Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 18 | |
From: Jul 14, 1998 |
To: Jul 24, 1998 |
Page: 4 Of: 5 |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 02:32:20 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Islam and women Message: Okay, okay. I know this could go on forever, so I won't. But here's one more link that I think has to be posted given recent discussion here about Islam: click here http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/warraq_17_4.html Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 02:44:16 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: and check this Message: This is from another article about ALL religions' abuse of women. You can read that at click here . But this is the part about Islam and women that I thought, once again, was outrageous: 'Meanwhile, the sexual hangups of Christianity today are trivial compared to those in the Muslim world, where suppression of women continues at Old Testament levels. Some examples: In Muslim Somalia, an estimated 98% of girls are genitally mutilated to inhibit their sexual pleasure throughout their lives and keep them 'pure' for husbands. But it doesn't always work. In 1993, a United Nations team found five women being stoned to death for adultery. They had been condemned by mosque leaders, and the execution was carried out after evening prayers. Cheering villagers videotaped the killing. U.N. observers who tried to save the women were driven off by threats of death. U.N. agent Cecelia Kamau said bitterly: 'Fundamentalism is really catching on.' In Muslim Algeria, zealots shot high school girls in the face for not wearing veils and cut the throats of professors who taught boys and girls in the same classrooms. In Muslim Iran, morality patrols flog women who allow a lock of hair to show beneath their shrouds, and clerics laboriously black out women's faces in imported magazines. In Muslim Afghanistan, a major mujahideen (holy warrior) leader got his start by throwing acid in the faces of unveiled college girls. Now that even-more-puritanical Taliban religious students have seized Afghanistan, they've decreed that all windows must be painted black, lest someone look at a woman through one, and they stone women to death for being in the company of a man who isn't a relative.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 07:28:32 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: Jim Subject: I invite UN obsvrs to prgms Message: Just to get their report. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:09:40 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: cp Subject: Way to go, cp!! Message: Hey, cp, that's a brilliant idea. They can park their black helicopters on Maharaji's heliport. Jim Expected a New World Order in '73 Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 23:59:20 (EDT)
From: pam Email: None To: Jim Subject: re 'check this' and Mohammed Message: Hi Jim. That's awful stuff. I'm no expert on Islam, but if I recall correctly, Mohammed himself was a champion of women. I believe that he instituted the right of women to own and inherit property and social respect for women as equals of men. If that is true, the current brand of Islam being practiced in many parts of the world is clearly a departure from his teachings and is a form of hypocrisy (typical of most religions). What I still don't understand is the Holy Wars conducted by Mohammed, which are now called Jihad and are the excuse to send young boys into mine field to explode the mines (they'll go on Jihad and then be guaranteed a place in heaven). Do you know much about Mohammed or what he taught? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 13:57:00 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: pam Subject: re 'check this' and Mohammed Message: Pam, I don't know much about Islam but I seriously doubt that Mohammed was a moajor feminist. This sounds like hokun, desparate spin by those who'd lvoe to present a more human face on this ugly cult. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 15:16:46 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Lucifer Principle on Mohammed Message: Humans rally around ideas becaus they solve some of our problems, because they offer the biological blessings of the illsuion of control, and because they are the trheads that hold us together in the vast network of a superorganismic mind, weaving scattered individuals into a cooperative entity of awesome power and size. But webs of ideas also do more: as hungry replicators eager to remold the world, they often turn their ultimate weapon -- the superorganism -- into a killing machine. And, contrary to the doctrines of some modern critics, they do not engage in this 'hegemonic imperialism' only in the malevolent west. Two hundred years after the Fall of Rome, a merchant named Mohammed lived in the desert town of Mecca, a bleak and isolated community on a caravan route over which passed camels carryinf goods to far-off, elegant cities like Damasucs. At the age of twelve, when he was an apprentice to his uncle -- a trader -- Mohammed had made his first trip to cosmopolitan Syria to learn the export-import business. When he reached 25, Mohammed married a well-to-do woman of forty and became a respectable, wealthy burgher, a man whose opinions were listened to. But all that changed when Mohammed reached a mid-life crisis at 39. He began to have visions. He'd been sitting in a cave in the mountainns one day, he said, praying in solitude, when the angel Gabriel had appeared in a blinding light, grabbed him in a bear hug, and forced him to read a message from God. Since then, claimed Mohammed, he'd been functioning as God's spokesman on earth. Some modern scholars feel that Mohammed's visions may have been the results of epileptic fits. The citizens of Mecca would have found this diagnosis believeable. When Mohammed planted himself on street corners and declaimed the new truths that the angel Gabriel had communiated to him, his fellow Meccas were certain that this formerly upstanding, middle-class man had gone mad. They mocked Mohammed or ignored him. One put a slimy camel fetus down his neck as he was praying. Another tried to strangle him. Only a few believed him. Among the beleivers were a handful of close relatives, one good friend, and a disconcerting munber of slaves. The citizens of Mecca were none too happy with the havoc Mohammed's new notions wreaked on their households. Slaves who'd abandonded the tried and true religions stopped their household chores, running off to pray and wash tmesleves at all kinds of strange hours; but Mohammed would not keep his visions to himself. When a plot was hatched to murder him, Mohammed fled. He sought refuge in a community where his views might be a bit mroe welcome, over two hundred miles away in Medina, another town isolated in the desert along the caravan route. In Medina, Mohammed found more willing listeners. During the course of a few years, he was able to build a following large enough to dominate his adopted city's policies. The fledgling prophet was no man of peace. He consolidated his hold over Medina by ordering opponents assassinated. Then he masterminded a series of assautls on passing Meccan caravans and the armed escorts sent to protect them. When Meccans, fearful of Mohammed's new power, attacked the outskirts of Medina, the 'blessed one' led his faithful against the instruders and won. The holy man's military success impresssed some of the fierce tribes that wandered in the hills outside of town. They singed up with the new, battle-tested religion. A few years later, the prophet marched his troops two hundred miles to the Jewish town of Khaibar and conquered it. He killed all of Khaibar's 900 men aand carried off the women and children as slaves. At last Mohammed was ready to take revenge for the indignities his former neighbours in Mecca had heaped on him. In A.D. 630, eight years after he fled, the prophet led an army of 10,000 foloowers back to his old hometown. The Meccans were not particularly intersted in being treated as the Jews had the previous year. They gave up with scarcely a fight. Thanks to the heavily armed Islamic squadrons parading through the streets, Mohammed was able to convert Mecca's inhabitants to the beliefs they had formerly scorned as the ravings of a madman. The sword of Islam was not sheated once Mohammed's birthplace had been conquered. The city's wealthy traders and illiterate bedouins joined the army that had begun in Medina, and went out to conquer the world for their new belief. They were astonishingly successfu. In short order, the legions of Isdlam overran the ancient empires of Persia, Mesopatamia and Egypt. During the next hundred years, the Mohammedan hordes spread accross northern Africa, taking Algeria, Morocco and Libya. They invaded India -- attacking towns that had defied even the invincible Alexander the Great. The snipped off parts of Speain and nearly concquerred France. They even faced the might forces of the Chinese army at Talas in central Asia. Within a few generations of Mohammed's death, these followers of a stre-tcorner ranter, these men from backwater towns and primitve desert tribes, had built an empire of enormous size; but the victories wouldn't stop there. In coming centuries, Mohammedans would repeatedly make the Uropeans tremble -- eventually attacking even Vienna. They would seize African lands as afar away as the Sudan and the Niger. They would convert Afghanistan, win over the Mongols, and spread their rule as far as the Pacific islands of Indonesia and the Philippines. The notions of a man who had claimed to meet an angel in a cave would spawn battles whose bloodshed would soak the earth for the next 1400 years.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 17:23:02 (EDT)
From: CD Email: None To: Jim Subject: Lucifer Principle Message: >The notions of a man who had claimed to meet an angel in a cave would spawn battles whose bloodshed would soak the earth for the next 1400 years.' Or: The interpreted notions of a man ... You have hit on an important principle. Ideas that are not grounded in a personal experience of peace have the potential to run amok. They are the sandy foundation of beliefs. A solid rock of experience is needed for true progress. CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 20:05:07 (EDT)
From: boarder Email: None To: CD Subject: Lucifer Principle Message: As far as the techniques go --Rudolf Stiener in Knowledge of the Higher worlds' cronicles their material plane transmission trough evolution. He gives a THINKING BASED route to these realms for modern man. Dam- what will they think of next. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 02:09:44 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: boarder Subject: Lucifer Principle Message: Dam- what will they think of next. Spell-cheekers. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 21:07:53 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: CD Subject: Well Chris Message: That was spoken like a true fortune cookie. How'd you learn to do that, anyway? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 02:25:04 (EDT)
From: Keith Email: golddiva@wire.net To: Everyone Subject: the guru papers Message: I've almost read the guru papers. I agree with most of what is written. But I am also of the opinion that the books weakness lies in what has not been included within its pages. Of course , no book can cover all angles. If a dominant strain in history has been and is to place the experience and ideology of unity above that of diversity then another dominant strain has been and is to place diversity above unity. The guru papers in this and many other issues has focused on one side at the expense of the other. Never-the-less , I am very impressed with the guru papers for what it examines and exposes. Interestingly, the authors make it quite clear that they are not athiests. Integration seems to be a key concept for them, as it was for Carl Jung. I thank those who suggested I read the guru papers and likewise recommend it as vital reading. It's good to be back on-line again . Keith Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:45:47 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Keith Subject: the guru papers Message: Dear Keith (and Mirabai), I was just thinking about the two of you yesterday, off and on all day. Glad to see you back on line also! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:31:00 (EDT)
From: Keith Email: None To: Robyn Subject: the guru papers Message: Dear Robyn, It's so cold here....minus degrees....I can't think straight. Mirabai is doing her morning meditation. I am prepaping for our day out today....we are going to pick up my parents after their winter holiday in the mountains. I hope that you are well and in good spirits. Love from Keith ...and I'm sure from Mirabai too. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:05:14 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Keith Subject: Greetings Message: Hello Keith - greetings to you and Mirabai. I saw your post this morning, but then forgot to answer because of making the birthday posts. I cannot believe it is cold there (I always forget about the hemispheres). It is in the high 80's here - a relief after weeks of 95 degrees and 90 percent humidity (Temps are in F, I hope you can translate to Celsius). Take care, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:39:19 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Keith Subject: the guru papers Message: Dear Keith, That is so funny to consider. I am here at job 2 with no air conditioner and it is swealtering. It is all I can do not to strip down to my skivies! Love, Robyn and welcome back! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 06:11:20 (EDT)
From: Keith Email: None To: Robyn Subject: the guru papers Message: Thankyou Robyn and Katie for the welcome. I guess in the midst of your heatwaves it does seem odd to hear of the sub-zero temperatures here in Australia. We don't live far from the snow peaks and live rather a rustic lifestyle , which translates as bloody cold until we get our pot-belly going ....for an hour or so. I shall begin a new thread soon , as I'm interested in debating some of the ideas expressed in a few books I've read and the film 'Kundun'. Also I feel as if I have undergone change since I posted here ; and am keen to see if the change can find a voice. Love to you both, Keith. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 02:16:49 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: Here's another interesting article from Free Inquiry. This one's an interview with Christopher Hitchens about his expose of Mother Theresa. Incredible story: Hitchens on Mother Theresa Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 03:14:55 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: Jim Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: I read an excellent article about Hitchens in Vanity Fair after Princess Di's death and he was criticising both Mother Theresa and Di, saying how ridiculous the whole week was, and what a hypocrite M.T was. It was a refreshing read - especially after the non-stop telly coverage which was virtually canonising them while we watched. TD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:15:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: TD Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: TD: As I recall it was a bit one-sided. I figured the death of Diana deserved about 15 min. coverage, which was about what Mother Theresa actually got. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:06:30 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternt.com To: Scott T. Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: Princess Diana was better looking than Mother Theresa. But in Diana's defence, she would have been the first to say that she was definitely no saint. Also, the adoration which she received after her death was in sharp contrast to the scorn and ridicule which was sometimes heaped onto her while she was alive. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:40:11 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: I read that Hitchens inteview some time back and was pretty much unimpressed with the article. I've liked some of the other Hitchens articles more. I never met Mother Theresa nor am I sure what constitutes a saint, but I've taken some of the ideas attributed to Mother Theresa to heart. I don't think these ideas have originated with her. I'm struck by the idea, for instance, of seeing afflicted folks as the 'distressing aspects of Christ'. I've looked to integrate these ideas in my work with mental illness. Folks on the back wards of the mental hospitals are 'Christ in drag' or Jesus in his distressing forms. Harder it is for me to view the arrogant as sacred. I'm working on it. Ram Dass had pictures of George Bush and General Haig next to Hanuman and Neem Karoli Baba on his altar. All beings are sacred beings. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:21:00 (EDT)
From: Mark Email: None To: Bobby Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: Mother Teresa aligned herself with a compassionate view/ loving and assisting the unloveable elderly and ill that's her symbolic value it evokes a feeling of a sweetness of some sort of love however, as a public figure she certainly has to accept scrutiny and accountability for behaviors which seem holy of the swiss variety (that is, full of some major holes) like others often discussed here She was probably a mixed bag like the rest of us Bobby Congratulations on seizing control of your life Thru your recovery. Which is what this website is all about . . . POWER TO THE PEOPLE ! Yeah. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:35:43 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Bobby Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: This saying comes to mind: The highest place in Heaven is at the feet of the lowest man on Earth. I don't know where this saying comes from, it could be the Bible but it has always struck me as most profound. Regarding Mother Theresa, the fact that she followed the Catholic doctrine so rigidly made her less than saintly in many people's eyes. Remember, the Catholic religion is against all forms of birth control. She used to tell women to have lots of children because Mother Theresa would look after them. This is not good advice for impoverished women in poor countries. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:52:32 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: >>>>The highest place in Heaven is at the feet of the lowest man on Earth and attributed to Jesus: What you do to the least of these you do to me. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:56:33 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Mother Theresa unveiled Message: Maybe Christopher Hitchens is a saint. I think so sometimes. I've been reading him for so many years in The Nation, that I think I know him personally, although I've never met him. He has the courage to take on holy cows like no one else will. It was about time someone wrote that book on Mother Theresa. I believe she was basically about self-promotion and the current Pope glomed on to her for his own reactionary political ends. There is some evidence that the Vatican actually was involved in her coziness with Duvalier, as well as the military dictator that overthrew Aristide. In fact, which was the ONLY 'government' to recognize that dictatorship? --- The Vatican!! And Mom Theresa was quite a public relations emissary for the Pope at the time, both with the Haitians, as well as the likes of Jesse Helms. I think she sincerely believed that it was part of her job to spread and protect conservative catholic dogma, especially among the poorest masses. You know, the whole catholic idea that higher birth rate = higher death rate in most countries is fine, as long as every dead baby gets baptized. Also, that suffering is a good thing because you will be rewarded in a the after-life. I remember years ago, it was widely rumored that Mother Theresa was a 'breath-arian' -- that she didn't eat or drink but just lived on air, because she was so saintly and pure. I remember going to see her speak and the woman I was with was shocked because Mother Theresa was drinking Coca Cola! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 00:23:31 (EDT)
From: pam Email: None To: Jim Subject: MT--media cannonization Message: Just the fact that the media cannonizes someone make them immediate suspect to me. Our media is manipulated and censored. I haven't been sure who's doing the censoring, but after reading the Hichens article it occurs to me that maybe the Church has a huge hand in it and is in bed with our government. Along these line, have you seen Noam Chomski's 'The Manufacturing of Consent?' It's great. He studied newspaper accounts of the same stories as reported all over the world, getting the various slants and angles. He mentions a report in the London Times which put the U.S. in an unfavorable light; then talks about the same story covered by the Washington Post in which the unfavorable angle is removed and the U.S. is portrayed in a good light. I'm wondering who exacting is determining what we read. All over the world there are UFO sightings and crop circles, including in the U.S. in Ohio, but they are never, never reported in the mainstream media. I understand they are regularly reported in Japan's media. Interesting, don't you think? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 14:40:49 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: pam Subject: sorry, pam, Chomsky sucks Message: Chomsky is the biggest asshole I've had the pleasure to diss all morning. His theory is so outrageously sanctimonious and blind it mkaes me sick. (He's quite big in Canada with the young college crowd in aprticular because of his anti-Americanism). Here's all you need to know about him: He thinks that he knows how much interest everyone sohuld have in various topics. If the media doesn't give a topic as much publicity as he thinks it warrants, it's PROOF of a conspiracy to minimize the impact of the story. Who are the conspirators? Anyone Chomsky can find who might benefit from the fact that the story didn't get as much exposure as it 'should' have. Here's my favorite lunacy from that asshole. Chomsky - surprise, surprise -- didn't like organized sports as a kid. He never saw their attraction. Years later he surmised that people don't REALLY like them either, they've just been brainwashed. (People really like studying and politics, don't you know?). Who brainwashed them? Who else, the media and all the mean corporatations that benefit from the advertising. Who put them up to it? The mean American government which obviously benefits from the distraction that sports and mass entertainment provide. The guy's a fucking jerk. Only HE knows what we all like and if we THINK we have other tastes or values it's just that much more proof of how deeply we've been indoctrinated. Naturally, the American government is the darkest force in the world. Naturally the American media is its puppet? How do we know? Well, one reason is that they don't give Chomsky as much attention as he 'deserves'. Another conspiracy. The guy should have stuck to linguistics. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 15:15:39 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Well, Jim, I guess it had to happen. I couldn't disagree more about your opinion of Chomsky. And I don't think your characterization is at all correct, although you are entitled to your opinion. I've read all his books and seen him speak numerous times. I don't agree with everything he says, (by the way, I never heard him say that everyone who likes sports is brainswashed). His point is that stories tend not to be covered because it's not in the interest of those doing the reporting and those who employ them. This is nothing new, he's just pointing it out in a more systematic way. Many others have supported that conclusion at least in the states, both statistically, and anecdotally. Advertisers, the government, and the owners of the media, who just happen to be General Electric, Westinghouse, and the like, do have some influence on what gets published. Even supposed non-commercial PBS, like McNeil-Leherer is financed by ADM, Cargill, Pepsico and the like. It's more self-censorship than any kind of conspiracy when he talks about he media. Sorry he makes you sick. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 15:22:46 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Joe, Chomsky definitely has said that. Recall his discussion of the organized sports and his childhood 'realization' that peopel couldn't 'naturally' like them in 'Manufacturing Consent'. The guy's such a jerk. Have you ever sen where he said that people aren't humans until they're politically aware? I guess we all have to have our filing cabinets so full of clippings before we pass muster. No, I much prefer Tom Wolfe's discussion of him in the Bill Moyers interview book that I bet you've got on your bookshelf. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 16:22:57 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Tom Wolfe, now THERE's an asshole. The Bill Moyers interviews of Chomsky were pretty lame, just like everything else Moyers does, fawning as he does all over the people he interviews. Plus, I think Moyers' involvement in the Johnson administration makes him suspect in my view. Chomsky said that to be fully human you do need to be aware politically. He didn't say you weren't human if you weren't politically aware. That's because part of being human, and I agree, is participating and reclaiming control over your own life. Participating in governing your own life. That's politics and it's part of being a human being. The first thing you have to do is find out what's happening to you before you can do that. That's Chomsky's point. Until I was aware that I was being fucked over by the cult, I wasn't motivated to do much about it. If you aren't aware politically and you don't have the information, you can't do much. And, you can continue to be manipulated in ways that you are not aware. This is not some 'conspiracy' which Chomsky has never claimed. Sports are not brainwashing, but they are one of the things that sometimes breeds complacency -- kind of the bread and circus idea -- that can help keep people from becomming aware. Sports are not a major target of Chomsky, they can just be part of the fluff that helps make people univolved consumers, which is all capitalism wants them to be. And the media is complicit in this, in my opinion, more by what they don't cover than what they do, and I think it's self-censorship. Here's an example that comes to mind for me: The headlines are saying constantly that the economy in the US in BOOMING. The stock market just hit another record high; unemployment is at a record low; so is inflation, and yet the middle and lower classes feel squeezed and very insecure. Why? The media tends to blame the workers themselves, or, in the alternative, say 'this is just the way it is' and 'you've got it great why are you complaining.' I think many people know that's not true, but they don't know why. So, to find our, Chomsky would say you have to get behind the secrecy, or the headlines, at least and read Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, when he's talking internally; when he says the health of the economy depends on a wonderful acheivement that we've brought about, namely 'worker insecurity.' That's HIS term. Worker insecurity -- that is not knowing if you're going to have a job tomorrow. It is a great boon for the health of the economy because it keeps wages down. It's great: it keeps profits, and the stock market, at record highs, but keeps wages down. This is one of the reasons why people feel squeezed and vaguely fucked over economically, unless you're rich, of course. So, unless people know about this, they can't do much about it. And most people don't know about it because the press hardly, if at all, covers it and instead covers how great the economy is, how great the local sports team is (which, buy the way, just ripped off the local community for millions to build a new stadium under threat of the team leaving for more profitable digs in another city) Monice Lewinsky, and the rest. You really have to go to the, very small, alternative media to get that information. This is Chomsky's point. And I think it's a good one. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 17:13:48 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: JW Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Great post, JW. I don't know alot about Chomsky, but what I've heard I like. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 21:05:07 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Tom Wolfe, now THERE's an asshole. Why do you say that? The Bill Moyers interviews of Chomsky were pretty lame, just like everything else Moyers does, fawning as he does all over the people he interviews. Plus, I think Moyers' involvement in the Johnson administration makes him suspect in my view. Who cares about Moyers? Chomsky, himself, says a lot of stuff in that interview that are very telling. Problem is I don't have it and can't remember dick. Other than he came off as the smug, self-appointed school-teacher jerk that I've always found him to be. Chomsky said that to be fully human you do need to be aware politically. He didn't say you weren't human if you weren't politically aware. That's because part of being human, and I agree, is participating and reclaiming control over your own life. Participating in governing your own life. That's politics and it's part of being a human being. The first thing you have to do is find out what's happening to you before you can do that. That's Chomsky's point. Until I was aware that I was being fucked over by the cult, I wasn't motivated to do much about it. As much as you want to dress it up, Joe, the fact is this guy thinks he knows what's best for us. He knows what we should like, dislike and in what quantities. I say to be 'fully human' you should play music in a band or have some other artistic expression. People who don't aren't fully human. Yeah, right. If you aren't aware politically and you don't have the information, you can't do much. And, you can continue to be manipulated in ways that you are not aware. This is not some 'conspiracy' which Chomsky has never claimed. Chomsky DOES claim conspiracy, although he does his level best to dance around the word. He is the EPITOME of the conspiracy theorist. See a phenomena, speculate about who benefits, then attribute causation to them. No proof? No problem! Most of these 'manipulators' are extremely skilled at what they do. Sports are not brainwashing, but they are one of the things that sometimes breeds complacency -- kind of the bread and circus idea -- that can help keep people from becomming aware. Sports are not a major target of Chomsky, they can just be part of the fluff that helps make people univolved consumers, which is all capitalism wants them to be. I'm not a sports fan. But if I were I'd really want to smash that dessicated liver from MIT. You know, Joe, people like all sorts of crazy shit. It's a big world out there and one of the things people like doing, in general, is competing. Who planned the first bush leagues way back when? Was that just a long-term 'influence and distract' program by the not-quite-yet multinational corporations? Of course not. And why did they grow into this mamoth business it is today? Because people like it, that's why. People LIKE the whole viacarious everything about it. Chomsky, of course, can only say that they don't 'really' like sports. They've just been seduced into liking them. Patronizing bullshit, no smoking gun, he can fuck himself. And the media is complicit in this, in my opinion, more by what they don't cover than what they do, and I think it's self-censorship. Well that's his big bugaboo, isn't it? Okay, let's see what your example is. It better not be East Timor and the NY Times. That argument was a joke. Here's an example that comes to mind for me: The headlines are saying constantly that the economy in the US in BOOMING. The stock market just hit another record high; unemployment is at a record low; so is inflation, and yet the middle and lower classes feel squeezed and very insecure. Why? The media tends to blame the workers themselves, or, in the alternative, say 'this is just the way it is' and 'you've got it great why are you complaining.' I think many people know that's not true, but they don't know why. What station re you watching or listening to? What press re you reading? I'd LOVE to hear those quotes, or do I need the Chomsky code descrambler in order to make out those messages? So, to find our, Chomsky would say you have to get behind the secrecy, or the headlines, at least and read Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, when he's talking internally; when he says the health of the economy depends on a wonderful acheivement that we've brought about, namely 'worker insecurity.' That's HIS term. Worker insecurity -- that is not knowing if you're going to have a job tomorrow. It is a great boon for the health of the economy because it keeps wages down. It's great: it keeps profits, and the stock market, at record highs, but keeps wages down. This is one of the reasons why people feel squeezed and vaguely fucked over economically, unless you're rich, of course. So? What's your point? That the deeper coverage and analysis isn't on the front page? Look, I agree, no problem. What's so whack is when Chomsky then jumps to conclude that it's not there because the media is intentionally displacing important news to serve their controllers. That could be true at times. I'm sure it is. I'm sure, for example, that you're going to have a hard time finding any good coverage of Moon's cult empire in the Washington Times. But usually I think the reason that certain news gets more coverage than other matters is a function of editorial choice based on reader/viewer/listener interest. That is, I'm not willing to impugn the integrity of all the journalists at the NY Times and elsewhere the way Chomsky is so fucking quick to do. You saw the movie. Do you think the journalists were lying when they explained their editorial selection process? I don't. So, unless people know about this, they can't do much about it. And most people don't know about it because the press hardly, if at all, covers it and instead covers how great the economy is, how great the local sports team is (which, buy the way, just ripped off the local community for millions to build a new stadium under threat of the team leaving for more profitable digs in another city) Monice Lewinsky, and the rest. You really have to go to the, very small, alternative media to get that information. Don't be such an elitist, you elitist you. Harpers will never have the circulation of the National Enquirer and NPR will never be as popular as Fox. (Yes, I know, even those two examples aren't 'pure' enough. But the point's there. I imagine if you want the real scoop on econmic matters you have to read increasingly obscure, specialized and esoteric stuff, the names of which I am, regrettable, ignorant). People WANT scandal, superficiality and, sometimes a little depth. If more people wanted to read the Atlantic or the New Republic, they would. No one's stopping them. This is Chomsky's point. And I think it's a good one. The kind of moral high ground he claims for himself and his filing cabinet posse assumes sleazy indifference, duplicity and worse on the part of a whole lot of people. It's like new age criticism of science that basks in its own warm but unproven assumption that scientists are venal and untrustworthy and all tied in with the multinational corporate conspiracy to dominate and destory our better human nature. Soory, that's a strong claim. I'd like to see a little more proof than Chomsky -- or those anti-science guys -- have ever offered. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 23:36:59 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Tom Wolfe, now THERE's an asshole. Why do you say that? I think he's an asshole because he is an apologist for the Reagan administration, including the trillion dollar military buildup and quadrupling the national debt, he is a crummy writer and got rich nonetheless, he believes in American hegimony abroad, and he wears white suits, and I have a viseral reaction to that. As much as you want to dress it up, Joe, the fact is this guy thinks he knows what's best for us. Even if this is true, so what? There are about 5 billion other people who think the same thing. Chomsky DOES claim conspiracy, although he does his level best to dance around the word. He is the EPITOME of the conspiracy theorist. See a phenomena, speculate about who benefits, then attribute causation to them. If by this you mean he follows the money, I think that's a very good place to start in any kind of investigation. I also think there is all kinds of 'proof' for what he says. The Alan Greenspan example I gave is just one of them. That is a story that doesn't get to the American people in the mainstream press. Nor does the fact that the US economy REQUIRES 8,000,000 unemployed to maintain growth, at least the way it is currently structured. I don't know what you mean by 'conspiracy.' If it means a bunch of people in a room planning X, of course not. If it means powerful interests doing what's in their best interests, which might not be in the best interest of the rest of us, then definitely yes, he's a conspiracy theorist. But I don't think that's the way the term is usually used, and I wouldn't use it that way. I don't know what you're talking about re the sports thing, beyond what I've already said. I thing you've reduced it to absurdity. As I've said, I've read most all his stuff and never got that impression, but maybe I missed something. That the deeper coverage and analysis isn't on the front page? Look, I agree, no problem. What's so whack is when Chomsky then jumps to conclude that it's not there because the media is intentionally displacing important news to serve their controllers. That could be true at times. I'm sure it is. I'm sure, for example, that you're going to have a hard time finding any good coverage of Moon's cult empire in the Washington Times. Well, thanks, Jim for agreeing this occurs at times. It certainly is my experience. It's just more true than just 'at times.' It's pervasive in the media and it's really become standard practice. Read Ben Bandikian's book? Excellent analysis and lots of proof for what Chomsky says. Read FAIR? Other media criticsm says the same. Read the Sonoma State report of the most 'underreported stories?' If you do, they just so happen to be stories not in the interests of corporate interests. It's not a smoke-filled-room conspiracy, it's much more structural and institutionalized than that. Let me give you another example from today's news. In Rome as we speak, the US is about the only nation (France was with the US for awhile) opposing the creation of a war crimes court. The 'official' reason is because the US is afraid that peacekeepers will be brought up on trumped up charges. [ Funny how Canada, for example, didn't oppose it, but is more involved in peacekeeping than the US.] That is what today's NYT parroted. They just repeated official government statment with no other analysis. Do you think they might have mentioned that the US HAS committed war crimes, like My Lai in Vietnam, bombing civilians in Panama, was convicted by the world court in Nicaragua, gave permission to and armed the Indonesians in East Timor (200,000 dead) (there is another story NOT reported until Chomksy and others brought it out)?. The US is rightly scared that it would be brought up on charges for those events. The NYT hasn't made a peep about it. Why? Great hesitance to criticize the govt in foreign policy, and maybe, yes, the American people aren't very interested in foreign affairs so why expend any time or energy giving the whole story. Just say what the Clinton administration says and leave it at that.. Although stories are killed, I think most of it is just self-censorship. The statistics that the stories don't get reported are there. And they are very convincing. Journalists just don't tend to get promoted if they write articles critical of the owners of the company. Not too complicated, really. People WANT scandal, superficiality and, sometimes a little depth. If more people wanted to read the Atlantic or the New Republic, they would. No one's stopping them. Good point Jim, but it's irrelevent. So, people 'want' scandal. So what? Of course this is always the excuse. Give people what they want. I happen to think the media, at least in a democracy, has more of a responsibility than that. Plus, what proof do you have of that? Surveys show the public wants in-depth stories covering all sides. There is alternative media out there. It's just hard to find, it doesn't have any money, it reaches a very small audience, and so it has very little impact. It's irrelevent to the vast majority of people. The fact that the major media is own by only a handful of comglomerates just adds to the problem. How many US cities have more that ONE newspaper (that doesn't have the same owner that is?) What station re you watching or listening to? What press re you reading? I'd LOVE to hear those quotes, or do I need the Chomsky code descrambler in order to make out those messages? I'm a news junkie. Local news is the worst, not even worth talking about., Network news is 7-second sound bites. Look Jim, EVERY paper in the US has a HUGE sports section. Every paper has a HUGE BUSINESS section. Although less than 10% of Americans invest in the stock market, EVERY paper and EVERY news report covers the stock market and all the ins and outs of stocks endlessly. NOT ONE paper in the US has even ONE reporter covering LABOR and yet a large percentage of the US population works in blue collar jobs and most people work. Now you tell me Jim, why is that? Just the way it is? People don't want to hear about it? Or does it have something to do with the owners of those newpapers. Also Jim, it didn't used to be this way. Chomsky talks a lot about that. I agree that Chomsky's style can be professorial. I agree that can put people, including me, off. But I think there's a lot in what he says that is valuable analysis and I wouldn't write him off as some kind of crazy conspiracy theorist. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 00:43:22 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Joe, I'm getting the feeling that if this goes on much longer I'm going to have to pay for our next dinner and I don't want that. So let me see if I can pluck this mote out of your eye succintly and precisely. You wrote: If by this you mean he follows the money, I think that's a very good place to start in any kind of investigation. Yes, START, not finish. There's a big diff. Chomsky regularly falls into the classic but shameless error of finding intent (and thus possible causation) where there's merely motive. Think of the game 'Clue'. Or think of any Perry Mason or Columbo episode. If Chomsky was the detective he'd find someone with a motive for killing the victim and jump to the conclusion that he'd found his suspect. That's what conspiracy junkies do. Here's how Chomsky does it. Consider his well-known East Timore example. He decides that the Indonesian repression in East Timor doesn't get anywhere near the coverage it should get in the States. He then asks himslef who might benefit from this quasi-hush job. It turns out the U.S. government has had a role in propping up Suharto and thus, indirectly, his opression of East Timor. Chomsky then jumps to this conclusion: the U.S. Government MUST have some control over the U.S. media (pretty well all of it) and MUST be somehow making that media downplay the story. Hell, if he hadn't made his mark in a completely unrelated field -- lingusitics -- he'd be laughed out of Dodge for that level of analysis. It's despicable. Don't get me wrong. It's perfectly wonderful for Chomsky to HYPOTHESIZE as he does. But, if he weren't such an arrogant asshole, he'd humbly realize he's dealing with a mere hypothesis and not a proven fact. Instead, Chomsky decides that all the guys and gals that run the newsrooms around America are in on this 'cover-up' -- either as nefarious networks of nastiness (Agnew?) or lazy, loops of lapdogedness. Either way, their integrity is assumed to be inconsequential. Only Chomsky has virtue. I also think there is all kinds of 'proof' for what he says. The Alan Greenspan example I gave is just one of them. That is a story that doesn't get to the American people in the mainstream press. Nor does the fact that the US economy REQUIRES 8,000,000 unemployed to maintain growth, at least the way it is currently structured. Joe, there's a fucking market out there! People aren't protected from this knowledge, they just have a limited appetite for it. Right or wrong, they just don't want to get all that serious, you know? Therer's no conspiracy to sell Lewinsky any more than there is to keep Dante/Shakespeare and the rest off the bestseller list. You are a really well-informed guy who just can't easily accept the level people are willing to live on. That's a compliment and you should be proud of yourself but don't make the mistake of thinking that there's some evil force keeping the circulation of the 'alternative' press unnaturally low. You know, when you talk about the U.S. media's reluctance to stab the gov't in the back you've got to explain Watergate, the Pentagon Papers andyes, Ms. Lewinsky. Hell, why do you think you even KNOW about My Lai. All those countries Chomsky thinks are so much better -- I'd like to see how free their press is to report the scandal and embarrasment their gov't's endure. East Timor was just not that interesting to American citizens. It's not that 'sexy', you know? It just isn't. It's not true that people everywhere are 'equal' and it's certainly not true that people are all 'equal' to us. That's a two-dimensional Hallmark sentiment that real life doesn't bear out. It's also not true that there was no reproting about East Timor pre Chomsky. It just didn't get the kind of coverage he thought it deserved. And if he changed that it was only by making so much noise about it that he whipped up some greater interest in the story and then -- what do you know? -- more coverage. Like why isn't the world covering the one-time Lord of the Universe? Why DID the New Yorker sit on that story? What happened to that Virginia woman from the Denver Post? Why DID People magazine hold off on a GMJ story? Hmmm... Could it be? No, that's ridiculous..... (Joe, I love you anyways. You know that. -- Robyn :) ) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 17:25:36 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Guess it Had to Happen Message: Jim, You don't really dispute the fact that information is withheld from the public. You just seem to think it's for a different motivation. Tell me Jim, do you have more proof for that theory (that people don't want to hear certain information and so it isn't reported) than Chomsky has for his? Especially when it's clear that he's established there IS motivation for that behavior. Not even the media makes THAT argument. . Chomsky regularly falls into the classic but shameless error of finding intent (and thus possible causation) where there's merely motive. But Jim, you fail here because you leave out one of the steps. There is motive, and there is result. You forget the result. With East Timor, for example, the story wasn't covered, and there was a motive for not doing so. I think that leads to a logical conclusion. It isn't difinitive proof. Of course it isn't. I don't know HOW you would get that. But it's a very strong argument and provides an excellent vantage point to view the whole issue. The media's retorts are SO lame, that I'm more inclined to believe Chomsky. Tell me Jim, what's your theory? The same one the guy from the NTY said. 'Too many genocides, too little time?' Give me a break. By the way Jim, your whole analysis rests on the assumption that the media is basically benign or doing it's job. What proof do you have for that? And, unlike Chomsky, you don't have the motive OR the result. He decides that the Indonesian repression in East Timor doesn't get anywhere near the coverage it should get in the States. Well, really Jim, it didn't get ANY coverage, the genocide that is. When Pol Pot genocide got reams of coverage. Again, Chomsky's theory is that the US was complicit in one, and not the other. Reasonable? Sure it is. Defnitive? No. Got a better explanation, Jim? Besdes what Meyer said that I already quoted 'too many genocides, too little time?' Again, what proof do you have for what happened? Just spaciness, just laziness or what? I don't accept the theory as absolute fact. But it makes a lot of sense to me and the facts seem to support it. I have yet to hear another explanation from the media on the East Timor case that makes any sense, including yours. Chomsky has never suggested that the press always supports the government. Government scandal is stock and trade and conservative /liberal discussion is within a well-enclosed box. So the Watergate, Lewinsky stuff doesn't rock the boat at all. It has more to to with protecting the current power structure. Who happens to be president at any one time is pretty irrelevent under the current system. You can attack the president, just don't attack military arms suppliers(like GE and Westinghouse who own two of the networks), encourage worker organizing, or question US hegimony in the world. That's were the pressure is, not in internal party disputes. So, Jim, regarding the 'market out there' I see a contradiction. First you say there isn't censorship in the press, and then you say there is, but it's done because it sells more papers. It's what the people want. Of course it is, at least to some extent, but the media, as the watchdog on the government and those in power are supposed to do more and they are supposed to report the news and inform people. So they have TWO motivations. The interests of the media's owners, and the interests of many consumers of media. Sounds like a great situation that Chomsky couldn't agree with more. But there are two audiences. Those who vote and are the 'political class' are the ones who get the propoganda and the rest are marginalized by giving them 'what they want to see.' Clearly that's over-simplified, but I think there is a lot of truth in it. Your statement that East Timor isn't that interesting and that's why it wasn't covered is just pathetic. Not even the NYT said something that dumb. The NYT basically said they didn't know why it wasn't covered. Certainly there was no strong impetus to cover it and lots of reasons not to. Pol Pot was covered endlessly because it was something we weren't involved in and East Timor we were HEAVILY involved. One story was safe and one wasn't. I think that was a strong motivation not to cover it. 200,000 dead in a genocide is NEWS which doesn't get ignored because Americans are bored with it. Why was Cambodia genocide so much more interesting? Better scenery? By the way Jim, you didn't comment on the Rome war crimes tribunal vote. The US was one of SIX nations that voted against it. The others? Let's see: Libya, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey and China. Gee, great group there. Think the NYT will notice any similarities of interests there? They haven't yet. They are still, as of today, parrotting the state department line about fear of unjust accusations on peacekeepers. Yeah, right. But gee, that's just what people want to hear, so what can they do? I and Robyn love you too Jim. BTW- If you would just learn to listen to Chomsky with your heart instead of your mind, you would see what a beautiful experience you would have. I don't care about any contradictions or inconsistencies in what he says, he's given me a beautiful experience and I shall forever be grateful to him for that.:) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 00:25:01 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Chomsky Fan Message: Jim, I thought I would also mention that your friend that you quoted starting out this thread, Alexander Cockburn, has been known to be a major fan of Noam Chomsky. You probably should reconsider his analysis of Mother Theresa if he also agrees with a crazy, elitist, smug, wacko conspiracy theorist. I mean, what could he possibly know, right? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 01:03:19 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: I'm so embarrased for you Message: Jim, I thought I would also mention that your friend that you quoted starting out this thread, Alexander Cockburn, has been known to be a major fan of Noam Chomsky. You mean Hitchens? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 17:27:13 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yeah, Hitchens Message: I kind of equate Cockburn and Hitchens. Cockburn if a fan of Chomsky too. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 18:37:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Yeah, Hitchens Message: Cockburn if a fan of Chomsky too. Joe, you shouldn't type with your mouth full. :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 18:36:41 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Chomsky/Canada Message: Like you said, I've also noticed that Chomsky is particularly popular in Canada. I've always thought that was because he was seen as a harbinger of what Canada could become if it follows the course of the neighbor to the South. Chomsky also predicted that the US/Canada Free Trade Agreement (years before NAFTA) would result in jobs from Canada migrating to the USA, (and he was right, 250,000 did) and also the major move to the left that happened in the Canadian elections, especially in Ontario as a result. This gave him some publicity and fame in Canada as well. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 21:15:32 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Chomsky/Canada Message: Chomsky's big in Canada because Canadians derive a cheap thrill from dissing the states. Chomsky, as you know, thinks that the U.S. Government is evil and supports all of its enemies. He's an apologist for dictators, zealots of different stripes -- anyone who's got an axe to grind with the states, Chomsky will go to bat for them. Some Canadians love that. I don't know what elections you're talking about but Canada has swung increasingly to the right in the late eighties and nineties. Well first to the left wth the NDP (disastrous government), then, more recently to the right again with Bob Harris' Conservatives. No, Canadians just enjoy the attention Chomsky gives our media -- why? Because no one in the states wants to bother him. Hey, Joe, if you were in the media how much of a platform would YOU like to give the guy who claims that the media is nothing but the complicitous lapdog of big business and government? If I felt like I was a decent journalist and all that I'd want to tell the guy to take a hike. The U.S. media's done that with Chomsky. Of course there's his proof right there..... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 23:44:47 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Chomsky/Canada Message: What 'dictators' has Chomsky been an apologist for? The elections I was referring to was in Ontario a socialist government was elected after the job losses. Also, wasn't the coservative government's share of seats in the parliament reduced to TWO in the early 90s? Things might have moved rightward since then. I was referring to the reaction to the damage done by the free trade agreement, which went through in the 80s. I think if you took a poll in America, the majority would agree that the media IS the lapdog of corporate interests. That is NOT a radical view at all. It's mainstream, actually. People kind of know that. They know the media isn't serving their interests. In fact, they HATE the media. They just don't know what to do about it. Chomsky has some suggestions about that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 14:10:02 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Chomsky/Canada Message: Chomsky's been an apologist for Ortega, Arafat (yes, a dictator) and various other U.S. enemies. Come on, you know how he does it. Given the choice between actually giving the U.S. some credit for something he'll do ANYTHING to find a sinister, ulterior motive. I think if you took a poll in America, the majority would agree that the media IS the lapdog of corporate interests. That is NOT a radical view at all. It's mainstream, actually. People kind of know that. They know the media isn't serving their interests. In fact, they HATE the media. They just don't know what to do about it. Chomsky has some suggestions about that. Funny, I thought the majority of Americans believed in God and/or UFO's. You mean they believe this TOO! Wow. And how do you know that people HATE the media and just don't know what to do about it? And, please, what are Chomsky's suggestions? I can't wait. As for Canadian political history, you're partly right. The NDP (a one-time quasi-socialist party but now just a mainstream patch-work like all the rest) did form their first gov't in Ontario after NAFTA but it didn't last long. As for the routing of the Conservatives, the party that took over again, the Liberals, is every bit as conservative. They're both centrist, and pragmatic for the most part. That same election, in fact, saw the growth of the Reform party which took the place of the Conservatives out west. MUCH more conservative. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 16:04:34 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Joe, I took another look Message: This morning I got out Manufacturing Consent again. Joe, you know I respect your opinion -- GENERALLY -- and I don't want to give the impression of giving short shrift to something or someone you respect. So I looked at the book. Boy am I unimpressed. Chomsky really is an asshole in that he assumes there is no journalistic integrity in America. Here's an example of his thinking. Nixon broke into the Democratic headqaurters at the Watergate hotel but the F.B.I. also did a break-in, theirs at the Socialist Party headquarters. The first act got a lot of publicity, the second didn't. Why? Well, obviously, the Democratics party represents large moneyed interests while the Socialists don't. Therefore, the media, good lapdogs of all them moneyed interests, obediently focus on the one intrusion, not the other. Give me a fucking break, Noam! The states is basically a two-party country and one party, led by a sitting President no less, invaded the headquarters of the other. That is a lot more important, newsworthy, disconcerting and 'sexy' to the American people than the F.B.I.'s intrusion of the Socialist party which, none could dispute, is of little interest to anyone. But, see, Noam thinks that maybe the Socialst party shouldn't BE so marginalized. Now who's he gonna blame that on? The robber barons? Or how about his treatment of the papal assassination attempt? He is just chomping at the bit to lay the affair at the feet of the CIA rahter than KGB, isn't he? I wasn't the least impressed with his speculation. Instead, it repulsed me. Like I say, Chomsky's positioned himself as an apologist for U.S. enemies and to him I do extend the classic 'red neck' challenge -- if you think things are so much better 'over there' go live there. The only way Chomsky can make his argument is on the backs of all of the journalists in the states who aren't working for TINY media organs. Throw in just about every gobvernment official with any press contacts and don't forget all the ugly back room corporate types. Fuck you, Noam. I've paid my dues listening to strident, self-righteous diatribes on Pacifica stations. Some of it's good information for me to have and some of it, sorry, just isn't that interesting. Selfish? Yeas, I guess I am. I did pay $8 to see 'Deep Impact' rather than send the money to a 'safe' charity. Tyhat's Chomsky's whole underlying premise, isn't it? If we weren't so brainwashed we'd care euwqally about every last soul in the world and our media would reflect that 'proper' level of 'human' concern. As far as I'm concerned, that's unrealistic, undesirable even. It's particularly ugly to impugn all those peoples' integrity -- oh yeah, throw in a 'stupid, brainwashed public' while you're at it -- just to push this sorry theory. I don't care how educated the guy is or how carefully he can catalogue facts. What he does with them is stupid. You really think Tom Wolfe is a lousy writer? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:02:44 (EDT)
From: Judex Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Order in the court Message: I finally realised what this Forum is; in one of its manifestations, anyway. It is a people's court, and we are all witnesses. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 23:58:43 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Atheism and the Big Bang Message: Here's another link to Free Inquiry's web site, this time to an article by Quentin Smith about Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism: Why the Big Bang's No Help to Believers Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:22:37 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jim Subject: Atheism and the Big Bong Message: No wonder darwin looked like a - if you'll excuse the term- god send- to those of that time that were chokeing under the obviously stifleing christianity of that day. The 'posts' that are on line are very revealing about how tied up they were by the dogma of that suffocating monstrosity of a church. Somehow I missed the big bang connection. By the way, the hot big bang buzz of the year is that nuetrino's have mass-of course, they are matter. If they could find mass in information! Now that would be the proof of materialism. On another big bang front, The hot theory now is that there is a 'mother' universe and there are unlimited universes as a result. For the details, you will have to pick up the latest issue of newsweek. Makes for wild reading but to be with it, it's a must read. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 05:37:49 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: bb Subject: Atheism and the Big Bong Message: Bill; I once came to the conclusion that there could be a mother universe. But I think that anyone who dropped acid could have come to the same conclusion. I have a very interesting artical written by someone who had an experience after a different type of meditation (not M's) and he said he perceived endless dimensions. I will post it here if you like. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:24:55 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Atheism and the Big Bong Message: David: I have a very interesting artical written by someone who had an experience after a different type of meditation (not M's) and he said he perceived endless dimensions. I will post it here if you like. Ah..., but the question is: 'What constitutes a new dimension?' IMHO conventional mathematics is as screwed up on that as they are on the issue of dimensionless points and one dimensional lines. There are no such things, but are merely a mathematical convention. It really doesn't make much sense to build a whole theory of dimensionality on such an obvious mis-interpretation. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:55:23 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Scott T. Subject: Atheism and the Big Bong Message: I agree with you there Scott. However you may be interested in the article I mentioned because the writer had read the book 'A Course In Miracles' and his experience came about (to some extent) as a consequence of reading the book. His experience is not mathematical or scientific but it is interesting. I will post it as a new thread up above, later on. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 01:29:34 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: dimensionless points Message: Hmmmm, thats interesting. I would like to see the conceptual math that makes a one dimensional line. 'Endless dimensions' is beyond my scope also. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 01:19:54 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Atheism and the Big Bong Message: SURE! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 01:45:03 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Link doesn't go directly there Message: Sorry, the link doesn't take you directly there. It takes you to a page that's part of this Huxley 'ring'. At the bottom is a bar with a 'next' button. Hit it until you get the frame with the 'magazines' link. Take that to 'Free Inquiry' and follow that to the archives. The Dawkins article is in the current, summer 1998 issue. The Smith article is in the one before that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:21:49 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, here's the REAL way Message: Sorry, the way it works is like this: 1) Go the the linked page. 2) Hit the 'Library' link in the top left corner of the frame. 3) Hit the 'magazine' link. 4) Hit 'Free Inquiry'. 5) Check out the articles in the current and archived issues. (For some reason, I can't get to the magazine's web page otherwise). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:12:40 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Jim Subject: Suppose there is a God. Do Message: you think She'll mind if we don't believe in Her anymore? After all, a merciful God would have snuffed that big imposter out, wouldn't she? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:30:37 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Gail Subject: That's a GREAT Question Message: Gail, That's a really good question. Say you accepted the fact that, once the illusion of design is understood, there's simply not enough evidence to believe in something so bizarre as God. Now that's using your noggin. Say you lived an otherwise moral life. Why in the world would God be pissed off? It just doesn't make sense. All you've done is sincerely tried to reason and understand the world around you. If anything, God should then apologize for not giving enough evidence of its existence and causing so many fights between people. Really, this God thing is so bogus. Next we're going to hear that God used to claim that he was Guru Maharaj Ji! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:39:31 (EDT)
From: Cheeseman Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Gail Subject: What about money? Message: That's interesting Gail. Personally, I'd call myself a non atheistic humanist or something like that. I don't believe in God although I think there is a God. I was pretty angry with God myself when I realised I'd believed he was Maharaji for 25 years. Now I'm not sure what God's agenda is. I'm certainly put off any organised method of worship/realisation of Him after the Maharaji con. I think that money is a good and worthwhile pursuit. If you've ever been poor you'll know that lack of money does nobody any good. You are powerless in this world without money and at the mercy of all the crap that this world can throw at you. Money changed my life for the better far more than anything else. Maharaji changed it for the worst. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 23:53:36 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Dawkins on God Message: Here's a new Dawkins essay from Free Inquiry some of you might enjoy: Dawkins on the Improbability of God Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:27:09 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dawkins off God Message: This dawkins connection doesn't seem to be what you intended. Check your link. I'll get back to you and Sir David and Judex tomorrow about this subject. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 01:43:43 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Tricky to find though Message: Sorry, the link doesn't take you directly there. It takes you to a page that's part of this Huxley 'ring'. At the bottom is a bar with a 'next' button. Hit it until you get the frame with the 'magazines' link. Take that to 'Free Inquiry' and follow that to the archives. The Dawkins article is in the current, summer 1998 issue. The Smith article is in the one before that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:20:27 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: God am I sloppy! Message: Sorry, the way it works is like this: 1) Go the the linked page. 2) Hit the 'Library' link in the top left corner of the frame. 3) Hit the 'magazine' link. 4) Hit 'Free Inquiry'. 5) Check out the articles in the current and archived issues. (For some reason, I can't get to the magazine's web page otherwise). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 02:28:57 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jim Subject: dawkins mistake on design. Message: Well, there goes my respect for dawkins. That article was hardly a good nutshell version of the book the blind watchmaker. He should have just exerpted pages 141-150. In the article he says 'if you assume-(the numerous steps idea) you are bound (?) to be able to derive an eye.' Bound? bound? he is really sloppy with this article. He picks the half eye arguement and beats it up but that is a really dumb objection to spend time on. 'design argument destroyed' (?) what! that's sophmoric. 'evolution , then, is theoretically capable...'--well thank you for at least useing the word theoretical. His first focus should be on trying to deny the truth that information is not reducible to matter. There is no number of steps that can make that link. No matter how long you will allow and infinite steps granted. Sir Davids amazing points about WHY would conciousness evolve are brilliant Evolution has no answer to the conciousness issue. Why in the world he would use the example he does to show random selection is beyond me. Take another look. It is word play and could be called trickery because he runs off makes a point while ignoring the full ramifications of the process he just employed. Sure, you could recreate this post by random selection, however, you would need -information- or the computer to hold the letters in the proper place as they came up. That is no small point. Information is a key ingredient of the process. Same thing with cumulative selection. His holy grail of irreducible minimum holds a surprise for him. energy, matter, AND information. The wild assumptions and dreaming about replicators is his effort to discount information without haveing any basis whatsoever to do so. In the article he really sounded like a premie on this forum. It was truly a baffle em with bullshit article. The book-watchmaker at least tries to maintain a science tone. It is a totally wishful construct to say -if there are enough steps and time then perhaps we can prove that no intelligence was used in the design process- When you and I have conciousness, why is it so important to imagine a possibility so religiously that no conciousness was used in the design. And to trumpet it so arrogantly as fact when clearly it is not. He never thought about the information issue. Or his book sales and philosophy and ego won't let him face up to the fact that he is a materialist zealot that is in fact blind to the core fact that information is not reducible to matter. Among other things. Shake off this guy. He is bogus and unprofessional. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 13:40:20 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: bb Subject: dawkins mistake on design. Message: Shake off this guy. He is bogus and unprofessional. WHHAAAATTTT???? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 21:10:16 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Everyone Subject: Children of God/Cult Message: Hello all, There is a show on CBS right now about this cult. Just thought I'd let you all know if you are in the US. I am on EST and it is 9:12pm. Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 07:12:30 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Memories... Message: Dear Robyn, My only encounter with the COG came at a very muddy festival in Bickershaw, near Wigan, UK in 1972 (I think). I had arrived with my girlfriend at the huge site hungry, broke and looking for relief. Someone directed us to the COG tent where we were informed that, provided we stayed to pray for a bit, we would be fed, watered and provided with some psylocybin. We stayed, prayed, ate, tripped and split. It was great. It was one of the last great, anarchic festivals of the era with Jefferson Airplane Grateful Dead Country Joe and the Fish New Riders of the Purple Sage Captain Beefhart and many more. We then met up with some friends and tripped off down to Wembley Arena to watch the Grateful Dead again before ...whatever!!! This must have all been just before knowledge or during the build-up. Thanks for the memory link Robyn. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:43:08 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Richard Subject: Memories... Message: Dear Richard, Sounds like a great memory! I hate to burst your bubble but the piece, from a magazine show as it turned out, told of prostituting the woman members: HORES for JESUS! There were cartoons in the group's newsletter that actually said this and other similar messages. Young girls were made to do viel dances on video and hand all the children, male and female, were made to have sex with each other and adults. It doesn't suprize me that they were a 'fun' group as they spoke of the drugs and the sex as ways to draw in new members. I think BM may look angelic compared to this guy! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:26:44 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Memories... Message: Yeah you're right Robyn, it is pretty tacky but, as I remember, the gender thing was also exploited by DLM and many other cults/churches. All very implicit rather than stated of course. One of the things that I enjoy about the forum is the LACK of emphasis on gender (aside from the occasional reference to 66HH lap dancers that is). It's nice to be just a voice for a change. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 16:51:19 (EDT)
From: Judex Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The Lesson of the Dogs Message: Hallo, lovers of the truth (LOTT) and beauty (LOB) = (L O B O T O M Y?) I am taking a day off work = mental health day just to play and unwind. Every now and then my inner doctor says to do this. Well I just feel like telling you my lovely story I have been saving up for the right occasion. How to tell it? Ok here goes I have a little dog who is a corgi as some know I may even send in a pic one day, he is mascot-type dog - very cool, very enlightened I have dedicated a few story ideas to this dog's search for trtuh and happiness HOwever the miracle that has been witnessed by one and all in Our Dog Park, which is a leash-free exercise zone right near the most beautiful bay you can imagine is this: Dogs of all kinds come. People take off leashes. Dogs run joyfully to one another. Every dog sniffs every other dogs bum. Once the important social rituals are done, they Play! All dogs will find a special companion for wrestling, tumbling, racing, chasing and other gladiator sports. These heroes will catch balls, frisbees, sticks. They will dive in mud puddles and wade together. There is no public sexual activity (or rarely) since they are mostly de-hormonized this leads to less fights and more fun! So for the world's education, had I a film camera (and I do) another project is to film these dogs, with voice overs. What you will see is dalmations playing with terries, retrievers and border collies, alaskan huskies with labradors, weineramers and alsations, imported german mountain sheep dogs with sturdy pit bull/blue heeler crosses....all enjoying, celebrating, playing. And we watch, the humans, and slowly we start to talk to each other. We have learnt from the dogs. lots of love Judex Happy birthday RT - today you get to be TOP DOG!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 23:01:31 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Judex and RT Subject: Happy Birthday, RT! Message: Thanks for the story, Judex. Best wishes for a great birthday, RT. It's mine tomorrow. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:00:05 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Gail Subject: Happy Birthday, RT and Gail! Message: What are your birthday wishes? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:11:58 (EDT)
From: RT Email: ummmmmm To: bb Subject: My wish? Message: ...is to tell jokes! here's the first I'd like to hear someday: “This is National Public Radio, in Washington. I’m Carl Castle. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has subpoenaed Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also known as Maharaji, in the ongoing investigation of Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Starr says there is probable cause that Ms. Lewinsky once attended a video event of the cult. In a prepared statement, a follower of the Ma-haraji from Elan Vital, a non-profit but inactive Californian charity, said: ‘Maharaji says that all Mr. Starrs' questions will be answered in the videos. Later, Mr. Starr subpoenaed the video Library of Elan Vital. This is NPR. RT Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 14:00:19 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: bb Subject: Happy Birthday, RT and Gail! Message: I feel really happy. Thanks to all of you, I have half my mind back. The other half of it is wild. I hope all the enslaved premies (and other folks) get free really soon, so they can feel good too. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:23:51 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Judex Subject: Happy Birthday RT Message: Dear RT, For your birthday I will type you a message that is on the front of a birthday card from my oldest daughter that is pinned right here at job1, I think it will suit you. In those whom I LIKE, I can find no common denominator: In those whom I LOVE I can: They ALL make me LAUGH!! You make us all laugh RT, have a great birthday! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 08:33:33 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Judex Subject: The Lesson of the Dogs Message: Dear Judex, I just loved your story. I have heard of those places where you can let your dog run in a park with other dogs. Here it is open enough for our dogs to run right out the back door. The bay sounds exquisite though. I have another thing pinned up here at job1, I brought a lot of 'me' stuff in because it is very opressive here but I am glad it is all right here for me today. Dog Day Rules: Things we can learn from dogs to better our lives: 1. Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joy ride. 2. Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face to be pure ecstasy. 3. When loved ones come home, always run to greet them. 4. Let others know when they've invaded your territory. 5. Take naps, and stretch before rising. 6. Run, romp and play daily. 7. Eat with gusto and enthusiasm. 8. Be loyal. 9. Never pretend to be something you're not. 10. If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it. 11. When others are having a bad day, be silent, sit close by and nuzzle them gently. 12. Thrive on attention, and let people touch you. 13. Avoid biting when a simple grwol will do. 14. When you're happy, dance around and wag your entire body. 15. Delight in the simple joy of a long walk. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:54:30 (EDT)
From: Judex Email: None To: Robyn Subject: The Lesson of the Dogs Message: Dear Robyn; Straight on the fridge! Love it! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 16:14:16 (EDT)
From: x Email: x2000@goplay.com To: Everyone Subject: Knowledge Review (true story) Message: Where Did He Go? (true story) Sometime around the beginning of '96 my mom, to her regret, managed to talk me into attending a knowledge review to be given by the Big M himself, because as she explained, 'the instructors were adding their own trip into it, so M wants to be able to control how the k is revealed. It's better this way, it's changed, it's not how you think.' blah, blah, blah. She encouraged me to 'give it one more chance.' 'it might help me.' I have to give her credit for this last entreaty, because she knew I was very athiest, and I thought of the guru as a charlatan. In fact I had gone to a program event, I don't remember the pc way to say it, a couple of years before this, that I thought was awful (devotional songs, weird music videos of him at the beach, lots of Master type stuff, table loads of trinkets, videos etc.) Anyway, although I knew it was fruitless, I decided to go, to give it a last shot, so to speak. So we drove down, me and my mother and step father, kind of solemn, to the review. Okay, I don't remember much of what he said. It was typical bs. 'Please don't reveal these techniques I'm about to show you,it's important that you do them just like I show you.' blah, blah. I'm sure some toxic crap about the master and the student, devotion, etc. I don't even remember. What I do remember is him finally showing how to do the first technique. Put your index finger like this, and... you get the point.Finally we were ready to practice all the tecniques for an hour. Then he says close your eyes and begin tecnique #1. I closed my eyes, fingers in place and gave it a try. I really tried. 'I figured hey why not I'm here right?' About three minutes later, I decided I was bored, popped my eyes open, and saw an empty chair. Call me naive, but my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe it. I'm serious, I never imagined he wouldn't be there, eyes closed, meditating with his premies. I sat there quietly until 15 minutes went by. He crept back in silently and sat down at the last minute, cleared his throat, and said' open your eyes now. Now we will begin the 2nd technique, close your eyes.' This time I watched as he snuck out of the chair to go hang out backstage. I looked around, everyone was meditating, eyes firmly shut. I realized I was the only person there that would ever open my eyes. If you were devout, why would you open your eyes? That would defeat the whole purpose right? So I sat through about 50 minutes, with BM sneaking in and out every 15 minutes, on the dot, alerted by his alarm watch (beep beep). Fuming over how I had to sit there in a cramped movie theater seat, breathing stale air with 1,000,s of possibly contagious premies, while bm was kicking back smoking a cig or something, backstage. I resolved to make it through the hour out of courtesy for the obviously euphoric premies. Finally with about 5 minutes left to go I had a panic attack and decided I needed to leave, at any cost. In my haste I stepped on some toes (sorry, if it was you) I felt like I was fleeing a kind of hell. Out in the hall outside, I sucked the fresh air into my lungs, relieved to be out of there. People started filtering out, so I looked in and saw up on a screen, a message that there would be a break and the program would reconvene at 6pm. I looked at my watch 12 noon. 6 hours to kill, then back for more. what an insult, being made to hang around for 6 hours seemed unnecessary. In the car I complained about this break. Then I asked if they knew Maharaji didn't even meditate with them. For an instant they seeemed surprised, then they regained their 'premie cool', 'Where did he go?' I asked them. 'What was so important', 'where could he have possibly gone?' He couldn't even sit there for an hour? He couldn't just make a small sacrifice ? fake it? whatever? Does he have attention deficit disorder? What was he doing, exactly ? anyway? smoking a cigarette? reading a magazine? cruising the net? Having a snack? My mom answered with, 'He is very busy, maybe he needed to make some calls, or work on organizing his tour,or attend to some business,etc.(as if he does any of these things himself anyway.) She continued with 'It's like a master piano player. Just cause he teaches you doesn't mean he has to sit through your practicing.' 'What difference does it make whether he was there or not.' Blah blah blah. I replied that I would instantly fire any piano teacher, who is such a lazy, selfish asshole, that he would'nt take the time to sit through my practice.' Needless to say they wound up driving me back home (4 hrs.), rather then let me ruin their darshan experience any further. I was only to happy to miss the after dinner monologue anyway. x Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 18:35:33 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: x Subject: Knowledge Review (true story) Message: X, Thanks for that. I couldn't stop laughing when I read your story. I never had a knowledge review from Maharaji, but at least when the mahatmas did them they stayed in the same room! According to Mark, M says he doesn't need to meditate, because the meditation follows him, or something like that. You know, maybe it is attention deficit disorder. KK implied that M only has the attention span of a child, maybe that's the problem. So, you sat in theater seats? At least that's better than sitting on the floor or on a pillow. At least there was some back support. Also, I wondered. Did M teach the techniques any differently than they were taught to you in your knowledge session? Did M say how much you were supposed to meditate every day? Did M say you were supposed to imagine swinging on a swing with Maharaji while doing the word techique, or I mean technique #3, or whatever the number is, that we heard is his current suggestion of how to do the technique? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:16:16 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: JW Subject: Knowledge Review Margie-Style Message: Hi JW, I know you asked x the questions, but I thought I'd toss in my $.02 because I had a Knowledge Review from Maharaji in 198?. As x reported, Maharaji demonstrated the techniques and then left for 15 minutes. I had my eyes open also (being the rebellious soul that I am). Anyway, I think it was right after Maharaji changed the Light technique from pressing on the outside of the eyelids, to gently drawing the thumb and middle finger across the eyelids and sort of resting them between the bridge of the nose and the inside of the eyelids right above the tear duct. (Not sure if I'm describing this well). Never did see any light using that technique--guess I was in my mind. I found meditating without a baragon difficult, but he said that if our arms got tired, we should just rest them and do technique #3 until we could do #1 or #2 again. I don't remember him saying anything about a swing with #3; only following the breath. I don't even remember him mentioning 'So Hung' or whatever the Word was supposed to sound like. (I liked that mantra--easy to remember). He specifically said not to mix up all the techniques and do them at once. He said one at a time for 15 minutes each. As I recall, it was really weird seeing Maharaji demonstrate the techniques, sort of like seeing your dad naked or something. eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:44:58 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: eb Subject: Knowledge Review Margie-Style Message: ...and do technique #3 until we could do #1 or #2 again. I've been duped! Maharaji said at a practise session I was at, that it was like driving a car, you always had to go from 1st to 2nd Gear, and then to 3rd and finally to 4th Gear, not mix them up (even though technically on a car you can!). He would say that you can't go from 2nd Gear straight to 4th and expect it to work, so it is with the techniques! Another thing I remember was when an aspirant asked the question 'Can we experience this place inside by other meditation techniques' and he said that it was like seeing the signs to a town without ever getting into the town. Other meditation techniques would only show you the signs, K would show you the town. He sure liked those highway analogies! Regards, TD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 22:42:37 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: TD Subject: I Did It My Way Message: Dear TD, Young whippersnapper! Why back in my day, we could start out with #2 by wearing ear plugs, proceed immediately to #1--all the while remembering #3 (and #4 was habitual) essentially doing all techniques at once! Arthur Brigham came to town and told us not to do it that way, but it was hard for me to quit. Once the light came on, the music started, my heart chakra opened up, and I'd find myself in the kingdom of heaven. Didn't remind me at all of a highway--more like squeezing through the eye of a needle into a vast skedelic-peak floating kaleidescope, electric oneness. Regards, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 02:59:04 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: eb Subject: I Did It My Way Message: So much for the ancient 'before the dawn of man' never-changing techniques, eh eb? Yours sounded much better than mine. You got M when he was obviously in his groove period, I got him in his automated one! Damn! Regards, TD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:45:15 (EDT)
From: bobby Email: None To: eb Subject: I Did It My Way Message: >>>more like squeezing through the eye of a needle into a vast skedelic-peak floating kaleidescope, electric oneness. WAY COOL! With the downpour of the holy name, The Divine colors began to rain! In 1971 Arthur Brigham told me to forget all about my near-death experience. feh! Where is he now? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:53:42 (EDT)
From: John Email: None To: TD Subject: Has M been driven insane Message: I just can't believe it! I'm laughing out loud, my colleagues are wondering what has me so amused? Should I tell them? 'Oh, it's nothing, it's just this guru I used to worship as God has evolved into comparing meditation to driving a stick shift! Isn't that a hoot and a half?....oh, you don't see what's so funny about that....what guru?...what meditaiton?...What's funny? Welll, I guess ya just had to be there.' My experience of meditation has never ever remotely been like driving a car! If only the guru had described it like that 25 years ago, I'm sure I would never have been interested. So first gear is the light technique, right? Maybe that's why I fell from grace. I always started with holy name and then went into light etc. though holy name was so enjoyable I never really cared about what else I experienced. But maybe I started out to fast and then I crashed? Hmmm...wierd...I just don't see the relationship between meditation and driving a car. perhaps because I drive a car to work through rush hour traffic. M has never driven a car to work. He has had much nicer cars than me also. I'm sure that has something to do with it. Maybe for him driving is fun. For a peasant like myself driving a car is the last thing I would want to think about when meditating. -totalled my vehicle meditating in '82 Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:05:56 (EDT)
From: Selene(?) Email: None To: John Subject: Has M been driven insane Message: one time I laughed out loud at something on forum, wish I could remember what. my cellmate looked up and so I told her about it. I swear she just looked at me. I don't even remember a comment, she just kind of laughed politely and turned back to her work. oops. Guess M involvement was one of those 'you had to be there' things, huh? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:56:10 (EDT)
From: John Email: None To: Selene(?) Subject: Face it, we're all wierd Message: Which is why I love this forum. I mean, it's just IMPOSSIBLE to talk to anyone about it, if they weren't there. A sure way to produce a blank look or a polite smile or snicker from someone is to try to talk to someone about 'my cult years'. But then the problem with talking with people who were actually in the cult, is of course they are highly suspicious because they actually belonged to the cult, which means at some point in their life they were totally nuts!! Which is why I always get nervous when I talk to myself, because I am talking to someone who really cannot be trusted. -cruising in 3rd gear, well 4th gear too I guess, what's it called when you do both name and nectar, overdrive? Or is that not allowed anymore? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:45:52 (EDT)
From: Bobby Email: None To: John Subject: Face it, we're all wierd Message: >>>what's it called when you do both name and nectar, overdrive? I like it! I still do these together. I'm allowed cause I want to. Just cruising through. >>>Face it, we're all wierd I believe everybody's nuts. We're all hallucinating! When the going gets weird, the weird get going. -- Hunter Thompson Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:52:27 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: John Subject: Face it, we're all wierd Message: Very good, John. You're out of your gourd. Listen, do you remember making a post about two to four months ago about the notion of a Lord/Perfect Master and how ridiculous the whole idea was. Someone did and I think it was you. It was kind of outlined how insane it would be for a creator to create the universe and then come disguised as a person to 'reveal knowledge' when he could have just created people with everything they need. Was that you? I was looking for that post in the archives because it was so good. If it was you, do you still have it anywhere or do you remember what approximate date you posted it? Rick Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 17:48:42 (EDT)
From: John Email: None To: Rick Subject: Face it, I'm NOT wierd Message: Blessed art thou among all men for thou loveth my works and if thou loveth my works thou loveth ME, for verily I say to you if thou doth remember MY name thou shalt find all thy heart's desire. So seriously Rick, are you remembering name n nectar? If you are then you will be led to the correct archive. Just let go brother, stop THINKING, and have faith! And remember if you can't find the correct archive, it will be your own goddam fault. It will just prove how little faith you have. But all kidding aside, I have no idea when. I am beyond the petty restrictions of this time-space continuum. All is now, all is here. there is no non-now, there is no non-here. All non-now and non-here references are really nowhere. To put all frivolity aside for a moment, you need to request from my publisher permission to even look at anything I've written including what you are reading right now. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 19:49:04 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: John Subject: Face it, I'm NOT wierd Message: Dear John, So VERRY FUNNY! I think Scott said you aren't as funny in person, is that true or were you just ill when you met. :) Love, Robyn I will, in my capacity as archive reader, look for the post. I haven't done much better at it than I have done in my post as Birthday Goddess, Damn! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 00:07:31 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Face it, I'm NOT wierd Message: Robyn, But you ARE getting that swearing thing down pat. Selena, You should have seen my spouse's face while watching LOTU-talk about freaking someone out with this stuff. I quote, 'I thought you were much too sensible to do anything like THAT!' To all, I am NOT weird. I refuse to be. Just wanted you to know. VP mainstream '63-'98 (with a slight detour in '72) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 09:42:19 (EDT)
From: John Email: None To: Robyn Subject: I was never really involved! Message: Scott said I wasn't funny? What, did he give a critique of our lunch together? How come no one asked my opinion of HIM? Hey, just between you me and the lampost, the guy is, I don't know, wierd? It's like he is obsessed with something that happened to him, it's this wierd group he was involved with, something about a guru, and a mission, and world peace, and strange words like sat-sang and arti, and darshan. I didn't have the heart to tell him that I had never actually been involved you know? I mean, I never WAS a premie, right? We all know that right? I never was a premie, never, never, never was! Honest! Really! YOu gotta believe me! Please! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 19:51:52 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: John Subject: Face it, I'm kinda wierd Message: John, John, John, you have it all wrong.... It is only BY THE GRACE of the ONE TRUE ARCHIVE that thou reachest the ARCHIVE. Without the sat-archive's grace, thou reachest it not. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:09:06 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: John Subject: Face it, we're all wierd Message: Me too...I keep learning that I'm weirder than I thought I was! It's hard to tell by comparing to the company I keep and the family I have!!!Off to see the psych and see if she can shed some light! Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 00:38:02 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: John Subject: Has M been driven insane Message: It's totally freaky, isn't it? I wonder how Maharaji takes into account the fact that newer cars have a 5th Gear. Maybe he'll introduce another technique, like stick your left pinkie finger into your bottom and push really hard with your rectum muscles. You'll soon hear the sacred sound of the cosmic Inner Wind! And what about automatic transmission? Maybe because M is driven around in these types, that's how he explains his own type of practice. He doesn't have to practise, it just 'follows him around' - sort of like one quick gear change between Park and Drive. Hmmmmm. TD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 23:39:06 (EDT)
From: Judex Email: None To: eb Subject: to eb Message: Never heard the light technique of pressing on the outside of the eyelids - I learnt the second one. Could you describe the one you learnt? What does the outside of eyelids mean? I never saw much light. Even if it was an optical illusion I wouldn't mind trying it another way. Thanks eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:55:25 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Judex Subject: to Judex Message: Hi Judex, I just checked out the description of how to do the first technique on the forum, and the old way is not described. Maybe I'm dreaming, but I'd swear that Gurucharnanand showed us how to see light by placing Tall Man and Thumbster on the outer edges of our closed eyeballs. Pointer was resting on the 3rd eye. I saw this exact technique pictured in a Macrobiotic Book by Michio Kushi called the Do In. When I had a Knowledge Review with Rajeshwar, he damn near poked my eyes out because he used so much pressure! (In Knowledge Lite, no pressure is needed. It's new and improved). Regards, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 04:55:22 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: eb Subject: to Judex Message: Yes, then when the fingers are on the outer eyelids, they are drawn together towards the center of eyelids and slightly up adding pressure. That's how light was first presented to me :Rajeshwar 1972. Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 18:51:03 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: x Subject: That's wonderful Message: Sneaking back in... that's fantastic. Thanks for the laughs. x, just to be really clear and to give you an excuse to go on if you like, was it patently obvious that Maharaji was trying to give the impression that he'd never left? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 23:53:22 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's wonderful ! Message: Oh no, your not on vacation again are you? I have been delayed during this busy time and even right now it's too late tonight to restart the dawkins thread. Hopefully tomorrow. X- You are definately a-ok. How did you turn out so well with your upbringing? Thanks for shareing that and the humor is great. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 03:06:15 (EDT)
From: x Email: x2000@goplay.com To: all Subject: That's wonderful ! Message: Thanks for the feedback guys, I am glad you enjoyed hearing about my travails in the premie world. To answer Jim, it sure seemed to me that he was sneaking back in. He appeared silently from behind a strategically placed curtain, he certainly wasnt just marching right in, although I suppose you could say that he was just being considerate not to disturb the disturbo's. What I found to be the worst aspect of his leaving during the tecniques, was visualizing what he was actually doing backstage that he considered to be more important than faking a meditation with the premies. It would have not been that much to sacrifice, sitting bored with your eyes closed for 1 hr., every one else there did it. I was really disgusted by the arrogance of BM's actions, as usual. Maharaji, I think, would stoop to any low, in his pursuit of wealth. His total disregard for others resembles the pshche of a sociopath. I doubt if that man truly has ever loved anyone besides himself. Lord of the Narcisists, would be fitting x Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 02:47:39 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: x Subject: That's wonderful ! Message: I still smile about your post because I've got a few kids here and they direct my driveing also. My trick would have been to give you 20 bucks and drop you off at a mall until the program was over. I guess they quietly saw your logic and caved in. I wonder if they will even go to the next event. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 10:12:49 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Everyone (and Jim) Subject: Fakiranand revisited Message: Jim I have been thinking about the Fakiranand 'hammer' incident and your comments about M's involvement in the events afterwards. Lets get some perspective on it. 1. This happened when M was 13 - 14(?) years old, right? 2. His minders at that time were who (?) - Bob Mischler ? Rene 'Chicago 7' Davies ? Mata ji ? Bal Bhagwan Ji ? maybe even the forgetable Professor 'garlands of boots' Tandon ? (the head of Indian DLM at the time) and others behind the scenes who were running DLM with M as the boy Guru figurehead. Who really knows? 3. Isn't it possible that after Fakiranand violently assaulted the pie throwing journalist, these minders, and not necessarily M himself, masterminded F's escape and that maybe M didn't know about or plan this action himself as your theory seems to imply? I mean obviously he would have been made aware of the situation afterwards, but I am inclined to think that it more likely that he wasn't involved in the handling of the incident at all. Is this credible? 4. Despite what was presented to us in that whole 'Divine' scene, I bet a young teenage boy was not directly in charge of matters at that time, (despite the claims of who he was supposed to be), more likely the minders who would have had a strong motive to ensure their interests in trying to run the 'show' were protected. Of course M would have been left to front the media about it at Millenium, it's likely that he would have been told what to say or may be had to 'wing' it himself. What would you have done as a 14 year old confronted with this situation? What would you have said? 5. Can you remember Rene's' media comment at the time that endorsed F's assault, and didn't you get the impression from these comments that he was disappointed for not have been able to participate in the assault himself? 6. Given this scenario (which I think is probably is closer to reality than you may think), do you think that anyone would have even charged M with the criminal activity that you are suggesting? Were there charges laid against him? What were they? Were they successful? 7. C'mon Jim, if you want to convey your view of the Fakiranand story to our readers, at least try to put the incident into context, instead of associating it with accusations that include the word 'murder' and implying that M was responsible for masterminding the 'cover up' afterwards. 8. Of course I don't condone what F did or the way he was spirited out of the country, but I would prefer to give the young 14 year old GMJ the benefit of the doubt on this one. Be honest Jim, if you were him and this situation happened through no fault of your own, and was acted upon without your real knowledge would you be falling over yourself to bring Fakiranand back to the US for trial after all these years? Who knows where F is or even whether he alive. Maybe someone has some first hand information on this incident and can enlighten us as to the details. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 10:29:30 (EDT)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Mel Bourne Subject: Damn, You ARE an idiot... Message: You've been told that Maharaji helped get him out of the country, but you don't like that version. Musta been that evil Mishler, or some other 'handler'. That Maharaji didn't even bust him from being a mahatma doesn't phase you a bit. Hang onto your childhood, MB. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 12:53:45 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Brian Subject: Damn, You ARE an idiot... Message: Brian: Mel indicates that M was only 13 or 14 when he was in reality more like 16 or even 17. If I recall correctly he was 16 at Millenium and the incident happened after that. One might interpret this small error to a 'willingness to believe' the revisionism that we've become so accustomed to. The notion that Mishler and Apter and all those guys were 'doing it to him' has been around for a long time, but is hardly consistent with his behavior since that time. I suppose it was Mishler who was feeding him cognac through an I.V. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 13:14:11 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Correction Message: Hate to correct you, Scott. It happened before Millenium (I think in the summer of 1973), because M got asked about it in the press conference at Millenium. M was born in December 1957, so that would have made him 15. It happened before the Holy Family break-up. By the way, op wrote extensively about Fakiranand when she was on the site. In her view, Fakiranand was trying to curry favor with M (who was angry at him because he had insisted on going on M's tour against M's wishes) by attacking the pie thrower. JW also said (I think!) that M would NOT speak to Fakiranand on the phone after he hit the guy with the hammer and was brought to the Chicago ashram (en route out of the country, I assume). Also, I wouldn't doubt that the rest of the Holy Family might have had something to do with getting Fakiranand out of the country. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 15:32:17 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Katie Subject: Correction Message: Katie: The Holy Family breakup was quite a while after Millenium. I went cross country at least once, and spent quite a while in the L.A. community before the shit hit the fan on the holy family. However, you are right that the Fakiranand incident happened prior to Millenium if the interview taped in the LOTU video actually took place at Millenium. I agree also that it appears doubtfull that M ordered the incident, but one never knows for sure in a cult, do one? -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 15:40:27 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Correction Message: Scott, I haven't ever heard anyone even suggest that Maharaji ordered the hammering. In fact, he, or PAM, declined to press charges against Pat Haley for the pie incident , although it was just shaving cream, and M certainly was not injured in any way. Embarrassment was the only result of that. Also, I think M had everything to lose by Fakiranand doing what he did, right during the whole Millennium build-up. And as anyone who was around him for any time can attest, Fakiranand was 'crazy as a bunny' and it shouldn't have been been surprising that he would be capable of doing something nutty. [He once screamed at me to the point that I feared violence from him because a picture of Maharaji did not have a cloth between it and the table it was sitting on.] Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 16:40:21 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Correction of correction Message: Scott - I KNOW that the holy family broke up after Millenium, if only because Mata Ji and the brothers were on stage at Millenium and Durga was not! If anything in my post implied that that wasn't the case, then my sentence structure needs work (very possible). But now I feel like I have to clarify this just so no one gets confused: the break up of the Holy family was apparently precipitated by M's marriage to Marolyn in May of 1974. Anyway, the break up occurred shortly after the marriage, which happened about 6 months after Millenium. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 02:32:26 (EDT)
From: Barnery Email: None To: Katie Subject: Correction of correction Message: Exactly. The Pie incident was either July or August of 1973 in Detroit. For the rest of MJ's appearances on that tour security was very tight. Millenium, how can we forget it, was in November of 1973. At age 16 MJ got married in May of 1974 in Denver. In satsangs given in Denver at that time MJ warned of, but did not mention by name, people turning against him. And the rest is history... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 09:37:06 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Barnery Subject: old Divine Times Message: Yes, I had just spent yesterday afternoon looking at some old Divine Times from 1974-75 that had just turned up in my file cabinet (not a welcome surprise, let me tell you - I am sorry if I seemed a little short with you, Scott, but maybe now you can understand why). Anyway, there was a very interesting letter from Maharaji dated October 1974 explaining how Mata Ji and Bal Bhagwan Ji no longer had agya. He said only His agya was really agya (he capitalized My and Mine thoughout the letter, BTW!). Then right underneath the letter, there is a much longer letter from Mike Donner explaining M's letter! It was very weird looking at those old DT's (there were also some copies of the Hans Jayanti Gazette from Orlando). I had forgotten how strange things were back then, and how we really were in such a circumscribed world of our own. Anyway, the DT's and assorted stuff are now on their way to the unofficial DLM memorabilia collection...the curator should have a lot of fun with them. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 11:28:04 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Check Message: Mel, If this were chess you'd have just walked into check. I'm going to say this once and NEVER want to have to repeat it to you. Maharaji can't be explained away on account of his youth. Oh I know how you want to do it. Make him spiritually advanced but still unsophisticated in the world. Kind of like God inside but boy on the outside. But think for a sec. If that were the case, Maharaji would, at some point, have had to realize that his whole I'm the King of the World!! shtick would have had to become a big embarrassment to him. He would have had to realize that it was all completely delusional 'youthful folly' (as the I Ching might say). He would have had to realize that he'd hurt a lot of people like, for example, the specific people who killed themselves or others by misconstruing his 'childishly' extravagant 'agya'. He would then have to apologize. Maharaji has never said anything like that. Thus, if your theory is right, this 41 year old man, who has lived his entire life demanding that people trust him implicitly and spent years asking them to give him everything, their personal lives, their time, their money, their all, asked them to try to surrender the 'reigns of their lives' to him, has never had the basic human decency to account for the errors of his youth. In that case, what you've got here is a real coward. One despicable coward. PLUS, you are then FORCED to return to everything he's ever said or done and screen it through this new seive of discrimination. Was this act or word of his attributable to Maharaji the divine or Maharaji the very imperfect and fallible human being? Once you do that you've given up any basis for accepting anything from or about him on faith. Once you've done that, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to take him at his word for anything. Once you're there, you then become the one asking the questions, not just pretending to. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 12:04:55 (EDT)
From: G's mom Email: None To: all Subject: Check Message: Dear Jim and Melbourne and all, I think the issue of his age is interesting but in the end i agree with Jim. I do think that Mr. Rawat was at some point a child who could not be held responsible for his actions just as the rest of us humans were. But at some point he grew up like the rest of us. The Fakiranand thing well, he could have been influenced by his mom. He could have thought the response up all on his own too. I doubt that Bob Mishler had was the author of that response as reading his interviews he did appear to have a conscience. I have never seen any evidence that Mr. Rawat has one. Well, yes I have. If you consult that interview on this website it does appear he had an attack of conscience in 1976. We do not have access to the man himself so we can only guess. This is my guess. I think in 76 he would have been what 18 nor 19? I think at this point in his life he came to the clear realization that what he was doing was harming people. He then, apparently with help of mischler, tried to 'free' the premies. And thus the first appearance of Knowledge lite. It scared him. He lost power and money. He then made a choice. A choice to go back to being the 'LORD of the Universe'. This is the point at which I think he becomes 100% fully accountable for his actions in an adult sense. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 17:09:55 (EDT)
From: Judex Email: None To: Jim Subject: Check Message: JIm I read the first half of your post where you say Maharaji, when realising he had made a mistake (because he IS human) should have apologised. I am not taking sides, I refuse to. I take my side. I just call it as I see it, master or political commentator. What would you do if you did not admit to having made a mistake when you made one. Even a big one, a really big one like you won a case and found out afterwards the client was guilty. You don't admit it for whatever reason. It may seem to do more damage to admit it than to 'let it ride'. I have done this myself. It does happen. It's usually something where you don't know what is best and lots of peoples feelings are involved, not just your own. I am not condoning this behaviour. Recently i have found myself again facing some things I did in the past and did not know how to confront - what is 'head on?' which way is that? Sometimes things are not black and white except in retrospect. Maybe he will admit to being wrong once he is not in a corner - is't that how human nature works? I was wrong recently when I had a fight with you (wrong in some ways but in other ways not wrong). I just didn't know at the time what was what so I did it anyway and then later I examined my actions to learn from my mistake and how to deal with the situation better now and in the future. Ths is because I did not like the outcome necessarily. But the result has been my teacher. HOw could I have predicted it? I do not know every answer - I am alive aren't I in a moving changing universe? Even the earth under my feet is rotating as we speak. Please don't attack me Jim for saying this, though I hope you won't. If you are still angry, keep punching away. I don't mind. It's only a paper moon. But remember we all make mistakes big or small, and we don't like to admit when we are wrong. Sometimes we have to be confronted by the facts again and again. Why would Maharaji or Prem Rawat be any different. You don't still think he IS god, do you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 17:23:44 (EDT)
From: Judex Email: None To: Judex Subject: Check - 2 to Jim Message: Jim since being on the Forum at times I have found you to be verbally abusive and harrassing towards myself and others, I do not normally read your posts any more. I like your wit but not your shit. And i guess you don't like mine. I just want to put in a request now that the post above not be turned into a direct 'put Judex in the witness stand with the white lights right in her eyes' interrogation. I used to be a nazi myself in a past life I suspect but they say we have all been everything (victim, persecutor, criminal and saint)in our travels. 'They' are people who look at the one life principle as not being adequate to explain how very complex we all are. Whether we inherit our parents zipped wisdom through our genes or our souls have inhabited other bodies before I don't care. But I have also seen myself in a past life as a jewess, shot by a nazi with my baby in my arms. I for one am tired of the endless lust for blood of the human race. Hate, kill, be right, lets blow ourselves up while we're at it. Can we have some peace today, it's RT's birthday, and not have a big blue just because I said something you think is a load of. Btw...you are totally entitled to think that. I just ask nicely that you don't try adn make me think what you think. Thanks Jim, I am still really grateful for how much you helped me when I was a spindly little newcomer with wonky legs and lots of fears. You were always warm and inclusive of me. I don't forget that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:32:03 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Judex Subject: Check - 2 to Jim Message: Jim since being on the Forum at times I have found you to be verbally abusive and harrassing towards myself and others, I do not normally read your posts any more. I like your wit but not your shit. And i guess you don't like mine. Judex, I don't like new age thinking or Maharaji protection and I challenge them both whenever they come my way. Because I'm a forum junkie, I see lots of both here. If you call insisting on responsible communication 'abusive' count me in. I just want to put in a request now that the post above not be turned into a direct 'put Judex in the witness stand with the white lights right in her eyes' interrogation. God, you really are all over the place, aren't you? And can't you see how insulting you are in the process? THIS, Judex, is part and parcel of your over-sensitive new age thinking, if you ask me. (You DID ask me, didn't you? Okay, maybe not. Oh well.) New age thinking hates the 'white light' and favours the shadow world. Hey, there's a time and place for everything. I'd hate to make love or eat a meal under a 1,000 watt halogen light. (Even I'm not that good looking). But, if you're trying to actually understand things, how much light is too much? The more the better, as far as I can tell. I used to be a nazi myself in a past life I suspect but they say we have all been everything (victim, persecutor, criminal and saint)in our travels. 'They' are people who look at the one life principle as not being adequate to explain how very complex we all are. O-k-a-a-a-y! Whether we inherit our parents zipped wisdom through our genes or our souls have inhabited other bodies before I don't care. You don't care? And wht if neither's true? Don't care about that either? Fine, me neither. So, what's next? But I have also seen myself in a past life as a jewess, shot by a nazi with my baby in my arms. Now how do you expect me to respond to this? I for one am tired of the endless lust for blood of the human race. Hate, kill, be right, lets blow ourselves up while we're at it. How'd 'be right' get in there? I was reading about T. S. Huxley the other day. He's the guy who coined the word 'agnostic'. He was also a friend and champion of Darwin and he's credited with being the guy that pushed Darwinism onto the map. You should have seen the fight he had to endure because he insisted on being 'right'. We need more people like that. You should do a search for him, read a little about this guy. I think you'll admire him just for his tenaciousness. Can we have some peace today, it's RT's birthday, and not have a big blue just because I said something you think is a load of. Well, Judex, again, you make me sound like some sort of monster. Sorry you can't see it. I sometimes wince a bit when I read this kind of stuff. Can you see why? Btw...you are totally entitled to think that. I just ask nicely that you don't try and make me think what you think. Oh the horrors of discussion and persuasion, eh? Thanks Jim, I am still really grateful for how much you helped me when I was a spindly little newcomer with wonky legs and lots of fears. You were always warm and inclusive of me. I don't forget that. Okay, now I feel like Dr. Jeckell again. Thanks. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:10:23 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Judex Subject: Check Message: JIm I read the first half of your post where you say Maharaji, when realising he had made a mistake (because he IS human) should have apologised. The first half, eh? That's too bad because in the second half I completely reveresed myself. Go see. Naw, just kidding. I am not taking sides, I refuse to. I take my side. I just call it as I see it, master or political commentator. So what's 'your side'? What would you do if you did not admit to having made a mistake when you made one. Even a big one, a really big one like you won a case and found out afterwards the client was guilty. Well your example's a little funny as that doesn't constitute a mistake for a lawyer. But whatever. Let's just deal with your question, not the example, okay? The answer: I don't know. I guess it all depends, depends on everything. Generally, I THINK I've been able to admit things. You don't admit it for whatever reason. It may seem to do more damage to admit it than to 'let it ride'. I have done this myself. It does happen. It's usually something where you don't know what is best and lots of peoples feelings are involved, not just your own. But why not just talk about it, even if you're unsure of where the line is in your own mind or others'? Talking usually leads somewhere, often an apology. I am not condoning this behaviour. Recently i have found myself again facing some things I did in the past and did not know how to confront - what is 'head on?' which way is that? Sometimes things are not black and white except in retrospect. Again, the issue may be gray but discussion about it doesn't have to be. 'Head on' just means frank discussion, doesn't it? Maybe he will admit to being wrong once he is not in a corner - is't that how human nature works? Sometimes. I think it's HIGHLY unlikely in Maharaji's case. Don't forget, he's never indicated any inclination to stop (other than that which Gail mentioned, the bout of self-examination he 'suffered' that Mishler talked about) and some people just don't apologize. I was wrong recently when I had a fight with you (wrong in some ways but in other ways not wrong). I just didn't know at the time what was what so I did it anyway and then later I examined my actions to learn from my mistake and how to deal with the situation better now and in the future. Well, quite frankly, what disappointed me so much was that you wouldn't simply talk about it. You're still pretty oblique about it, aren't you? I'm not sure how you can learn anything like that. Ths is because I did not like the outcome necessarily. But the result has been my teacher. HOw could I have predicted it? I do not know every answer - I am alive aren't I in a moving changing universe? Even the earth under my feet is rotating as we speak. This must be the definitive example of unnecessarily widening the discussion. Really, Judex, you can leave the earth out of it, okay? :) Look, like I say, I still don't know what you were saying, why you said it, etc. You talk about 'lessons'. Assume for a moment that there's something for ME to learn from your complaint. How am I going to do that unless you make it clear? You know, I don't think you were right. I'm not denying that. But even if you were, I'd have to understand, wouldn't I? Please don't attack me Jim for saying this, though I hope you won't. If you are still angry, keep punching away. I don't mind. It's only a paper moon. But remember we all make mistakes big or small, and we don't like to admit when we are wrong. Sometimes we have to be confronted by the facts again and again. Judex, are you apologizing for something? What? Come on, if you're big enough to say it in the first place, you're big enough to discuss it after. Now, how's that for yet another attack? Why would Maharaji or Prem Rawat be any different. You don't still think he IS god, do you? No, he wouldn't and I don't. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:46:14 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Some T. H. Huxley quotes Message: I found these on a page that's part of a T. H. Huxley 'ring': 1) Veracity is the heart of morality. 2) There is the greatest practical benefit in making a few failures early in life. 3) The foundation of all morality is to have done, once and for all, with lying; to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge. 4) Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing. 5) Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority. 6) In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard for any other consideration. 7) Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. 8) Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors. 9) ...a man's worst difficulties begin when he is able to do as he likes. The page is: http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/ring.cgi?page=6&ring=huxley Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 23:36:27 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: HEY, THIS GUY'S COOL!! Message: Really, you guys should check out this Thomas Huxley character. Here's a link to H. L. Mencken's tribute to him which is found on the pages I referred to above: Mencken on Huxley And here's Huxley on 'agnosticism': Thomas Huxley on agnosticism ...When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain 'gnosis'--had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. On the contrary I had, and have, the firmest conviction that I never left the verace via--the straight road; and that this road led nowhere else but into the dark depths of a wild and tangled forest. And though I have found leopards and lions in the path; though I have made abundant acquaintance with the hungry wolf, that 'with privy paw devours apace and nothing said,' as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and though no friendly spectre has even yet offered his guidance, I was, and am, minded to go straight on, until I either come out on the other side of the wood, or find there is no other side to it, at least, none attainable by me. This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, long since deceased, but of green and pious memory, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there, and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rage of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic.' It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, and suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled. This is the history of the origin of the terms 'agnostic' and 'agnosticism'; and it will be observed that it does not quite agree with the confident assertion of the reverend Principal of King's College, that 'the adoption of the term agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, and that it involves a mere evasion' in relation to the Church and Christianity. (Report of the Church Congress, Manchester 1888, p 252) ... If any one had preferred this request to me, I should have replied that, if he referred to agnostics, they have no creed; and, by the nature of the case, cannot have any. Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of this lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast to that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively, in matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. ... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:42:52 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jim Subject: HEY, THIS GUY'S COOL!! Message: How about that. Jimmie you've lead me again. Fine, I'm an agnostic. Great story. Goodnight. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:33:58 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Jim Subject: Some T. H. Huxley quotes Message: I like these too! what is veracity? any ideas on number 9? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 10:54:56 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: bb Subject: Some T. H. Huxley quotes Message: what is veracity? 'Veracity' is a video game like 'Simcity' except the city you construct is extremely environmentally friendly. any ideas on number 9? Yeah, it's happening, all right. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 11:37:34 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: One last time... Message: Maybe someone has some first hand information on this incident and can enlighten us as to the details. errmmm...I dunno...mmmm...lemme take a wiiiild guess, maybe someone who was near the top eh! Ummmmm...what about the little fat guy who was around a lot in those days....you know, the guru fella, he was supposed to be good at enlightening folks. Naah! The last time he enlightened me I finished up in a cult. Yuk, Yuk! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 11:50:35 (EDT)
From: dlm Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Fakiranand revisited Message: i was in detroit when this happened...the editor of the fifth estate newspaper was the one who threw the pie GM face../// fakuiranand was so mad he wanted to remove the pie thrower from the planet...he and two ashram premies dressed in black went and delivered the blow...lthe way i heard if the guy was on his knees with his eyes shut and pow he was liberated... richard royal was in charg1e in detroit and maharaj ji wanted mahatmas f out of town quick... windsor is right next to detroit so off to toronto and then to germany.... not much more was said at the house...satsang con't to flow...love and world peace huh Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 13:16:34 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Fakiranand revisited Message: Okay, here's what I saw, in 1973, with my own eyes. The hammering was before Millennium, if I recall earlier in 1973, perhaps during the Soul Rush period leading up to the Millennium program. For M and DLM this was the WORST possible time for bad publicity because Millenium was the most significant event in the history of the world. The Millennium program was already turning out to be a failure before it was even started. Bad publicity, low attendance, running out of money, etc. After the pie incident, Fakiranand and some premie attacked Pat Haley with a hammer. This is all detailed in the LOTU video, byt the way, including a view of M with a pie in the face (quite funny by the way). Fakiranand, at least, was hustled to Chicago. I was in the Chicago ashram and recall Fakiranand pacing back and forth very worried and upset. He wanted to talk to Maharaji, but the story was Maharaji refused to talk to him -- I don't know if he ever did. Certainly, Mata Ji, Bal Bagwan Ji and other PAM were involved in the discussions that ensued. But M likely knew about it, because he refused to talk to Fakiranand. So, a few hours later, Mahatma Fakiranand was taken to the airport, under the alias 'Mr. Fakir' and put on a plane. I have since been told the plane was bound for Europe. According to news stories published thereafter, DLM officially denied any knowledge of the incident. At the Millennium press conference, when asked what happened, Maharaji said something to the effect that they were 'looking into it.' I will say that the general feeling among the premies I knew was that the incident was unfortunate, but probably justified. I admit to having conflicted feelings myself. At the Amherst program in the Summer of 1974, Bob Mishler did a Q&A program outside, which was sparsely attended as I recall. The question about Pat Haley and Fakiranand came up and Bob publicly stated that one of the suspects in the incident was Mahatma Fakiranand but that he couldn't comment because it was an ongoing investigation, and that to his knowledge, DLM had no control over Fakiranand, nor knowledge of where he was. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 13:25:46 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: JW Subject: Fakiranand revisited Message: I will say that the general feeling among the premies I knew was that the incident was unfortunate, but probably justified. I admit to having conflicted feelings myself. I lived in the DC community at the time. The head of the community (I believe they were called 'General Secretaries' at the time) had to announce what had happened at satsang. He took a hard-line approach to it and said that it was WRONG what Fakiranand had done and that throwing a pie in Maharaji's face was disrepectful but not anything anyone deserved to get attacked for. He said that Maharaji himself had asked that there be no retaliation (is this true, anyone?) He did say that Fakiranand likely had done it because of some cultural diffences, that he was a very old-fashioned Indian premie who didn't understand Westerners. I was pretty shocked and appalled by the incident, but I thought that the way the community head handled it was good. If he had even hinted that he thought the attack might have been justified, it would have been very hard for me to swallow. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 14:26:37 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Look closely, Mel Message: Mel, Let's take another look at how you think: Isn't it possible that after Fakiranand violently assaulted the pie throwing journalist, these minders, and not necessarily M himself, masterminded F's escape and that maybe M didn't know about or plan this action himself as your theory seems to imply? I mean obviously he would have been made aware of the situation afterwards, but I am inclined to think that it more likely that he wasn't involved in the handling of the incident at all. Is this credible? Mel, you say you're just an open-minded kind of guy but this kind of possibility/probablitity confusion says much more than that. See how you try to open the door just a little at first? Yes, it's 'possible' that others (even call them 'minders' if you want to discount your jargon with unnecesarily loaded jargon so early in the game) 'masterminded' F's escape. Who could disagree that it wasn't 'necessarily' M? Only someone who was there to see him actually speak about it, I guess. But hwere does that get you? Not far. Not far at all. However, rather than palcing your newly appointed theory in the pantheon of competing explanations and letting it rise or fall based on all other relevant evidence, you jump back in to protect it and try, in fact, to sneak it across the finish line. You won your little guy a place in the race but, no matter how much he's YOUR favorite, he's not the odds-on favorite. Not by a long shot. Yet you treat him as if he were. In a sentence you go from popsosing a humble possibility to admitting your own 'inclination' to call it the 'more likely' of them all. Where's the reasoning that got you there? Don't forget, you've got to explain away all of the evidence that Maharaji did indeed call the shots in all things important. You want to argue that point, we can. You'll lose though, but we can do it. Then you've got to get past the fact that Maharaji obviously lied about the matter in the press conference. And how about the one (or was it two?) ashram brother(s) that went with Fakiranand? How are you going to explain Maharaji's apparent protection of them? Will you speculate that he didn't know about them? That would be absurd. BUT... you'll do it. It's the only game you've got. Go for it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 17:26:45 (EDT)
From: PaulR Email: pgrobinson@hotmail.com To: ALL Subject: Fakiranand et al. Message: Does anyone know how seriously the Reporter was hurt? I believe the newspaper was the Detroit Free Press. (Correction?) Why didn't that paper publish any ongoing stories about the event? You would have thought it was newsworthy wouldn't you. Was there a private settlement for compensation and damages? I believe that there was. If this is the case isn't the Detroit Free Press and it's officers a co-conspiritor in a coverup. Aren't we American Citizens entitled to an open and accountable system of Criminal Justice. This is a principally a felony, not a private tort. Any idiot can calculate that Millenium (Hans Jayanti, Houston) was an enormous financial success. How come all you idiots keep reporting that it was a failure. Did the money go to payoffs in the Hammer incident? I think so. by the way Jim and all you F&%#$* lawyers. This might be an example of a fraudulent solicitation of money. Couldn't you have worked it out for yourselves. The so called Millenium debt, which premies were being soaked for was really the hush money collection. Every single cent that every single premie earned for a whole year. GM was young then, it is true. But he's not young anymore. This is not a civil matter, and he should take responsibility and come clean. I would really like to be shown that my assessment here is wrong. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 18:17:25 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: PaulR Subject: Fakiranand et al. Message: Does anyone know how seriously the Reporter was hurt? There is an interview the guy who was attacked, Pat Haley in the Lord of the Universe video. He said his blood splattered on the wall when he was hit with the hammer and he had to have a 4-inch plate put into his head. I would call that fairly serious. Why didn't that paper publish any ongoing stories about the event? You would have thought it was newsworthy wouldn't you. The story was covered widely in the press, especially in Detroit. I don't know if Pat Haley was a reporter or not. Was there a private settlement for compensation and damages? I heard there was, but I don't know any details. Obviously, DLM didn't announce this one way or the other. This is a principally a felony, not a private tort. Sure it was, but the people who did it split the country so there wasn't anyone to prosecute. Any idiot can calculate that Millenium (Hans Jayanti, Houston) was an enormous financial success. How come all you idiots keep reporting that it was a failure. I don't know why you say this. The program was FREE and DLM went a quarter million in debt as a result. At the time, DLM claimed 40,000 members in the US alone and it was supposed to be a public program after an entire year of trying to get every person possible to attend. Fewer than 20,000 attended from all over the world, including the general public. The astrodome was mostly empty. That, in addition to the negative publicity, and the debt, makes it a failure in my book. Please don't call me an idiot. And lighten up, will ya? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 18:48:18 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: PaulR Subject: Fakiranand et al. Message: Hi Paul, Glad to see you joining in again. Flaming, name-calling and swearing are certainly not prohibited here. Here's a simple guideline you I try to use, which you can, of course, accept or reject. I'm not sure of the origins, but I think I found it in the Akashic records last night after the aliens got done probing my privates: Ex-premie= Good Premie= Bad Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 20:31:38 (EDT)
From: PaulR Email: None To: JW Subject: Fakiranand et al. Message: A = 20,000 X $50 B = How much it costs to rent the Astrodome? Subtract B from A. Subtotal Add the profits from concessions. Subtotal. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 23:48:01 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: PaulR Subject: Fakiranand et al. Message: Paul Correct me if I'm wrong, but if my memory serves me, it was something in the order of $250,000 to rent the Dome for those three days. Also there wasn't nearly as many trinkets to buy in those days (I'm still looking to buy those coffee mugs for you, JW- I owe you one) so I don't think concessions added to much of anything at all. I won't bore you with the math... The only thing, where does the $50 X come in? Was there a charge to get in? I know I didn't pay, but then I was helping construct that ridiculous stage thing. Surprised they didn't charge me anyway. BTW that was the most boring event in the history of the world. Especially when the Holy Roly Poly's rambled on and on and on... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:38:51 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: PaulR Subject: It Was FREE You Dufus! Message: A = 20,000 X $50 As I said in my post, the Millennium programs was FREE!!! Attendees paid nothing, nada, zilch, zero. Zippo income. Do you have that now?? Do you read??? Where you THERE??? They did make money on the food and trinkets, but the astrodome, the cost to fly in the mahatmas, the cost to treat M and his family like the Sultan of Brunei -- that ain't cheap. And, yes, lots of mismanagement and spaciness with money, but that goes without question and is in everything the cult does. And so, DLM lost ended up losing a quarter million dollars. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 18:42:38 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: PaulR Subject: Fakiranand et al. Message: PaulR, You really expect an answer? JW gave you too much already. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 08:25:23 (EDT)
From: Mark Email: Apple4256@aol.com To: Everyone Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Had a recent meeting with a premie there from day 1. She's been thru the whole transformation from the loving sweet boy who used to play with her in India and others, to a guy who she feels ( in her words now ) 'needs some professional help'. She is aware of his drug taking & alchoholic episodes, Marolyn's and Maharaji's extramarital affairs, & enough 'dirt' to give this Forum fuel for 100 years.Personally and directly.'You know, M would be smoking dope with someone in the next room, but he never did it in front of me. He saved me from that.'She'd take CD's 'shaky evidence' theories and tell him to shut the fuck up and sit down, tho he'll be happy to know she still makes it all her personal devotional episode-' you know , he was so kind. He knew I couldn't handle that sort of thing. So he didn't do it in front of me!' She and 100's of others know about decades of aberent personal behavior that point to the fact that the top of this 'pyramid of perfection' is porous, quite impure & shaky indeed ( not that Bubba Free John and other selfproclaimed godmen don't have a field day with disciples, once their status was established- note Padarthanand/Jagdeo even 'got a bit' themselves).But That's not the issue to her.She knows Rawat is damaged goods. She proudly spoke about the 'OFFICE OF GURU MAHARAJI' describing it much like the title Mr President, etc.( I joked that it seems much the same thing seems to happen in such OFFICES these days) . She continued and indicated that in her opinion human beings historically and still needed a surrender process to activate their relationship with the divine, and that whether it was M or rajneesh or whoever, it was a necessity. And that being at programs/thinking of M at daily meditations etc. allowed her to catapult herself into 'spiritual orbit' M was her 'AMEX gold car/don't leave home without it.' Then she said' that as far as she was concerned, she didn't care what Prem Pal Singh Rawat did or didn't do.HE COULD MURDER PEOPLE AS FAR AS SHE WAS CONCERNED It wouldn't change her relationship one bit. He was her guru , her connection to the divine. She said that M's behavior had caused her to drift away fot awhile but she then saw it was THE OFFICE OF GM she needed.'So I came back. And his grace was there'And don't forget, the door to GM's office is always open' After saying that, she calmly tucked back into her piece of key lime pie. Now it has taken me about a month to see what I could process from that particular Twilight Zone Episode.First of all, I could understand where she was at/ because a part of me can completely follow and support her practical cognitive dissonance, one-pointedness and loyalty. In fact, she was describing a point in the road I had been to MYSELF. I had been aware of the differences between Rawat and my 'Lord' for decades( or 'imaginary friend', as so poignantly described on Arthur's post). What do you do when your direct experience and hopes and dreams divide? Every aspirant , premie, website lurkers( a new category)and post premie, and M himself have had to deal with that.!What do you do ?Some listed below, all defensible . . . 1. Discount/write off the whole spiritual quest as the realm of conman, with M as 'the Perfect Conman- one who sincerely believes his own con'. Chuck the baby ( and any unborn ones) and the bathwater.Become a rationalt. Chuck the heart and God, and all things invisible as projection. 2. Find the real Maharaji, or a least continue the search- at least there's one less candidate ! 3.as Stephen Stills sings, 'love the one You're with'. Develop a new relationship with 'Knowledge Lite' and reprogram yourself to a life of diminished expectations ( if you've seen 'Truman'-return back to SeaHaven) and localized bliss. For examples, read recent posts by selectively lobotimized premies- none, except our long-playing CD, I might add,giving their real name. 4. Mix and Match. Access M & K heavy and lite as needed publically,and keep your own private altar up to date with the most recent Devotional Photos Now this is really putting M & K in a box,so that each premie has their own customed meditation teacher. But it works, and allows for the spiritual stability and certainty / in exchange for/ financial support, that allows this James Brown of a tent/program show to roll on. 'and tonite, Ladies and Gentleman, here with us - The Hardest Working Guy in Rock N Roll -oops, meditation- let's hear it for Mr M !' 5.Become a Teacher/Trainer/Guru yourself. We've certainly seen it all, and learned a lot about the dynamics involved and how to hook and be hooked . Quite a few premies and exes have made quite an impact and living in corporate America. There, having a Guru currently at least, is good to have on a resume( tho I doubt a LOTU movie showing would help) 6. Act like in didn't happen to the real you. You were young, etc. leap back into life,work, parenthood, relationships, etc (you know, the WORLD) and live and enjoy life. Supress it all. Most did that. In time, M becomes a fond faint memory.Like a weird frat party. 7.continue the exploration of the inner life without a guru or religion.' Go where no man has gone before.Give yourself the same status you gladly gave him. Sit in a chair and act like God Incarnate.( You're certainly as or more deserving/qualified than him). There is some brilliant information available on human potential. If you're not frozen into 1 or 3, learn from a full spectrum of information pouring in from shaman's, Pleiadians, indegenous cultures( I include india and their wealth of meditation/yoga practices in this ), Abraham- Hicks( 'the' technician of how to Manifest your desires), Medical Research on mind-body, Sheldrake and Morphic Resonance. . . ( an aside here- my wife asked M about channels,angelic consciousness, etc back in 85 at a Q&A. He said ' You want to be confused? Just be like a horse that puts his blinders on . Follow me. I am the Master.' Some master. He can't even master his own dick, and here he is completely comfortable subverting other peoples exploration into a god certainly more inclusive and loving than the one in his little Hindu Shell Game!) 8. Get really fucking angry at 'PremieThought' premies, and their creator/god, Mr Rawat.Join or create a website. Develop a cyberpersonality. . . 9. Realize you need Bhakti as a spiritual zipdrive,attend programs and videos, project your emotion into the media offered in the correct and pure fashion- and enjoy the Prasad . . .Devotion, my guest was right!-does work. And it is a relatively reliable escape Ignore the Big Cheese. As that commercial for Motel 6 goes, 'once you turn out the lights, all hotel rooms are the same' 10. Practice Knowledge, a primitive but potent meditation technique with zest and persistence IGNORING M.I mean tho offered for 'free' we certainly have paid dearly for them! ( in retrospect, I wish it had been offered $1000 & no devotion, OR free techniques but lifetime a master/slave thang. Currently subtly implanted and maintained, like alien abductions, so that aspirants and Premies will swear up and down 'this is not a cult. While their leader says I am not a crook!-' ( M, by the way, as recently as 2 years ago, still hasn't really made meditation a part of his life. While at hospital, understandably freaking about his wife's aneurisms, M was behaving quite 'unconsciously'His two house physicians, in attendance, suggested that he calm down, meditate a bit. He had a tissy fit saying'he didn't have to meditate. The Meditation followed him' They bit their lips, bowed and curtsied. And later proudly told it to me as evidence of his unassailable divinity! Premies never cease to amaze me in there ability to interpret events to fit their Belief Sysyems What happened to practice what you preach. Or at the very least are you sure you want this guy to be your meditatiion teacher? ) It will,given patience, turn into quite a splendid 'Search Engine' for your own inner realms. Read up on other groups that offer similar teachings. Sometimes you can get tips on the actual meditation which will be extremely helpful ( Like following the Bells sound in the right ear as the takeoff point to slide out of body consciousness., etc). Or the Kriya technique trainings offered at Self Realization Fellowship or by Babaji's Disciples.As a premie you never get real Meditation assistence, because meditation is just lubricant(bait) for the devotional bow and curtsy. What you do waiting for darshan or satsang, or to get a bit of (as Jim says) White noise/ peace in a crazy world. 11. Think its all your mind. Adore M and enter the nunnery. Anne Johnson, folding Mom's( Marolyn still likes to be called that by the full time 'service people) undies in her fulltime service, is not conflicted about walking from her Children,etc, or Jan Buchwalteran old friend and, this planets darshan Hound Supreme, are actually the most honest character's in the Whole Story. True believers. They believe in this more than M. He's just trapped in his own web. They are right or wrong, following their BS with full commitment 12. Assume that you are in none of these catagories. The special Case. In retrospect, I saw that I am all of these things. And that woman's visit, if nothing else, has fueled my determination to NEVER again support in any way, in thought, word, or Deed, M. Because here was this bright charming, professional caring mother and on another level through an understandable progress of logic and a desperate search and longing for inclusion was one hair trigger away from being a Jonestown or Heaven's Gater. And there, as they say, but for the grace of God, go I. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 09:10:07 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Mark Subject: To Thine OWN Self be True... Message: Thank you Mark, That was a beautifully clear and concise deconstruction of the whole thing. On days like this, when I can barely put one coherent thought in front of the other, your post is like a breath of fresh air. I will take the liberty of sending your post to Sherron (see thread below) because that is EXACTLY what I wanted to say to her. Hope you don't mind. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 10:18:59 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Mark Subject: Mark: private Message: Hi Mark did you receive my last email, 1 or 2 weeks ago? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 11:05:55 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mark Subject: When do I get to pick one? Message: Mark, If I'm not around when they vote put me down for number one. I want to be a 'rationalt'. Sounds good. Really well said, Mark. Incredible this OGM thing. Given a hundred years, this woman's descendants will probably enshrine his desk or something. Okay, ten years? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 12:40:19 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: When do I get to pick one? Message: Well, Jim, you can be a number one if you want to, but I prefer twelve. I think I'm a 'Special Case' and always have been. What has happened to your self esteem today? :) Seriously though, thanks for your comments Mark, but I think believing M is a conman, which he is in my opinion, does not necessarily mean you 'chuck the heart and god,' and 'all things invisible as projection.' I think it's quite possible to chuck Maharaji as a rather unfortunate part of ones' life, take time, like people are doing on the forum, to understand it better, and move on to new experiences. One of those might be using what you've learned to help others get through it. I find that an admirable quality of many ex-premies, especially those I've met through the forum. For me, the website is just a tool, it doesn't provide me an identity or purpose in life. I chucked M, not because I found out he was a slimeball who took drugs, drinks, cheated on his wife, is greedy and materialistic, immoral, lacks integrity, takes no responsbility for his actions, and doesn't even meditate, but because what he offered me didn't work and was, in fact, destructive to me and others. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 11:27:52 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Mark Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Dear Mark, She continued and indicated that in her opinion human beings historically and still needed a surrender process to activate their relationship with the divine, and that whether it was M or rajneesh or whoever, it was a necessity. Where does this thought process come from? I've heard it here so many times and I just don't get it. My personal work on myself is to get to a place were I can trust my judgment and believe in myself. I have to long looked to others for my answers and now it is my time to be self reliant. From that perspective the whole devotional trip just seems so dysfunctional. As far as your friend's belief that it would be OK for BM to murder and still be her valid connection to the divine, then it would seem to me that Satan (I don't think of it this way, I think of good and evil being states in existance not connected to a little man in a red suit or god a man in a throne on a cloud) anyway then Satan could just as easily be a connection to the divine. I just don't get it. Thank you for your post Mark, I too think I am a bit of almost all choices, except for denying reality and continuing to buy into or support BM. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 15:49:55 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Robyn Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: As far as your friend's belief that it would be OK for BM to murder and still be her valid connection to the divine, It is truly chilling to hear this, and I have heard it from other premies, as recently as seven months ago. I think it's true, for many of them, at this point it wouldn't matter WHAT he did. Andit wouldn't matter if there were hard evidence to prove he did it. I really believe this based on conversations I have had with true believers. They are too far gone, they just don't want to hear it. I guess the thing I will never understand is, the experience just ain't all THAT great to warrant this kind of thinking and behavior. Just don't get it. Guess my mind is stonger than my heart as the overused cliche goes. It's a sad and scary side to human nature. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 12:58:24 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Mark Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Thanks, Mark. I wonder where your friend got the idea that a surrender process was necessary and that it doesn't matter who you surrendered to. (M or Rajneesh or whatever.) As Stephen Stills once said, you might as well love the one you're with. Or, as they say in Texas, 'dance with the one who brung ya.' Sometimes I just get the impression premies are just EXHAUSTED. It is just too draining to question things. It's easier just to shift your rationalizations a bit when you need to, gradually a little at a time, more out of pure inertia than anything else. After so many years of exerting the constant energy a premie must to avoid the contradictions, it might be just easier to hang on and invent new, illogical theories like your friend mentioned, like distinguishing M from the 'office.' This is bizarre to say the least, especially becauses M spent years spinning the notion that he WAS the experience, the living embodiment of the power. As any sane person would say, M and his 'office' are indistinguisable. Note also that his brother claims he has the very same 'office.' In fact, I would suggest that if you scratch the 'loyalty' this person feels for M, you will find a whole load of FEAR as the true motivating factor right below. And the only antidote to that is either the need to break free for self-preservation (this is what I felt) or the feeling of enough trust in your own self to look at the reality of what is happening. Both are frightening experiences, as ex-premies will attest. But this is nothing new. Remember how Jim and Tammy Faye Baker were exposed as being corrupt, money-grubbing, charlatans? Despite this, thousands flocked to their defense. Same thing with Jimmy Swaggart. The only difference is, those people got CAUGHT, and actually, sincerely or not, admitted their failings and took responsbility for them. Maharaji hasn't even done that. I can also relate to your motivations resulting from seeing the turmoil and dilemma this woman is in. I really think it took me seeing the pain other premies experienced being in M's cult before I could even see it in myself. It's a powerful, for lack of a better image (please excuse me), mirror. Thanks again, Mark. I really enjoy your posts. JW Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 18:49:27 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Mark Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Great post, Mark. I know a lot of oltimers who have opted for #4. One question about Jan Buchwalteran. Did she have red hair and live in Denver for awhile? eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 18:54:30 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: eb Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: eb, I think it's 'Jan Buchalter' Mark was referring to and yes, she had red hair that I recall, did live in Denver, although I recall her from San Antonio. She also shook her head from side to side during satsang, and I really liked her as a person. She was a character, and M was/and I guess is, her whole life, likely on the same level as Anne Johnston, but Jan wasn't as externally together as Anne. I recall the premies put on a play and she played Tinkerbell or someone like that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:07:47 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: JW Subject: Who is Abraham Hicks? Message: Info please. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:32:26 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Gail Subject: Who is Abraham Hicks? Message: I haven't the slightest idea. Sorry. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 02:54:55 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Gail Subject: Who is Abraham Hicks? Message: I will cover that in a thread about channeling in a couple days. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 22:51:34 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: JW Subject: COLL Message: Thanks for the info JW. I liked her a lot, too. She was fascinating to observe. She wasn't at COLL when I passed through San Antonio in 1974, but she was in Denver at the Divine Shelter while I was there (can't remember the year). eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 12:58:46 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: eb Subject: COLL Message: eb, After 1974, COLL kind of split into a regular premie community and a very large ashram. In addition, 'novitiates,' people who were applying to live in the ashram, were sent there for 'training' before being sent to one of the 'houses of the forelorn' around the country. But, also, some ashram premies who were 'problems' were also sent there for rehab, or maybe a prison sentence, depending on how you looked at it. Even some abberant mahatmas were sent there for punishment. So, ashram premies who couldn't hold jobs, who were, shall we say, non-conformist, were sent there. In fact, one of my roommates,the one I talked about some time ago who tried to castrate himself because of his evil 'mind' Maharaji had indoctrinated him to fear as the devil himself, and whom the powers that be committed to a mental institution before packing him off to his parents, was sent there for that reason. Anyway, I think Jan was sent there for being a 'non-conformist' ashram premie too. Since I tended to really like 'non-conformist' people, probably because I was such a conformist 'good boy' myself, I was fascinated by Jan and liked her. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 19:15:21 (EDT)
From: Barney Email: None To: Mark Subject: devotion will not be televised Message: That's Great! Now, just rap it to the music of 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' by Gil Scott-Heron and you've really got something! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 22:28:51 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: Mark Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Thanks so much for that account Mark. Since I've only stopped 'using' the M-drug for 2-3 months, I seem to flick between a number of your examples. Hopefully with time, my emotional/mental dust will settle! For me the hardest thing at the moment to deal with and what keeps playing over and over in my mind is 'How the fuck did I get into this??'. What fucking major personality defect did I have at the time a) to fall in love with a full-on deluded premie and b) to get sucked in to this whole trip, when I was such a hardened cult-skeptic before! Aaaaaah! That example you gave about M's rebuff to your wife about her 'existential' spiritual questions immediately reminded me of an arrogant attitude M had when he was mocking one of the American coordinators for organising an event 'out in the desert' at a venue that had some sort of spiritual significance. He was so contemptuous and kept making all these patronising comments like 'What's so special about going out to a hole in the desert?' At the time, I thought 'You have no idea Big M. This person is trying to organise something really special and sacred and you've just stomped on them in public.' I think that's a great example to send to Sharron. I hope she can really read its words. Thanks again Mark. Another piece for the web-site Fridge of Fame! Regards, TD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 11:45:28 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: TD Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: M's rebuff of the desert reminds me of how he made all this fun of the ocean once in Long Beach. Yeah he hates the ocean all right. He just lives in a mansion in Malibu because it's close to LAX or something. He is ALWAYS doing that; making fun of something that he knows people care about, family, kids, nature. I know what you mean about going through stages. Rightnow I am in the 'How could I have hung around so long?' stage. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:07:17 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Selena Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Selena: Now that you mention it, what you said reminds me of the last time I went to see M in San Francisco, after not seeing him for about seven years before that. It was in 1990 and it was very weird. But there came a point in his little talk that he went on a diatribe like you describe. He made fund of amusement park rides, movies and televison, and the general stupidity of the 'people of the world.' It was so condescending and arrogant, especially when you consider how into material greed Maharaji is. It was at that point that I felt so insulted that I stood up and walked out. And I was sitting in the fourth row! Good that felt great! Of course, as I walked out, I actually got to see the goo-goo faces of the premies. I found that profounding disturbing. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:20:47 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: JW Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: This is sort of off topic, but wasn't someone on the forum in the audience when you walked out? And they remembered you because it was so unusual? I wish that moment was on video... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 13:22:17 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Katie Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: I don't think I would have had the nerve to do it! Good for you JW. Wish I had had that kind of backbone. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:06:04 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Selena Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: It didn't take backbone. I felt like I would literally get sick to my stomach if I stayed. It was so weird, because all the crummy fear I felt as a premie kind of came up again. I couldn't stand it. Plus he was more arrogant than I ever remembered. I just felt nauseous and insulted. Plus, I had had the misfortune of seeing a bunch of premies I knew in the lobby when I arrived (and I also got hit up for money by the guy assigning seats) so I wanted to get out of there before everyone else piled into the lobby again. I was also inspired by Joy, who had walked out in the middle of a program in Vancouver that happened about a week earlier. I guess some security guy almost tried to prevent her from leaving, but she would have none of it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:14:18 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: Joe, Do you ever wish that you'd given Maharaji the finger as you left? Or maybe muttered 'this is bullshit' just loud enough so he could hear? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 16:39:21 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: I probably WOULD do that now (the finger and the muttering I mean). But then, I was too disgusted even to do that. But that might be fun. Hey, maybe we should all go together and disrupt a program. Nothing big, just stand up and sing the lord of the universe with you playing guitar. Explode a stink bomb. Maybe do a Krishna Lila routine in the aisles. Throw burfi at the stage. Have someone who looks like Bal Bagwanji walk in and sit in the front row. The possibilities are endless. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 17:37:43 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: JW Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: Have someone who looks like Bal Bagwanji walk in and sit in the front row. That's a keeper. But would he be the old spiritual geek version or the new fat pasha we see in his current pics? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 17:47:33 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Jim Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: I can grow a mustache and do the fat pasha Bubblegum-ji. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 18:03:45 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: I say we really fuck with his mind and do BOTH! And Mata Ji, too! Here's that job for Roseanne Barr. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 1998 at 00:21:57 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: JW Subject: Fourth Row Walkout Message: Wow JW, I'm impressed - especially as that whole premie fear issue came up again for you at the time. A premie I know had to crash-tackle a mad bastard who was racing up to the stage to get to M at an event in Oz. Apparently security copped a right bollocking after the event for letting their guard slip. For some reason, I always wish I'd been there to watch that kind of 'disruption' - the events are always so stage-managed, you'd kind of like to see how M reacts in an unsuspecting situation. TD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 00:37:16 (EDT)
From: Judex Email: None To: Mark Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Mark these choices you list bring to my mind several thoughts. 1. The biblical story of the tower of babel - everyone starting talking in tongues didn't they? Anyone know more about that? 2. the day of judgement or reckoning concept: when all secrets are revealed, etc 3. christ's warning that there would be 'many master' at the second coming (I think we all know that one) 4. the explosion of information, the world opening up; preparing for the paradigm shift you mentioned in a prevous post once, or the dawn of the 'golden age' which has been predicted - 5,000 years of peace? anyone seen that? it follows age of darkness in that mythology 5. the end of the world stuff can just mean the end of the world as we know it. but we sure know there is a lot of work to do. So if the Aquarian/new age concept of 'many tribes' emerges, then respect amongst different beleif systems is paramount. 6. possibility of the merging of gloabal consciousness? a kind of global god realisation? or is it 'the loading' as in NEil YOung - will the space ships come to take the good guys away and bring them back after the destruction, to start again? 7. aliens invade. this is a personal fear. I had a nightmare once about these horrible beady eyed aliens. wow it was really scary. hope that doesn't happen. maybe it's just another version of war, more war, war of the galaxy next 8. What about Jean Huston - the story teller. Her take on the HOly Grail myth which she says is the myth of our time. I remember her saying very clearly: that in the myth Parsival (I think) who is asleep in the castle overhears covnersation about the holy grail as in a dream and wakes to find everyone gone. he spends his life pursuing it. at the end he finds the dying king. he offers him water. the cup he offers turns out to be the holy grail. Now she says that the question which is asked in this story is 'What ails thee?' which is what Parsival says to the king. (ie the healer/wounded healer facet of the new age ideology). Then she said but what isn't asked is: WHERE IS IT? ie: where is the grail? where is the truth? where is that sweet nectar? So she says if we ask that question we will find our way through the many. Thats about it for now. Just some mind farts. Lots of love Mark, it's great to read your fine material. The above is about all I know so far. I just recalled though that an astrologer told me when I threw away my books I would be getting into my true life path. So I'll just dump all of the above into the Forum wastebasket and start again, thinking for myself. There is no limit I suppose to the eternal now. Or is there? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jul 16, 1998 at 15:17:30 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Judex Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: Judex, in the story of the Tower of Babel, the people talk of building a large tower so that they will not be scattered across the earth. God hears them talking and says 'Look, they are one people with one language and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they want to do will be impossible for them.' God caused all of the people to speak different languages so that they would be confused and unable to work together. They were speaking different languages, but not 'speaking in tongues.' Speaking in tongues is when one speaks a language that one doesn't know, yet is understood by others (this is what was supposed to have happened in the story of Pentecost) or, in modern terms, speaking in tongues is glossalia, which is an 'estatic language' but is pretty much gibberish. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 02:50:21 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: welcome back Mickey! How was your trip? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998 at 03:28:32 (EDT)
From: bb Email: None To: Mark Subject: In the Name of Devotion Message: thanks for posting that Mark. Your insights are excellent. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |