nice laid back, fond memory, he's not going to want to hear nasty things said about Maharaji. But he has gone some way (in past threads) to understanding how ex-premies think about it all. Well this is much better than my experience with most other premies here like Participant and VD (or something like that) where they have just simply said that they're right and I'm wrong. So in my experience, Mili is one of the more reasonable of the premies, once you get below the surface.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 10:46:48 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: rtaraday@hotmail.com
To: David
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
I like that David... '...VD (or something like that)...'.
Rick
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 11:15:53 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: David
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
Dear David - I also have had some good conversations with Mili when we were talking about our PERSONAL experiences of M (also, we've had some good off-topic conversations, but guess that doesn't count!) Mili and I get in arguments sometimes too, but he has never challenged my personal feelings about M (or vice versa, which probably helps our communication).

On the other hand, Mili and I cannot discuss the Bob Mishler interview, for example, without disagreeing and/or getting into an argument. I also don't like it when he accuses people of lying, gossiping, or spreading rumours when they don't seem to be doing so (for example, the Mike Finch story about the motorway.) Also, Mili and I have had some problems in the past with a few remarks he made about a woman who posted on the very old forum, but we have worked those out (via e-mail).

My point is that I agree with you about Mili's openness to discussion, as long as one sticks to discussing personal experiences (and a few other things). And treating Mili (and everyone else) with courtesy, really helps foster communication too!

Regards from Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:27:58 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: David
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
David,

You amaze me. First, even if I grant you for argument's sake that M was somehow sold differently in Croatia and that no one ever worshipped him as the Lord there, I'd have to ask you to point out one little example where Mili has respected the different experience others might have had and tried to understand it.

Actually, he's done exactly the opposite. Presented with anything he doesn't want to be true, he usually just calls all the evidence 'lies' and the witnesses liars. He takes this to absolutely laughable levels. The guy's a buffoon.

For example: the Mishler interview. Not only does he say it never happened (despite Rick, Scott Perry and I each saying we have copies of the tape itself!), he says that even if it did, there's no reason not to think....... and then he'll come up with whatever twisted implausible explanation he can think of to discredit Mishler. Thus he makes unreasonable claims about the witnesses' credibility and unreasonable excuses to dismiss anything they say.

You'd be hard-pressed to show any sincerity on his part throughout any of this either. Not only does Mili bend over backwards to avoid any possible information he doesn't like, he refuses to honestly discuss the process itself. Moreover, when he's finally stuck in his own inconsistency -- like when he said M had never claimed to be the messiah and I showed him a quote where M said just that -- the best he'll say is something like he did there: 'I'll get back to you on that.' Of course he never does. Why? Because that would require his admitting he just may be wrong. Mili doesn't do that.

Then there's his clownish hypocrisy. Like I say, and as you should know, Mili will go to absolutely stupid lengths to deny
something. Like a good Holocaust denier, he'll apply his 'special tape measure' -- the kind that finds every last bit of evidence just a little short -- to whatever he wants. But ask him to measure some of his own theories or evidence by that same standard? You've got to be kidding.

Then there's Mili's integrity. Not only has he tried to shut this site down, he's down it secretly and duplicitously, pretending to speak for a whole horde of people who never knew he was doing that, let alone gave him their permission. He didn't apologize when caught. Apologize? For what? Lying? Ha, he says, we're all liars anyway. He can do what he wants.

Now we know Mili's a liar. He's lied about all sorts of stuff. Go ahead, just ask him. He'll admit it and laugh it off ('Governments do it too!'). Then, like a complete idiot, he'll try to drag us down to his own sorry level, like when he pretends to think that my little parody of Maharaji was meant to seriously mislead people. As if.

But Mili's got his guru to protect, right? I guess that's why he threatened to attack the other David if he ever met him or why he cursed me and others with some of the vilest blessings ever uttered in the name of Shri Guru Maharaj Ji (that I've heard anyway).

Now don't get me wrong, he's not just this ugly with ex-premies. When he DID have his premie page, the moment a few premies there got into the inevitable dispute over whether M is or isn't God, some saying it was unthinkable that he was, others that it was equally unthinkable tht he wasn't, Mili just told them to shut up. There's no way they were going to start a discussion on the premie page, at least not if he had anything to say about it.

Mind you, a lot of that's true if you give Mili some benefit of the doubt about never having been exposed to the heavy devotional cult we had the pleasure of belonging to way back when. But do you believe that for a second? That is, do you actually think Maharaji was presented as the Lord and Saviour everywhere else in the world but NOT Croatia? Give me a break, David. That's preposterous and you know it. We did our share of guitar strumming too, but what words were we singing? Think about it.

Look, if you tihnk I haven't tried many times over to start fresh with Mili, to try to talk with him like, well even like a friend who I thought was clearly wrong about something but a friend nonetheless, you're wrong. I've tried umpteen times, here, on the newsgroup and on the alt-support.ex.cult newsgroup before that. Have I ever done anything to throw the cart over? In other words, have I jsut out of the blue lost my cool and started back into the hostilities?

You might like to think so. If you want to, suit yourself. I guess the idea has some appeal: the symetry of extreme premieness and ex-premieness leaves you lots of room to walk down the middle, I'd imagine. Fine, enjoy yourself.

The truth, however, is that I've lost it on Mili, if that's how you want to think of it, when he's been despicable and loutish, only then. In any other venue, he'd have been tossed out long before. Hey, here's a guy who's tried to burn down the theatre, for Christ'sake. But, he's still around and probably will be for years. Tell me, though, if this website does stay for longer than any of us would even like to contemplate, do you think years from now Mili will be any closer to admitting that maybe, just maybe, M must bear some responsibility for the effect he's had and continues to have on people? Do you think Mili will admit that M just may have fallen short as a human being once or twice? Do you think Mili will admit that some of the people who obviously trusted and sacrificed more to M than Mili ever dreamt of have some legitimate beef with the guy?

There is one thing I'm absolutely certain of here. If M really does read this page, or if he looks at it once every few months, if he only just hears about it occasionally from his servants and publicists, he must cringe at the ham-fisted defense Mili's mounted for him here. I'm sure of it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:32:09 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: David
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
Thank you for the kind words, David.

I also think you have been trying to be quite honest and realistic about this whole thing. I loved your sincerity when you spoke about how you came to the point while being in the ashram that you thought,'OK. You might be the Lord and this Knowledge may be it, but I just can't hack it. Lemme out of here!'

I think I have always been cautious about everything, including this, and it did save me a lot of trouble. I took Maharaji at face value when he said everyone should proceed at their individual pace.

I don't know if you have had this experience, but in our community there was a least one guy who was playing the 'true devotee' to the hilt and harrassing everyone. I simply avoided these people. These people are nowhere to be seen today. I think Maharaji referred to these persons as the ones who tied a ball and chain to their leg in order to stay on the boat of devotion. Then, when they jumped off, they went straight down to the bottom.

I think things would be much simpler here if we only understood that we have all had different experiences, and henceforth draw different conclusions. Difficult, if not impossible, to generalize. Unfortunately, it's hard for some people to understand that simple thing.

I find it hard to understand why someone should consider me to be an idiot just because I have not had a bad experience with Maharaji and the Knowledge.

As for this place being a site for -debate-, -discussion- or -argument-, how come the word -conversation- never entered anyone's mind?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:38:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili,

I seem to recall that we were in the midst of a conversation just the other day. This is over whether or not M claimed to be the Messiah, remember? You'd said he'd never said that and I showed you where he said exactl that. You the nsaid you'd get back to me on it, you had to think about it a bit.

Well?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:43:44 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Well, Jim, according to the quotes that you've shown me, I think he just might be the Messiah (even though he is not Jewish, that is!)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:55:00 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Well, Mili, you'd have to agree that that's quite an about-face for you, isn't it? I mean, all these years you think he isn't the Messiah, all these years you're sure he's never claimed that he was, then what? He is the 'Saviour of Mankind' after all?

And what about all the months you've spent ridiculing people for believing just that? You've called us every name in the book. Either M had never such things, you scoffed, or, if he had, anyone who took him at face value was an idiot? Remember all that, Mili?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:08:09 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
I guess you have some kind of a point there, Jim. But I still think you are an idiot if you take those kind of quotes at face value, from anyone.

The thing is, I have never had a particularly religious upbringing, so to me the word 'Messiah' is just another one of those funny, historical/religious idiosyncrasies.

I find it much more realistic to regard Maharaji simply as 'Maharaji', and rely on what I have felt and feel through the Knowledge meditation to judge his authenticity by.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:15:17 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili, you're avoiding everything here and you're backpeddling. Please, let's be logical. M claimed to be the Messiah. You concede that now and even say that that means it's probably true.

(I have to stop and ask you the obvious question this raises: what if it isn't true? What would that mean?)

Anyway, if it is true, then what do you say to the many people you've laughed at for believing it? Further, what does that say about your own understanding of M? Is it possible that you don't know him anywhere near as well as you think you do?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:28:08 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Jim,

You see now you are beginning to play out your little game of 'knowing what I wanted to say' better than me, i.e telling me that I am evading something just because I didn't answer your questions the way you expected me to. Also, you pose as some kind of expert on this topic as if you knew more about it than I do. That's bullshit.

And - you are beginning to twist my original statements. I said 'According to your quotes, he might be the Messiah', and now you are already asserting that I said that he is probably the Messiah.

Jim, who cares if he is the Messiah or not! I certainly don't. That won't stop me from going to the next festival and having a great time, while you chew on your eternal paradox 'Is he the Messiah, or isn't he?' here, day in and day out.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:38:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Actually, my turn to apologize. You're right, you said might, not probably. But the question remains:
what does that say about your ridiculing the many people who said M had said that?

And what does it all say about Maharaji?

You ask 'who cares if he's the Messiah or not'? Well, Mili, the thousands of premies who believed him and sacrificed years of their lives accordingly cared. Can't you understand that?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 14:48:41 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Well, Jim, if I ridiculed the people who said that he said that, and I might have done that, then I herewith sincerely apologize.

As for how thousands of people could take him on as being a Messiah just because he hinted it, or said that, - that's frankly beyond my ken. I seem to recall that Maharaji clearly said that 'The test of a Perfect Master is the Knowledge that he gives.' Now, that makes a lot more sense to me.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 15:12:27 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili, given all that preceded it, your apology's no small thing. It might even be collectable. Framable anyway. :)

OK, a few posts ago you mentioned how you took M at face value when he said to enjoy your own experience. It's not what he said, Mili, it's the guru-devotee relationship. M insisted that we trust him and that meant 'taking him at face value.'

Don't you have any idea of how strongly he enforced that notion? M gave endless examples of the 'true' devotees of the past who unflinchingly accepted their guru's words without doubt, guile or reservation. You want the quotes? I could give them to you by the case lot, starting with 'leave no room for doubt in your mind'.

The point is that when M said he was the Messiah, or the Saviour of Mankind, or God in Human Form, or the Supreme Lord incarnate, it wasn't just an academic point he was making, removed from the realities of practising Knowledge. He said that so taht we'd believe it and sacrifice our lives to him. Do you finally understand that?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 15:51:35 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Sorry, Jim, this is where we do not share the same experiences and/or interpretation. Really, that's all there is to it.

I never got the message that Maharaji wanted me to 'sacrifice my life to him'. Whatever he said and did always pointed me to meditation and having a supportive environment for the practice of Knowledge, and to live and enjoy my life in a completely normal way.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:13:58 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili,

Your saying you 'never got the message that Maharaji wanted me to 'sacrifice my life to him' is just another layer of the same onion. Listen, M said it. YOU might not have listened or responded the way he wanted, but it doesn't change the fact.

Mili, I get the feeling that I could do this whole next round with you and prove to you that, like he said he was the Messiah, M tried to get you to sacrifice your life to him. I have absolutely no doubt that we'd eventually reach the same place. That is, you'd eventually admit that I was right, that M did indeed make that demand.

But then what? You'd just say you never fell for that line or something, no harm, no foul. But that's just a red herring, Mili. Apparently, a lot of people took M a lot more seriously than you ever did. You used to sneer at them and call them stupid. But, really, whose fault is it if M himself was conjuring this illusion?

This is all pretty obvious, Mili. It's not just about you and how you managed to not give too much since you've been a premie. It's about M. Who he is, who he's claimed to be and the effect that's had on others.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:39:20 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Jim,

You really can't seem to understand that just because I don't react to this 'Messiah' thing in the same way as you do, does not mean that I did not take Maharaji and the Knowledge seriously in my own way. You don't know that. And, I believe I took it seriously in the way it was meant to be taken - not as an outward show, or mere words, but as something that you practically apply to your life. I did try that, and it worked for me.

See, I don't feel that I've sacrificed, or given anything away - I feel that I gained more than I had before.

I don't know - we could play the quote game, but all you've suceeded in convincing me so far is that Maharaji said what he said. However, you tend to dose it up with more than a fair share of your own interpretation and speculation.

You could also convince me that he said all those other things about the guru/devotee relationship, no problem. But I will most assuredly never agree with your cynical intepretation of it.

So, let's save ourselves the trouble. It's late anyway, and I have to get up early in the morning. This conversation is not going anywhere, and Maharaji and the Knowledge are also not going away, either. They have been around for a very, very long time.

Nice talking to you, see you around old friend.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 19:54:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili,

It HAS been better than most discussions we've had. You get the credit for that.

I do want to reply to one thing you said, though:

You could also convince me that he said all those other things about the guru/devotee relationship, no problem. But I will most assuredly never agree with your cynical intepretation of it.

Mili, this 'interpretation' defence only goes so far, you know. That's where sincerity comes in. There are so many ways you can honestly interpret things. Your 'predisposition' to not agree with my interpretations is what's cynical here.

Oh, and by the way, did you really, honestly believe that I expected people to take that Maharaji 'quote' parody seriously?

Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 00:24:20 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Yeah, Jim, we didn't agree on a single thing, as usual - but we managed not to call the other guy 'motherfucker' because of that.

BTW, what do you mean with 'that's where sincerity comes in'. Are you saying I am not being sincere enough, you mothe...!

Really, Jim, that's a foul. That's just like calling me a liar out of thin air. How can you accuse me of not being sincere enough, just because I don't share your point of view? We are not all clones of Jim, you know.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 11:51:39 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili,

I'm only saying that there's only so many ways once cna interpret things. If you're SO convinced that you can't possibly interpret certain quotes of M the way I would I'd have to wonder if that's not an exagerrated 'concern'. Come on, don't you know what I mean?

Like, frankly, it was a breath of fresh air for me seeing you handle the 'messiah' quote the way you did. He said it, it obviously means what it means and that's that. So why say in advance that even if I can find M's own words to back up what I say tht you KNOW you won't interpret them that way?

You've already shown that you're more than capable of playing above that level.

By the way, you never answered my other question: did you really think I was trying to pass off that parody as a real quote of M's?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:46:08 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Jim,

What's the point of all this?

I am not an iron-clad devotee. Only when I get to talking to you, I become an incarnation of Narad, or Hanuman, or something.

You are jesting with the wrong thing here. You are toying with something that I take very seriously. Now, you are an intelligent person, so why do you do that? Do you get some sadistic pleasure out of it, or what? Or are you a masochist of some kind? You know you will never convince me to see things your way, so why try so hard. Are you maybe, just trying to prove something to yourself by it?

Look, no one is saying that you have to follow Maharaji at all. Like Bruce said above, the door is always open, you can walk in or out.

You shouldn't fuck around with these feelings of devotion that people have, because you might really get in trouble. Not with me perhaps, because I've grown accustomed to your folly, but someone might really do a nasty number on you just from reading all the crap that you've posted here.

You DON'T try to be a middleman between a person and what they consider sacred, regardless of how ridiculous you may think that is. You DON'T fuck around with someone's faith. You DON'T make crude jokes about it. Like he once said, when you try to play games with Guru Maharaj Ji, you become the ball.

Jim, be a little smart here, if not wise, and leave well enough alone. I can read and perhaps, sympathize with some of your experiences and your life story here, but quit this compulsive, obsessive game of trying to tell other people what to think or believe.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:49:43 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili,

Why are you suddenly freaking on me?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 14:57:21 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Jim,
What did you expect? Once an old-world gentleman, always an old-world gentleman.
Rick
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:37:13 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim/Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Yeah, Mili. I think Jim has been behaving himself rather nicely over here on forum III. What is up with that last post?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 16:49:14 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili,

You said:

You DON'T try to be a middleman between a person and what they consider sacred, regardless of how ridiculous you may think that is.

as if to suggest I'd stumbled accross some strange cargo cult temple on my yuppie safari and was dancing around their totems, wearing a mask I found on the gorund, while my friends shot the video.

Mili, this is MY story too. In fact, as you never served in the trenches to the extent that I did, it's much more my story than yours. Who's the middleman?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 01:39:04 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheeful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili, this is MY story too. In fact, as you never served in the trenches to the extent that I did, it's much more my story than yours. Who's the middleman?

'So, when did you exchange
a walk-on part in the war
for a lead role in a cage?'

Jim,

I knew you were going to pull this 'holier than thou' trick on me. You are one of those who tied a ball and a chain on your leg to stay on the boat of devotion. Then you jumped overboard, and went straight to the bottom.

You are a has-been. An Ex. All washed up.

You are an aging yuppie lawyer in a cargo cult. Your professed fascination with 'science' testifies that. You don't know anything about science. You don't know the difference between a differential equation and a Fourier transform. It's all Greek to you. That's why it attracts you so much - it has this magical, mystical effect on you. OK, that's cool - reading popular science books is a lot better than shooting up heroin, I guess.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 11:27:52 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Cut the Jihad, Mili
Message:
Mili,

You said:

You shouldn't fuck around with these feelings of devotion that people have, because you might really get in trouble. Not with me perhaps, because I've grown accustomed to your folly, but someone might really do a nasty number on you just from reading all the crap that you've posted here.

You DON'T try to be a middleman between a person and what they consider sacred, regardless of how ridiculous you may think that is. You DON'T fuck around with someone's faith. You DON'T make crude jokes about it. Like he once said, when you try to play games with Guru Maharaj Ji, you become the ball.

Jim, be a little smart here, if not wise, and leave well enough alone.


You're really losing it here, aren't you? It occurred to me here that you're sounding very much like an Islamic extremist, aren't you? Is THAT the image you think Maharaji wants?

Your anger has obviously clouded your reason again. I first responded to this threat by reminding you that I'm not playing the 'middleman' to anything. This is between ME and MY guru. The so-called 'holier-than-thou shit' you complained of -- my mentioning that I served him much more intensely than you ever did and yes, sacrificed much more too -- is a point you've conceded all along. It's a little late now to quiblle with that, isn't it?

Mili, you WERE acting like a human being for a change. What's gotten into you?

Listen, your threats above -- oh, I know, they weren't about anything YOU'D do, just what others might --
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 13:19:38 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Cut the Crap, Jim
Message:
The so-called 'holier-than-thou shit' you complained of -- my mentioning that I served him much more intensely than you ever did and yes, sacrificed much more too -- is a point you've conceded all along. It's a little late now to quiblle with that, isn't it?

Jim, you are such a pathological liar. Can you get me the exact quote where I 'conceded' that?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 13:51:13 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Cut the Crap, Jim
Message:
What? You're denying this now? What are you talking about? I'm simply saying the obvious, and a point you've made yourself -- you never got that involved. You didn't live in the ashram, you didn't throw yourself into 'sacrificing' your life, time and energy the way so many of us did.

Mili, you can't have it both ways. That's just ridiculous.

By the way, when will you answer my question about believing that my Maharaji parody was meant to fool people for real? I've asked you several times now.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 16:16:14 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Cut the Crap, Jim
Message:
Jim,

You don't get it - do you?

Living in an ashram was easy. You had everything provided for you. All you had to do, was satsang, service and meditation, and go to the festivals for free. Get the best seats. Now, living in the real world and practicing Knowledge is a little harder. I think Maharaji got tired of lazy slobs like you who were tripping on mushrooms and fucking around with the sisters. That was probably one of the reasons he closed the ashrams out.

As for your question - yes, I think you were trying to deceive unsuspecting people into believing that he actually said that, just like the 'work' you did on the Bob Mishler interview.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 16:24:24 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
Mili,

What's gotten into you? Why so vicious? You're not replying to what I was talking about (the fact that you never sacrificed nearly as much as many who post here). Why?

Also, Mili, if you honestly couldn't tell that parody for what it was, I can't relate. I simply can't relate.

As for the 'work' I did on the Mishler interview, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Get a grip, Mili.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 17:47:18 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
Jim,
After this last beautiful exchange I owe you an apology for getting on your case over on Forum II. You told me to look for myself at who is following rules of good discussion and who isn't. Sorry for getting on your case. You obviously know how to keep your head (when you want to:) VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 18:31:35 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: VP
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
Yes, Jim, I agree with VP on this one. (You get one 'Get out of jail free Card' from me, for keeping your head.)

I am not sure why Mili's attitude towards you changed so dramatically overnight, but the often the cause of sudden changes of heart like this results from the person talking to someone else who makes them 'see' something. I think some (not all) of the premies may have an interest in demonizing you.

Re: the Mishler interview thing - Mili has mentioned that he has seen 'different versions' of it - do you think he has got it mixed up with 'M's last TV interview'? Anyway, as Mili knows, I am tired of hearing his theory that the interview has been faked or doctored when the reverse is easily verifiable. (All the other premies just say that Mishler was in his mind!)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 18:42:48 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
Katie, VP,

I can't tell you how warm I feel. I admit, I was one of those who laughed at Sally Fields' Oscar acceptance speech. Well never again.

Katie, are you suggesting that Mili's been talking to some of the other premies privately, like in email or something. Is that even allowed?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:04:46 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
If the exs can have a little email 'conspiracy' going on...haha! But exs have no orders from the top, now do they?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:13:32 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: VP
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
Re 'orders from the top': some premies have said that the exes are following Jim! (I'm not making fun of you, Jim. It's just so ludicrous to think that we would all line up and follow one person after our collective experience with M.) One person even called Brian a 'Jim wannabe'...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:30:19 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
What's so funny about that?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:36:50 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Disgusting post, Mili
Message:
Shocking idea! (Sorry Jim but just like Sally Fields and Andy Warhol your 15 minutes may be over)on the other hand...

If we are to follow Shri Jim, he'd better get his act together on the publication of 'And it is the Mind' and how about organizing some programs? We need a hook, he could introduce people to Evolutionary Science at introductory meetings. John K and I can produce some videos and you and Robyn can get those action figures into production. I wonder if Mili would make us some chocolate? VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:49:35 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: The Heller Dream House
Message:
P.S. If we are going to fully commercialize this to it's full potential...we need to know what the Heller Dream House looks like. Just Kidding! :)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 07, 1998 at 19:52:47 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: The Heller Dream House
Message:
First, 'Just kidding' is used sparingly. You really didn't need it here. Just kidding. Then, you have to develop a desire to learn by unlearning, to work the work that is effortless, to play with solemnity and thrive on paradox.

Er, ...what was the question?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 16:36:32 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili:

Re: Jim, who cares if he is the Messiah or not! I certainly don't.

Well, for one thing if he's the Messiah I'm not going to waste my income contributing to a Roth IRA. I'll spend it on a vacation, or a new PC, or tithe it. Whatever. Without being facetious, do you really beileve it makes no difference? Oh, never mind... what's the point.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 16:50:51 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Scott,

I really believe it doesn't matter. First, a Messiah is a Judaic/Christian concept. So, if you are an Eskimo, it wouldn't even occur to you to wonder about it. But, you might be interested in receiving Knowledge and having a go for it - to discover a new, deeper dimension of fulfillment in your life.
Blissed out in an igloo, smiling at the polar bears!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:36:00 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Mili,

I just thought of something. Whenever M's character really seems to be subject to some criticism here, you retreat into this very self-centered perspective. Even your reference to the Eskimo ('Inuit' as they much prefer) reflects this. You talk about the way YOU have found to 'experience Knowledge'. You imagine a way the Eskimo would do this.

But what about Maharaji? And what about all the OTHER people who did answer his call for selfless, uncompromising, faithful devotees? Is it you just don't care? None of your business? Is that it?

Why not look at the bigger picture?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 17:51:17 (EDT)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Conversation with Mili
Message:
Oh yeah, I just saw your last post - a remark to that.

Yes, I do tend to reason selfishly, but that's just because my own feelings are the only thing I can talk about with certainty, I guess.

However, there might be an objective side to it - after the war here, and the current 'Balkanization' of everyday life, there is no team I am left to be a part of, except premies and ex-premies, it seems.

Oh, sure, we have a pretty strong Jewish community here in Zagreb, and a nice community center. I go there sometimes. I am always a little wary that someone might try to check me out if I'm circumcised, though, which I am not!

Anyway,
G'nite.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:23:48 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: David
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
David,
That's NV not VD which is closer to VP. I read a post this morning, I think, from VP were he clarifies that his name is not to be confused with VD, had me laughing for sure and now I see it come up here very subliminal! It all ties together like the Northern Exposure and Seinfield shows.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 14:04:20 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: This won't buy me many friends
Message:
I wondered if anyone was going to get that...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:18:00 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: VP
Subject: VD
Message:
VP,
It made me laugh when I saw it. I am so quick in a slow sort of way.
Robyn
I haven't been able to check my new email from here as my old versions of Netscape and IE don't support the Yahoo email. I tried to down load newer versions but this stupid computer, not stupid me, locked up each time. System overload I guess. I can related to that! I'll check it at job 2 this evening.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:55:26 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Links not changing
Message:
Brian:

Why are my links not changing? I've been using Netscape but switched back to IE3 because... well... I don't think Netscape will continue to compete after this version 4 round. Anyway, now my links are not changing. I've reset IE3 as my default browser. Do you think IE is refusing to work correctly as long as I deign to have Netscape on the same hard drive? Do I need to reboot or something?

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:18:33 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Links not changing
Message:
Brian:

I seem to be having other problems with IE3 so the links thing may not be generalized. For the time being I've gone back to Netscape.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:38:13 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Scott T.
Subject: Links not changing
Message:
It's not a site-caused problem. What Internet Exploder does with the visited URLs is beyond me, and I doubt Bill Gates even knows.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 09:20:11 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Links not changing
Message:
Brian:

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately I don't think we will have much choice between Netscape and IE before too long. Another story. I was talking to Arthur Melmed and we were interrupted before he could finish his exposition on the demise of the Netscape browser suite. It outrages me, but don't see what can be done. Perhaps Melmed is wrong. Do you know any other in-the-know people who think otherwise?

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 13:31:31 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Netscape after 4.0
Message:
Scott,
I was just reading the March 28th issue of Time and read a short article on Netscape and how IE was 'sleeping' while Netscape programmers worked 160 hour weeks to bring Netscape to the world. Then IE woke up and Netscape is to small to compete, stating that IE has countless programmers to attack any problem so Netscape is going to release it's source code, on the Net and hopes that programmers will work to costomize it beyond the IE functionality and thus win out in the end. I didn't notice any release dates though.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 18:19:19 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Netscape after 4.0
Message:
Robyn:

Very interesting. Perhaps there is hope.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 17:38:46 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Unanswered question
Message:
I haven't gone into the archives to make sure, but I asked Mili a question and he hadn't answered it (to my knowledge) when the Forum II was archived. Maybe he could answer it now or someone else could.

I asked Mili if Maharaji sued his mother and brother or if they sued him. (I went into the FAQ page, but couldn't discern who had sued whom) If anyone can clear up these details, I'd be most obliged.

Mili, sorry if you did answer this once already. VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:27:29 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: What's an inactive index
Message:
Is it like old girlfriend's or something?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:35:09 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Jim
Subject: What's an inactive index
Message:
Is it like old girlfriend's or something?

Only in that you can still look at them, but they're no longer interested in what you have to say.

When we hit about 250 messages in this index, the bottom thread moves to the inactive index. You can still read them, but you can't reply. They are semi-archived, waiting for enough to pile up there for me to compile a full archive.

So I guess the answer is 'yes'.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:50:55 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Brian
Subject: Brian
Message:
Brian,
I hope you feel very accomplished! This is a great undertaking and finally in place. Thanks.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:09:13 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Mili's brain disorder
Message:
Mili posted the following re-post of mine:

'Here's another direct quote:

One day, not know but one day, years from now, maybe even decades, I will still want your money but not as much as I do now. That, dear premies, will be the beginning of your retirement plan. Until then, trust me. Trust me to do what I think is right. After all, if I wanted any advice, I'd ask for it, right? Yes, I am the same as you and that's why you should give me just a little more money. After all, who else will you give it to? Some total stranger. Someone who's going to come up behind you with a bullet gun and rob you blind? Someone who will drag you into an alley and may say all sorts of mean things to you? Someone who DOESN'T speak the language of the heart? See, dear premies, and this is a true point -- I'm not afraid to say this -- at 9:00 sharp I will turn on the television and eat a sandwhich. I will then have a little drink and start calling old classmates from St. Joseph's Academy. I will then call my secretary and ask her to show me some of the funnier cards and letters we received from premies from ALL OVER THE WORLD. I should also say, and this is something I've been talking with Michael about, but I think it's time I let you guys in on it. I'm looking for a little land where we could really open up and share. My plan is to let you buy it for me and then to charge you everytime you come there. Right now, though, I'm going to go. Maybe Mahatma Ji can sing you a song about me. I want to watch tv and have a sandwich. Mark my words, at 9:00 I will start watching.'

Jim, did you post this a few days ago with the intention of misleading people to think that it was Maharaji who said it? Yes, or no? So, who's a liar and a cheat then?


Wow, Mili, looks like you caught me fair and square. Yes, for you Mili and you alone, I will admit that I was trying to mislead people into thinking Maharaji said that. I know your question was rhetorical. After all, what would I say, that it was a JOKE or something? No, Mili, even I wouldn't dream of being so deceitful. You got me. I admit, just like you, I'm a liar and a cheat.

So, just to set the record straight for anyone who doesn't know what we're talking about:

YOU'RE a liar and cheat because ever since you shut down the premie page many months ago, you've maintainted that you did it for your own reasons, not because Maharaji or any of his people asked you to. This week, however, you admitted that that wasn't true. Maharaji's people did indeed contact you and ask you to shut the page down. So you did. Hence, you lied.

I'M a liar because I SERIOUSLY tried to fool people into reading the above quote as Maharaji's own.

Thanks, Mili. I couldn't have done this without you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:54:41 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: heller@bc1.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Vacol offers a true discussion
Message:
Vacol said this:

*So lets try to respond to you Jim. Firstly , thanks N.V for informing me of Jims (angry) idiosyncracies. Next, Jim, you seem to think that I can't take your direct, clear, psycho-analytically deserved insights into the psycho dynamics of poor lost premies like myself; but you are wrong.....if it is a battle you want I'll fight you, but instead of dueling I was hoping that we could participate in a more mature debate. Or do you need to compete?

V, I'm confused. You ask me if I want to debate or compete as if they're mutually exclusive. But debate IS a form of competition, isn't it? Of course it is. So, I'd tell you waht would be my ideal discussion with you or any premie: a formal, refereed debate. I don't want anything I wouldn't offer you, namely a chance to present your case fairly and the obligation to meet mine.

As we don't have a referee here, I'd settle for a pledge by both you and me to act as if we did. Like palying tennis with someone, you expect them to 1) not cheat about fouls; and 2) not quit the game early. I'd be happy enough to make that committment. How about you?

Jim, can we not stop the tape and ask ,what is the issue? What are your grievances? Perhaps, we could start there. What exactly do you most dislike about M? What do you most dislike about premies?

Good. Yes, as a SINGLE issue I think we could frame it as such:

Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?

(Don't you think the old spelling has acertain ring to it?)

Naturally, a series of sub-issues crop up. Tell me if you'll discuss this topic, though. Then we can agree on the sub's if you like.

As grievances I could say:

1) Maharaji ripped us off (triggering discussion about how, why and what, if anything, we should feel, think or do about it, not to mention what anyone else, should think, feel or do about it).

2) Maharaji refuses to deal with his former devotees (or to answer hard questions from current ones or to discuss his past candidly)

Do you really want a serious debate?

Yes. Do you?

We really don't know each other. It seems pathetic for us to assume we know each other on the basis of you being a so called expremie and me a so called premie. How childish! As if we are a separate species.....as if premies can be summed up as zombies walking around in a devotional haze, with eyes only for M. Or to sum up ex-premies as lost souls who have squandered their chance for salvation. We are both human-beings....but Jim as you have admitted you do have an axe to grind......ok...so tell me about this. What is the problem? Why the axe? I'm not being condescending.....just trying to open a doorway that could lead to a little mutual respect. We surely can agree to disagree without throwing abuse at each other.*

I think, V, that it would be more useful to hear from youfirst before I launch right in. Well?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index


Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:44:43 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Jim.. Don't be angry with me, but.... a debate not always is a competition. When a debate becomes a competition...just one wins it and the other one is dead.

But sometimes a debate can be constructive... and people involved can add contributions and no one is hurt. It is a pleasure of learning.... and being not alone. Try to find pleasure... this is something everyone forget to do.

I wrote this with my the best intentions... again... don't be angry....
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 14:01:06 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Paula,

Why would I be angry with you? Just because I was an ashram premie for years and you are a mere woman?

Seriously, I don't think we're really at odds here. I agree that debate can be constructive. I agree with everything you say. But I also don't think what I said conflicts with any of your sentiments.

Debate is a way of testing ideas. Who cna deny that it feels great to be right? Of course it does. It's always a little nicer in a debate to be on the winning side because that way you don't have to change anything and you get some recognition, for what it's worth, for being right at the outset.

But ther should be some great consolation for the losing side in learning something and in demonstrating enough interest in the truth that one's willing to admit that one's position is inferior to the other person's.

But all of this is still contingent on 'winning' and 'losing'.

Isn't a debate where you consider different, competing viewpoints or explanations for something? The ideas are indeed fighting with one another. There's no avoiding that. If they weren't there'd just be agreement which is wonderful if that's where you're at but which can't be forced. So long as there are opposing, mutually incompatible viewpoints, they need to be tested against one another.

I would love to have a very civil, friendly discussion with a premie about Maharaji. Who knows, maybe Vacol's up to it. All I ask is that it's done fairly enough so that 'points' made are fairly acknowledged, etc. Is that asking to much? Is there any other way to proceed?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 14:44:10 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Jim... you got angry again..... HAHAHAHAHA......you are funny...
and you still don't feel pleasure....

ok, I will take you seriously. I wrote that message, because debate is part of my profession. I was just trying to explain to you that no one reaches 'right' or 'truth' making a debate this way. And it might be exausting stay all day long thinking of ways to put people in struggle with questions. When the other does not answer anymore it is not because you are right, it is because they are exausted too. When I told you about pleasure, it is taste an idea, peacefully. Sartre and Heiddeger spent 20 years discussing what is 'Being' and they didn't had to fight. And you won't find the Truth, or ever be 'right'. It is not the big point. The big point is 'realize' things and grow with it.

You asked me.... 'Isn't a debate where you consider different, competing viewpoints or explanations for something?'. I can tell you... yes.... it is when you CONSIDER viewpoints.... but it does not compete. Max Weber has a great explanation about this, and he made a revolution in social sciences, because he thinks that Reality is made of many points of view together, and not 'the winner' (as you think). Because reality is too complex and just one point of view cannot reach it at all. Many semiotic philosophers do a great job using this idea. Interpretative antropologists (as Clifford Geertz) too. In philosophy... the (as you would say) 'looser's ideas' are just the ones that becomes not useful to go on finding answers to society.

Also.... you were an ashram premie.... well... I don't know what is ashram.... but it seems it did not make you feel better... and I am just a woman.... yes, that is what I am. It means.... we are different. And different people cannot be compared. What is the best? a banana or an apple? That is the problem about competition. You compete with people that are = . I am not as you. I was just trying to explain to you what is a debate, but you did not understand.

You said...'I would love to have a very civil, friendly discussion with a premie about Maharaji'.... I think you are asking too much.. it is an utopy... because on a debate like this... basicly.. you are trying to proove M is an evil, and they will try to argue that M is an angel. And M, as you and me, and everyone in this earh are much more than wonderful or awful. You won't get anywhere.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:49:51 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Paula,

No I wasn't really angry. Far from it. I was just playing with your expectation that I might react like that. ( Sorry you'd even think that way but -- don't worry -- I'm not mad about it!)

Here's how Oxford defines debate:
(verb)
1) discuss or dispute about an (issue, proposal, etc.) esp. formally in a legislative assembly, public meeting, etc.
2) consider or ponder (a matter)
3) consider different sides of a question
(noun)
1)a formal discussion on a prticular matter esp. in a legislative asembly, etc.
2) debating, discussion (open to debate)

interestingly enough, the word derives from the Middle English via Old French debatre meaning 'from the battle'

Then, here's their definition for consider:
1) contemplate mentally esp, in order to reach a conclusion; give attention to
2) examine the merits of
3) look attentively at
4) have the opinion
5) believe, regard as
6) formed after careful thought

Now, Paula, you say that 'consider' doesn't involve competition but isn't that what happens when you 'examine the merits' of something?

Although some premies would love to make the Maharaji question into the broadest philosophical inquiry, I think it's a little simpler than that. First there's the historical record: Did he do this? Did he do that? Say this? Say that? Surely Weber, Foucault, and Weber's cousin the baker would agree that there aren't too many ways you can parse those questions. (And if they said there were, I'd call them nuts. Did you post the message above? Yes or no? Of course you did. It's that simple).

Then we get into the more interesting realm: interpretation. Here's where one would expect all the creative juices to start flowing. Maybe M meant this.... Maybe M meant that.

The problem Paula, is that the historical record speaks to all that speculation as well. For example, premies (or M if he ever had the courage to meet his critics) mgiht say that M stopped claiming to be God in Human Form years ago. They'd then try to excuse it in a million ways - -youth, bad influences, some slight, but acceptable, obscuring of his all-knowing instrument panel -- but they'd face some problems. Even if one accepted any of those many excuses (and they'd all ahve to be considered) the premie would have to deal with the fact that as recently as 1990 M's on record for claiming, once again, that he was GHF.

Now if you're saying that Weber et al. proposed some supra-logical way out of this I'd hear you out but skeptically indeed.

By the way, M and the premies know all this. That's exactly why they won't/can't talk about him freely. It's not that I'm too combative, it's just that there's no fight for them to stage other than 'I refuse to consider M logically'.

If the debate was all or notihng it could never get started. But it isn't. It's first a matter of the historical record. All the people who were actually there know what happened. No premie from the seventies would have any diffculty quickly rattling off a hundred ways M and his premies treated him as God. No premie from the seventies would have any difficulty explaining how that's exactly how we viewed him.

That's why the premies won't even enter stage one of the discussion. They know where it will lead.

If you think that maybe there could be some discussion without positions, when the positions already exist, I say that's contrary to human nature and -- frankly -- kind of ridiculous. It's all pretty simple really.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 18:17:21 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
well... every word you write is something that show hate and angryness... as if you are in a battle. If the word debate came from battle... well... it was some centuries ago and nowadays science is made of something much more sophisticated. Anyway, what is 'oxford'? a dictionary? I did not know that, and sorry, english is my 3rd language...just fools get caught by your logical tricks... and they are really boring. If you think that the 'right' is on the dic... wow....

also... well... I showed my point of view... and you still did not understand. I understand yours, but... sorry... I see you as a middle age horseman trying to bleed ghosts by your sword. It is sad, Jim.

what else? you told something about supra-logical stuff. Logic started with Plato and classic philosophy. But nowadays the challenge is another one. An idea and reality is much more complex stuff...Your point of view about debate is something that can be called rethoric. And it is very old as logic. I know what you mean, but this kind of debate was used on greek forums of classic democracy (which is completely different than the modern democracy made in USA).

oh! one more thing: Foucault comes from a completely different school than Weber and Geertz... so he would have a different answer about this.

Interpretation: when I told you about interpretation it was related to your methodology... it is consider all points of view and then get yours. Sometimes it is really smart. It does not mean you would interpretate what M says.... because it would be ridiculous.

ps: I am a polite person, who answers all questions from others. But... this topic is getting boring, because I don't want to convince you about anything, and you want to convince me about something I am I really over, without understanding what I tried to SHARE with you. I won't answer anymore.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 18:47:12 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Paula,

Thanks so much for your demonstration of kindness and open-mindedness. You're right, you ARE a polite person. Polite enough, anyway, to take a moment to explain how 'old hat' logic is and how much more complex reality has become since the days of the Greeks. Stupid dictionary and, I guess, stupid me for failing to understand all that you tried to SHARE.

I liked 'middle age horseman trying to bleed ghosts by your sword' though. Mind if I use it?

Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:26:47 (EST)
From: David
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: Please stay, Paula
Message:
I'm with you here, Paula. 'Debates' between premies and ex-premies too often become a slanging match or point scoring competition and both sides remain ever more entrenched in their own positions. I would rather it be called an argument rather than debate.
I am glad there are more women on the forum these days as I value their often different perspective. Please don't run off Paula, you are needed here.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 22:49:37 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: David
Subject: Please stay, Paula
Message:
David,

Sorry for all the competition. What would you like to talk about?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 10:10:08 (EDT)
From: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Please stay, Paula
Message:
Well I want to talk about 'that place' that 'beauty' blah blah. No I like the arguments but I don't think it's any more than a sport. I don't think premies who post here are going to suddenly change. WHat I enjoy most about this forum are the occational snippits of inside information about Maharaji. These are the things which you wouldn't get from the party line. Solacious gossip - I'm all for it!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 13:05:41 (EDT)
From: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: God in human form
Message:
I agree it's good to keep on to premies about how Maharaji claimed and still does, that he is God in human form. This point must never be allowed to die. It is interesting seeing premies' different reactions to it.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 20:50:52 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: David
Subject: It was really G.B.
Message:
Yes, and everyone knows it was really George Burns.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 05:57:56 (EDT)
From: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Scott T.
Subject: No it was Charlton Heston
Message:
George Burns was not God. God is Charlton Heston. Why, even Paul Hogan said so.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 09:26:14 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: David
Subject: What about Jimi?
Message:
David:

As I recall, some people in the '60s used to think it was Jimi Hendrix, at least until he drowned in his own vomit.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:29:15 (EST)
From: bill
Email: forumba
To: Paula
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
paula,
You are wrong about not getting anywhere.
I for one have been frankly saved from rawats clutches
by the truth spoken here.
This is what is said here and some people who come here are deaf
and blind zealots and some are not.
As we come to understand more clearly the nature of rawats
delusion, and our own victimization by it, we can reach out
to other trapped people that we know and we can warn the
world. Certainly rawat is looking forward to the world
someday looking at his efforts in some approving fashion.
I think we have seen enough and it is time they take thier look.

certainly we will be plagued by the type of posters like
the anti scientology site is plagued by, people who want
to have vacant discussions. Vacant because they are not open
to recieving new information and processing it in thier
head.

Tell me truthfully. What did you hear in your head when your
ears were plugged?
What did you see with your non-eyes when you looked at the back
of your eyelids?
What did you experieince when you put your tongue up?

I feel my breath most of the time and if rawat wasn't trying
to pretend to be lord and I might thank him for a suggestion
to feel it. Of course HE says just 15 minutes. Which leads
me to believe he doesn't even like to do it. It might be to
hard for him to settle down and just lock in like I do.

Of course the local church saays the spirit is breath.
And my wife's cousins boyfriend, a sunni moslim,
thinks god is in your breath. That, from his sunni training.

Do you think we should think of him at the moment of death
like he says in the 90's? And if thinking of him a lot in
your life makes you come to him at the moment of death,
does that include Jim? HE might make eternal guru salvation
due to a technicality. I snapped out of the programming
in 97-98 and so don't dismiss me as some out of touch
left in the 80's person.

These are reasonable questions.
forgive me if they sound hot.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:59:53 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: bill
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Dear Bill,

I don't think I am wrong, because I have never been 'right'. But maybe you understood something different from what I tried to say. Let me try to explain again... I suppose that you don't get anywhere if you try to put people in a struggle with logic tricks during a debate.

I agree with you about the real facts that are exposed here, and I got amazed too. But when I mentioned 'truth' I was considering another meaning of this word, which is as if 'truth' would be the only one. In some cases, it is easy to say the 'truth', but in other cases, there are even opposite truths.

But now, there is a problem of mine. I and my ignorancy could not understand the rest of your message. Your questions didn't sound hot. Sorry, but if you really want me to answer it, I ask you to try to expose again your thoughts.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:25:20 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Paula
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Paula - I think that bill thinks that you are a premie - the questions that he asked had to do with the physical techniques of meditation as taught by Maharaji, and with some things that Maharaji has said in some of his speeches.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:16:09 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: stalking@freewheeling.com
To: Paula
Subject: For Paula:debate & competition
Message:
Paula:

I'm not sure I'd like to get into a debate about meaning in the social sciences, but I would like to know the Weberian reference where he takes Gadamer's position. I haven't seen that. Also, this dredges up in enormous debate within the philosophy of social sciences that has certainly not been resolved. We may be compelled to rehash part of it here, but it would be painful, and I for one would like to avoid it. As a starting point, and possibly a resolution, did you not think that the debate between Gadamer and Habermas that began with 'Truth and Method' was decisively won by Habermas? I know Gadamer never completely gave up, demonstrating something like the tenacity of our premie friends, but Habermas has gone a long way toward establishing the conditions by which we can actually get somewhere in a discourse. Would you disagree?

I apologize if this sounds like Greek. I'm just trying to short-circuit the whole business launched by that trouble maker Kant. Interpretiation is the heart of the problem.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:21:19 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie, et al.
Subject: Typed 'Paula' in the from box
Message:
Sorry, I really wasn't attempting to impersonate Paula. Accidentally typed her name in the top box instead of mine.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 15:32:35 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: Paula, Rick, Scott, Robyn
Message:
Am I glad I'm not the only one forgetting myself!
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:14:14 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: Scott T
Subject: For Paula:debate & competition
Message:
Scott,

When I meantioned all these authors in messages to Jim... I was trying to illustrate how we can make a constructive debate. This does not sound greek to me, but... I never heard about Gadamer, and I read just a couple of texts from Habermas. As you might know (it seems you read a lot this kind of literature) it is not possible to read everything about everyone.

I don't know if Weber takes Gadamer's position (Weber does not meantion Gadamer anywhere) but what I said about Weber can be reached in a text called 'the objectivity of social sciences' (translated from my self from spanish, which means maybe in english is different), and it is not a book, it is always inside of a compilation (different compilations from different editors and countries). the name of the compilation in german (the original) is 'Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftlehre'.

I hope I could help you.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:26:39 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: For Paula:debate & competition
Message:
Paula:

I didn't mean that Weber actually adopted Gadamer's position. I think Weber was dead when Gadamer was born. It's more like Weber anticitpated Gadamer, but that remains to be seen. Habermas is largely Weberian (although he doesn't readily admit this). Weber posed the central problem of rationality not in terms of logic, but in terms of consequences (the 'iron cage'). It doesn't surprise me that he tried to find some way out. I'll have to read the passage to see if it is consistent with the rest of his writing. Thanks for the cite.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:35:16 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Jim, et al:

I haven't looked far enough ahead in the thread to determine if you've resolved this, but strictly speaking there is no real reason why both sides in a debate can't be wrong. It's more difficult for both to be right, however. In a formal debate there is always a winner, but the basic objective here is to test truth claims so a better term than debate might be discourse. Finally, it is unlikely that Jim and Vacol will be able to keep the discourse to themselves. There are others that have a stake. Unless, of course, we are setting up a specific debate between you two. Nothing wrong with that, but the rest of us should agree to it, and be admonished to butt out.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 19:58:57 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Bill,

Thanks for your support. I'm at a point where I believe the meditation might be okay as just a relief from thinking all the time. There's no reason to anthropomorphize -- or make that deiomorphize -- the breath. That's just Hindu superstition, Bill.
Like the 'blood of Christ'for Catholics.

Paula seems to have some sort of 'sophisticated' knowledge about the 'new' truth and reality postulated by her favorite social sciences. I'm glad I'm not stuck in those murky waters.

Scott,

I really have no intention of establishing any manu-a-manu with V such that it would exclude yours or anyone else's contribution. If HE wants a dialogue with me, though, I'm all for it.

I take your point on terminology. The only advantage 'debate' has is that it makes clear the notion that there is indeed a competition of ideas.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 21:11:13 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: debate & competition
Message:
Jim:

Don't take this the wrong way, but only North Americans would think this statement unbiased:

Paula seems to have some sort of 'sophisticated' knowledge about the'new' truth and reality postulated by her favorite social sciences. I'm glad I'm not stuck in those murky waters.

It's not a new problem, and the interpretivists have won in the sense that they've severely undermined the resting points of conventional rationality and our ability to test truth claims based entirely on pdq rational standards. However, if you introduce other elements into the discourse, that have to do with the ability of the contestants to convince others that he or she is being honest and transparent (called dramaturgical action by Habermas) then rational discourse becomes constructive again. This results in a 'linguistification of the sacred.' I think that pretty much defines what we are trying to do here.

Like you I find the 'fashionable' interpretive positions to be resting ultimately on quicksand. I think their point was that ultimately everything rests on quicksand. There was a deafening silence from that side when someone asked: 'Well, suppose you're right. What next?' No answer, so far. I guess most people didn't see that as an 'opportunity.'

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:04:23 (EST)
From: Vacol
Email: golddiva@wire.net.au
To: Jim
Subject: My reply to Jim
Message:
Jim ,I accept all the terms and conditions of your reasonable proposals. I look forward to what I feel can be a mutually fruitful debate. Unfortunately I am going away for two or three days (leaving in about an hour) but will communicate to you on my return. In the meantime perhaps we could both give some thought to the particular way we want to initiate this process.
Jim, I am sensitive to your not wanting to plough straight into answering my more personal questions......perhaps until we have established some trust between us.
Fare-thee-well, for now.
Regards Vacol.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 20:11:58 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Vacol
Subject: My reply to Jim
Message:
Vacol,

If you read this before you go, thanks very much for your agreement. As I mentioned in a few recent posts, my first questions to you will be about the historical record of M's 'ministry.' I'll pose severl quotes to you and ask you to discuss them fairly with me. Some of them will contradict others. It should be fun.

I'll also want to discuss various plans and directions M once made but later withdrew.

You, of course, will have your own questions, I imagine. I'll try to be fair too.

Meantime, first question: is that really your name?

Have a good trip,

Jim
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:38:34 (EST)
From: larkin
Email: larkin@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: The Song of Liarwatha (part 1)
Message:
Should you ask me, whence these stories?
Whence these legends and traditions,
With their still reverberations,
With their frequent repetitions,
Spoken in the still of ashrams,
By the woodsmoke of the fireside,
Ancient truths and superstitions
Of the lotus and the mango?
I should answer, I should tell you,
They are but primordial memories,
Carried down through endless ages,
Of the Gita and the Vedas,
'Neath the snow-capped Himalayas,
In the markets of the foothills,
In the villages and temples,
By the mighty Gitchee-Gangee,
By the shining big-sea water,
Passed on down through son and daughter,
In the counsel of the wise man,
Saffron gowned, and still his centre;
Telling how the Sacred Spirit,
In the form of Ram, of Krishna,
Brings the truth of Mighty Hokum,
And the soul's long transmigration,
Fish to bird to tree to bison,
Seeking ever liberation,
Oneness in that sweet Nirvana,
Never found without the Master,
He whose coming is our blessing,
His great mercy our redemption,
His compassion our deliverance,
Each new age with greater power,
Always in our darkest hour...
Still they tell how on that morning
Proud upon his milk-white charger
Robed in white, the Lord descended
Word made flesh, the Sacred Spirit,
Keeper of the Mighty Hokum,
Shri Hans Ji (on Shri Hans' gee-gee)
Won the heart of his beloved,
Who beheld him in the clearing,
Of the village in the foothills,
Of the snow-capped Himalayas,
By the mighty Gitchee-Gangee,
By the shining big-sea water,
His bejewelled Indian princess.
And he wooed her with caresses,
Wooed her with his smile of sunshine,
Till he drew her to his bosom,
And in wond'rous wedlock knew her,
Whence she bore four noble tribesmen,
Balba-Guano, Bholi-Poli,
Raging Bulli were the elders,
But of all, the most beloved
Of the Rawat tribe revered,
Most adored, indulged and cherished,
Radhasoami's smarmy-swami,
Born to lead his barmy army,
Was the boy-child Liarwatha.
You shall hear how Liarwatha
But a child of six short summers,
Took the gift of Mighty Hokum,
From the Living Lord Descended,
Fourteen days of dedication,
Saw the Light of Truth a-glowing,
Heard the sacred Wind a-rushing,
Tasted Nectar's river rising,
Knew the Word's reverberation,
Prayed then to the Sacred Spirit,
Not for greater skill in hunting,
Nor for greater craft in fishing,
Nor for triumphs in the battle,
And renown among the warriors,
But for truth and liberation,
And the sweetness of Nirvana,
For that oneness with his Maker,
For eternal realisation,
That his heart might dwell with Brahma
This was then the meditation
Of the man-child Liarwatha.
Come now those who would seek wisdom,
Ye whose hearts are fresh and simple,
Who have faith in Truth and Nature,
Who believe that in all ages
Every human heart is human,
Every mortal is but mortal,
Every promise may be broken,
Every gift is but a token,
Hear my song of Liarwatha.

(to be continued...)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:46:51 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: larkin
Subject: More! More!
Message:
I love it! Keeper of The Mighty Hokum, indeed!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:24:43 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: larkin
Subject: A new Charles Cameron?
Message:
Larkin,

This is a good one! Excellent beginning (although 'primordial' doesn't scan that well. I'm sure Charles Cameron could give you some of his old notes on guru buzzwords to avoid). Listen, man, take your time. If Vacol can spend seven 'chapters' to tell us that the premies are fucked and Maharaji's swell, you cna surely spend some time exploring the many strange twists and turns of Premiedom, the land time forgot.

How ironic that you'd do this now as we come to see that Charles Cameron himself [the former loud, brash, heart-on-his-sleeve ('cause that was his service) poet laureate for Maharaji's Millenium has a web page explaining Charles' involvement as an associate in the Center for Millenial Studies where they ponder all sorts of prophecies and developments for the 'new millenium' but never even mention the one big Millenium Charles was instrumental in hyping to death.

The URL is http://home.earthlink.net/~hipbone/mille

but if that doesn't work just do a search for 'Glass Bead Game' which is an internet game Cameron's created based on the Hesse book.

There you'll find his Bio where he describes all of his past and present 'spiritual' interests -- mainly Black Elk and Tibetan Rimpoche stuff -- but never even mentions the LORD OF THE UNIVERSE!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 17:32:21 (EST)
From: larkin
Email: larkin@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Jim
Subject: Primordial howdy'all
Message:

Thanks Slim, but - bloody hell - I get rid of the horrible rhymes and
already you're on at me about my scansion, for chrissakes!
Even a real poet, I believe, might use 'primordial' as a three-syllable thingummy, in exactly the same way a colonial sometimes uses 'Howdy'all', by way of saying 'Good morning ladies and gentlemen'.

:-)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 05, 1998 at 11:21:28 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: larkin
Subject: Primeval howdy'all
Message:
Hi Larkin -
Great job of parody, not to mention funny as all getout! I have always disliked the original poem(sorry VP) but this version is great.

Re: Primordial - doesn't the original (or one of those many poems like it) use 'primeval'?

Regards, Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:24:53 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: larkin
Subject: The Song of Liarwatha (part 1)
Message:
I read parts of Hiawatha to my children at bedtime. How am I supposed to keep a straight face now? You are too much, Larkin! VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:49:29 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: larkin
Subject: The Song of Liarwatha (part 1)
Message:
Dear Larkin,
What a bright point to my Saturday work day. Thanks I needed that!
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 11:35:25 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Random notices
Message:
I updated Anon's Journeys entry. If you have a week off to read it, you can find it from the Journeys page.

Also, regarding site funding:

Many people have offered to contribute, and I am going to take them up on it. (I have your names [grin]) I need to contact Scott Perry first, though. He's harder to reach than Maharaji sometimes, but I'll be trying this weekend.

I'm not certain how hosting the Forum here will impact our standing with the people providing the server. We have a 50 MEG limit on disk space, and 1 GIG of output per month allowed under the present price structure. If this needs to be expanded, we'll have to look at the market to see if we'd be better off moving to another server or just paying more for this one.

Part of the equation is how much disk space a full Forum uses. Archives also take up space, even if only in ZIPPED format. I was never able to know how much we used at Paradise, and am a bit afraid to find out. But we'll see what happens.

We can always raffle off the women...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:11:28 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Brian
Subject: Sheesh, Brian!
Message:
Just pointing out that your last sentence was in extremely poor taste, but I suppose you already knew that...

Besides, I think we could get more money from raffling you off. Now that we have Forum III, why do we need a webmaster anymore?
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 12:49:10 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Katie
Subject: Sheesh, Brian!
Message:
Just pointing out that your last sentence was in extremely poor taste, but I suppose you already knew that.

Wataya getting mad at me for? It was Vic's idea...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:21:10 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Sheesh, Sheesh,Sheesh!
Message:
Hey, keep me out of this!(snicker:)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:47:43 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Sheesh, Brian!
Message:
I agree with you completely.....
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:10:39 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: Sheesh, Brian!
Message:
Dear Paula,
I just want you to know that Brian is actually a nice guy, and we are good friends, but his jokes ARE questionable sometimes! Thanks for your support!

Katie
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:42:45 (EST)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: women jokes
Message:
Katie.... I know that you both were joking (he said 'women' because of you)... I am not a feminist and I never loose my temper with this kind of jokes.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 18:17:12 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Paula
Subject: women jokes
Message:
Hi Paula - I DO lose my temper with these kind of jokes, but not with Brian because I know him! Glad you understood...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 06, 1998 at 10:02:35 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Paula
Subject: women jokes
Message:
Dear Paula,
I was just skipping around the forum and read a few of your posts. I just wanted to tell you not only do I enjoy their content but also I was not offended by the joke because I know Brian a little myself. I will continue to enjoy your thoughts and writings.
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 13:53:25 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Katie
Subject: Sheesh, Brian!
Message:
Katie,
And just think how nice it would be to have your own Brian to help out with computer problems. (Scott to)
Robyn
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 15:12:20 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Sheesh, Brian!
Message:
Good idea Robyn - have Brian teach you everything he knows, and then...
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 07:26:46 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: It's Open
Message:
Be sure to read the updated Forum Help page.

There is no need to reset your visited links, BTW.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 08:56:15 (EST)
From: David
Email: djulian@cix.compulink.co.uk
To: Brian
Subject: It's Open
Message:
Let me be the first to congratulate you on a superb job well done, Brian. Thanks for all the time and effort especially your patience with the Lynx problem. Remember my offer which I emailed you still stands. Just mail me the details. Thanks.
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 09:41:26 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: It's Open
Message:
Let me be the second. Congratulations to you on a job well done. I appreciate all of the hours that you have put into this forum/site. (I was just reading some of the pages and I couldn't believe how much updating had been done since I last read the FAQ.) Thanks to Katie for all of her hard work, too! VP
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 08:58:12 (EST)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Last Forum II Archive online
Message:
Forum II is now zipped away.

For what it's worth, Mili, you got in the last word :)
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 10:01:45 (EST)
From: Scott Talkington
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: It's Open
Message:
Brian:

First of all, congratulations to everyone who worked on getting this forum up and running. This refers mostly to Brian, but also includes Katie and some others who helped give Brian a platform for debugging the code. It's a very well-designed tool or toy, depending on your perspective. Also, what's the status on funding for this project? Although my resources are not extensive I'd consider it an honor to send some modest support.

-Scott
Back To Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 04, 1998 at 10:07:27 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Brian
Subject: It's Open
Message:
First of all, thank you Brian, for ALL your hard work. I don't really know how many hours you put in, but I can imagine (too many!). Also, thanks VP and Scott for crediting me, but the truth is that Forum III is Brian's baby, and I didn't have to do anything except provide a listening ear. And adios, Paradise!!
Back To Index -:- Top of Index