Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 36 | |
From: Jan 21, 1999 |
To: Feb 2, 1999 |
Page: 4 Of: 5 |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 02:51:41 (EST)
From: chr Email: None To: Everyone Subject: darwin etc Message: Its my birthday so I feel like being self indulgent.It was my sons 14th birthday 2 days ago.Its my 47th today- about 11 years since I left M; I've still got 4 to go before I'll have been away from M for as long as I was with him.Life is good .Tonight I'll have my family around me ,including my mother in law who is a very special person .She received K about 17 years ago but saw straight through the deal with M.I thought I'd share a quote I recently read written by Charles Darwin towards the end of his life.I feel its appropriate for our times.My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of a collection of facts....If I had to live my life again,I would make it a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once a week....The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness,and may possibly be injurious to the intellect,and more probably to the moral character,by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.' On another track, Sir David , did you receive the email I sent? It didnt seem to work the first time -in fact it ended up being sent back. I tried again later-hope you received it.chr Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 06:29:02 (EST)
From: Diz Email: None To: chr Subject: darwin etc Message: Happy birthday, chr. Your post radiates contentment. Hope the day continues in that vien, and the year to come. Good quote. Darwin, it seems, was a man who could see beyond one common 'either/or': a great scientist who also valued heart. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:11:55 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: chr Subject: Happy birthday, chr! Message: Happy birthday, chr! I have really enjoyed your posts (both the serious ones and the not-so-serious ones), and your insights into what we all went through. I look forward to hearing more. Thanks for the Darwin quote - he was a right-thinking man. Many happy returns! Take care, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:45:56 (EST)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: CHR Subject: Happy birthday, chr! Message: Well happy birthday for yesterday. I checked my email and your email is there. I'll be replying soon. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 14:47:43 (EST)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: chr Subject: darwin etc Message: Dear Chr, Happy Birthday Chr! :) I have also enjoyed your posts, most recently about anger. Enjoy your day with your family. It is nice to have you here. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:43:23 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Robyn Subject: a very merry unbirthday to you Message: Happy birthday! Glad you mom in law is good. One guy told me that he thinks the biggest miracle in the bibile(sp) is that luke still followed jesus even after jesus cured his mother in law. Katie, darwin is a right thinking guy? You mean like right half of the brain? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:02:55 (EST)
From: Jehovah Email: None To: CHR Subject: Have a great birthday! Message: Normally, I forbid birthday celebrations, but you deserve it. Enjoy. (:>) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 22:59:29 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: chr Subject: Have a great birthday! Message: Hope you had a good b'day--sounds like you did. Keep on posting--good to hear the real deal about GM Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 20:30:40 (EST)
From: y? Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Breakthrough! Message: Attention everyone, there's been a breakthrough on the Enjoying Life's Wit & Wisdom section. There ACTUALLY has been a quote from a premie submitted and it's pretty good. It reads 'Impressions Are Not The Truth' How very true. Good on you, Bobby! ALL YOU PREMIES OUT THERE, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE WISE! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:25:04 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: david.studio57@btinternet.com To: Everyone Subject: Try this, OP Message: I didn't say that the final outcome was to become God (That is what Hindu stuff teaches) but to become more like God. A child grows up to be like its Father, not to be its Father. It's fine if the path that Maharaji lays out is OK for you. I'm not critisising that at all. But is it the path for everybody? I think not. And really my understanding is that there is no universal path for everyone to follow through life. Look OP. when I was a devout premie living in an ashram I remember thinking that most people wouldn't want to do this kind of thing. I didn't expect other people to hack it. One of the main parts of Maharaji's path is you have to love him. I never did, in reality. I wasn't one of the gopi premies and the times I actually felt something for him could be counted on half a hand. So what about meditation? It's a subjective experience. Does everybody want to do it and is it good for everybody? Clearly not. If meditation was the only way to live life then most of humanity would be condemned since most people cannot and do not want to get into it. But some people will want to get into it but they can't expect everybody to feel like them about it. You see OP, I disagree with most of Maharaji's philosophy. I don't believe that the aim of human life is to try to experience something in meditation. I spent over eleven years trying that and trying to serve Maharaji but the final outcome there was a disaster for me. My life went down the drain. So now I have taken control of my life and don't follow anybody. That's my way through life. Your way is different and you're not critisised in doing it, not by me anyway. What I think is wrong is that some people think their way through life is the universal truth and that everybody else should do it too. That's not understanding other people, in my opinion. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:37:05 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Try this, OP Message: Amen, Sir D, Knight among men Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 07:59:40 (EST)
From: Bruce Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Try this, OP Message: David, Can I say one thing while I'm here, and I don't want to get drawn into a debate about it, as I have some other stuff to do, but for a long time now I've understood that Knowledge was the experience of something I've always had. I was born with it. Every person on this planet has it . Its standard. Even the techniques come standard. Everybody does the techniques to some extent, by nature. Surely you've seen people doing the 'light' technique, especially when they are stressed. In some recent events, Maharaji has also been saying this, that everybody has done the techniques sometime in their lives. So if people don't feel the need to be shown the techniques, no problem. If they don't feel the need, its because they are still somewhat connected anyway. Its not like premies and non premies are that different. We are all alive, connected to the source of life. For me , for some reason I had moved away from inner contentment during my early years, and being shown Knowledge was just a process of getting back to the simple joy of life I had as a child but had forgotten. It was totally clear for me. You know , during the 80's, I went off and did my own thing, but still kept meditating and kept in touch. I felt a lot better to drop the religious thing. Perhaps just as some of the people here feel that now they have' escaped Maharaji' they feel so much better. My view of that is , sure, if its a big trip, its great to escape from it. It doesn't matter whether its M's fault or your fault that there is a trip. Removal of the trip is what is needed. See, Knowledge is not a trip. Its just a very simple, natural experience. For most premies, they were able to evolve along and throw the trips away while still meditating and seeing M. as a source of inspiration. Maybe for some others, they need to reject those times and ideas and trips and their ideas of M. totally before they can simply feel that simple joy. Fine. Look, maybe I'm just lucky, but since '73 I've understood that the real Maharaji is not that Indian guy, not some concept entitled LOTU but something incredible,simple and beautiful within me. I've never felt love for Maharaji the person especially.Nor do I feel the need to. But when I am in his presence, there is an overwhelming love present. I've experienced countless times that he has the ability to remind and reconnect me to a fabulous experience of simple joy. Maybe you guys need to think M. is an ordinary person to get over the religion it became for you. In that sense such a view may be a good thing. I can tell you though, and I have been around a long time, both near and far, that he is who he claims to be, and you haven't been ripped off by someone making false claims. Just because he doesn't quite fit your concept of the LOTU, whatever that might be.. Anyway, wouldn't you feel better knowing you hadn't wasted all those years, than trying over and over to convince yourself that M. is a fraud and therefore you've been fooled? I mean, ask yourself. Why stand outside the party all night throwing rocks, when deep down, you want to be inside. Cheers Bruce ps to cutters and pasters. Please don't selectively use bits out of this to change the overall intent of this post. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:40:26 (EST)
From: Jethro Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Try this, OP Message: So since it's all natural and built in, I am sure you would agree that that k could be gotten from anyone or any book and that prem is not the 'owner' or giver. Have I understood you correctly? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:33:58 (EST)
From: Bruce Email: None To: Jethro Subject: Try this, OP Message: jethro, No you haven't understood me correctly, I don't think. prem is just a person. but that person is also a channel for something much greater I've experienced this many times. But if you see things only with physical eyes , then none of this makes sense. he doesn't 'give' Knowledge as such, but helps people rediscover and grow in something that comes standard. a book may tell me the techniques, but thinking the techniques alone will do it for you is a big mistake. I know, because I knew the techniques before hearing about Maharaji. Its like tennis.You can read a book about it, practice as hard as you like, and yes, you might get somewhere. But you will never get really good without a coach. Even the top seeded players still have coaches. Why do you think that is, jethro? Nobody complains about having a tennis coach and want to argue that they are not necessary, and why not just read a book. So why think that having a coach in life is so weird? Gotta go now. Either you get it or you don't. Its a waste of time debating it. I'm willing to help someone understand. I put a lot of energy into that. but people who just want to argue, and are arrogant enough to tell me I don't know what I experience, they can think what they like. I'm not into trying to convince anyone. regards, bruce Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:41:06 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Before you go, Bruce Message: I put a lot of energy into that. but people who just want to argue, and are arrogant enough to tell me I don't know what I experience, they can think what they like. Bruce, when a christian tells you they 'experienced' Christ coming into their life the moment they accepted him, do you think that's what happened? They're telling you that's their 'experience' but do you question it at all? Yes or no? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:57:30 (EST)
From: bruce Email: None To: Jim Subject: Before I go Message: Jim, I teach Marine Science in a Christian College, so I'm surrounded by all this. I can't question what someone else experiences, because I don't really know. I used to be a very devout Christian when I was a little kid. Now I can see very clearly that what these people try to achieve is what happens automatically with Knowledge. Our concepts are worlds apart, but all that really matters is the contentment of the heart. If people are content, fine. no need to change anything. Since Ive been there several teachers have become students of M and they are loving it. They still see themselves as Christian. Too much for you ? Yes I imagine so. Bye bruce Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 19:31:09 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: bruce Subject: Before you go Message: Too much for you ? Yes I imagine so. Hardly. Try 'not enough'. Try answering the question for a change. Here's what I asked you: Bruce, when a christian tells you they 'experienced' Christ coming into their life the moment they accepted him, do you think that's what happened? They're telling you that's their 'experience' but do you question it at all? Yes or no? Now you say: I can't question what someone else experiences, because I don't really know. That's contradictory, dude. If you 'don't really know' -- even though they've told you specifically what they think they've experienced -- then you ARE questioning their experience. See? It's like you're saying 'well, that's fine and good, Mr. Christian. I've got that YOU think Jesus just came into your heart. But me? I'm not so sure that's what happened.' Otherise, you'd take their report at face value. You know, if I tell you I experienced a stomach ache last night, especially if you can see me tell you face to face and I seem sincere and all that, you're not going to say you 'really don't know'. So what's different here? Nothing but the outrageousness of the claim. It's more outlandish for little baby Jesus to come into someone's heart than for someone to have a stomach ache. In spite of the Christian's apparent sincerity, you're reserving judgement at best. Now, please, you tell me how that reserving judgment is not tantamount to questioning his 'experience'. And tell me then how that isn't 'arrogance' on your part. I used to be a very devout Christian when I was a little kid. Now I can see very clearly that what these people try to achieve is what happens automatically with Knowledge. So? The question isn't about that at all and you know it. The question is whether you accept them at face value as telling the truth when they say they've experienced Jesus Christ coming into their hearts. Our concepts are worlds apart, but all that really matters is the contentment of the heart. If people are content, fine. no need to change anything. More obfuscation. I'm not asking how you'd change the world or peoples' minds. I'm just asking if you accpet their report of what they've supposedly 'experienced' at face value. If not, then by your own definition, you're arrogant. Right? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 21:11:02 (EST)
From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: bruce Subject: Well answer me this, Brucie.. Message: If you teach marine science in a Christian College, perhaps you know about those fish the god-botherers stick on their car bumpers... Why do the tails always come off? Does Jesus wash their fins away? Maybe I should ask Faddah Mickey. We can tease him and and he doesn't give a frigging hoot. As for you, Bruce, your precious and pathetically evasive responses to straightforward questions serve only to illustrate the cultist mindset. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 14:01:18 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: bruce Subject: How content are you? Message: Bruce: You said, 'Our concepts are worlds apart, but all that really matters is the contentment of the heart. If people are content, fine. no need to change anything.' Are you really content enough to let things on this planet progress the way they are going, right now? If so, why? Do you think that it's possible that what you call 'contentment' is actually a form of laziness or indifference? (e.g. just content to sit there and DO nothing because it doesn't matter anyway). In reference to Jim's question concerning 'Jesus coming into their hearts,' you said, 'Now I can see very clearly that what these people try to achieve is what happens automatically with Knowledge.' So what you are saying is that YOU have achieved what they (christians) only aspire to. SO, by default YOU DO NOT accept their claims that Jesus has come into their hearts. How can I say this? Because if 'he' did, then they too would experience the 'automatic knowledge,' as you refer to it. You didn't answer Jim's question with anything CLOSE to honesty, Bruce. Twist, twist, twist! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 20:58:13 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mike Subject: Excellent point, Mike Message: In reference to Jim's question concerning 'Jesus coming into their hearts,' you said, 'Now I can see very clearly that what these people try to achieve is what happens automatically with Knowledge.' So what you are saying is that YOU have achieved what they (christians) only aspire to. SO, by default YOU DO NOT accept their claims that Jesus has come into their hearts. How can I say this? Because if 'he' did, then they too would experience the 'automatic knowledge,' as you refer to it. But why didn't I think of that? But do you think Bruce will actually answer you? Premies are like chess players who complain before they sit down that they really don't want to play. still, they'll move a few pieces. Get them in check and what do they do? Bolt. Whimper. Cheat. Accuse YOU of cheating. I've yet to see a premie complete the game. You didn't answer Jim's question with anything CLOSE to honesty, Bruce. Twist, twist, twist! But, you, Mike, are the one who'll be accused of twisting and trickery. These people are shameless. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jan 28, 1999 at 10:29:02 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thanks Jim Message: Jim: Of course you are quite correct concerning 'who' will be accused of trickery and twisting. Oh well, coming from premies, that is a badge-of-honor! It's REAL meaning is: You got us and we can't handle it! Which brings up the other point you mentioned: NO, I don't expect Bruce (or most others) to really answer this one. I've watched him, in his conversations with you, say a few things and then split when you get them too close to the truth. Like you said, they come in, throw a couple of punches that totally miss the mark and then rapidly retreat to their little hole (or blankey, maybe). As far as I'm concerned, every time they do this, it just re-confirms the fact that their faith in K & M is INCREDIBLY weak (as it should be, since there is nothing there to have faith in!). They can't even complete a coherent exchange of thoughts before they run away, with tails tucked. I AGREE WITH YOU, Jim, it's a waste of time trying to carry on a conversation with a supposedly stalwart premie! The first step has to be made by them, 'Admit they MAY be brainwashed or in a cult.' Until they admit that to themselves, there isn't a chance in hell of having a reasonable, intelligent discussion. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 20:55:04 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Bruce and Ivan Message: Bruce: prem is just a person. but that person is also a channel for something much greater I've experienced this many times. But if you see things only with physical eyes , then none of this makes sense. It doesn't make any sense no matter which eyes you use to look at it. For one thing Maharaji has never said he was a channel. So you are attributing to him a status, and role he has never even claimed himself! Just amazing!!! If M is too stupid to come up with that excuse never mind, Bruce will do it for him. It reminds me of my roommate, Ivan. I asked him one time what he thought about pollution of the water supply, and he said the government had already taken care of it. He said they had these water coolers everywhere (at his school) that filtered the pollutants out of the water. When I asked how he knew this he said it was just obvious. Man, was he disappointed to learn the coolers had no filters in them! I mean, no official had ever thought to do that, let alone claim to have done it. Never mind, Ivan thought of it, so the wonderful government, far more wise than Ivan, must have too! You and Ivan must be related. I liked Ivan, by the way. But sometimes the things he came up with... -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:09:24 (EST)
From: Sister Mary Elephant Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Bruce we want you Message: Bruce dear, Are you married? You know the Holy Mother Church is willing to consider mature men like yourself for the priesthood, provided you're single. We'ver got prayer, chants, sacraments, and why yes, even that darsahn thing you talk about. Only we've got the real thing! 'It's incredible how the force of Jesus Christ emanates from the pope,' added Josefa Barajel, from suburban Mexico City. 'You can't describe the emotion of being in this place so close, seeing him.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 03:25:58 (EST)
From: Jethro Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Try this, BRUCE Message: 'prem is just a person. but that person is also a channel for something much greater' What makes prem a channel greater any more than you or me? 'I've experienced this many times. But if you see things only with physical eyes , then none of this makes sense.' When I was follower of prem, I believed that he was The God-man and the only manifestation of on earth. I also was quite honest with people about what I believed. I think it was after the 'Listen to you' program, when he was telling us to hear and listen to own selves that I really began to hear my own voice.....and guess what I discovered ME. And ME just wouldn't go away. I also discovered that prem had abused people at the deepest level of trust by simply telling the lie that he was the source. I do not believe that he was/is not conscious of his actions. He is a coward of the first order in that he never will address the concerns of others(i.e. honest answers to honest questions). His silence just leads people to speculate and make their own conclusions, which in many cases lead to premies ending their own lives because they though they had blown it. I say this from personal experience. I am pleased that I did not end my life(which I almost did), but completely understand many of those that did. 'he doesn't 'give' Knowledge as such, but helps people rediscover and grow in something that comes standard.' I presume you mean like the Raj Yoga academy or the Self Realizaion Fellowiship, they also teach the techniques. So are you saying you believe that prem is one of many 'channels'?...according to him, he is the only one..or have I missed something? 'a book may tell me the techniques, but thinking the techniques alone will do it for you is a big mistake. I know, because I knew the techniques before hearing about Maharaji. ' This is a most revealing statement(I also said this for 23 years). It is the beginning of the mystification process when the 'uncondition divine love' becomes not so unconditional(this is also the seed of organised religion). '...So why think that having a coach in life is so weird?' Very good circumlocution :>) I see nothing wrong in having a coach althought there are many self-taught people around. The important thing is to make anything you learn your own ,but Knowledge of course is different in that it belongs to prempal(drip as from AJW), that's why the aspirant process is so long. It really is brainwashing. I was lecturer in computer science for some years and I saw how easy it can be to control people in the name of 'guidance'. When people believe that the teacher knows all, the teacher doesn't have to do very much to take over thier lives, either overtly or subtely. 'Gotta go now.' Ok , bye then. ' Either you get it or you don't.' I get it....that you are trully confused. I am not saying this wind you up, I am saying this because the few people who said that to me when I was where you are helped me escaped by being what I thought was obnoxious and 'in their minds'. One day you will give thanks to people like like Jim who you think are 'bad'. Jethro Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:44:12 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Rubbing the EYES! Message: Bruce: People rubbing their eyes, isn't to see the light. It's because their eyeballs hurt from the strain of the day (likely from staring at a computer screen)! WHAT AN INCREDIBLE RATIONALIZATION; trying to validate silly physical techniques by saying that people do them 'automatically!' Maharaji IS NOT within you, get it? He DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THAT YOU EXIST, Bruce! YOU ARE DELUDED, Brucey! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:00:08 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Geez, Bruce Message: Bruce: I can tell you though, and I have been around a long time, both near and far, that he is who he claims to be, and you haven't been ripped off by someone making false claims. Just because he doesn't quite fit your concept of the LOTU, whatever that might be.. We weren't self deluded. We were mislead... period. You, my friend, are self-deluded. You're on about the same level as that Athena woman, who thinks she's Brad Pitt's soul mate. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:29:43 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Let's be clear Message: Bruce: Every person on this planet has it . Its standard. Even the techniques come standard. Everybody does the techniques to some extent, by nature. Surely you've seen people doing the 'light' technique, especially when they are stressed. It is fair to say that there may be something that comes as part of the standard package, that can be identified as having the characteristics the Rhadasaomi's call Knowledge. Whether it is divine is another matter. More importantly, you have vastly underestimated the techniques available to experience it, and have therefore overestimated the importance of the four you learned from M. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of techniques. Sweatlodge, and Sundance are a couple from the Amerind community, but that's only within one culture, and it's still not exhaustive. M is no different from you are I in this regard. Not only is he nothing special, he's certainly sub-standard. I say 'certainly' because this is not ambiguous. His experience of knowledge is probably not as extensive as yours or mine, for instance. I don't need to believe this for any particular reason, except that 'confusion has it's cost.' DaVinci was not a 'normal' person. But what characteristics does M manifest that compare even in the slightest degree to those that virtually everyone recognizes in DaVinci? Just plain nada. And DaVinci was not sufficiently extraordinary that anyone worships him (except some California cult, probably). This is all wasted on you, but perhaps not on others who might happen to read this thread. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 20:25:22 (EST)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Bruce Subject: Throw away the old, eh? Message: Well I did throw away all the old trips back in the eighties and felt better for it but blow me if I don't find out that the same old Maharaji and the same old trips aren't still happening at the end of the nineties. Bruce, it was Maharaji who engineered and designed all those old trips in the first place and now he's just redesigned them. I don't want to go back into the party and nothing would entice me back in there again. I had a terrible time in Maharaji's party and once bitten twice shy is certainly true in my case. Regarding meditation and techniques of it; there is something of value there but definitely not taught in Maharaji's way unless you happen to fit into that mould. That mould being, adore Maharaji and hang on his every word and see him at every available opportunity. Even as a premie I was never like that. I think you disagree with my idea that you have to fit Maharaji's mould to get into his trip. I never fitted it and I did try for eleven years. But it was like banging my head against a brick wall. And I felt much better when I stopped. In the first year I had knowledge I had a good experience from meditation although I didn't meditate as layed down by the Mahatmas and I don't think I've ever actually done the meditation as instructed. Who can? These days the instructions have changed, yet again and looking back I can see that the instructions change every seven years or so. Me being a premie is like a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't fit. I'm glad I realise that now. And the reason why I mentioned that I had good meditation experiences in the first year was because that inspired me to give my life to the LOTU. And my experiences gradually disappeared with the endless struggle and battle and sheer souless drudgery of trying to fit my square peg in a round hole. I'm glad that the mission folded in Britain in 1983 because I would probably have carried on trying to fit into Maharaji's world for the rest of my life if I hadn't been shaken out of it. But one thing I did like and miss is some of the satsang programs where it was just premies. But Maharaji took all that away and there's no way I'm ever going to go and watch a video of him, just out of principle. But then he's written off all those old devotees now. We are the ones he conned and we've seen through him. He knows he won't fool us again. Finally, isn't it a shame Bruce that the idealist and good guys/girls of this world, i.e. US, should now have a vast gulf drawn between us. And you know who made that gulf? Maharaji made that gulf. He's the one who seperated us. For I'm sure, you're an OK guy and mean well. This seperation between premies and ex-premies is one of the most farcical things to come about from Maharaji's escapade into the West. I think many will agree there. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 05:25:59 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Structures of support. Message: One of the threads around my initial questioning of gm, even though k was working for me, was the degree of organizational chaos, which has now become authoritarian control. This is another aspect of gm's lack of real respect and care for not just the adherents of this path, but those who weren't too. GM does not have any respect for life, except when it is through his filters. But thinking about this recently, the following question keeps coming up. If he had been for real, or the k had been a universal panacea, what organizational structures could a reasonable person have expected as a result. I'm thinking of Mike's comment re-suicide/illness, which even the military sees as important, so how much greater would an org that REALLY respects life show? Noticing that a number of people had experiences that gradually stopped happening the longer their heads were being mashed, I think we can assume that stress & loss of personal voice are key factors that should have been supported. I would add relaxation to that list and an environment of honesty. With a list of key factors it would be fairly easy to work a genuine statement of intent that the leader & the org could be expected to support, and what structures would be needed to encourage that support. As we all know, the results of comparison between a reasonably expected environment and the actual reality will/does demonstrate another angle in which gm was totally deficient. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:21:45 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: ham Subject: Structures of support. Message: I always felt that K and M was a very incomplete philosophy (well, duh) Perhaps if M had fleshed out some sort of statement of intent and had tried to encourage freedom of thought from the top down, his 'path' would have had more legitimacy and would have encouraged more honesty. But wait--then it wouldn't be a cult with an authoritarian leader at the top --honesty would have engendered more freedom of movement in & out of knowledge and would have resulted in loss of revenues & authority for M. It would have been a different trip altogether.The pushiness of it all, keeping it all going all the time, satsang, service, meditation...seemed to be matched by M's drive to get richer and richer & more 'powerful'. It's hard to visualize an organization that works in the way you've outlined--I would say AA & alanon try to work that way--there are some rules, but they are run locally, there's no big guy at the top reaping the profits, so it can't become corrupt in the same way. So that the organization really attempts to be there to enhance personal growth. But I can't think of many other groups that work in the way you've outlined above--because of the corrupting influence of $ and power. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 17:37:52 (EST)
From: Selene Email: None To: Helen Subject: Structures of support. Message: A break! Ryan (my grandson) is sleeping. God I cannot believe the feeling I get when I look at those innocent trusting eyes. He will be 7 months on Feb 6. It' s amazing, to see how we start out. To see the brilliance, the creativity, most amazing the trust!!!!!! And to see how corrupt organizations, societies, religions, take advantage of that is so hard to stomach as I look at this baby. It makes me feel impotent and helpless. There will always be the maharaji's of this world. And the people who kill their sister because she screwed up by their definition of morality. and on and on... Not going anywhere particular with this. Just if you can, all of you. look into a babies eyes sometime. It is a jolt of reality. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 20:49:19 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Selene Subject: A smile and a glance. Message: Selene: People don't lie until they reach a certain age. I believe it's around age six, but not sure. It's not that they don't want to, or don't have reason to, but for some strange reason they assume that everyone knows what they're thinking... that their thoughts are an open book. At a certain point they discover that people don't automatically know things about them, and about their intentions. For awhile they assume everything is hidden. They smile when they are hiding something, giving themselves away. Remember that sly smile that crept across the young Satpal's face as he looked at his father giving satsang? It was in one of the early videos. We thought it meant he 'knew his special agya.' What it actually meant was that he had discovered that his thoughts were unknown to his father, and he assumed he was unreadable. His father was a god, so he must be a god too. Eventually children figure out that people can't read their thoughts, but can read certain overt signals. Deception is born and a tangled web begins. Maybe we'll learn more some day. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 19:02:16 (EST)
From: Selene Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: A smile and a glance. Message: Yeah, even this little guy at 6 months has figured out how to manipulate people. But it's still cute, but I am not the most objective person. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 20:07:16 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Selene Subject: A smile and a glance. Message: Selene: Yeah, even this little guy at 6 months has figured out how to manipulate people. But it's still cute, but I am not the most objective person. Well, at six months it's pretty honest manipulation. There's no secret about his agenda, and his tactics are totally transparent (though effective). -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:07:25 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Selene Subject: Structures of support. Message: Yes! I hung out with 9 month old twins at my 2 year old goddaughter's b'day party today--the structures of support for them are the loving arms and smiling faces amazed at their beauty.......I look in my own daughter's eyes and I see she hasn't really walked on the earth yet, she is still dancing on the stars, everything is light for her still at 6 years old You have a grandson--7 months is the best age--man, if they could bottle that baby smell, eh???? I could use some of that on a bad day Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 17:38:45 (EST)
From: Diz Email: None To: Ham, Helen Subject: Structures of support. Message: Ham, I've had thoughts along these lines, too. Partly about what would really be 'reasonable', rather than ideal. However I certainly agree that reasonable support structures would go a great deal further than those currently in place in MJ's world. I like the idea of a statement of intent as a starting point. At least that could provide a benchmark, even if the reality of getting to it had its struggles. Given that people are only human. I think encouraging honesty would be a good first step. What would that mean? Some thoughts: giving validity to the thoughts, feelings and experiences of each individual. Including doubts (that's the end of 'leave no room for doubt in your mind'). Giving room for expression to each person, within some guidelines based on making sure everyone had some access to airspace. Encouraging discussion, debate, input from multiple sources eg science, other teachers, philosophers from various cultures and ages. At this point I begin to come to your conclusion, Helen - it wouldn't be the same trip at all. Not just in terms of power and money, but also in terms of how the meaning of the experience is defined. That, to me, is the core belief system which I would have loved to challenge while I was still trying to find a place within MJ's world. You see, I would argue that K is a PART of life (at least while we're alive), not LIFE ITSELF; A source of love, amongst a number of sources, not love itself. And that therefore the major challenge for those practicing K was to find a way to integrate the experience into the rest of life. That's where you could have got going, Helen, along with many others on this forum. I could have really got into that approach. Though of course, there would have been other ideas, including all the renunciate ones. Would there have been factions develop, renunciates versus the more worldly types? Pluralism has its challenges, and they aren't trivial. But authoritarianism has huge downsides, too - and I for one will go for the problems of pluralism every time. So another form of support structure might have been some groundrules for keeping debate civil and non-violent. Begins to sound like the problems of society in general. Which I guess isn't so surprising. Well. Just some simple statements about respecting the value of each person (not just because of K), about the value of listening, about lending a helping hand here and there (to ordinary people, and in the general commuity, not just to the master), about the importance of raising children with love and attention, about the desirability for openness to learning from multiple sources, including intellectual, emotional and spiritual - would go some distance. Though even these types of statements would present some conflict to core beliefs, I think. What a rave. Love, Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:19:17 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Diz Subject: Structures of support. Message: Great to hear from you Diz. When I was in therapy after M, my therapist encouraged me to try to let go (at least temporarily) of a structure (or model) of spirituality along with the need for a spiritual director, cause it had all made me so crazy. She recommended that I read a lot of fantasy books to free up my imagination and it helped me. There was an article about a commune in Virginia that is based on the book Walden Two, in the Washington Post Magazine recently--they had such utopian ideals but a lot of it sounded truly awful to me. For example, 2 people in the commune can't have the same name so a child who recently moved there with his family had to change his name--coo-coo stuff like that! ANyway, it's great to hear from you--hope you are well Love, Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:22:45 (EST)
From: y? Email: None To: Diz Subject: Structures of support. Message: I enjoyed your intelligent ideas and ponderings. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 19:49:56 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Diz Subject: Structures of support-Diz Message: Really liked your post, Diz. 'Encouraging discussion, debate, input from multiple sources eg science, other teachers, philosophers from various cultures and ages. At this point I begin to come to your conclusion, Helen - it wouldn't be the same trip at all. Not just in terms of power and money, but also in terms of how the meaning of the experience is defined. That, to me, is the core belief system which I would have loved to challenge while I was still trying to find a place within MJ's world.' Diz, that was exactly where I approached k from, and the way I tried to carry on for twenty years, til I forced myself to stop meditating about nine years ago. It struck me that self-acceptance and relaxation were the key ingredients that supported my journeying. Whenever I moved away from that path, my experiences nose-dived sharply, started feeling confused and physically yuck. Yet I never found any but a few individuals who were capable of genuine dialogue during that time, and it was inescapable that this was because of the angle on it all that gm pushed in his major messages. Would any but a bunch of hippies have accepted such chaos, I seriously doubt it. The rationalizations I attempted, as outside as I now accept I was, I could never have done without that hippy acceptance of whatever vibe. Re the different factions, I'm sure you're right but with k as the core, not gm, satsang would have carried real interest. As it was I still found moments of real honesty, depth and emotional integrity in occasional pockets at local community satsangs. The problem was lack of consistency, and that increased whenever gm did one of his little switches of direction, as the rationalization then became the focus, not the individual journeys themselves. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:58:28 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: ham Subject: Structures of support-Diz Message: Your right of course and I did also lament the missed chance. But, he was cursed to blow it because his own vision was so off. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 19:08:29 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Helen Subject: Structures of support-Helen Message: One of the side issues of this is whether he would have made less money, I'm not so sure.If the org had been well run there would have been minimal waste of money. He could have done the TM route and charged for parts-of at least. For years the whole money angle was covered by the fake altruism of knowledge is priceless, yet you can now buy gm coat-of-arms engraved glass goblets, rent-a-tent at Amaroo,....He could have started this in the 70's. I don't see Maharishi or TM doing so badly financially. He would also still have a North American presence. With proper planning he wouldn't have wasted all that money on the planes....Blah blah blah This could be seen as pointless fantasising BUT I think it shows up the CHOICES that he made, and those choices show how organisationally incompetent he has been to the point that he is nigh-on finished in the west. Any spiritual org that nose-dives from thousands of new members in the US each year to 366 last year, well speaks for itself. Any business run so badly, well the CEO would have received his big fat pay cheque ages ago.. Re org's running this way, actually I think there are a number of straight businesses that are trying to incorporate these principles because it increases profits. Less staff-turnover and sickness from less stress. Massage people at lunchtime & even during working hours. Genuine attempts at team facilitation and empowerment....Examples can be found all over, although they are usually only in parts of the org. Saw report last week on the profitability of firms run this way compared to the squeeze em til they bleed approach, especially in these assertive times, very successful approach. Surprizew,vsurprize, people work better if they are stretched AND supported. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 22:33:37 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: ham Subject: Structures of support-ham Message: I am pretty suspicious of businesses/workplaces that give a lot of lip service to 'caring' about employees--I like to see the 'caring' in $$$, benefits and a flexible family-friendly atmosphere (where if my kid is sick and I have to take off no one gets their knickers in a twist). As far as getting a massage in the workplace--I'd rather do that on my own time, with Guido the big hunk ha ha. The reason I'm suspicious is because I worked in a place for 4 years where the boss wanted us all to be a 'team' etc and gave a lot of lipservice to us being a 'flat organization' with no hierarchy--but of course there was a hierarchy. I'd rather people lay out the hierarchry honestly than pretend it doesn't exist. Also, at this place I worked we did not have job descriptions because our boss thought they were an anachronism--she wanted a team oriented 'paradigm' which meant she wanted to pile on a ton of work on top of us--if we complained then we were told we were not 'team players' etc etc. All very Dilbert. Now I work somewhere where I do what I was hired to do--what bliss! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 19:15:20 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Helen Subject: Structures -helen Message: Lot of sympathy with you there Helen. In my line of work I'm still amazed at the number of managers who attempt to enforce an empowerment approach, and don't have a clue as to the inherent irony of it all. The problem is the techie quick fix take that most managers approach the concept of management with. They seem to have no idea about psychology etc and ruin valuable concepts for others by their abuse. I wonder where I've come across that before. Real caring does work wonders, at our place the concept of empowerment is translated into action in a number of ways, including no grief when kids are sick, no grief if you're a bit late, etc, as long as the work is covered by the whole team, but our problem is the abuse of that empowerment by a small proportion of the team, which is going to lead inevitably to denial of empowerment. If people don't agree with the value base in an empowered system there is a real problem, because disciplinary procedures will not be used as a final stick. Almost the inverse of the route at your previous place but almost inevitably with similar disatrous results. The good workers leave! Committed staff feel dispensable. I suspect as usual that there has to boundaries with strong feedback mechanisms and a culture of team assertiveness before an empowered truly team centred approach can really work. We have a massage fella come in one day a week and it's had very positive effects on that days mood, a couple of us are good at light stress reduction, 'healing' to get rid of headaches , cranial massage etc. We also run a lunchtime radio station which has gone down really well. We check constantly on how well everything is operating...That's why it's so frustrating, it's so close to being REALLY good...... hamzen aka guido Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 18:30:32 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: ham Subject: Structures of support. Message: Well, for one thing, knowledge would actually be the priority of the organization, not the preservation, enrichment and aggrandizement of Maharaji as it is now, and always has been. If that were truly the priority, it would be an entirely different organization. Second, it would be an organization that is a lot less secretive, paranoid, rank with fear, and a lot more open to discussion, admission of error, etc. As it is, it's so closed and exists in such a culture of self-censorship that it just stagnates under it's own absurdity. Third, I agree with Helen, if the priority were really an internal experience that has positive effects on individual lives and, when writ large, the whole world, it would encourage personal growth and personal expression. As it is, both are stymied by a very rigid dogma that there is only one true path, and it is THE experience that whatever Maharaji says or does is perfect and beyond criticism. Maharaji would openly encourage people to move on from him and knowlege when they outgrow it and indicate clearly that it is expected that people outgrow it and move on. Finally, it would encourage input from all members. It would encourage sharing of personal experiences with other members, something that is now discouraged. It would respect and recognize that everyone has a contribution to make, and that everyone's experience is unique. Oh, yeah, it would also be more dynamic, less boring and less pathetic. The members would also say less idiotic things when they speak because there would be actual honest expression. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:00:10 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: A society of friends Message: Joe: In a phrase, Scientology proves you wrong. I won't go into it, but that group has all of the positive characteristics you mention, and the results are a repressive organization that goes far beyond anything at DLM. There are charismatic people, and charismatic societies, and both can be evil or good. We need to study the attributes of the good ones, like 'The Society of Friends,' for instance. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:17:56 (EST)
From: y? Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: A society of friends Message: I agree with you about Scientology having the positives of promoting personal growth and expression .It's when the organization uses this to it's own ends ie:making large amounts of money) that it becomes dangerous. Society of Friends are a lot less dangerous but perhaps not very effective? Maybe their point isn't to be very effective. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 00:16:51 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: y? Subject: A society of friends Message: y: It's when the organization uses this to it's own ends ie:making large amounts of money) that it becomes dangerous. I don't know to what extent making a lot of money is part and parcel of the fact that Scientology is prescriptive, but my intuition (and personal acquaintance with some notable scientologists) persuades me that they are dangerous because they have a mission to save the world. Not just a general sense, but a program with a set agenda. I'll be concerned about effectiveness when I can figure out a reliable way to tell the good ones from the bad ones (both individuals and groups). I don't know the whole formula, but a big part of it is that no one shuts the door behind you when you go in, and no one hates you when you leave. Clearly this is not the case with Scientology. My friend has suffered death threats for years. I think charisma can be very effective, both the good and the bad kind. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 22:47:10 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: A society of friends Message: Scott, I've never been in Scientology, but from what I have read it tolerates no dissent or criticism and is pretty paranoid. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 00:31:39 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: A society of friends Message: Joe: from what I have read it tolerates no dissent or criticism and is pretty paranoid. That's an understatement. I didn't intend to convey the notion that I thought they had that covered. I guess my point is that virtue doesn't always follow from good intentions, nor evil from bad. Virtue, group or individual, seems to have a very subtle formula. I don't pretend to know what it is, but intending to do good is far from sufficient, and groups have no special dispensation for me. I don't think a commitment is automatically more virtuous just because it is a collective decision. My read of the Scientologists is that they wish and hope the best for the world. They certainly don't intend to harm it. But, until their fangs are removed the threat will be there. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:15:25 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: A society of friends Message: My read of the Scientologists is that they wish and hope the best for the world. They certainly don't intend to harm it. But, until their fangs are removed the threat will be there. Scott, I don't think either Maharaji nor premies intend to harm the world and neither do Scientologists, in my opinion. In most of these groups there are at least tacit good intentions, no matter how misguided. I also think the harm is more than just a threat. Scientology has literally destroyed people who try to criticize it or report damaging information they know. But in both groups, I think it's a matter of priorities. With Maharaji, the priority is clearly his lavish lifestyle, and for premies, it's preserving their belief system, even if that means doing destructive things to themselves and the world. Scientology is the same in my opinion. There might be an overriding good intention, but the priority, even higher than that good intention, is clearly perservation of the group at all cost, even if that means the destruction of people who they believe threaten it. I think Maharaji's attempt at self and group preservation is to try to fly below the radar screen of the media and to avoid scrutiny. It also appears to be to simply ignore all criticism and hope it will go away. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 14:40:26 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: A society of friends Message: Joe: I think the agenda of Scientology goes beyond preservation, and although it was started by a charismatic lead dog it is now what I call a charismatic society. Other than that I find no problem with what you are saying. Furthermore, I would not be surprised to see Scientology de-fanged in the next decade or two, so that it evolves into a more or less harmless and peculiar anachronism. Then again, maybe it's the gestation environment for the antichrist. I have seen some of their secret teachings. Ever hear of the Makadians? (Now, I'm in for it.) -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 22:40:58 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: A society of friends Message: Scott, I think there are a lot of people who would be happy if Scientology is 'defanged.' I don't know about Makadians, and I would love to hear about whatever secret teachings you've seen. Were you ever into Scientology? Be careful though, don't trust those people. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:22:10 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: JW/Diz Subject: Structures of support. Message: Sounds like a good model for society. I know, let's start a commune!! Sign me up Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 22:36:07 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: david.studio57@btinternet.com To: Helen Subject: Structures of support. Message: Firstly, Scott; I read your last post below about recumbent bikes with great interest. I'll be most interested to know how you get on with this new machine. Secondly; there never was any structure of support was there, in Maharaji's world. We all know that. This web site does now provide some support but I think more is needed. I am going to start another web site soon which will link up anyone who's been involved with Maharaji, either current premie or ex-premie. It will have like a contact section where people can place adverts and tell a bit about themselves, where they are etc and then either enquire about people they used to know to post to them or just leave a lonely hearts message and let anyone contact them. I'll also have an agony section where people (premies or ex-premies) who really need some help can ask for help and get it. ANd when I think of other stuff to put on the site, that too. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 22:47:38 (EST)
From: y? Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Structures of support. Message: I like that idea a lot, gallant Sir David. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 02:25:18 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Great idea, David Message: Hi Sir D - I think your suggestion for a ISO (which means 'in search of', for all of those who don't read the personals) page is great. As you probably recall, Brian tried to set something up on the site, but it didn't get much traffic, and he got all kinds of other weird submissions that had nothing to do with premies or ex-premies because he used the word 'Ad' in the title (just a caveat). Thanks for doing this - it would be good to have a place like this to refer people to. Take care, Katie P.S. I still owe you a cheesehead, which we are NOT going to be using for the Super Bowl this year (sob). I am a little concerned that you might have to wrap it in aluminum foil though. Anyway, I haven't forgotten - I'm just slow. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:47:46 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Structures of support. Message: David: The support website sounds like a great idea. I have a lonely hearts message I'd like to send to a few of those sisters in the '76 LA community, if they're still around. Will keep you informed about the recumbent experiment. I've revised my requirements about the gear range. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 00:45:44 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: JW Subject: Structures of support. Message: Joe: On second reading I find that I don't disagree with what you're saying. I think you may be groping for the same formula that I am, but a lot of this just boils down to openness, and I think of that as a result rather than a formula. I mean, surely everones' intention is to be open. How do they come to be closed down? Didn't the people in the Koresh group feel they were being mutually supportive? How would people like that get feedback that they are on the wrong track? What are the safety mechanisms? What sort of constitution would forestall disaster? I view open societies as a mysterious event. By most accounts they shouldn't exist, but they do, even though they are still the exception. And, there are just some personal experiences I'd rather people kept to themselves, at least for now. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 03:34:30 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Structures of support/Scott Message: Scott, ongoing market research of the punters and how they are experiencing/seeing the results of the structures around them would be a starting point. If you look at somebody like Stafford Beer's concepts on 'viable organizations' you see that the feedback mechanisms are crucial. Where I work the value base is absolutely crucial to it's core function. Empowerment is absolutely crucial to our existence. Yet after nearly five years it's starting to break up fast, exacerbated by external local government pressures, mostly financial mismanagement. We would be dealing with this must better, (the level of goodwill within the majority of the staff team is incredibly high) if the support team feedback mechanisms were in place any where near as strongly as they are for all other aspects of our functioning. The way I see it, it's crucial to have a clear concise mission statement and philosophy, clear objectives and almost CONTINUOS feedback on how well these are being adhered to. One of the key criticisms we make of gm was how little REAL care he showed, because there was never any substantial ackowledgement of what people were going through. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 16:46:04 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: ham Subject: Structures of support/Scott Message: Ham: I agree about feedback. My theory is that that's the reason we have business cycles. We start extending highways across chasms, thinking we're still on solid ground. ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plans) are one way to close the loop, so that income is directly related to productivity and market demand. What was the question, again? Where is this bridge going, do you know? -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 18:27:41 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Structures of support/Scott Message: Scott, I found it odd even when I'd become incredibly cynical about gm how little org planning seemed to go on. I know he values his ability to improvise, (best joke of all) but bet when the plane was being built he was working to design plans, yet I never saw any evidence of planning when it came to his orgs. Anybody who truly cared would not treat human related matters with less thought or respect than other stuff. In fact would realize it's likely to be messier and tricky to get right. The deca stuff shows this. Bet time was put into the plane design process but as soon as it came to the production and possible risks to the people doing the work, or the waste of money....... The original question about structures of support came from the way I use Checklands Soft Systems approach. The question sprang from the way you start the process with no analysis or attempted interpretation. You then go into attempting to model ideal systems, compare them to the reality, back to idealized systems compare etc etc You then end up with possible ways of re-engineering of the actual structures but hopefully with the idealized feedback testers happening continually. All of this approach is based upon heavy feedback/re-questioning of the reality. Yet the reality with gm was that any questioning of any aspect of anything to do with him was not on, denial of choice, variety etc. Inevitably you end up with the kind of dessicated approach and structures he now finds himself with & stuck in. Here is a person who supposedly loves life and looks to it for inspiration using an approach that constantly reduces variety, not increasing that variety. A little like slow strangulation. Or synchronization as they now call it! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Jan 28, 1999 at 09:10:46 (EST)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: ham Subject: Interpretive Structures Message: Ham: The question sprang from the way you start the process with no analysis or attempted interpretation. You then go into attempting to model ideal systems, compare them to the reality, back to idealized systems compare etc etc You then end up with possible ways of re-engineering of the actual structures but hopefully with the idealized feedback testers happening continually. The ideal, in this case, was so vague that it failed to inspire any sort of planning. ie: 'World Peace.' But, I'm not sure that's possible with religious, or quasi-religious organizations anyway. Their long term goals are often so idealistic that they're at odds with the systemic organization goals you're talking about. No one could accuse the Scientologists of lack of planning, for instance. It's just that their goals for an ideal end state for the world preempt openness. The one case where ideology seems to have a reasonable fit with openness and planning is in the case of post-revolutionary America. They did a lot of initial planning, most of which has worked out fairly well. But, our tendancy to not plan for industrial and technological change is probably part of that ideology. We don't trust the state, so we tend not to use it as a control unless absolutely necessary, leaving things to the market, etc. Some things seem system-amenable, while others are not. It could be that we don't have the right systems yet, but it could also be that Habermas' separation of the 'system world' and the 'lifeworld' has some merit. The lifeworld is based on consensus views and contextual circumstances that people accept unquestioningly. He feels that you can't adjust the lifeworld with the system world too much, and hope for a good outcome. Instead, you have to adjust the lifeworld through 'linguistification of the sacred.' I'm not sure I'd go that far, but many of the claims of system theory seem overblown. Still willing to keep tweaking, however. Basically, his philosophy boils down to the need to tweak the system world with the lifeworld a little more. The process you're talking about may be an attempt to do just that. John Warlfield has a process called 'Interpretive Structural Modelling,' that sounds similar. There are probably a number of variants, each with strengths and weaknesses of their own. Still, 'garbage in--garbage out,' as they say. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 22:28:53 (EST)
From: Runamok Email: None To: ham Subject: Structures of support. Message: Ham, Seems like a lot of people on the forum enjoy meditation, or did, but left M. A lot of people don't consider any meditation experiences that they had to have been valid. We enjoy support as a group here, and it is needed. I think of M as having vampired our personal relationships when we were with him. Many relationships existed only as premies. There was no framework for being in contact with each other without M, festivals, etc. We were either celibate and removed from social contact, or we were extremely transient (typically) with our parent's addresses as our only PO Box (our only permanent address). Obviously not everybody was exactly in these 2 categories, but the point is our bonds were based in association with M. I remember how extremely isolated I felt after leaving knowledge. Five nights a week (or whatever) of social contact, gone. Whoever I might have turned to for advice or solace, gone. Like getting two divorces and quitting two jobs at once, and then some. A couple of points, we now seek support and are developing a structure. Some of us might like a structure to support meditation without a fatcat over it. It seems like its the absurdity of one man's greed that was so unsupportive, the natural state of things would contain more support by itself. It's the unnatural buildup of M's expectations when premies really do not know him personally. We would walk into a room and look at his picture to get in touch with ourselves. If people say M can't really do more than he does/did, they have a point, but he really has no bzns doing what he does if he can so callously disregard the emotional devastation that he has left in his path. He ought to shape up or ship out. If he had been more responsible to me as disciple, the whole peace on earth jive would have been easier to forgive. If he had given me something on the earth instead of promises... I guess my point about some people wanting to meditate without him.. is that's part of the lurking premie question, 'can I leave and still do this?' It seems like meditation is designed to be religion without the bullshit so it's a shame that most people are never introduced to it that way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 02:39:15 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: ham Subject: universal panacea? Message: I do respect you Hammy. Dont take it personal that I laughed out loud at the idea of a universal panacea. The key to that trick is to rerun the history tape and instead of hitting the -free will- switch, hit the instinct one. We are designed to be at odds and no matter what group (even the scientologists) how they appear to share all these behaviours, beliefs, dress, thoughts, the works, they are at total odds with each other in thier meetings and personal lives just like any one else. Human nature! We can rally around the flag-for a minute! Even if one generation has this tight bond, thier kids will start ripping it apart before you can say- 'these kids today!' We long to be like bees and ants and have an ordered society of harmony and peace. fat chance. Look at chairman Mao. He had millions of chink ants marching in lockstep reading and quoteing his thought. Didn't last too long! maharaji tried the 'I am the lord of the universe! do what I say!' No respect. Even now none from us! Heartbreaking to the devotee ants. moaning 'if they would all see that it is different now!' 'come back to the lotus feet!'. 'Managment has changed pam is gone!' gasp. What sort of organisation would work on this mass of humans? one that would kill all but those that professed my ideas. as maharaji once said I'll have to pull out the quote; 'my thought is eternal it cannot be broken' everyone wants to rule the world I guess. How about the reccomendation to ----love life, and the self concious origional intelligence who is NOT you. and love yourself and love others-as best you can. THERE is a universal panacea. Free of pesky human group involvement/which leads to organising/which leads to supporting/ which leads to domination attempts and a nice pit for the kids to get trapped in and raised believing. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:09:40 (EST)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: bill Subject: A history lesson, Bill Message: Bill: you're an anarchist by the sound of it. I think that humans are essensially tribal by nature and will naturally form themselves into ordered groups with leaders and hierarchies. How these groups evolve and change is an interesting historical subject. Looking at the old DLM it was an organisation set up before Maharaji was born. When he became the spiritual head of it he wasn't the leader and it took some years before he took control and it's gone downhill ever since. DLM could have been a vast humanitarian organisation but the trouble was Maharaji and people's belief in him as the supreme aithority. He turned DLM into an organisation to support is grandiousment (is that a word?) and like the wayward son who takes over the family business and squanders it, he has all but wrecked the original organisation. True, the new Elan Vital does have Maharaji's stamp all over it and it's sheer inhumanity and coldness does surely reflect the personality of Maharaji. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:51:29 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: airplane, acid and anarchy Message: Consider the org that prem rawat had around him. People pretending his dad was god, in krishna outfit, after HE kicks the bucket, the kids sing arti to MOM. By the time they hit the beaches of england, bal bhagwan ji is brahma, and the second coming of jesus, raja ji was vishnu, and someone else, bhole ji was shiva and the incarnation of music, I have to check the posters for the full stats. on thier spiritual greatness. mom was among other things, the -holiest mother of creation, and by 12 little lord himself says he wants to shake the world and he has come more powerful than ever before. YIPES! I dont think it went downhill from there. It was already a cult disaster of monsterous proportions. Massive family delusion and you can't let dear old dad off the hook for the insanity. I was saying that we long for unity but attend your local church and get real involved and you will see the under the facade infighting over issues. NORMAL! OK! and unescapable. Best to accept and see that it is a good thing. Try having a best freind and see how that goes. Just try it with one person, your wife? Don't want to because you know THAT one is impossible? Detente is possible, tenuous peace is possible, fragile yes, anarchy no, there is enough ius trying to pull off the stunt of unity but I dont think it is humanly possible and that is not a design flaw, but a design option that makes for the most interesting human show and allows for lots of drama and sets up the stage for people to pull stuff out of themselves and show character and the good stuff and the bad. It is the most creative way to go. More suffering and suicides of course, but more creative and that is at least one apparent quality of the life intelligence, creativity. LOVES creativity. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 21:01:19 (EST)
From: Zac Email: None To: Barney Subject: Barney's Cool Poll Message: Friend of my came over to visit, PWK 25-30 years, So I introduced him to the page and showed him your poll. He voted for Maharaji as God incarnate and was shocked when we viewed the results and found he was the only one. Then he commented that everyone who says M is a master is wrong because if a master says he's god incarnate then he's either god incarnate or he's not a master, he's a fraud who teaches meditation ....in a humanitarian way. I dunno. So my friend suggested we needed an 'all of the above' or 'none of the above' added to the opinion poll and he eventually realized he could vote for both. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 22:24:14 (EST)
From: Prof J Heinz-Beans Email: david.studio57@btinternet.com To: Zac Subject: Barney's Cool Poll Message: Hey that's an interesting logical connundrum to mull over. If a person says they are God then logically they either are God or they're not. That means they're either telling the truth or telling a big porkie pie. Maharaji definitely did say he was God. I've heard him say it and have it on tape somewhere. It's a tape of his satsang during the later seventies in London, I think and he talks about when THAT God comers to Earth in human form blah blah blah. I also have a transcript of a satsang in which he says that to serve God when he takes human form is the best thing, ever. That was said around the late seventies when he was asking for money for a new plane etc. So since Maharaji said he is God then he really is the Magnificent come to Earth. Or he's one hell of a liar and since it's not just a little lie but a massive and momentous porkie pie to end all porkie pies, then nobody can believe anything he ever says after such a whopper. I've studied some history and I don't think there's a single person in history who has actually claimed to be THE God. The Roman emperors were officially gods with a small g but correct me if I'm wrong, Maharaji is unique in claiming to be God. Claiming to be God and having people believe him too! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 03:22:26 (EST)
From: Jethro Email: None To: Prof J Heinz-Beans Subject: Barney's Cool Poll Message: Dear Professor 'I've studied some history and I don't think there's a single person in history who has actually claimed to be THE God' Well this comes close...guess who said it 'Ram came woth 14 divine powers, Krishna came with 16 divine powers, I come with all 64 divine powers'. Regards from the student Jethro Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 17:26:51 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Missing person alert Message: Hey, did anyone see either Bruce or op recently? Bruce and I were discussing something and he just plum disappeared. Op was around here too but I can't find her either. Bruce? Op? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 18:51:43 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, how about shp? Message: Anyone seen shp since I asked him to comment on that hate thing? CD? Mili? Hey, how about Jack Tuff? See, I'm really excited about this. I just can't wait to see a premie try to argue that m didn't get us to hate AND fear our minds. Immature? Maybe, but I argue with really smart people for a living. It's just plain fun to argue with premies once in a while, you know? Bruce? Oh BRUUUUUOOOOOSE!! BRUCE!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 19:12:40 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, how about shp? Message: whaddayu think...i just sit here with my thumb up my butt and wait for your posts to me to respond to? i have a life. i have been posting here today and last nite for the first time in awhile...i'm not your devotee, pal, and i don't owe you squat. besides that, i coulda been hit by a bus this afternoon. YOU BE TRIPPIN' JIMMY. whether m is it or not, whether he has hurt folks or not, YOU GOT A PROBLEM YOU ARE HIDING BEHIND THIS ISSUE. DEAL WITH IT, YOU ARRONGANT EGOMANIAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ahem, where was i...oh yeah, shp present and accounted for. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 19:53:05 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: oh JIIIIIIIIIIIIM!!!! Message: where are you?????? it's been at least five minutes and you haven't answered me. whasssup? btw, i saw a movie last night i think you'd really enjoy called the truman show starring jim carrey...some interesting themes, and check out the brand of the lawn mower.......watch for it. my son wants to get online and is looking over my shoulder so i gotta go now. b'bye. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 07:12:35 (EST)
From: cruiser Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim's hate obsession Message: Jim, This is an answer from Bruce way back down the line.i reckon he's on to you Jim, so sorry to leave you alone with your radiation screen on a Friday night. How sad! Nothing better to do on a Friday night. And all in vain too. Jim. Your quotes prove my point. I said that Maharaji never used the word hate in describing how we should regards the 'mind'. Clearly, he doesn't. If you want to equate warnings about something which potentially can make problems for people as an urge to hate something, then that's your bias and your problem. I live in one of the most beautiful areas of Australia( and therefore the world). On the beach there is a warning about rips and swimming betwen the flags. Getting caught in a rip can be fatal. Does that mean we are being urged to HATE rips? Of course not. No Jim,the Jury's out and you lose. In all those millions of words that M has spoken, only shp can remember one example of the word hate, and that sounded strange coming from M lips he said. So why does it come off your lips so easily? Bruce Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:08:32 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: cruiser Subject: Jim's hate obsession Message: Hey cruiser, I think you're being a little disingenuous with your rip tide example (I've never used that word 'disingenuous' before--hope I'm using it right, I have a tendency to be Ms. Malapropism) Back in the 70's at least M made a religion out of warning us about the mind. Were you into it back then? Mind was evil, M was good, it really was set up that way and constantly reinforced. So while he might not have actually said we should hate our minds, a schizoid type of thing really did happen to people (to be struggling with your brain all the time , no fun). You can put a more benign spin on M's message about the mind but back in the 70's and early 80's it was deadly serious business, this mind. Basically, since this is your religion, you and shp & all the other premies in the world can adapt it to make it work for you. I think we all do that with our religions all the time, to make them palatable for us. But I think you need to look at what the guru said and is saying objectively and then say 'That part I like, that part I can't stomach, etc.' You're projecting what you would like him to be rather than seeing what he IS. I used to do this too all the time so that is why I feel authorized to practice cheap psychiatry on you. I certainly had enough expensive psychiatry myself in order to make let my poor mind come back and do its job , my mind that I had tried to smoosh it into a little ball into a corner of my head. Have a nice day Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:41:43 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: cruiser Subject: that last sentence-oy Message: me can't talk good, me stay up too late last night, I hope you read what I say and it make sense Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 09:43:36 (EST)
From: Sir David Email: None To: Helen Subject: Jim's hate obsession Message: Maharaji said once to his initiators, 'Every time you think, you kick Maharaji in the teeth.' Now that's the sort of thing you're talking about, Helen, isn't it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 12:37:10 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: cruiser Subject: I hate riptides Message: Or at least I could. Say you went to Bruce's beach and your cat got caught in a riptide and you had to watch helplessly as the riptide relentessly swirled and spun your little gray hairless kitty into to cold murkiness of Davy Jones locker. Wouldn't you then really hate riptides? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 15:32:54 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: No, Bruce, you prove MY point! Message: I said that Maharaji never used the word hate in describing how we should regards the 'mind'. Clearly, he doesn't. How idiotic can a cult member be. This is pushing the envelope. Bruce, the question isn't whether m uses or used the word 'hate'. How silly. My point was that he incited hatred of the mind (and fear, by the way. I added that. He incited hatred and fear.) You're such a fool to think you can argue this point based on his usage or lack of usage of that specific word. Frankly, I'm embarrassed to be having this discussion. What if any of my adult friends saw this? But of course the funniest thing is this: You think I'm 'into hate', right? You think I'm inciting hatred of m, right? Now is that because of my use of the specific word 'hate'? If I didn't use that would you then say I'm NOT urging others to hate him? Of course not. So what's the differenc with m? There isn't. He called our mind a snake, a fly, a problem, our enemy, a trickster, a threat, the source of all darkness and confusion. He explained how it was the one thing responsible for all our sadness, that without it there's nothing but love. He said we had to kill it, break it, fear it, avoid it. He didn't have to say 'hate' to get his point across. If you want to equate warnings about something which potentially can make problems for people as an urge to hate something, then that's your bias and your problem. And if you want to sound like a stupid cult member that's your problem. I live in one of the most beautiful areas of Australia( and therefore the world). On the beach there is a warning about rips and swimming betwen the flags. Getting caught in a rip can be fatal. Does that mean we are being urged to HATE rips? If the signs said half the things about riptides that m's said about the mind then, yes, you'd be able to say you were being urged to hate them. You, Bruce, are a complete nicomppo forcing us through this exercise in stupidity. No Jim,the Jury's out and you lose. In all those millions of words that M has spoken, only shp can remember one example of the word hate, and that sounded strange coming from M lips he said. Well, again, if the question was whether m used the word 'hate' you might be right. But I never argued that, did I? Now I can't wait for op's answer. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 18:17:22 (EST)
From: Rick Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oy veh! Message: Jim and Bruce, I think you're both wrong. Maharaji wasn't particularly big on hate--he wasn't that much of a 'hater' in public. Not like Jim, anyway. Maharaji wanted control and power. He wanted to be the major and sole influence on our lives. Maybe it was a means to an end of money, or maybe it was just what he got off on, or maybe some of both. In order to have the power and control he sought, we needed to listen to and follow him... not our own thoughts, feelings or reasoning. His method of getting us to do this was to point out the danger of following our own minds, and so far as that goes, he was inciting fear. But mostly, he wanted us to stay away from our minds because then he could get what he wanted from us. Were we to be too preoccupied or consumed with hate or fear he wouldn't be having his way with us. It was actually an insane sort of self-implosion. Maharaji did describe the mind in terms that, if believed, would bring up feelings of disdain or hatred. But we knew that we weren't even allowed to dwell there--that to really be 'surrendered' to him, we would need to shut down on the hatred and fear he was inspiring in our minds, against our minds. If Maharaji had truly been an inspiration for hatred, he would have been a step above what he really is, because he would have been inspiring a passion, of sorts. What he really inspired in the end, was dispassion. I'll take passion, even hatred, anyday. Rick Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:01:02 (EST)
From: y? Email: None To: Rick Subject: The generalization of MIND Message: I think the problem with M's definiton of mind is way too general. Surely there's the rational part of the mind which is very useful and a great asset, which mistakenly many premies have tried to elliminate, judging by how many premies it takes to put in a light-bulb! Then there's a more reactive mind that given a certain stimulus it seems to react on a more unconsious level - may be we needed this type of mind at one time for our survival. Example: Man nearly drowned on icy pond - now has fear and feels bad when he sees icy ponds. Leaves area of icy pond. This is the part of the mind that gets us in trouble and makes us feel anxious, confused and sad. (out of the present moment) We no longer need it now that we can think rationally. Maybe we needed it when we were a lot less developed many thousands of years ago and it rears it's ugly head when we are in a threatening situation? I'm sure there are many other parts of the mind but even separating the mind into two parts like this is light-years away from the CRAZY MIND (get rid of it) mentality..... Any comments? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:57:57 (EST)
From: Rick Email: None To: y? Subject: The generalization of MIND Message: I've often thought that maharaji's schtick isn't much different than a lot of Eastern spirituality... that what we perceive with our five senses is a coin with pleasure on one side and pain on the other, and in the end it will all disappear. And that if what you want to know is true and real, and lasting, you need to rise above the world that is experienced with the five senses, into another world. Maharaji called that world knowledge. Then he tried to guide us there by describing the obstacle (the mind). His descriptions were simplistic and unhelpful, and no one I ever met got where he claimed he could take us. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:20:47 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Rick Subject: The generalization of MIND Message: Rick, I agree with what you're saying here. It's important to remember that some people DID take up his call-to-arms with passion, my friend Dave Wiener amongst them. In fact, just now I'm realizing something. I'm remembering that I felt uncomfortable around Dave in those last days because he DID show a little bit more passion for the enterprise than was cool amongst premies in general. He took m's words a little too much to heart. Thanks for helping me see this. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:30:19 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Rick Subject: Right on, Rick (nt) Message: njitio Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:40:40 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Rick Subject: gratuitous yiddish expression Message: Rick, I get your point about cultivating indifference and all that but it's pretty obvious to me that m did indeed encourage us to hate and fear our minds. Now, naturally, that's an absolutely impossible mentality to maintain for any length of time. m tried to get around that by talking about the good 'brain' as opposed to the bad 'mind'. But that distinction, as we know, was both impossible to understand and sheer hogwash to begin with. Just look at how m talked about the mind. Them's hating words, Rick. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:38:22 (EST)
From: Rick Email: None To: Jim Subject: gratuitous yiddish expression Message: Now, naturally, that's an absolutely impossible mentality to maintain for any length of time. Jim, So then, the significance and result of m's rantings was that we tried to abandon the mind. Although we couldn't make our thoughts, opinions and feelings go away, we could deny them any expression. That was the upshot of his demands on us. And we did maintain this for impressive amounts of time, and that was a sin. Although m incited hatred of the mind, his goal was that we would think and feel nothing. If m had managed to get us to do this by softly suggesting it, it would have been no less a sin. Rick Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 23:58:06 (EST)
From: casey Email: None To: Rick Subject: Rick hits a homer (nt) Message: DaNG Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 22:45:59 (EST)
From: Victoria Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Premie Joke about Mind Message: Reminds me of a joke we used to tell back in Denver in 1977. At the time, I never understood why it went over so well with the premies, but when we told it to friends, family, coworkers (non-premies) they didn't 'get it.' There was a clairvoyant and a premie. The clairvoyant was bragging about how he could read minds. The premie said, so why would you want to go picking through somebody else's garbage? I actually re-told this joke and I'm embarassed to say it. When they didn't get it, I just figured they were in their minds! Right. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 03:22:37 (EST)
From: Bruce Email: None To: gerry, Helen,Jim Subject: No Hate, No Fear Message: gerry and all Actually, people who surf, and I am one, like rips because they enable you to get out past the waves. No fear and loathing for those who know. but healthy respect just the same The mind is the same. Stay away until you are strong and know what you are doing. That was what M was warning about, but NO WAY was he saying to either Hate or FEAR the mind. I know 'cause I was there since the early 70's. Here is a quote from M. 'Thinking is God's Gift to us. What we think about is our Gift to ourselves' Hardly saying not ot think is it? bruce Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:05:45 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Bruce Subject: No Hate, No Fear Message: Bruce: YOU ARE WRONG! The quotes that Jim gave are written proof that he wanted us to fear and hate the mind. The fact that you can find conficting quotes is PROOF of OUR POINT! M changes his mind more often that you change your underwear! BTW, I've been around since then, too..... it doesn't prove a thing nor does it make YOUR points any more valid! EGO! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 22:37:24 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Bruce Subject: No Fear Message: I also have done some surfing. And I never took M as saying to hate the mind or perceive it as evil. Many have said that doubt is an impediment to success and evil thoughts can bring self-destruction. A mind which serves the inspiration of love can manifest great works in this world. Maybe its the surfing! Never go in a riptide without a board or fins. Have respect for the sea and our life. CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:54:20 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: gerry Subject: I hate riptides Message: gerry: If a rip killed a dive buddy, YEP, I would hate it alright! Bruce never answers to logic, just rationalization! M talked, quite clearly, about KILLING the mind! If KILLING isn't equal to HATE, then his lexicon/dictionary comes from a different planet. My view is that Bruce is actually losing it! He is grasping at straws (REGULARLY) and that indicates a loss of faith. Not long now, Brucey, and you will be won over to the dark-side, Bwah ha ha! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 18:14:17 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Jim's hate obsession Message: I don't recall is Maharaji ever used the word 'hate' in connection with your own mind, but he certainly gave countless warnings that the mind caused all your problems and was NOT your friend (I remember him specifically saying that.) I also remember in 1980 when that Star Wars movie, The Empire Strikes Back, came out, Maharaji said that the death star killing machine that the Empire used in the movie to destroy entire planets was 'THE MIND.' So, he certainly characterized youre mind as evil, as not being your friend, and something you were never to listen to. So, that pretty much says it. If you believed Maharaji, how could you NOT hate your mind? It was, and is, a very sick, stunted, belief system Maharaji teaches. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 22:14:17 (EST)
From: dv Email: None To: JW Subject: Jim's hate obsession Message: Remember The Tube? M said that the mind was going to get sooo strong, that we would have a good chance of getting stuck to the side for good. But if we got through the other end, we would be free from mind forever. What a mindfuck! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:27:53 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir David Subject: His thorny crown Message: It reminds me of the priest in the book Angela's Ashes who told the boys at the Catholic school 'everytime you think sinful thoughts and play with yourself, the thorny crown on Jesus' head sticks further into his scalp and the nails are driven into his hands ' or something to that effect. Can you imagine? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:06:38 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Helen Subject: Jim's hate obsession Message: >Back in the 70's at least M made a religion out of warning us about the mind. Were you into it back then? Mind was evil, M was good, it really was set up that way and constantly reinforced. I was around. You've got your own version I see. Remember the analogy of the mind and a bucking bronco that needed a bit of taming so the rider (you) could enjoy the ride. Evil and hate were not a part of the story. CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:29:12 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: CD Subject: What do you do with CD? Message: I was around. You've got your own version I see. Remember the analogy of the mind and a bucking bronco that needed a bit of taming so the rider (you) could enjoy the ride. Evil and hate were not a part of the story. So what do I do with this? Thi sis the same guy yesterday that scoffed at logic. Now he's trying to use it to jab at me. Do I fight back only to see him drop his weapon and say he doesn't play this game? Anyway, Chris, you know the answer here. m said a lot of things and, because he was entirely full of shit about all of it, these things were oftne inconsistent. I wouldn't be surprised if you could even find a quote where he says we should LOVE the mind ( in a manner of speaking, of course). So, if you're here to discuss, let's do it. I admit the quote above would NOT instill hatred of the mind. There you go, I'm admittign tha not everything m said about the mind was so intended. But it's your turn now. Do you admit that SOME of what he said WAS meant to incite fear or hatred of the mind? Play fair, Chris. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:57:23 (EST)
From: ham Email: None To: Jim Subject: What do you do with CD? Pray? Message: 'Do you admit that SOME of what he said WAS meant to incite fear or hatred of the mind?'.....or could have been reasonably expected to do so when repeated over and over and over& over & over.......again, from the supposed master, the one person with the supposed key to it all Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 18:44:08 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Jim Subject: Okay, how about shp? Message: >I just can't wait to see a premie try to argue that m didn't get us to hate AND fear our minds. He didn't get me to hate and fear my mind. Certainly some housekeeping was in order. The source of inspiration is not to be found in logic. Logic is a wonderful tool and can also provide the basis for a fine game as you well know. Some people may find the perspective of Napolean Hill educational in these matters. CD My Book List Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 21:48:47 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: CD Subject: That's not the question, Chris Message: He didn't get me to hate and fear my mind. Are you saying m didn't TRY to get you to hate and fear your mind? Give me a break, Chris. And whether or not you ever did feel those ways, I don't take for granted that you'd either tell us straight or maybe even remember the fact accurately yourself, you've done so much to avoid thinking honestly about m. But tell me, how can you read those quotes and even THINK of denying their import? Certainly some housekeeping was in order. What's this supposed to mean? The source of inspiration is not to be found in logic. Logic is a wonderful tool and can also provide the basis for a fine game as you well know. Is this your basic excuse for lying? Lovely. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 22:51:50 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: What's taking so long, op? Message: op, You said early this morning that you were going to reply to my question about m inciting fear and hatred of the mind. What's the hold up? Maybe I'm wrong but my guess is that you're trying to find some way around this. Call me suspicious but my entire history with you and other cult apologists suggests this strongly indeed. Does it ever bother you, op, that you can't simply be loos and honest here? That you've got to carefully, vaguely talk around issues? That you have to make a particular point of trying to be nice, smooth, calm and friendly because that's all you've got to go on here? But that it really never works and that no one here is ever fooled by your dissembling bullshit? Does that get to you at all? Anyway, good luck. I'm sure you can come up with some sort of ridiculous answer. See, what do we have so far in our carnival of clowns, this confederacy of dunces: Shp's Answer 'i had experiences before maharaji that taught me that i had something inside me (as all humans do) that is not working in my long-term best interest....that if god is within, then so is the devil/illusionist/satan (satan means illusionist). maharaji called this thing the 'mind', and in his own way, explained that this 'mind' was to be avoided and not trusted. i can see how his advice could be misunderstood or misinterpreted, such as to not trust the creative processes, the imagination, the intellect etc. i do understand your question, and it's loaded. i believe he tried to get us to seek other inner counsel besides our illusionist within for answers to life's questions, and that other inner counsel is the indwelling presence of the holy name, holy spirit, god, whatever you want to call it. like the word maya (that which can be measured = the finite world = the illusion = that which changes), it is to be wary of, but here we are in the middle of it. that is what i believe his message was. i don't think it was a plot to control us, although there are other things in the stew that may still need to be resolved on this issue.' Bruce's Answer Your quotes prove my point. I said that Maharaji never used the word hate in describing how we should regards the 'mind'. Clearly, he doesn't. If you want to equate warnings about something which potentially can make problems for people as an urge to hate something, then that's your bias and your problem. I live in one of the most beautiful areas of Australia( and therefore the world). On the beach there is a warning about rips and swimming betwen the flags. Getting caught in a rip can be fatal.Does that mean we are being urged to HATE rips? Of course not. No Jim,the Jury's out and you lose. In all those millions of words that M has spoken, only shp can remember one example of the word hate, and that sounded strange coming from M lips he said.' CD's Answer 'He didn't get me to hate and fear my mind. Certainly some housekeeping was in order. The source of inspiration is not to be found in logic. Logic is a wonderful tool and can also provide the basis for a fine game as you well know.' So, op, what will it be from you? A little 'misunderstanding' or maybe some 'misinterpretation'? How about going after the question itself? You know, it is kind of 'loaded', don't you think? Or will you be throwing in a few euphemisms to try to confuse things? Or, perhaps, assail logic itself? After all, if it weren't for logic you'd never have to even deal with such pesky questions. Well, op, what'll it be? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 23:15:57 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: u don't call, u don't write Message: jim, you didn't give me the courtesy or respect of an acknowledgement of my answer to you that you were so hot to get. you are a vain, egocentric, messed up guy, jim. you think you're hot and we're not...well, time for a lawyer joke to bring you back down to earth: q: what's the difference between a lawyer and a carp? a: one is a scum sucking bottomdweller and the other one is a fish i don't think i want to post here anymore, not because i am afraid of m or i can't stand up to the likes of you, but because i don't accept you as my alpha male and it seems that most others here have. i am going through something regarding m in my life and i will get my answers and problems resolved with or without you or this site. you, jim, are a mirror image of some of the folks you tear apart on the other side of the fence, and you are no better than them for your ineptiude in dealing with human beings. good luck getting your life back together. you seem like a pretty strong guy, you'll be ok. but how many others will you trash in your healing process? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 23:39:41 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: bye Message: shp, You can blame me or anyone else all you want but the problem's all yours. You're just not willing to discuss m rationally. Oh sure, you're willing to say all sorts of stuff but a rational discussion's something else. Many here, including myself, are prone to attempt rational discourse with each other without warning. That's hard on someone like you who's simply not up to it. You can call me all the names you want but the real problem, shp, is just that. So best of luck in your travels. Again, I think you'll find Keith a kindred spirit if you're looking for company. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 09:19:11 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: bye Message: gotta maintain your face around here huh? gotta get that last biting word in huh? you are so full of your own pain and hatreds you couldn't help anyone understand anything. heal yourself before you try to heal others. you are doing more harm than good imho Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 00:09:14 (EST)
From: Bobby Email: bobby2@mindspring.com To: shp Subject: to shp Message: I for one would be sorry to see you go shp. You're right of course about the situation of the dominant / alpha male trip and I'm sorry. Lots of people I think support your honest answers but don't speak up. I guess they don't want to get trashed. In a post above, in the 'structures of support' thread, JW posted regarding a 'supportive organization': ....it would encourage input from all members. It would encourage sharing of personal experiences with other members, something that is now discouraged. It would respect and recognize that everyone has a contribution to make, and that everyone's experience is unique. I'd love to see this sort of support agreed upon at this site. Unfortunately, I don't think it is going to happen. Regards and best wishes. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 00:29:51 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Bobby Subject: to Bobby Message: Well Bobby, I'm just curious. What do you think about what I said about rational discussion? You know, the stuff you said you're beyond. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 00:53:22 (EST)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Ship Subject: use the door Message: Don't use Jim as an excuse. Just fucking leave or stop threatening to. You've got enough people being nice to you if that's what you're looking for. Somebody has to tell the premies to fuck off when they start rationalizing all of M's bullshit. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 09:45:51 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Runamok Subject: runamok, jim's security guy Message: you are not here to help anyone but yourself get your rocks off in cyberspace, but instead of sex you and jim and your ilk (as opposed to elk) get off trashing people who are not in your little clique. go ahead and keep your nose up jim's butt, maybe you'll see some light. i'm not looking for nice...i'm looking for civility, common decency at the least. and you, jim & co. don't deal that way if your communication skills are challenged or if it is taking too long (for your taste) for someone to 'get' your message you nuke whoever is in front of you. i do not subscribe to your methods. once again, the particular problem here now with us has nothing to do with maharaji or who believes what about him...it's about how you, jim, and others in your little 'club' terrorize to rule. anyone with any sight at all could tell i am and have been sincere about why i show up. you are so full or your own shit you are not equipped to counsel others. as i told jim earlier, heal yourself first. you guys can do as much damage or more to folks than you accuse maharaji of by your attitudes. your name suits you. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:17:13 (EST)
From: Runamok Email: None To: shp Subject: runamok, jim's security guy Message: I don't think so, big man. You post far more flaming and inflamatory posts than I do, that is for sure. Actually, I haven't felt a need to argue or criticize anyone EXCEPT you for months, unless you count Jim with whom I have been debating continuously in the weeks since you had been gone (but that debate has at least some intellect at work). I said a simple thing. LEAVE or stay, but please don't THREATEN to leave. It's childish. If you are addressing me when you threaten to leave, my response is, PLEASE DO! Some people like you around here, and others tolerate you. I don't like you but I am honesly glad if you get something out of it. You don't have to believe me, but I do. I doubt you will ever get what you want here but I'm really not trying to stop you. Believe me, if I was, I would post negatively toward you a lot more than I do. If you check it out, I haven't been consistently against you but I have come to feel that way- and that's why I don't post to you much. I'm not really as big on negativity as you think. You can get some attention here but I dont think thats what you want. All the attention in the world isn't going to straighten out the mess the Gooma leaves you with. Again, read the archives before you claim to know what is going on. Hey Jim, I'm your bodyguard! Yeah right. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 08:41:37 (EST)
From: Bobby Email: None To: Jim Subject: taking a body just for Jim Message: Out of my infinite mercy, I've decided to grant audience with you, but only for a minute. I've gotta run. So go ahead, get your Dawkins signature. Settle for iron-clad reason instead of lead-clad. Spend your lifetimes muddled in the lesser realms. You've been ordained and sanctified by evolution. The survival of the fittest. The bestest and brightest. The star of humanity. We don't need no steenking God. It's hard to really talk to with Jim. In your heart you know I'm right. Your almost absolute qualities obscure your vision. God made Jim almost right about everything, but God made Bobby absolutely right. No question about it, it's perfection or nothing. I'm beyond it all. Open up your heart to the universe of love And he will fill you up. The Lord of the Universe has come to us this day. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:06:07 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: now terrorize bobby with... Message: your big fat ego because he isn't holding your hard line. yeah, suck him into one of those little intellectual alleys that you lurk in, talk nice and sweeet, weave your lawyerly arguments around him and then assault him with one of your jim-isms. you may not realize it, but you are an energy vampire, sucking the life out of many people here, premies and ex-premies, and using this site like a teenager uses a playboy magazine, for your own self-gratification. I SEE YOU. and my mistakes at posting quotes, etc don't hold a candle to the energy crimes you commit regularly. so keep your own doorstep clean, counselor. 'well, bobby, i'm just curious'....yeah right, you jerk. you are about as curious as a boa constrictor who is slowly circling a little creature just slow enough so as not to reveal yourself to them unitl it's too late. yeah, you are going to whip bobby into shape, get him in line, teach him to think like you, if you had your way. i knew your type before i ever heard of maharaji, you sorry son of a gun. you know how many times i've observed you hassling ex-premies because they don't think like you? this isn't about maharaji, it's about you using maharaji as a cover to play all of your trips. this isn't namecalling, jimbo, it's information that would cost you thousands of dollars of therapy to obtain, and i gave it to you free. perhaps the reason you detest maharaji so much is that you do some of the same things he does to people. (that's a button and you know it and i just pushed it so deal with it). it's alot easier to have compassion when you are free of the trips you are critical of. you can get humble right now, or you can sip a little peyote tea and get straightened out or you can pray or seek professional help but you need something to get you right with relating to others. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:00:01 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim, are you typing with one Message: hand on your joy stick again? At least turn off your damn C-U C-me cam. sheep: and using this site like a teenager uses a playboy magazine, for your own self-gratification. I SEE YOU. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 09:33:01 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Bobby Subject: to shp Message: hey bobby, i thought i could get some answers here i got lots of documentrary stuff and a few mensches (decent folks) like you have communicated with heart even though we have our differences but this rip-and-tear thing jim's got going behind his animosity towards maharaji is making coming here about as distasteful as trying to translate the premie-speak into down-to-earth reality on elk i'm getting fed up with both sides of this drama quite honestly and it's a big world out there with love (and challenges) awaiting at every turn and that's what i feel i was born to experience so thanks, bobby maybe i'll still come around because i still have questions but i want to ignore jim if that's possible since he is such a good baiter (not debater, he just thinks so and has some here snowed that he's hot stuff) i see through his trip and it seems you do too this ain't about maharaji here it's about me, you and jim don't let anyobdy cop your head because it's all the same kissing m's feet or jim's ass what a choice! i seek an alternative that demeans no one and helps all who seek help. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 01:56:54 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: shp Subject: u don't call, u don't write Message: Hi shp - You wrote: i don't think i want to post here anymore, not because i am afraid of m or i can't stand up to the likes of you, but because i don't accept you as my alpha male and it seems that most others here have. i am going through something regarding m in my life and i will get my answers and problems resolved with or without you or this site. I had a few comments to make to this response. First, I don't think that most others on this site have accepted Jim as the 'alpha male' (I haven't) although I do think a lot of people have accepted Jim as a person. His hard question/rational answer method works for some people, not for others. If it doesn't work for you, than my advice (which you can take or leave) is don't get into it with him. You don't have to answer Jim's posts in order to post on this site. There are a lot of other people to talk to here, and there are usually many conversations going on simultaneously. I know some people have a hard time avoiding the temptation of tangling with Jim, but I don't think anyone here will think less of you for not answering his posts, or just saying you don't want to discuss things with him. Take care, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:13:08 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Katie Subject: u don't call, u don't write Message: what's the difference between an alleged bully who calls himself a master and a bully who denounces that master and runs roughshod around on this site? jim is not just 'hard question/answer' i can handle that. he is rude, crude ugly and impolite. that is not conducive to communication. i didn't come here to get mugged. you let him get away with shit you accuse maharaji of doing. LOOK AT IT. BULLIES AIN'T COOL. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:57:11 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: shp Subject: u don't call, u don't write Message: Dear shp - You wrote: what's the difference between an alleged bully who calls himself a master and a bully who denounces that master and runs roughshod around on this site? Well, for one thing, Jim is a guy in Canada who is typing things into his computer that appear on this site. Maharaji is a guy who had a lot of followers who listen to and take to heart everything that he says. It's a one-way flow and Maharaji is the leader. Jim is not the leader of this forum, nor does he run it. He is the same as everyone on this site and you can choose whether to listen to him and take his words to heart, or you can not. You can talk back to him, or you can not. I know one person that doesn't even read Jim's posts, ever. Which brings me to the second part of your post: jim is not just 'hard question/answer' i can handle that. he is rude, crude ugly and impolite. that is not conducive to communication. i didn't come here to get mugged. LOOK AT IT. BULLIES AIN'T COOL. I know that Jim can be rude and impolite at time - that is his style. I'd have to say that some people actually seem to enjoy getting in arguments with him. And as far as you let him get away with shit you accuse maharaji of doing, I hope this wasn't addressed to me personally. Neither Brian or I is going to block Jim unless he makes threats. At one point, I and others set up a flame-free forum for people who wanted to be able to talk freely, but no one used it. What else can we do? My suggestion to you, and anyone else who is annoyed with Jim is DON'T RESPOND TO HIM. It takes two people to make someone a bully. Look, I was just trying to suggest something to you that has worked for other people on here. It was meant kindly. I'm sorry that you didn't take it that way. Take care, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:37:49 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: Katie Subject: Right on, Katie Message: Katie: Actually, I think that shp and a few others who 'say' they can't communicate with ANYONE/EVERYONE/SOMEONE on this forum are just looking for a easy way out of their mental dilemma and blaming Jim is a popular pastime. In reality, they appear to be very uncomfortable with anything that requires 'thinking' as opposed to things that come from the 'heart.' This quote shows up time and again, just since I've been here. If ANYONE thinks that Jim doesn't have or speak with a great deal of 'heart,' then they don't know what passion is and, therefore, don't have any idea what 'heart' is! TO shp, et al: Jim is very plain spoken and, due to this, sometimes grates on the nerves of people that require pablum mixed in with the meat! This is a written medium and brevity is a good idea, whenever possible. The way that Jim expresses his opinions is HIS way. The way the I do it is MY way. They don't have to coincide, nor do they have to agree. All they need to do is COEXIST on this forum. Do you guys think that EVERYONE wants to beat around the bush, just to speak with you? If you want to communicate with Jim, then you must deal with HIS way of communicating. BTW, under NO circumstances do I relate to Jim as the alpha male. In fact, if you bothered to read the posts below (off-topic) you will note that Jim and I disagree on a number of points. You will note that he never gets 'short' with me, nor does he call me names.... WHY? Because I agree with him? No, that can't be it, because the whole topic is a disagreement. So why does he speak with me differently? Because I speak plainly, honestly and as CLEARLY as I can. I gathered, within my first couple of days on this forum, that THAT is how he communicates. So why is it taking you guys (shp, bruce, op, cd, etc) SO LONG to figure it out? Stop waxing poetic, stop answering questions with questions, and speak PLAINLY/HONESTLY. If you EVADE, you will get hammered... Jeez, is THAT so hard? Oh yeah, one other thing: Expect to have a 'disagreement' if you are pro-M, Duhhhhhhh! Katie: Thanks for letting me 'pounce.' :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:23:41 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: mike, read 'i appreciate' Message: that will sum it up. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:20:22 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Katie Subject: i appreciate... Message: your diplomatic katieness, i really do. but rudeness isn't a 'style', it's the sign of a social deficiency... it's the sign of a spoiled child. you like andrew dice clay too? you call that a style or a lack of style? you give jim too much latitude in the name of righteous indignation against maharaji. when he is actually a spoiled child with a convenient excuse for his nasty and immature behavior. but because of his overdeveloped brain/verbal thing he's got going you miss the simple truth about him. he needs to grow up like the rest of us and treat others the way he wants to be treated. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:49:51 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Get serious, Katie Message: Katie, I'm not surprised this time by your message to shp. How could I be? That's just Katie. But this part here: I don't think anyone here will think less of you for not answering his posts, or just saying you don't want to discuss things with him. this is going a little far, isn't it? Come on, tell me you hoenstly mean it. Tell me you honestly think no one will think any the less of shp for avoiding and ignoring me. You know, YOU might prefer that reaction but sometimes, Katie, even THIS is the real world. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:56:49 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: I AM serious, Jim Message: I do honestly mean it, Jim. (Although maybe it's a guy thing, and I just don't understand.) I honestly don't see why he (or anyone, for that matter) should feel the need to answer your posts. You and he just don't communicate, and when the two of you attempt to have a conversation, the whole thing tends to move quickly into insults and name calling. What's the point? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:20:22 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: That's not what I mean Message: Katie, I'ts not YOUR opinion I'm questioning. Rather, it's your statment that no one will think any the less of shp for avoiding me. Some will, whether you agree or not. That was all I was saying. And really? You don't know what the point is? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:37:59 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's not what I mean Message: Jim - I take it that you're saying that I was overgeneralizing. Maybe I was, and some people WILL think less of shp for not answering you. Some people will think more of him, including me. And, really, I don't know what either of you is trying to achieve by criticizing the other person in these long argument threads. I don't see any real communication going on. Tell me what YOU think the point is. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:11:19 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: That's not what I mean Message: I take it that you're saying that I was overgeneralizing. Maybe I was, and some people WILL think less of shp for not answering you. Some people will think more of him, including me. Yes, that's what I meant. Your last sentence surprises me. Why will you think more of shp for avoiding me? And, really, I don't know what either of you is trying to achieve by criticizing the other person in these long argument threads. I don't see any real communication going on. How do you define 'real communication'? I feel like I'm communciating quite effectively with shp. Of course he can't admit that he even understands what I'm saying, as simple as it is (a 6 year-old would get it). But I still have no doubt he's understanding me. Am I understanding him? Sure. Is he dealing with matters squarely? Of course not. Is it worth even trying? Yeah, it's fun. Tell me what YOU think the point is. Besides the 'fun' element, the point of the exercise is to force shp to realize the extent of avoidance he's willing to undertake. Remember, he presents himself as 'objective'. At a certain point, I still believe, people realize they're driving the wrong way down a one way street if enough people honk at them. Now am I driving the 'wrong way' here? No. Not enough people honking. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:38:06 (EST)
From: Rick Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's not what I mean Message: Jim, Honk, honk. You really are an obnoxious cuss. I agree with Katie about most of this. I would think more of shp for avoiding you, also, because what you have to say doesn't help him and he doesn't want it. It's his choice to select what he wants to hear. Obviously, I'm not defending what he believes because I think it's nonsense. But you, my friend, ain't going to do him a bit of good. I also know someone who doesn't read any of your posts(but will read anyone elses), and this person is extremely intelligent and really 'right on', all the way down the line. I will give you that you are very intelligent, and you man the fort (or 'person the fort') of rationality with great zeal. No one but you has the energy to keep batting away at the stupid premies. But... and here's the honk, I always have a bad feeling when I follow your posts. I had to ask myself if I'm jealous that I'm not as intelligent, or articulate as you. Or that I can't seem to debate as well as you. Or that I'm not as alpha a male as you, at least in this forum. But then I considered JW, who's also more intelligent, informed, articulate and a better debater than I am, and I don't get those bad feelings when I follow JW's posts. Even though I'm constantly reminded by his posts that he's better than me in a lot of ways, I still enjoy and appreciate reading what he has to say. It makes me feel good. So why not with you, Jim? I think it's because you're obnoxious and use below the belt tactics in debating. I think you're dismissive when it isn't really necessary and doesn't serve you well. Not that you aren't doing a fine job, in light of the fact that there isn't anyone else to do what you do here. But you really are an obnoxious fuck. Rick Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 19:18:10 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Rick Subject: Thanks Rick Message: Okay, that counts as a honk. Thanks very much. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:03:00 (EST)
From: y? Email: None To: Katie & shp Subject: I AM serious, Jim Message: I agree Katie. Everyone has the right to CHOOSE who they communicate with. If someone communicates in an angry or unfriendly manner you can just acknowledge them. You don't have to react to it. If they want to wallow in anger that's up to them you don't have to get involved in it if you don't want to. It's up to you. It could make you feel bad for the rest of the day. Higher-toned communication definately makes us feel better. (when it's real - not saying things are wonderful when they're obviously not). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:33:12 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: y? Subject: I AM serious, Jim Message: Thanks, y? I'm glad you agree with me. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:27:13 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: katie Subject: katie, see what he does? Message: now he's twisting your arm, katie. see? he wants to set the pace and tone of this site. he wants to rule this site. that is what his energy transmits between the lines and that is his problem and yours and whoever tangles with him including me. jim wants to be the lord of this universe. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:49:11 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: shp Subject: katie, see what he does? Message: shp - I've read this post and your 'I appreciate' post above and here's my answer: Jim always twists my arm, as you put it. He's done it for years. Our methods of communicating with other people are very different and we have disagreed a lot. I'm sure we'll continue this in the future. Whatever you think of Jim, I don't think that trying to change him will be productive. IMHO you have to accept Jim the way he is. What you can change is the way you react to him. You said he should treat others as he wants to be treated (not an exact quote, as I don't have that post in front of me right now). There's no way anyone can MAKE Jim do that. The only thing you and I can do is treat others as we want to be treated. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 16:35:19 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Katie Subject: basic human comm, skills Message: katie, what you did not address is the fact that what you called jim's 'style' is actually a lack of discipline and soical grace on his part. why can't you say that out loud? from your posts, i know you agree. and as far and as long as you accepting jim's abusive arm-twistings, then that is how much authority you have given him to do it, just like a spoiled child. but that does not justify it. call a spade a spade, that is all i'm saying. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:57:01 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: see mommy, see? Message: shp: NOW you are looking for approval from Katie and you are using the childish 'see, mommy see' technique to do it. Either that or you think Katie is too stupid to figure something out for herself. Believe me, Katie (and all other ex's here) have a razor sharp ability to see when they are being manipulated.... Remember, we just finished with a master of manipulation! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 14:07:01 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Mike Subject: see mommy, see? Message: Hi Mike - I don't think shp was looking for approval or thinking I was stupid - I just think he was trying to make a point. That said, I have to get to work. P.S. Ain't no one's mama, either :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 14:51:04 (EST)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Katie Subject: see mommy, see? Message: I have to agree. Ship seems very much the attention grabbing/approval seeking type trying to stand on two feet in two boats, a premie and an ex at the same time. Are there exes on premie forums who think they deserve so much attention and respect? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 16:53:24 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Runamok Subject: one boat Message: i live in the same universe you do on the same planet. i breathe the same air and the same sun shines on us both. it's one boat in reality and i know it. we were both human beings with that in commopn before we were premies, expremies, or whatever. i talk to you as human beings, not ex-premies. i don't go through that filter in my dealings with anyone here or anywhere else. you have ex-premie-paranoia and use it as a defense mechanism to avoid civil deep dialog with me. ok, you did the best you could. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 19:32:01 (EST)
From: Runamok Email: None To: shp Subject: one foot in one mouth (yours) Message: Aside from the obviously critical title, I think I have actually posted less critical posts to you than supportive or neutral. I'm not proud of this- I feel you are abusing the forum but it's a free country (world, internet, whatever). I confronted you about how childish threatening to leave us is and you FLAMED back at me - then you recognized it later as correct when Mike or somebody repeated the thought. Don't you owe me on that one, or are you sworn to avenge yourself against my harsh anti-spiritual rhetoric? You actually are extremely argumentative- Face it! Quit blaming everybody else. You are looking for it - you do have a part in creating a volatile argumentative environment. Isn't that new age? Nah. New age would be it's COMPLETELY YOUR RESPONSIBILTY, but I take a more humanist: take some responsibilty. If you are going to hang around I would appreciate it. PS It's really a reasonably friendly post. Please notice this because the next one could go either way and I dont like arguing that much or anything. I'll do it if I feel a need. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:14:05 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Runamok Subject: reply to runamok Message: owe you? ok, no more 'i'm leaving' stuff...but as i said, i wasn't trippin' when i said that, it was just so exasperating coming here and trying to open up and getting constantly graded for my performance like its the olympics or something and getting all the neg vibes since i'm not an official card carrying exer...ok, i'm over it and you had a point. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 16:45:03 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: see mike you jerk see? Message: 'see katie' does not translate to 'see mommy' except in your wingnut brain. it's a spicy little number but doesn't fly. i was pointing something out to katie and you have to stick your twisted two cents in and try to pervert and water down what i was saying. if we were live in the same room i'd just ignore you or tell you to go to your room, but for the sake of the record, i am responding with a post. that's a real problem here....some folks just like to jump on the bandwagon, throw another log on the fire, make the circle on the playground and start chanting 'fight fight' to satisfy your bloodlust. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 16:55:01 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: gimme a break! Message: shp: enjoying yourself? I certainly hope so. For a holier-than-thou kinda guy, you sure come up short! Your lack of insight is only eclipsed by your tremendous display of EGO: Yes, SHP KNOWS ALL ABOUT JIM! AND NOW for your entertainment pleasure, he'll tell you all about MIKE, too! Yes, he's got the complete picture: Mike's a wingnut (and a twisted wingnut, at that)! How insightful! How intuitive! How wise! How perceptive! How clever! HOW BORING! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:01:44 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: wrongfully accused (see movie) Message: i never said nor implied nor do i believe that i am holier than you or anyone else here. if i thought i was, i wouldn't spend so much time reading what is said here and trying to connect with ya. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:38:17 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: I don't watch movies, much Message: shp: You mean that you didn't say I'm a 'wingnut?' That certainly seems to imply that you think you are better-than-I (or holier-than-thou).... It also seems to me to be a rather insulting way of saying that my opinions and thoughts are useless. So how am I to infer that you value ANYTHING that I have to say? Kind of invalidates your last sentence, doesn't it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:16:57 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: reply to mike Message: calling you a wingnut was not a slur on your geneology, it was just an expression....if it offended you, i take it back and give your my profuse apologies. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:01:17 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: calling a spade a spade Message: shp, You've got me rolling in stitches. Actually, my girlfriend and I get a good kick out of you. And yes, shp, you are EXACTLY like Keith. No difference that I can see, not when it comes to being able to think clearly. Anyway, I don't have much more to add but please, this is fun. Go ahead, say something. Tell me, for starters, how, when I quoted your silly answer about m targetting to mind, I 'twisted' your words. Go ahead, I'm listening. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:21:59 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: you and your girlfirend.... Message: need to get out more often if i'm your recreation. have your tried the twister game? how appropriate and ironic a suggestion. you might even get lucky. regarding the mind thing: yeah, every other sentence out of premies' mouths all across this great land of ours was 'you're in your mind' for years. i saw many get caught up in it. i was fortunate in that i had my own insights as to what it meant and went with my gut. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:47:56 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: shp Subject: shippy Message: what do you think about the universal panacea post in the structures thread? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 19:18:58 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: bill Subject: bill, i read universal panacea Message: and it's your point of view. i dunno, i don't feel the need to do a critique on everything lately, ya know? that's your opinion, and that's fine with me. i just think that utopian societies had been attempted many times and have not lasted long, but made impressions for future generations that the possibility exists. with people with the right attitudes, i think eden is possible. but people are ya know full of shit from time to time, even the cool ones, so problems in need of solutions are a built in given. i think that's why jesus spent so much time laying it down how people should get along and work out their differences, so they could get along. if everybody followed his simple rules of getting along as written in the red letters in one of thsoe chapters (see fr mick), there would be peace on earth. this time around the messiah is supposed to make it so the lion and the lamb (personality types?) can hang together and all the critters can use the same water hole (knowledge?). beats the hell out of me, figuratively speaking. i just really believe that it's (peace and order among human beings) possible if everybody tried at the same time.... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 03:08:59 (EST)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: shp Subject: Alpha-bits Message: You wrote: you didn't give me the courtesy or respect of an acknowledgement of my answer to you that you were so hot to get. you are a vain, egocentric, messed up guy, jim. and this: i don't think i want to post here anymore, not because i am afraid of m or i can't stand up to the likes of you, but because i don't accept you as my alpha male and it seems that most others here have. SHP, you're one of the few people who DOES recognize Jim as some sort of alpha male figure on this forum. You court his recognition and respect, and express anger and hurt when you don't get it. That's a scene I've watched play out many times here with people who want to establish 'position' in the pack, and derive their self-worth from the recognition and respect of others rather than from their own set of values. Exactly why would you want it? Are you really so willing to jump from looking up to one person to finding another that you can look up to? Nobody can post views here without risking them being challenged. You either speak your mind or remain silent in life. The question isn't whether you'll stay or go, it's whether you'll remain as you are or grow into an independant person who lives by your own values. The only people who recognize others as being 'alpha' are those who view themselves as 'beta'. Quit looking outside yourself for a hero, and become one. You don't have to stand up TO anyone, only FOR your self. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 05:04:05 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: Brian Subject: Alpha-bits Message: Great post Brian. So true. Thank you Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:18:50 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Brian Subject: Alpha-bits Message: nice try at rationalizing me. keep practicing your technique and someday you too can be like jim. i am my own person. been so awhile. came here to see and got given a pile. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:47:27 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: Waxing poetic, again! Message: shp: What Brian said cuts so clearly that you have to defend yourself. And how do you do it? By waxing poetic, AGAIN! Whenever your dearly-beloved belief system is truely threatened, wax poetic.... Whenever someone asks you a tough question, answer it with a question... Yeah, that's the ticket: BLAME JIM for your inability.... EVERYONE will be on your side, right? EVERYONE just hates Jim, right? WRONG on both counts! Here's a hint: Don't use Jim as an excuse for turning your tail to run away... Admit that you are running; that's the first step! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:32:18 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: not hating not running Message: 1. i don't hate anybody. 2. i'm not into praise or blame. 3. i'm not running away. leaving is not running away, and your using that trip is typical hgih school peer pressure tactics. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:52:19 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: not hating not running Message: shp: It isn't peer-pressure.... In case you haven't noticed, YOU aren't my peer! You and I are as different as night and day. So how is it that you think we are peers (such that anything I could say would be viewed as 'pressure')? See, shp? You want approval, again. You say you aren't into praise/blame, but I submit that you are BLAMING JIM for your disappearing act. Then WE are supposed to feel sorry for you. This is called 'divide and conquer,' a typical high-school schoolboy/girl prank! See, I can personally insult you, too! If you insist that your stab wasn't personal, read what you wrote again..... Then tell me how innocent you are and how misunderstood you are, etc, etc. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 16:57:30 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: not hating not running Message: by peer i meant an equal not superior or inferior to the other. it's hadn't occurred to me to try to divide and conquer anything. seems that jim does a pretty good job of that on his own. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:18:42 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: nope! Message: shp: The only person leaving (or said to, anyway) is YOU! If you want to leave, shp, that's your choice. You can use any excuse you want, but it is still YOU that is making the decision. There are some good reasons to leave, but 'any single personality on this forum' isn't a good reason. You made a couple of HUGE assumptions that were dead wrong. The main one was that ANYONE here is an alpha-anything! The people here enjoy exercising that which they were taught to hate....their collective minds! If you want to exercise yours, you are welcome at the table, so to speak. If you want to obfuscate, then you will be met with alot of resistance (of various types - Jim's being one type). Let me give an example (take it or leave it): - You often say something the effect of, 'I'm sorting things out.' The first couple of times it was ok, even though it appeared that this was the way you would end an uncomfortable discussion. Now, it REALLY appears that this is your attempt at a 'politically correct' way of saying, 'I don't want to talk about it.' Am I right? If not, then tell me 'EXACTLY WHAT' are you sorting. Please don't say, 'My life' because 'lives' don't sort; concepts do, thoughts do, keypunch cards do, but 'lives' don't! Asking us questions and expecting REAL answers, then giving us meaningless, foundationless drivel in response to our questions is called: RUDE! There have been times when you've answered quite clearly.... But there have been other times when your answers were not (like when you wax poetic). There is a REAL CURE for this, shp: If you don't KNOW an answer or can't seem to formulate an appropriate response, say the following, 'I don't know.' It works wonders! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:27:46 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: the straw that breaks... Message: and i don't mean a strawman either..... there is really only one core question that i have to deal with: is he or ain't he? i am collecting, accumulating rather than sorting, to be more accurate. i am collecting stories, information, pure feeling from between the lines on the posts and vibes of the exers. i feel something, somepart of what is being said here is real and lots is just air...but the kernel of real feelings i feel from here has compelled me to remain awhile longer... no more threats to leave, you are right about that. it was out of exasperation not trippin'. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:49:19 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: OK then!!!! Message: shp: GOOD (not leaving, that is)! By the way, your answer was clear (IMHO). Like Katie said, if you've got a problem with the way someone communicates, then let them know (each time). If they don't take the hint, then you should probably not talk with them for a bit. But, like I said, you've got to be careful with the latter because you might miss something really good (despite the foul language, insults or whatever). BTW, he ain't! (IMHO) :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:21:53 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Brian Subject: Alpha-bits Message: clarification: not looking for anyone outside myself to 'look up to' ....just looking for information, as i have said from the start. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:00:20 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: shp Subject: Alpha-bits Message: shp: You are wrong.... You ARE trying to find someone to 'look up to.' The proof: Brain said it; you are looking for Jim's approval! It's abvious as heck, man, pick up on it! I disagree with Jim (and JW, too) ALOT when it comes to politics. If you've actually read those posts, you will see that I often take a VERY unpopular (on this forum) stance. They don't intimidate me nor do I run away from their questions. So, why do you? If Jim decided to 'cuss' at me, I would assume that he is VERY passionate about the subject.... SOOOO????? Don't you get it? Saying that you are 'here to gather information' is not likely to be true, either. I think that you are here to try to punch holes in the ex's arguments, so that you can feel more secure with M. BUT, once you got here, you found that the arguments didn't have any REAL holes in them; making you VERY uncomfortable in the process. NOW, you use Jim as an excuse to stop your thought process and to continue down the fraudulent-way. Well, good luck shp. I've NEVER found that lying to oneself is a good thing. In fact, those that lie to themselves, must really HATE themselves (IMHO). So all of that love-myself talk is a lie, too, isn't it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:37:33 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Mike Subject: Alpha-bits Message: 1.looking for an equitable relationship in a dialog with an alleged adult and being met with immature behavior and being disappointed is not the same as looking for someone to look up to. 2.there's a difference between verbal recklessness and passion. 3. i don't hide behind anybody to make excuses for my actions. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 06:30:44 (EST)
From: op Email: None To: Jim Subject: What's taking so long, op? Message: Patience is a virtue, Jim. Or so they say. Actually, considering how you chopped up the answers of the three other members of your 'premie panel', you should understand that I would be a bit reluctant to shoot a ball at your hoop. And, actually, I decided to do some research, and see what M really said - old days and new days - on the subject. A quickie response is simply this: I agree that the use of the word 'mind' created havoc for a long time. I don't think (personal opinion) that M ever meant that part of ourselves that defines the rational daily doer, the creative imagination, etc. I always took it to mean the part of us that (among other things) obsessively holds on to a desire, demands constant adulation from our peers and, if possible, the rest of the world, and insists on dissecting every experience - an analogy I've often used before, I know, but anyhow - such that we lose the full impact of the experience and are left with a bunch of disconnected pieces (a flower, torn apart, can no longer become a fruit). M has changed the terminology he uses, and what he is talking about is much more obvious these days. Since I didn't get to do my research and seek out some quotes (no, I DON'T just sit at my PC waiting for the next remark on the forum; I have a pretty full life), I won't give anything specific here. And by forcing my hand on this, you may just have missed out on the quotes I would have sought out. btw - off topic to Helen: I find your posts intriguing, witty, entertaining, and clever. I remember someone suggesting to someone else that they should be a writer - was that to you? If not, then I'll suggest it - you have some major talent for communication and creativity. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 11:40:28 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: op Subject: Typical bullshit, op Message: First, bitch, I made a point of NOT cutting anything substantive out of eith shp's, Cd's or Bruce's answer. I absolutely defy you to find a single part of their answer's that I left out that even SLIGHTLY affects their 'messages'. Go ahead. Show me a single phrase I left out that makes a difference. I only omitted irrelevant references to me, if you must know. So go fuck yourself on that one. Second, so you've chosen the 'misunderstanding' or 'misinterpretation' route, huh? How surprising! Now do you admit that one of the main things m warned us about the mind was that it was so tricky that we could NEVER figure out what part of our thinking to trust? That's a key point here, op. He trained us to be absoltuely spooked by the ephemeral, evil mind and now you're saying that it was as simple as pie to detect. Give me a fucking break, loser. Third, your admonition that by forcing your hand I've missed out on all your lovely clarifying evidence is one of the funniest thnigs you've said in a long time. Hey, look, if it'll make you feel any better, take your time. Show us the quotes where m not only said to disregard all the other quotes we've looked at (but which you're afraid to comment on specifically) but also where he emphasized it was time to call off the dogs of war. Fourth, Helen won't protect you. Nice try. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:42:40 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: jim manifests the mind... Message: that maharaji warns us about. forget beliefs, positions, etc. the mind will use whatever it has to in order to suboridnate the human beings. power and control without love....that drop of black paint in the gallon of white paint....you've got most of your ducks in a row and that snows many, but the ones that are missing make all the difference. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:23:39 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: shp Subject: jim is a human being! Message: dear shp, I don't think Jim is the 'manifestation of the mind', the anti-christ, the leader of the ex-premie cult, or whatever else people have said about him. With all due respect, I think you are assigning Jim way too much importance. He is just a guy who posts on the forum! Some people like his posts and have been helped by them, some do not. He is a human being just like everyone else who posts on here. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:11:59 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Katie Subject: jim is a human being with... Message: a need to learn some manners. he needs to learn that all of his vast knowledge and experience is not worth poopy if he can't transmit it in a palatable way to those he is trying to reach. at this point in his life, he is the personification of a grownup who has pushed his way through life and has not been busted for pushing yet because maybe nobody gave a damn. well, the buck stopped here when he started pushing me. i had two options: take it or don't take it. i excercised myoption to not take it. if you accept jim's verbal arm twisting as a legitimate method of communicating with you, then that's your business. but i find that just as much as an assault and battery on you as if he twisted one of your physical arms. and that is what i meant when i said that he's a manifestation of the mind, which is like an undisciplined big overgrown child. that is it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:14:21 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: shp Subject: jim is a human being with... Message: Dear shp - You wrote - regarding Jim: he is the personification of a grownup who has pushed his way through life and has not been busted for pushing yet because maybe nobody gave a damn. well, the buck stopped here when he started pushing me. i had two options: take it or don't take it. i excercised myoption to not take it. if you accept jim's verbal arm twisting as a legitimate method of communicating with you, then that's your business. but i find that just as much as an assault and battery on you as if he twisted one of your physical arms. and that is what i meant when i said that he's a manifestation of the mind, which is like an undisciplined big overgrown child. that is it. Let me make a few comments on what you said: First, if you think no one else here has ever criticized Jim, you are wrong. Jim's come in for a lot of criticism from both premies and exes. Moreover, if you think he's never been 'busted' in life, I would bet that you are wrong. He lived in the ashram for a lot of years - can you imagine how that was for him? Next, I view Jim's and my arm-twisting as mutual. I may act nice on the forum, but I'm pretty ornery in real life, if you push me. I don't consider Jim's arguments with me abuse. I probably get on his nerves just as much as he gets on mine. Furthermore, I have also communicated with him via e-mail, and I even talked to him on the phone once, and I don't think he's a bad person - in fact, I like Jim (most of the time :). I don't agree with or follow his approach on the forum, and vice versa. That doesn't mean that I think he's inhuman or immature (and I don't think he thinks that about me either). I also respect Jim for putting both posts agains Maharaji AND his name and address on the forum for all to see - this has helped a lot of people. Finally (and this is because I read your posts to Mike and others) I URGE you to NOT take it. Not by striking back at Jim (to me this is a continuation of 'taking it'), but just by communicating with who you want to communicate with. E-mail people if you want to talk in a less public forum - do whatever you need to do. There's plenty of other people on the forum who are willing and able to communicate with you. I honestly respect where you are coming from - all of us exes have been there, and it is not easy. Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:25:58 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: jim is a human being with... Message: I honestly respect where you are coming from What do you 'respect' about shp here, Katie? Maybe it's just me but I get a little frustrated with the way that word gets bandied about all over the place. Do you mean you 'empathize' with shp? Your next phrase ('all of us exes have been there, and it is not easy') suggests that. So is 'empathy', or even 'sympathy', interchangeable with 'respect' these days? Too bad, it used to be a good word. Used to mean something, you know? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:38:33 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: jim is a human being with... Message: Dear Jim - When I said I 'respected' where SHP was coming from, I meant I remembered when I was feeling that way. I don't think the word 'respect' is out of line here. As I said, it wasn't easy for me, and I doubt that it's easy for SHP. I was fortunate in that I had the company and support of other people who were also feeling that way, and who didn't push me one way or another. For me, the turning from thinking Maharaji was The Perfect Master to NOT thinking that came really fast. It still was really difficult to deal with. If I hadn't had other ex-premies around me, I don't know what would have happened, honestly. It was still really hard for all of us. Didn't you ever feel that way? One foot in one place, and one in another? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 19:17:17 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: respect Message: When I said I 'respected' where SHP was coming from, I meant I remembered when I was feeling that way. I don't think the word 'respect' is out of line here. Oxford: 'respect: 1) regard with deference, esteem or honour; 2) avoid iterfering with, harming, degrading, insulting, injuring or interrupting; 3) treat with consideration; 4) refrain from offending, corrupting or tempting (a person, a person's feelings, etc.)' That's the definition for the word as a verb. I was only thinking of the first meaning but I can see that you're quite right by the others. Too bad the word's slid into this ambiguity. I mean it's now quite possible to confuse all sorts of people with it. Anyway, your point. One can 'respect' someone out of simple pity alone. One can avoid pissing off the crack dealer on the corner for fear of reprisal and that would be an exercise in 'respect' too. Too bad. And Katie, yes I've felt confused about m and like I had a foot in both places. So? I still have to believe that I wouldn't have lied like this little sniveller. And before you tell me you think he isn't lying ask yourself this. Pretend shp's given sodium pentathol (truth serum) and shown those quotes. If he were then asked if m tried to incite fear or hatred against the mind do you think for a second you'd get the kind of nonsense he's offered here? I don't. I'm sure he'd say, 'yes'. In that case, assuming for a sec that he'd offer a simple 'yes' what does that say about his answer today? Is it honest? PLEASE don't tell me it's 'as honest as he's capable of being right now'. I'm just asking if that would be honest, is all. Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe shp -- or CD, or op, or Bruce -- really, honestly believe those words were never intended to, and in fact never DID incite, fear or hatred of the mind. The problem with that theory is that you then have to explain how all the rest of us, who jsut happen to have left, could be so terribly mistaken. AND you've got to explain how none of m's words can carry their normal meanings (you know, how 'kill' doesn't mean kill, 'snake' doesn't mean snake, etc,, etc.) That's a big exercise if you're into it. Personally, I tihnk it's both futile and a very insulting gesture to all of us who say that we heard m incite fear and hatred of the mind many times over. It's insulting our intelligence just to leave a little room for premies' avoidance. Is that fair? Some things were clearcut. There were some things about being a premie, like about anything, that were simple, core facts. Like, for example, that m was the Lord and that he asked us to surrender our lives to him. Yet the premies' can't even acknowledge THESE facts. Remember that stupid, stupid shit we went through with Bruce, Another and PT over the meaning of all those quotes? Now is this really any different? Who can read those quotes about the mind and doubt for a second what m was trying to do? Katie, it's as obvious as one and one being two. And just because some captive minds want a little room for compromise, doesn't mean they deserve it. You can 'respect' them all you want. I'm trying to respect the truth myself. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 20:42:14 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: respect Message: Dear Jim - FYI, here's my definition of respect: 3) treat with consideration. Jim, you know I agree with you about Maharaji. But I do feel like we need to let people have their say about what THEY have experienced without calling them names, or saying that they're lying. Sometimes that approach works, but many times it provokes an equal and opposite reaction. I'm genuinely interested in what makes premies believe what they do. Several very intelligent and perceptive premies have posted on this site, and I want to know WHY they believe that Maharaji is who he says he is. About Maharaji's quote's: he is AMBIGUOUS. And yes, I do believe that people can interpret what he says in different ways. As far as shp and others, I believe they are telling the truth as they see it. I know that you don't want me to say that, but what else can they do? We don't give over-the-internet injections of sodium pentathol here. And I honestly don't think it's an insult to our intelligence. You wrote: I'm trying to respect the truth myself. I know that, Jim (and I respect you for it :). I just don't think that your way of doing it is always effective. It works for some people, not for others. I really appreciate the fact that you've made a very public stand here, without fear of retribution. I know that's helped a lot of people. But I also believe that other people who aren't responsive to your approach can benefit from just sharing their experiences with Maharaji with the other ex-premies on the site. Respectfully :), Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:06:02 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: respect Message: Dearest Katie, Just two things: 1)FYI, here's my definition of respect: 3) treat with consideration. Sorry, you don't get 'your' definition. You get all of them just like me. Just thought I'd mention that. 2)About Maharaji's quote's: he is AMBIGUOUS. And yes, I do believe that people can interpret what he says in different ways. Have you blown a gaskit (sp?)?. What was he ambiguous about? (By the way, do you mean 'vague'?) Are you actually saying that he didn't try to incite fear and hatred of the mind? That he didn't pass himself off as god incarnate? That he didn't urge us to surrender our lives to him lock, stock and barrel? 3) [An extra point just for you!])But I also believe that other people who aren't responsive to your approach can benefit from just sharing their experiences with Maharaji with the other ex-premies on the site. If someone comes into the same room I'm in and starts talking about m, I figure we're talking. I'll say what I think, they can say what they think. It's just kind of organic, you know? If the process doesn't 'work' for them in terms of helping them see through this cult, so be it. At least I've avoided compromising myself because of any territory m's claimed in the world or in his premies' minds. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:05:55 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: respect Message: Hi Jim, honey, You wrote: Dearest Katie, Just two things: (actually three, but who's counting?) Regarding respect & the dictionary, you wrote:Sorry, you don't get 'your' definition. You get all of them just like me. Just thought I'd mention that. We were listening to Rosanne Cash sing Elvis Costello tonight, and she/he came up with the perfect response to this one: You try to love him but he's so contrary, like a chainsaw running through a dictionary Regarding Maharaji being ambiguous, you wrote: Have you blown a gaskit (sp?)?. What was he ambiguous about? (By the way, do you mean 'vague'?) Are you actually saying that he didn't try to incite fear and hatred of the mind? That he didn't pass himself off as god incarnate? That he didn't urge us to surrender our lives to him lock, stock and barrel? No, I haven't blown a gasket. I believed that entirely when I was a premie. But since I've been posting and reading on the forum, I have come to find out that other people did not believe the same things that I did. And you also wrote: If someone comes into the same room I'm in and starts talking about m, I figure we're talking. I'll say what I think, they can say what they think. It's just kind of organic, you know? If the process doesn't 'work' for them in terms of helping them see through this cult, so be it. At least I've avoided compromising myself because of any territory m's claimed in the world or in his premies' minds. I don't have a problem with this, Jim. What I do have a problem with is you chasing people around the forum demanding that they answer this or that question. But that's your choice. As far as compromising yourself, I guess I can understand why you would feel that way. But I'm not the same as you. I really want to try and understand WHY premies feel the way they do about Maharaji. I KNOW how I feel, but I'm willing to listen to how they feel too. Look, most of the reason that I'm here is because my friend Sam killed himself. When I get tired of it, I always think of these lines from a Shawn Colvin song: For the souls of the departed and the renegades of love You and me gotta be all we dreamed of. I don't care about converting anyone. I just want the site to be there for people who are confused or unhappy. I hope you can understand this. Love, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:28:04 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: what?? WHAT?? Message: No, I haven't blown a gasket. I believed that entirely when I was a premie. But since I've been posting and reading on the forum, I have come to find out that other people did not believe the same things that I did. This, Katie, is unbelievable to me. Are you actually saying you take these jokers at face value? That's the most incredible thing I've ever heard you say. Absolutely fucking amazingly incredible. Like when they hem, haw, wait, wait, evade, obscure, then finally answer 'no, I don't think so' that you believe them! Whether it be about m caling to be God, or frightening us about the mind, or urging us to surrender our minds, or this or that. When they say they don't believe that's what was going on, you believe them! (Sorry, I'm a little dumbfounded here.) We are certainly not on the same page, Katie. That's all I can say. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 12:44:20 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: what?? WHAT?? Message: Hi Jim - I never thought we were 'on the same page' here - does it matter? You read a lot into my answer. What I meant by 'other people didn't believe the same things I did' was not that I take EVERYTHING that ANYONE says here about what they did or did not believe at face value. But people did believe different things than I did. Here's a couple of examples from the EX-premies: Jerry didn't believe that you had to do service in order to experience knowledge, Sam C. and others have said that they didn't believe Maharaji was god (or greater than god or so forth). This is the kind of stuff I was talking about. P.S. I hope you liked the 'chainsaw running through a dictionary' comparison :). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 16:55:57 (EST)
From: y! Email: None To: Katie Subject: Katies Friend Message: Here I am butting in on your conversation with Jim... But I am interested in your friend that you mentioned. Was his death directly caused by being a devotee of M or would it have happened anyway. What do you think? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 18:50:19 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: y! Subject: Katies Friend Message: Hi y - I don't consider it bad etiquette to butt into a conversation here - that's why it's a forum. You asked, regarding Sam: Was his death directly caused by being a devotee of M or would it have happened anyway. What do you think? I honestly don't know, because I don't know the circumstances. We had lost touch with each other, and then I found out that he had killed himself in 1994. I haven't been able to find out anything more. I do have an idea of how he may have felt, but I don't know if that's right or not. I have since met other ex-premies who were in a frame of mind such as I imagined Sam's to be. I can tell you that Sam was a very guilty person - for reasons of upbringing and so forth. He practiced knowledge (meditation, service, and satsang) very faithfully, but being a devotee of M seemed to intensify his guilt feelings, and lessen his feelings of self-acceptance. I don't know if this would have happened anyway if he hadn't become a premie. Learning about Sam's death was the incident that got me involved in posting the forum, and then in the ex-premie site. I didn't have any particular axe to grind with Maharaji at the time I found out about Sam's death. Anyway, I first started posting on the forum (it was on usenet then) to try and get more information about Sam, and then I started reading the ex-premie site and the archives, and when I found out what had happened to other people, especially the ashram premies (Sam was an ashram premie) I became very upset. That's when I got more involved in the ex-premie group. Well, this is a bit more than what you asked for and doesn't explain much. Jim also had a premie friend who killed himself, and Jim knows the circumstances and what led up to the suicide. Maybe he will tell that story. Take care, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 19:26:00 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: what?? WHAT?? Message: Hi Jim - I never thought we were 'on the same page' here - does it matter? Yes and no. You read a lot into my answer. What I meant by 'other people didn't believe the same things I did' was not that I take EVERYTHING that ANYONE says here about what they did or did not believe at face value. I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you or anything, my darling Katie, but have you ever noticed that this isn't the first time that you've made blanket statements excusing premies for how they think or act only to backtrack when questioned and say you didn't really mean it? Why is it you only over-generalize (when you do) in one direction and not the other? Who's paying your internet account anyway? :) But people did believe different things than I did. Here's a couple of examples from the EX-premies: Jerry didn't believe that you had to do service in order to experience knowledge, Sam C. and others have said that they didn't believe Maharaji was god (or greater than god or so forth). This is the kind of stuff I was talking about. Well, in Jerry's case that's a trivial difference of a whole different order than the stuff we've argued with premies about. No, I take that back. We (or I, or some of us) could easily have argued with premies over that point. And if it had been a fair dispute, or disagreement, as the one with Jerry, it would have played out like that. The premies, though, or impervious to reason and indifferent to evidence. But that's a bit beside the point which is that Jerry's and my different beliefs about that were reasonable and trivial compared to the stuff we're talking about. As for Sam's belief about m being God, frankly I don't recall what he said. But the most I could say for a premie or m apologist is just that they don't remember well or weren't privy to some of what occurred in the Mission before their time. Faced with those reminders or facts, they ahve no excuse to hold tight. To the extent they do, they're NOT expressing sincere beliefs, in my opinion. NEVER! P.S. I hope you liked the 'chainsaw running through a dictionary' comparison :). Yes, of course. :) But you know, in the end, it's kind of pathetic that we have to resort to dictionaries at all here. I see that. Still, what can I do? I'm not prepared to let people gloss over the language AS WELL as the facts in all these matters. Are you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 20:25:21 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: what?? WHAT?? Message: Dear Jim - You wrote: I'm not trying to psychoanalyze you or anything, my darling Katie, but have you ever noticed that this isn't the first time that you've made blanket statements excusing premies for how they think or act only to backtrack when questioned and say you didn't really mean it? Peter tells me that I over-generalize all the time, so I know I have that habit. I don't think I 'backtrack' as much as try and clarify what I meant to try and say. I'm often not very good at stating my thoughts clearly and exactly. Especially late at night. Why is it you only over-generalize (when you do) in one direction and not the other? As far as over-generalizing in one direction, I'm not sure that this is true, but I haven't kept track. I probably do do it when I'm arguing to you because I'm reacting to your vehemence. Who's paying your internet account anyway? :) Why, do you think I'm secretly working for a cabal of premies or something like that? Maybe you should tell Brian to fire me, then. Sheesh! :) I'm not prepared to let people gloss over the language AS WELL as the facts in all these matters. Are you? I hope this is a rhetorical question, so I'll answer it with one. What do YOU think? BTW, this is my last word in this sub-thread - you can take the rest of it. Love, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 21:25:05 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: end of the line? Message: I asked you if you'd noticed that your over-generlizations are always in one direction and you answered: As far as over-generalizing in one direction, I'm not sure that this is true, but I haven't kept track. I probably do do it when I'm arguing to you because I'm reacting to your vehemence. I haven't kept track so much as noticed it a numbe of times. I think it's true. I can't remember a single time you erred to the contrary. I think an important question is 'do you want to know?' I mean, okay, you haven't been keeping track. But if you were, and it were true, would it concern you at all? Anyway, YOU'VE assumed it's true, at least enough to offer some explanation as to why that might be. It's my 'vehemence'. But that puzzles me. It's not like I'm particularly vehement with YOU, is it? I'm not threatening you or anything like that (God forbid!). We're just talking. So I don't get how that moves you to sacrifice accuracy. Not unless you're just trying to protect these guys. Look, I know you're saying you don't want to talk about this anymore so I'm not expecting a reply. But it does strike me as funny that you're prepared to say things you don't really mean because I'm 'vehement'. Katie, here's waht it looks like to me. You REALLY don't like to see premies taken to task here. You're not sure why exactly other than you know it just isn't your style and you just don't like it. You're not into heperanalyzing the matter. You know it's a big world out there and for every one of you there's bound to be one of me ( or something like that). And you're kind, gentle and particularly well-mannered. At least here you are. But, Katie, you are also stubborn. Yes, stubborn. I'm not saying I'm not but however I am you are indeed stubborn. You are intent to stand up for screaming premies wherever you find them. Your defence of them just comes naturally adn yes, you're prone to bend a few rules, or fudge a few corners, if you think that's what's needed to keep these guys fresh and pink. I only ask tah when we do get into one of these chronic arguments (as is bound to happen once or twice more I'm sure) that you remember your alleged tendency to blur some fo the finer points of language and logic to make your case. It just might be that your case can't be properly made after all. Oh well! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 02:08:51 (EST)
From: op Email: None To: Jim & Katie Subject: good cop, bad cop Message: Please forgive me, Katie, if I read you wrong here. But VERY often the varying tactics taken by the two of you seem to be a careful play. I don't think Katie is any softer on premies than Jim, she's just more subtle. A welcome table laid out, 'here, have some cookies and milk and relax - no one is going to hurt you here. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, for as long as you want (under the breath: even if it's absolute nonsense).' versus Jim: 'What the f**k are you saying? You're a number one asshole if you believe that! blah blah blah' When the movie comes out, I'm sure that aspect will be played up... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 19:26:13 (EST)
From: chr Email: None To: shp Subject: jim is a human being with... Message: Why ,shp,are you so obsessed with Jim.He has his opinions, others have theirs. He likes to challenge anything that he doesn't agree with and he obviously relishes the little skirmishes that ensue.But why do you always bite-hook,line and sinker? BTW I think its important to be challenged-it helps clarify things.I disagree with quite a few things Jim says-for one, to me the rational mind is just one aspect of being human and I have no problem accepting that there are other ways of validating experiences.At the same time ,the rational mind was rarely acknowledged with M ,and I think its good to have somebody on the forum who pushes that aspect,especially when it comes to challenging long held beliefs about M. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:31:52 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: chr Subject: between m and jim is..... Message: obsession. sounds like a calvin klein commercial. lol lol lol lol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:46:41 (EST)
From: g's mom Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim stop the cursing please Message: You know Jim being the off and on resident prude pollyanna type I am I have to say I really get turned off to reading what you have to say when you call Op a bitch and gratuitiously use the word fuck. I thought what OP had to say was typical premie revisionism...like who is she trying to fool is the guru so stupid that he did not know that the word MIND had all the connotations we describe. Hey, I was told not to take high school honors classes by my community coordinator as they were 'mindy'...I see that as one of those life crossroads moments....started to feel I was being a bad premie to do well in school....most of us took it that way ( at least after the year of the mind '76.) But you know Rawat is such a simpleton he never saw that people were interpeting it that way and cleared it up. He is a little slow I guess OP? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 18:28:35 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: g's mom Subject: Jim stop the cursing please Message: g-mom, I don't HAVE to swear but I sure like doing it sometimes. Does it REALLY bother you so much? See, I get pretty frustrated, as might you, as do a lot of people here, with premie deceit. There's nothing mannerly or genteel about it and I don't like the thought of premies like op thinking they're respected as mutual conversants in an on-going discussion here. Rather, I think op's a despicable human being, quite frankly. I think that's what cults do to people. They rob them of their humanity. The fact that op can chat like your next door neighbour means nothing. Where it counts, people like her have been gutted of their principles and honesty. What's left is not, in my opinion, a full human being. Okay, I guess that's a bit over the top. What do I mean? Hell, I don't KNOW what I mean. But I mean something, don't I? Come on, g-mom, help me out here! Tell me why keeping my frustration with premies in check is a good thing? Tell me that it doesn't just give them that much more room to spout their nonsense with impunity all under the guise of maintaining their part in a 'civil conversation'? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:04:15 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim stop the cursing please Message: That IS the core issue ain't it. Tough to argue against your last post. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:52:58 (EST)
From: gmom Email: None To: Gee...Jim Subject: I hear you on this... Message: but really at least to those who may be new to reading this forum could make you appear more off the wall than OP? The real OP is still in there somewhere, just as the real Jim and Gmom were there too, spouting that garbage. It may seem she is not human but she is. If I thought calling her a bitch and saying all that would snap her out of it I would say hey lets all do it. But more likely it reinforces their certainty we are miserable without knowledge and Rawat. I think it is unbecoming. On the other hand I GET why you wanna do it. I really think it is counterproductive though. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:59:20 (EST)
From: Katie Email: None To: gmom Subject: agree with g's mom Message: Hi G's mom - Just my two cents: I really don't like the word 'bitch' as applied to women. I don't think I'd answer a post if someone started it 'hey, bitch'. I think 'bitch' is too often used to keep so-called 'uppity women' in their supposed place. TC - hope all is well with you and yours, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:58:25 (EST)
From: op Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim stop the cursing please Message: . Rather, I think op's a despicable human being, quite frankly. I think that's what cults do to people. They rob them of their humanity. The fact that op can chat like your next door neighbour means nothing. Where it counts, people like her have been gutted of their principles and honesty. What's left is not, in my opinion, a full human being. No, Jim, you can't take this back by saying it's 'off the top'. It means that, although I can consider you a human being, you can't consider me one. I am NOT a despicable human being. We disagree about something that is fundamental to both of us, but I don't spend my time cutting and slashing at you. And I won't. I do think that on a certain level I'm a better person than you. Guess why? Because I practice Knowledge? Because M loves me? Because I love him back? Nope. Because I try to look for the best in people. All people. I try to live by the ideal that Divinity lives within each and every sentient being. It's hard with you. And that's one reason why I prefer not to even try to communicate with you - because I get pulled into these fighting matches that bring out the worst in me and in you. If you know that someone suffers from low self-esteem, you still keep punching. I'm sorry for that. I'm not here to psychoanalyze you, but anyone with a psych background reading the forum could have a wonderful time with you. So, I already responded to your 'bitch' post. (I was rather put off by that, too. It proved to me that you really are dealing on a purely emotional level, and just using your intellect to sharpen your hormones.) The forum acts oddly sometimes, so this post might end up above that response. But whatever you think of me, I have a couple hundred people who think I'm a pretty decent human being - and not all of them are premies. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 08:53:54 (EST)
From: bill Email: None To: op Subject: Jim stop the cursing please Message: OP what do you think divinity is? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 19:41:07 (EST)
From: shp Email: None To: Jim Subject: you can be compassionate when Message: that which you detest and and criticize no longer reflects within you. as long as you have any of the attributes still in you which you attack, then it will seem magnified and monstrous on the person you are going after, maharaji in this case. for example, your arrogance and pride rear their ugly heads in you when you accuse m of the same faults and you lose it. when you no longer have arrogance or pride in you, then you will be able to make your point like the zen master you strive to be. (just an example.) righteous indignation is one thing, what you do is something else. you vent, not caring if the person you are allegedly 'communicating' with get your point or not. you use this site is your vent, and i guess that's one of it's uses, but you dominate and monopolize. whoever you are angry at controls you. you gotta find an alternative to anger if you want to be more effective and not just selfishly vent your ass off. -spoken by a grownup who happens to have knowledge and hasn't to date renounced maharaji. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 21:32:42 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: shp Subject: I'M NOT THE ISSUE!!! Message: Enough of this, shp! All I did was ask you some very straight-forward questions and all you did was squirm. Then you have the bad taste to try to blame me for all your problems. Shp, do you know how many times I've seen this ploy? Too many. Do you think for a second you come off as anything but a person BEGGING for a chance to not have to discuss m frankly? Sorry, shp. I don't respect that. I think you're just one confused little puppy. I tried to pick you up and you whimpered, bit and peed on me. I think this is pathetic and if you have any question about how the big world outside of the page participants here might think of it, get your kids on line. Show them the last threads you've been involved with. Show THEM m's quotes and how you commented on them. Show them my response and then yours to that. Go ahead, solicit the opinon of someone you love. I dare you. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 01:35:28 (EST)
From: op Email: None To: Jim Subject: Typical bullshit, op Message: Oh dear, my linguistics are failing again. By chopping up I did not mean that you ommitted. I meant that you chewed up, hammered, clawed at, pounded, their answers into a bloody pulp. But, not wanting to get gory, I just said 'chopped'. So I will not 'fuck myself'. Second, I've told you a lot of times that when I've been around M he's NEVER shown hatred, anger, or irritability except at well-deserved situations (such as people putting themselves in physical danger). There was a popular notion among the hippie population that in order to achieve enlightenment, one had to undergo 'ego death'. This 'killing' of the ego was not accompanied by heavy emotional hatred - in fact, such a thing would PREVENT the ego death the person was so desperately seeking. I may have been unduly influenced by those hippie days, but I always felt that what M was aiming at was very similar. Except that I'd never been able to accomplish it with acid and other psychotropic paraphernalia, but somehow, Knowledge WORKED. I COULD leave my ego behind and experience bliss, and not feel like I had to commit suicide to do it. (yes, I'd been suicidal when influenced by LSD) Third, I'll still look for a few quotes, but I'm not using you as my time-management source. I've got a few other items on my plate. Fourth - I really wanted to say that to Helen, and since I didn't post in the thread where I'd seen her comments, I used this post to do it. Get real! I don't need Helen's adulation, nor do I think that by throwing a compliment I would get someone on my side. I should hope ANYONE on this forum stands strong enough on their own not to be tumbled by flattery. Is this where I get to say 'go fuck yourself'? Nah - I won't bother. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 13:54:49 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: op Subject: What's taking so long, op? Message: I agree that the use of the word 'mind' created havoc for a long time. I don't think (personal opinion) that M ever meant that part of ourselves that defines the rational daily doer, the creative imagination, etc. I always took it to mean the part of us that (among other things) obsessively holds on to a desire, demands constant adulation from our peers and, if possible, the rest of the world, and insists on dissecting every experience - Maharaji's use of the word 'mind' certainly did create havoc, and thanks for admitting that. Has Maharaji ever admitted that? Second, I haven't heard one of your revisionist explanations in awhile, I guess not since you attempted to explain what Maharaji's commandment, 'NEVER LEAVE ROOM FOR DOUBT IN YOUR MIND' meant, which was pretty lame, and this one is just as bad. But even so, you seem to be saying there is some part of every human being, universal to the species I guess, that 'obsessively holds on to desire,' 'demands constant adulation from our peers and, if possible, the rest of the world...' How do you know this, Op? What makes you accept this garbage that these are universal attributes of human beings that are harmful and have to be avoided? Where did you get such nonsense, other than from Maharaji I mean? Have you ever questioned this basic assumption? In my experience, there are many, many people who do not have those problems and they have never heard of Maharaji or his dogma that we have these types of infections that have to be cured, or at least ignored. In fact, I think most premies probably don't even believe this, and then it's a case of the emperors new clothes. Maharaji speaks such buck-naked nonsense, and no premie has the nerve to question him on it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 16:42:19 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: JW Subject: What's taking so long, op? Message: >What makes you accept this garbage that these are universal attributes of human beings that are harmful and have to be avoided? Have you ever heard of racism or bigotry towards homosexuals? Do you listen to the world news on the BBC to keep up with the wars and oppression? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:00:04 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: CD Subject: uh oh...now you did it! Message: CD: You mad a mistake in your post, but I'll let JW tell you about it! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 22:25:20 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Mike Subject: uh oh...now you did it! Message: >You mad a mistake in your post, but I'll let JW tell you about it Oh yes, I forgot to mention the sources of news on the latest universe origin theories. And I lost track of how many digits PI has been calculated to these days. So which is the true one, CORBA or COM? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 10:24:07 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: CD Subject: corba/com (OT) Message: CD: I LOVE UNIX and tolerate microsoft, so take a guess! I think the consortium (OMG) that came up with CORBA had 'improvement of the industry' in mind when they came up with it, due to the fact that they are so hard-over about interoperability and portability. COM, on the other hand, was developed by microsoft. The model is too limited, for my likes. It is nowhere near as developed as the CORBA model (IMHO). Microsoft claims to be on the cutting edge and supposedly cares improving the industry, but I don't see it that way. The ONLY thing that gates is concerned with is lining his pockets. The ONLY 'interoperability' that gates is concerned with is the kind that progressively forces you to migrate to a microsoft-only environment. For this reason alone, I would side with OMG/CORBA. But, who will win? Microsoft/COM, of course! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 17:07:15 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Mike Subject: corba/com (OT) Message: >CD: I LOVE UNIX Once again we are on opposite sides of a debate. I believe that Microsoft and SUN are both trying to line their pockets. SUN was never the hardware of the small time developer. They gave their stuff to universities getting students into it. Many students never stopped to think about how they would have worked with a SUN machine if it wasn't at the school. Now Linux is a bit of a diffferent twist. Did you ever read Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution Ever mess with UNIX souce code? Yeah its true, Windows 2000 has adopted lots of UNIX features. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 17:46:12 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: CD Subject: corba/com (OT) Message: CD: I'm one of MANY linux developers. I am mainly into writing device drivers for very specialized hardware (mostly wireless), but I've hacked the kernel a bit, too. I've been 'into' linux since its pre-release version number days (alpha code). I haven't done much lately (last year or so) due to time constraints, but I still try to dabble. My last project, prior to retiring from the Navy, was setting up linux boxes as masquerades and proxies (firewalls) for some commands that required them. Talk about a low-cost solution to a high-cost problem (potentially). None of the boxes I setup has been successfully hacked, yet (so I hear). I DID have to compile some 'extra' code into the kernel to make it a really effective firewall, but they work great! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 21:01:55 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Mike Subject: corba/com (OT) Message: You are a low level coder I see. I haven't done any interupt coding stuff since some Z80 assembly work quite a few years back. I did put one C based application on Linux but don't have time for Linux. There is plenty of software structure at the higher levels these days to keep busy with. Pretty amazing how large the scope of software has grown. Anyway, I'll cut off this discussion of software since its off topic for this forum. You can always send me an email. We apparetnly have wide disagreements on issues pertinent to this forum. I was thinking today that some of my responses to your posts are a bit harsh. I do have some strong opinions on these issues. I don't have anything against you personally. Not sure how to reconcile the two. I am not into encouraging personal animosity. Regards, CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 10:07:29 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: CD Subject: animosity... Message: CD: Yeah, we can talk about software elsewhere..... Actually, since my job is such a brain drain, at times, I avoid the subject like the plague these days.... he he he :-) In regards to 'animosity'..... I agree. It has no real purpose, other than making everyone miserable. I disagree with M (on a number of points), but I really don't dislike premies. In fact, I thought premies were some of the nicest people that I ever met; evidenced by those I actually knew/know (personally) on this forum. I'm really glad that Scott, Carol and John are here and OK! They are some VERY fine people (again, I know them personally). Even though I don't believe that I've met the other forum members (pix would help), I can tell that they are as kind and 'human' as any premie I ever knew. So, I think this probably applies across the board, so to speak. My disagreements with current premies have to do with what I view as destructive 'concepts,' NOT with the premies themselves. So, on the animosity issue, you will hear no disagreement from me.... :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:30:11 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: CD Subject: What's taking so long, op? Message: Are you suggesting that racism, homophobia and war are 'universal attributes,' that they are innate parts of your mind and that knowledge does anything whatsoever to get rid of bigotry? Studies on prejudice and bigotry show that those attitudes are LEARNED, they are not innate. Some people learn them and some people don't. Some people are racist and some aren't. Some people who learn prejudice from their parents learn to face and root out their own prejudice and bigotry. They UNLEARN it because they really want to. Those things are not some confused, evil, part of your mind. As that great song about prejudice goes that's in that musical South Pacific -- 'you have to be carefully taught' to be a bigot, it's not something you are born with. And are you suggesting that people who have received knowledge are not racist or homophobic? I know for a fact this isn't true. Are you suggesting that knowledge or Maharaji have done anything whatsoever to diminish the number of wars in the world? True, Maharaji did PROMISE to bring peace to the world, but he hasn't been able to accomplish it and no longer even claims that as part of his mission. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:53:05 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: JW Subject: Exceptionally well said, JW Message: JW: I loved every word.... I mean it! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 20:59:40 (EST)
From: JW Email: None To: Mike Subject: Exceptionally well said, JW Message: Thank you, Mike, me too. But you better be careful, someone might accuse you of being a liberal. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 22:16:51 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: JW Subject: prejudice in the mind Message: >Studies on prejudice and bigotry show that those attitudes are LEARNED, they are not innate. Some people learn them and some people don't. Some people are racist and some aren't. Some people who learn prejudice from their parents learn to face and root out their own prejudice and bigotry. They UNLEARN it because they really want to. Those things are not some confused, evil, part of your mind. I think agree. The difference is a matter of how we use our words. Evil attitudes are not inate. They are stuffed into our brains and then become our MIND. The mind is a container for thinking stuff. If some of that stuff is crap then the mind is deemed confused and an instrument of evil. Yet the mind itself is not confused or evil. I do not believe that our fundamental conciousness exists in the realm of the mind. Yet it swims in the sea of the mind. Sometimes we float peacefully, enjoy a great swim or get caught in a riptide or a storm. Many people believe that logic is the path to free the mind of the crap. As you know, K is another approach that many people feel is simply foolish. How in the world can something so simplistic have any chance of success. My view is that logic is fine but ultimately only an endless debate and differences ensue. Feeling the peace within can promote a feeling of awareness and understanding. Is there really such a thing? Those who have felt it know. >And are you suggesting that people who have received knowledge are not racist or homophobic? No. I do believe that meditation on beauty can imbue one with a positive attitude that will override the prejudices. There is a feeling of beauty inside that is obviously not American, prejudiced or anybody,s idea. How many people put in the required effort to become a good runner and get to experience the true benefits? CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 23:11:03 (EST)
From: Jim Email: None To: CD Subject: prejudice in the mind Message: So where does this evil come from, CD? How'd it get into our minds? And didn't m tell you that you could never tell what was really mind and what wasn't? That the mind could impersonate the 'real you' whatever the fuck that means? I just don't understand why you premies never bring this point up. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 00:16:28 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Jim Subject: prejudice in the mind Message: >That the mind could impersonate the 'real you' whatever the fuck that means? I just don't understand why you premies never bring this point up. Like wearing clothes vs the birthday suit. Is the real you the guy with the tie. Many people get locked into their shell and that becomes real. The man in the cave broke his chains and escaped out of the reality of the shadows to the light. There is potential for all of us to see our true reflection when the ripples stop. We are much more than our ideas. >So where does this evil come from, CD? How'd it get into our minds? Our priorities get out of whack and we forget what is important in our existence. We forget about love and sharing. We try to satisfy ourselves and end up hording wealth. We are different on the outside, annoy each other, forget our similarities and lose compassion. We get lost in daily chores, ambitions, difficulties and tragedies, forgetting that beauty does exist in this world. These are the lessons that we teach others as the way it is and they accept our beliefs. Others have taught us similar things. The world is subdivided into nations each having its own ego. This is the way it is but the stars in the sky have something else to teach us. If we are not too proud we can learn something better. CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 09:45:47 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: CD Subject: Stars are conscious? Message: CD: I hope I'm misinterpreting you here! Stars don't 'teach us' anything. We investigate their characteristics and 'teach ourselves' ABOUT stars, but THEY don't teach US anything. Their blackboards are too far away for us to see them..... :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 21:31:06 (EST)
From: CD Email: None To: Mike Subject: Stars are conscious? Message: >Stars don't 'teach us' anything. We investigate their characteristics and 'teach ourselves' ABOUT stars, but THEY don't teach US anything. You do have a preferred mental coordinate space don't you! Now tell me, is the earth in the middle of the Universe? I don't doubt human intelligence but I do have respect for limits that I percieve. They don't stop me from trying to reach for answers. I have seen advanced math trying to nail down the essence using tools such as real analysis. I sense that the true 'US' has more possibilities of perception beyond rational logic. CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 09:51:11 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: CD Subject: Earth-centric Message: CD: Is the earth the center of the universe? Good question since there is NO center to the universe. Everything is moving away from everything else, as if each spot were the center from which everyhting is moving. SOOOO, you 'might' say that the earth (or our galaxy, if you will) IS the center.... he he he :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 17:06:17 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: op Subject: The mind /Thank you for the Message: compliment, op. I actually have done some writing professionally, not as much as I'd like. But such encouragement eggs me on... Regarding your comments about the mind, I have been thinking about this a lot. This Mind thing is a real bind, IMO. It is good that you have analyzed for yourself how you prefer to view this. I see some real problems with the issue of Mind. In order to have any objectivity, you have to use your mind/brain/ego. But the more one does that, the more 'separate' from the 'experience of knowledge' one becomes. I try to think rational thoughts and try to observe my anxieties and deal with them rationally. Is this a meditative/cruise control process--no, absolutely not. It's an active process, my mind is in control...the 'executive in charge' within me is my mind, even as I struggle to breathe and live in the present and not be caught up in the anxieties of my past. Maharaji's trip added considerable baggage to my life that I needed like a hole in the head, BTW. I guess it all comes down to knowledge of one's self, does it not? I posted to 'cruiser' up above that it seems very important to gain some objectivity about Maharaji so that you can differentiate between what he IS and what you would like him to be. But to do that requires MIND, and so there's the conundrum. You have to use two different parts of your brain to understand this experience, or to even talk about it, in my opinion. Are you a person around Maharaji--someone who knows him well?? Who do YOU think he is? What do you think he is? Hell, if you've had exposure to him, I'd like to know. But all the glamour of him is lost to me forever, I'm afraid. As JW once said, I just see a little greasy Indian guy now, not at all a charismatic or special figure at all. How could I have worshipped a picture of a guy I didn't even know?? It's coo coo Well, I would really like to read your response to all this Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 02:09:11 (EST)
From: op Email: None To: Helen Subject: The mind /Thank you for the Message: Gee Helen, thanks for this response. I'm sure you read Jim's lambast of me up above, so I was afraid you'd shy away from this pariah. I've been on line too long at this point (there seems to be a 24-hour turnover on the active page!), but I really do want to respond to you. I usually don't write quickie responses, because I often make stupid mistakes that can then be misinterpreted. So I'm saving your post and will get an answer to you - probably on another threat sometime. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 02:11:26 (EST)
From: op Email: None To: Helen Subject: The mind /Thank you for the Message: Oh sh...!!! See what I mean? I definitely did NOT mean: probably on another threat sometime. I meant: probably on another thread sometime. I noticed it RIGHT AFTER I pressed the submit button - sorry! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 12:33:10 (EST)
From: gerry Email: None To: op Subject: quit fuckin' with my mind, op Message: I definitely did NOT mean: probably on another threat sometime. I meant: probably on another thread sometime. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! op's scaring me! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Jan 26, 1999 at 21:01:31 (EST)
From: Helen Email: None To: op Subject: We all make errors... Message: ...when posting. I have not read all the stuff from the past few days. If Jim lambasts something, that's Jim. I am me, and I will make my own decision, okay? This is not The Jets vs. The Sharks, you know? Peace, Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 12:20:00 (EST)
From: Mike Email: None To: CD Subject: You are right Message: CD: 'Logic' is NOT the source of inspiration, the BRAIN is! I noticed that MANY of the books you have read are of the spiritual/fantasy type. The two go hand-in-hand, as far aas I can see. In fact, I find more actual truth in Hobbit than I did in Be Here Now. Hobbit was TOTAL fiction, so what does that make Be Here Now (and ALL of the others)? CD, I think the point that were trying to make is that 'logic' is finite (and somehow, not a good thing). How do you know? From those books that you've read? Who says logic is finite? Who says that the 'heart' is infinite? What REAL AUTHORITY do they have to say this? See where I'm going with this? YOU, YOURSELF, have absolutely NO idea what the limits of logic are because you have NOT stretched the limits of logic. Additionally, YOU, YOURSELF, have NO idea whether the 'heart' is infinite because you haven't even approached infinity. SO, what do YOU actually KNOW (from first-hand experience)? All I've heard, so far, is that M's meditation makes you 'feel good.' Funny, after 25 years, all premies can say is, 'It feels good.' Well whoopy-dooo! And this comes from a guy that claimed to be greater than god? WOW, I'm really impressed! God can make me 'feel good.' So WHAT....! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |