Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 49

From: May 27, 1999

To: Jun 4, 1999

Page: 2 Of: 5


Jean-Michel -:- Download the whole website -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:35:23 (EDT)
__Happy -:- Download the whole website -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:11:13 (EDT)

AJW -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:30:45 (EDT)
__nmw -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:40:43 (EDT)
____AJW -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:56:18 (EDT)
______KB -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:22:00 (EDT)
________Happy -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 14:19:59 (EDT)
__________KB -:- Thanks Hap..(nt) -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:38:29 (EDT)
________Liz -:- You've convinced me -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:26:24 (EDT)
__________Happy -:- ot question -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:00:15 (EDT)
____Mike -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:42:58 (EDT)
__Gail -:- AJW--quit eating breakfast nt -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:15:29 (EDT)
__Walter -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:29:09 (EDT)
____AJW -:- Thanks Walter -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 19:38:51 (EDT)
__JW -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 20:15:48 (EDT)
____Jim -:- That's it in a nutshell, Joe -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 20:52:54 (EDT)
______gregg -:- That's it in a nutshell, Joe -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:05:50 (EDT)
________Helen -:- What's a cult -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:34:30 (EDT)
______microvolt -:- That's not it in a nutshell -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 08:14:45 (EDT)
________Jim -:- I disagree -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:48:09 (EDT)
__________Jean-Michel -:- I disagree -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:07:37 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- I agree -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:25:53 (EDT)
______________Jean-Michel -:- We've to be more precise -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:46:05 (EDT)
__________microvolt -:- what is a definition -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 14:29:33 (EDT)
____________JW -:- what is a definition -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:47:38 (EDT)
______________Jean-Michel -:- Mind control techniques -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 05:02:19 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- what is a definition -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 22:25:13 (EDT)
______________Liz -:- Macro-watts -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 13:35:43 (EDT)
________JW -:- I also disagree -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:04:47 (EDT)
__________microvolt -:- Margaret Singer -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 14:43:50 (EDT)
____________JW -:- Distinction w/o a Difference -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:11:29 (EDT)
____Walter -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 04:43:54 (EDT)
______cp -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:03:10 (EDT)
________Walter -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 11:01:53 (EDT)
______Jim -:- I disagree, Walter -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:53:33 (EDT)
________Walter -:- We Agree To Disagree, Jim -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:03:40 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- Okay, but let's talk -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 17:52:26 (EDT)
______JW -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:17:40 (EDT)
________Walter -:- 'What's a Cult? JW' -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:22:08 (EDT)
__________JW -:- 'What's a Cult? -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:29:51 (EDT)
________Victoria -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 10:09:34 (EDT)
______Jerry -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 11:10:59 (EDT)
________Helen -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 11:46:58 (EDT)
________JW -:- 'What's a Cult?' -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:56:55 (EDT)
____G's mom -:- Bravo JW! -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 21:33:43 (EDT)
______JW -:- Bravo JW! -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 00:37:08 (EDT)
________microvolt -:- last comment on this -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 10:08:54 (EDT)
__________AJW -:- Thanks -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:27:11 (EDT)
__________JW -:- Well, maybe not -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:37:47 (EDT)
____________microvolt -:- ok -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 09:56:08 (EDT)

student -:- ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 05:24:52 (EDT)
__KB -:- ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:39:05 (EDT)
__AJW -:- ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:52:33 (EDT)
__Liz -:- ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:59:07 (EDT)
____student -:- ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:20:55 (EDT)
______student -:- Britannica Fun Facts -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:12:31 (EDT)
________Liz -:- Ted P. deproges Premies -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:42:08 (EDT)
__________cp -:- Ted P. deproges Premies -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:42:36 (EDT)
____________cpudent -:- Ted P. deproges Premies -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:24:33 (EDT)
______________gerry -:- Ted P. deproges Premies -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 11:03:08 (EDT)
______________Liz -:- That's sad. Thanks (nt) -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:18:13 (EDT)
______________AJW -:- Ted P. deproges Premies -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 19:54:07 (EDT)

x-0-x -:- Actually i'm a Knight, a joke. -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:31:19 (EDT)
__AJW -:- How Many Premies does it take -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:45:00 (EDT)
____Denise -:- How Many Premies does it take -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:23:29 (EDT)
______AJW -:- How Many Premies does it take -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:53:03 (EDT)
________Liz -:- How Many Premies does it take -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:47:06 (EDT)
__________Liz -:- M's Joke -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:56:17 (EDT)
__KB -:- Actually i'm a Knight, a joke. -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:24:50 (EDT)
____rrrrufff -:- ....to change a light bulb? -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:33:40 (EDT)
______Denise -:- ....to change a light bulb? ot -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 19:52:55 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Ice cream and ashrams -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:30:59 (EDT)
__________Katie -:- Ice cream and ashrams -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:41:32 (EDT)
____________Wet whistle -:- water pistols v chai shop -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 02:08:46 (EDT)
__________Denise -:- Ice cream and ashrams -:- Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 09:13:42 (EDT)
________Marianne -:- Ice cream, not SEX -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:09:02 (EDT)
____x-0-x -:- Actually i'm a Knight, a joke. -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:13:42 (EDT)
__Robyn -:- Actually i'm a Knight, a joke. -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 08:30:09 (EDT)
____Liz -:- Jokes -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:24:04 (EDT)
______Catholic -:- Joke -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:29:56 (EDT)
________Does anyone remember -:- The Tube Satsang? -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 17:36:08 (EDT)
__________Powerman -:- The Tube Satsang? -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 18:50:36 (EDT)
__________Don't ask me -:- The Tube Satsang? -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:00:18 (EDT)

Rob -:- Waving a white flag -:- Sun, May 30, 1999 at 23:22:31 (EDT)
__gerry -:- emergency meeting called for -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:17:29 (EDT)
____Rob -:- emergency meeting called for -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:25:34 (EDT)
____Rob -:- hello..tap tap tap..is this -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:44:26 (EDT)
______Rob -:- last word -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:16:44 (EDT)
________barney -:- last word -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:04:49 (EDT)
__________Rob -:- last word -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:16:58 (EDT)
__________Rob -:- turing -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:45:03 (EDT)
____________barney -:- Yes, Alan Turing -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:13:02 (EDT)
______________Rob -:- Yes, Alan Turing -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:18:22 (EDT)
______________Rob -:- curious? -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:22:37 (EDT)
________________barney -:- curious? -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 08:58:40 (EDT)
__________________floyd -:- you going to add cookies?(nt) -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 09:43:47 (EDT)
__________________Rob -:- will curiosity kill the -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:58:33 (EDT)
____________________Gerry's in the house... -:- Anything yu'd like to talk abo -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:01:54 (EDT)
______________________Rob -:- Anything yu'd like to talk abo -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 14:22:31 (EDT)
________________________gerry -:- Anything yu'd like to talk abo -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:24:52 (EDT)
__________________________Rob -:- I'm flattered -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 16:19:59 (EDT)
____________________________Gerry -:- I'm flattered -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 16:54:51 (EDT)
______________________________Rob -:- I'm flattened -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:29:49 (EDT)
________________________________Gerry -:- I'm flattened-- you should be -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:00:20 (EDT)
________________________________Jean-Michel -:- I've been, you not? -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:33:05 (EDT)
____________________________Jim -:- Well I'm not -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 20:11:53 (EDT)
______________________________Rob -:- longer reply -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:16:42 (EDT)
________________________________Jim -:- Thanks -- with reservations -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:56:00 (EDT)
__________________________________Rob -:- re 'threat' -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:30:34 (EDT)
____________________________________Jim -:- You're on! -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:52:50 (EDT)
______________________________________Rob -:- You're on! -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:16:46 (EDT)
________________________________________Jim -:- Thanks -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:42:51 (EDT)
________________________________________KB -:- Rob, you're honest? -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 23:29:39 (EDT)
__________________________________________Katie -:- Please drop it, Bill -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:35:35 (EDT)
____________________________________________Jim -:- I disagree, Katie -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:37:33 (EDT)
____________________________________Jerry -:- re 'threat' -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 09:28:32 (EDT)
__________________________Liz -:- Liz & the kid next door. -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 15:59:51 (EDT)
____________________________Gail -:- Liz, the only reason to leave -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:36:18 (EDT)
________Robyn -:- last word -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 08:25:16 (EDT)
__________Rob -:- last word -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:45:00 (EDT)
____________Robyn -:- last word -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:15:11 (EDT)
__Dr. Ruth -:- Waving your white dick -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:20:46 (EDT)
____Dr Reich -:- Waving your white dick -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:23:42 (EDT)
____Rob -:- Tossing the caber -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:46:13 (EDT)
______Dr. Ruth -:- Tossing the caber -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:50:30 (EDT)
________Rob -:- oy veh -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:55:34 (EDT)
__________Dr. Ruth -:- oy veh -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:11:59 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- oy veh -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:22:22 (EDT)
______________cp -:- questions for Rob -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:07:22 (EDT)
________________Rob -:- answers from Rob -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:28:01 (EDT)
__________________cp -:- answers from Rob -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:00:51 (EDT)
____________________Rob -:- answers from Rob -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:04:05 (EDT)
______________________Robyn -:- answers from Rob -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 08:47:49 (EDT)
________________________Rob -:- more answers -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:14:33 (EDT)
__Gail -:- Waving a white flag -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:20:58 (EDT)
____Rob -:- Dancer -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 16:30:49 (EDT)
______Gail -:- Dancer -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:30:42 (EDT)
______Mw -:- quiting -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:36:52 (EDT)
________Gail -:- You're fibbing, Rob! -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:18:20 (EDT)
__________cp -:- You're fibbing, Rob! -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:57:21 (EDT)
__________Rob -:- Secrets Revealed!!!! -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:03:48 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- You flatter yourself now -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:26:50 (EDT)
______________Rob -:- One OP to another -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:05:01 (EDT)
________________Jim -:- One OP to another -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:37:57 (EDT)
________________Powerman -:- says Mensa My Ass -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 00:58:46 (EDT)
__________________dv -:- Bravo Powerman!nt -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 18:30:25 (EDT)
________________Cat weasel -:- One OP to another -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:23:49 (EDT)
__________________Jerry -:- Thanks, Cat -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:51:49 (EDT)
____________________Catweasel -:- Thanks, Cat,but 20Mls ! -:- Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:16:38 (EDT)
________________Liz -:- One OP to another -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:55:10 (EDT)
________________Jerry -:- Deterioration -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:02:35 (EDT)
____________gerry -:- You're not arrogant... -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:24:32 (EDT)
______________Gail -:- You're not arrogant... -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 21:26:26 (EDT)
__________Rob -:- Last request -:- Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:27:18 (EDT)
____________Gail -:- Am I screamer? -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:18:05 (EDT)
________Fred -:- No broadcast -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 02:25:47 (EDT)
__________Mw -:- No broadcast -:- Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:08:04 (EDT)

Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:35:23 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Download the whole website
Message:
Now!

The Elan Vital - DLM Papers for Download

And save it to disks for your friends!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:11:13 (EDT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Download the whole website
Message:
Great, thanks Jean-Michel.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:30:45 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
Hi Everyone,

This post was prompted by a comment below by Catweasel, where he said, talking about Maharaji's followers, 'It is not a cult.' so although it's addressed to everyone, I'm particularly keen to hear what the premies have to say.

It's a simple question.

What is your definition of a religous cult?

From the top of my head, here's my two pence worth (don't convert to dollars please Brian).

A group of people who think they have solved the meaning of life and nobody else has.

A group of people who give up their discrimination and individual will, to follow the will of their leader.

A group who believe that they are, in some divine way, unique from all other the other groups who look and sound like they do.

Yours

Antonionioni
Ex-cult member still in recovery.

(My hand starts shaking when the flame gets near the picture, angelic voices sing Arti in the distance, the photo of Mussolini on the wall speaks to me, 'Anth, He really is the One. Go back before it's too late. Otherwise you'll eat cold pasta in Hell for Eternity. I'll give you another message, proving his divinity beyond doubt, tomorrow morning, breakfast time. It will be in the form of a picture on a cornflake...'

Help...I need Help...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:40:43 (EDT)
From: nmw
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
What is a cult?

A cult is a group of people who follow a tenet, person or idea with a passion that causes them to suspend rational judgment.

Cult-like behavior can be exhibited by individuals (or groups - since I think cults are more or less a group phenomenon) even in non-cult situations.

Cults I have known:
- the NRA
- the Catholic Church
- certain political causes
- AA, NA and all the various and sundry other A's.

Sure - you can throw some aspects of premiedom in there. Feel free.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:56:18 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: nmw
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
Hi nmw,

what exactly do you mean by, 'Sure you can throw in some aspects of premiedom'.

By your own definition, the followers of Maharaji are a cult.

Don't you agree?

Anth.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:22:00 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
One qualification I heard recently is that a cult has
a leader that does all the thinking and others input
is not allowed or welcomed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 14:19:59 (EDT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
Cults are spiritual and intellectual graves.

Cults gain control over people's time, especially their thought time. Repeat mantra, count your breath, so-hum, so-hum, chant harekrishna, listen to satsang. Watch video.

Cults gain power over people by creating in them a sense of powerlessness. Only god has power, or, even worse, everything happens by Guru's Grace or Lila! No point in doing anything but surrender, then maybe you get (deserve!) grace.

Cults remove people from their usual social support systems, and replace them with new ones, making people surprisingly fast dependent on new social quasi-support systems like ashrams, communes, farms (in fact, deny them of their private lives).

Cults manipulate rewards, punishments, and most of all, experiences (THAT experience!), in order to suppress the old social behavior and enforce the new one.

Cults manipulate speak, and thereby thinking (THIS life, THAT breath, etc., previously, the whole Hindu terminology). Cult speak is a special jargon, so that by using old words in a new way, recruits and members stop thinking. The special jargon works as a trigger, enforcing previously programmed experiences. Like, if a person has been hypnotized once, it is easier to hypnotize him/her again. Every new experience stregthens the programming.

Cults have a tightly controlled, theocratic system. Democracy is out, strict hierarchy is in. Criticism is not allowed, not even possible, since God/Guru is flawless! No complaints are accepted from down below. Whoever is at the top of the power structure must maintain power. Anybody who dissents will be made to feel guilty if not directly cast out.

In order for recruitment to work, cult victims must be unaware that they are being changed and mindwarped a step at a time. They can't be mind controlled if they understand what is happening to them. First introductory videos or introductory satsang, then graudally total devotion, total surrender ('Surrender the reins of your life to me, and I shall give you piece').

Cult members always deny that they are in a cult, although it is crystal clear for anybody else to see. Cult behavior and thinking always appear bizarre to others.

If somebody approaches you with shiny, trance-like eyes, and says that (s)he finally has found Truth with capital T, although (s)he in fact looks like a lobotomized zombie - that person definitely is a cult member. Run for your life!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:38:29 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: Happy
Subject: Thanks Hap..(nt)
Message:
dfh
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:26:24 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: KB & Happy
Subject: You've convinced me
Message:
Thanks for the definitions guys. I've printed them out for future reference.

(o.t) Happy, remember I asked you about horror-movies and kids.
What do you think - in a nutshell?

Love,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:00:15 (EDT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: ot question
Message:
I'll write you an email tomorrow!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:42:58 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: nmw
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
nmw: The NRA isn't a cult for one simple reason, we don't all agree with our ELECTED leaders, nor are we encouraged to do so. If we have a beef with the leadership, we speak up and we are heard. The NRA is a membership organization (with over 3 million active members), not a lobby group.

Could you just be taking a cheap shot at the only organization that promotes firearms safety and responsible firearms ownership just because the media paints them as a bunch of drunken gun-toting morons? Why don't you read some of their training materials that are used by every police department, state hunting/firearms training organization and the us military? Bet you didn't know that, did you? Their training is second to none, LTERALLY!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:15:29 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: AJW--quit eating breakfast nt
Message:
NO CORNFLAKES FOR YOU, AJW.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:29:09 (EDT)
From: Walter
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
AJW, I know you did not ask for a strict interpretation, but the dictionary is very vague on the definition of the word 'cult'. Therefore, it is open to loose interpretation. I find this a very interesting question.

The word cult and occult are often used interchangeably; occult means hidden, secretive, abstruse, mysterious, of or relating to supernatural agencies,their effects or knowledge of them.

People generally call any group they disagree with a cult. I mean the American Boy Scouts can be seen as a cult. Another good question is what's the difference between a club and a gang? Is the Girl Scout Club a gang of girls? A gang is usually looked upon as deviant while a club is socially acceptable.

I would say that M and his organization is definitely occult and therefore I view him as a cult leader. But then the other question that arises is are cults inherently bad, is there any such thing as a good cult?

Christians were the one's who generally coined the word cult, using it to identify anyone who practiced anything but Christianity. But today I think cults are generally looked upon as any group who enslaves their members, mentally,physically or whatever, enslavement is enslavement. Whether that group has a guru type leader or a leadership type committee it can still have the dynamics of a cult.

Some of the dynamics of a cult are they believe they have a special exclusive knowledge that no one else has, they have and 'US' and 'THEM' group-think mentality, they condemn people for leaving the group,they generally look down on unique individual expression, they are very secretive and closed about what they're doing, they do not question their edicts considering them divinely provinced or inalienable, and generally they think they're better then everyone else.

Lastly, I have never heard of a cult that is willing to admitt that it is a cult. All cults say 'we're not a cult' and then give some absurd reason as to why they're not a cult.

The short answer; EV and M are a cult. they walk like a cult, they talk like a cult, they look like a cult; they must be a cult.

Finally lastly, The Rocky Horror Picture Show movie was considered a cult classic, Star Trek has a cult following, and so on. So the word 'cult' is applied to many different areas.

Now that I've further clouded the issue I'll quite.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 19:38:51 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Walter
Subject: Thanks Walter
Message:
That didn't cloud the issue at all.

I remember when I was a premie, starting to feel uncomfortable about explaining to myself why EV looked, felt, smelled, sounded and tasted like a cult, but for some reason wasn't.

Anth
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 20:15:48 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
I have thought a lot about this over the years and did a fair bit of reading of people who have studied cults like Dr. Margaret Singer of UC Berkeley, probably the world's leading expert on cults. Anyhow, there are wide variations among cults as to the amount of mind control, etc., but there seem to be four essential elements in every cult:

1. A cult claims that a simplistic forumula, practice or belief will bring happiness, salvation will solve all problems, give an experience of truth, etc.;

2. The cult members exhibit an excessive devotion or dedication to one person, idea or thing;

3. The cult members get to feel that they have special understanding that others don't have and that they are lucky or superior to others who do not have the 'gift'; and

4. In a cult there is little or no tolerance for dissent, doubt or criticism of the cult, and ESPECIALLY of the cult leader, and there is a a significant amount of fear among cult members, whether expressed or not, about what would happen if the cult and its leader were rejected.

No matter how Maharaji's cult has changed over the years, these four elements have always existed and still do.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 20:52:54 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: That's it in a nutshell, Joe
Message:
Thanks Joe for putting this so succinctly. I think your four points pretty well cover it:

1) Simplistic teaching
2) Excessive dedication
3) Feeling of specialness
4) No dissent

That's it. Thanks again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:05:50 (EDT)
From: gregg
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's it in a nutshell, Joe
Message:
Walter, JW: excellent. Discriminating between cults and religions and mystical paths is difficult for all of us. Very clear distictions...I'm going to print those up for reference. (But, Happy, isn't it possible to recite mantras all day and not be in a cult? See, I think you can have a guru and not be in a cult. You can believe in weird shit and not be in a cult. You can believe in really wierd shit and not be in a cult.)

It's a free country.

Unless you're in a cult. And I'm not being ironic here, like I usually am. In a cult, you believe you are free from societal programming (nice, that revolutionary aspect), but au contraire.

In a cult, what is...is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:34:30 (EDT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: What's a cult
Message:
I think it has to do with free will. Within a cult there is no respect given to free will, no latitude given for dissension of any kind.

I disagree when people say all religions are cults or organizations like the Girl Scouts or A.A. are cults. This kind of statement assumes that everything is on the same par and everything is not on the same par. AA and Girl Scouts are up front about what they are all about, there is no hidden agenda that pops up later once you've been 'initiated'. My husband did not like AA as a treatment option because they are up front about the emphasis on the higher power, which he wasn't comfortable with. Noone tricked him about this--it is widely known and stated in all the literature. So he picked a treatment program that was 'religiously neutral' so to speak.

Boy Scouts discriminates against homosexuals, girl scouts doesn't (they are 2 separate organizations) and they were up front about it when I signed my daughter up for Girl Scouts. The Girl Scout pledge talks about serving God and country--it's all out there out front. Also in these organizations the $$ stuff is all out front, noone tries to pressure you to give more. Of course you can give more if you want but noone implies that your salvation is contingent upon your giving more money. Also these organizations are into empowering people, IMO, and emphasize service to others.

In a cult 'service' is service to the leader figure only. Also with a cult, I think there is a lot of deviousness and dishonesty in their member- getting tactics, even if this is unconscious, cult members are not 100% honest about the real deal until the initiate has achieved a certain 'understanding'. So the initiate really is not operating from 'free will' but from some kind of mind control or brainwashing or conditioning process.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 08:14:45 (EDT)
From: microvolt
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's not it in a nutshell
Message:
Jim,

correct, but:
1) you may adhere to simplistic teaching, still not be in a cult,
2) you may show excessive dedication, still not be in a cult,
3) you may feel special, still not be in a cult,
4) you may antagonize dissent, still not be in a cult.

these 4 points do not define cults. They are characteristics, but are by no means satisfactory as a definition - they don't even come close to a coherent definition.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:48:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: microvolt
Subject: I disagree
Message:
these 4 points do not define cults. They are characteristics, but are by no means satisfactory as a definition - they don't even come close to a coherent definition.

I dunno. It strikes me that anytime all four of these conditions are present you've got a cult. Can you think of a counter-example? And can you think of something you'd say was a cult that didn't have all four factors?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:07:37 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I disagree
Message:
I think that lots of totalitarian/fascist groups qualify for these qualities.

??
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:25:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: I agree
Message:
I think that lots of totalitarian/fascist groups qualify for these qualities.
??

Don't go flashing your question marks at me, Frenchie!! Do you have any idea how insulting that is on this side of the channel, let alone Atlantic??

No, seriously, JM, I think those groups should indeed be thought of as cults. I think they fall right within the core definition. The Nazis were a cult for sure.

By the way, thanks again for putting all that stuff in dowloadable form. I wonder how many premies, over time, will not take a copy of the whole thing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:46:05 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: We've to be more precise
Message:
those groups should indeed be thought of as cults. I think they fall right within the core definition. The Nazis were a cult for sure.

OK, so I think the word 'cult' has a more or less broad sense according to the context.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 14:29:33 (EDT)
From: microvolt
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: what is a definition
Message:
Hi again Jim,

I'm not an expert on these matters, I just happened to read this thread and felt I had to react to what I felt was too simplistic.

First, cult is a sociological term, and I think sociology texts categorize religious movements into, roughly, four categories: churches, denominations, sects, and cults. Denomination being a lower-level category to church, and mostly used in the US. The term sect may be used as still another lower-level category, but also sometimes as something pretty equivalent to cult.

The term cult appeared in common use in the 70s, as a synonym for NRMs, or 'new religious movements', and the latter term was more accepted by scientific writers. If you read the literature, the term cult was largely cosidered ambiguous and therefore avoided.

However, the term cult appears to have survived anyway, while the term NRM didn't. There's lots about definitions of cults in the scientific literature, and I don't want to sit here and guess. Smarter people than me have studied this for years.

Anyway, I reacted against the self-evident fact that the four points surely characterized cults (but cults have other characteristics, too, above all the use of various mind-controlling techniques, but also isolation from other strata of society), and you may show these characteristics without being a in a cult.

As gregg said, 'you can believe in a guru and not be in a cult. you can believe in weird shit and not be in a cult. You can believe in really weird shit and not be in a cult'. It goes to show, you can show these, as well as other characteristics of cult members, and still not be in a cult.

Still, I don't agree with gregg when he says you can have guru and not be in a cult. If you have a guru, I'd say chances are you're in a cult. If you're the guru's only disciple - well then I don't know. Then you're just freaked-out, probably. To be a cult, you should be a group. That's one of the essentials.

I know two sisters who believe that their dead aunt 'helps' them and gives them advice. I use to joke with them and say that they have their own, two-member cult, the 'Aunt Jenny'-cult.

Now, gregg says, you can recite mantras and not be in a cult. Yes, that's true: but reciting mantras is also a typical CHARACTERISTIC of members of many cults.

You suggest me to come with a 'counter-example', and suddenly you suggest that if these four are there, then it is a cult, otherwise not - but that's not what you explicitly said in your first post, and that's not how I read it in the first place. You did NOT say all four characteristics should be there, and that was the definition. To me it appears post-hoc, but perhaps I read you incorrectly.

Anyway, I take your challenge: do you consider non-religious groups, which show all the four characteristics, to be cults? Like maoism, militant vegans, neo-nazis? Sure, according to your characteristics, they should be cults. According to sociology, they are NOT. They have CULT-LIKE FEATURES, but they are not a cult.

Now, you might suggest that in YOUR opinion, they are indeed cults. But sociologists would disagree. They are very cult-like, yes, but not cults per se. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a further argument about this, this took far too much of expensive time already.

I liked Walter's line:
'EV and M are a cult. They walk like a cult, they talk like a cult, they look like a cult; they must be a cult.' With this, I most strongly agree.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:47:38 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: microvolt
Subject: what is a definition
Message:
I think all you are saying here is that you think cults need to be religious in nature to be cults. Clearly, most of the cults I have heard about are religious in nature, but not all. I do think it's possible to be in a politicial cult (like a neo-nazi group for example, which I think could be a cult), so in that sense, I use the word more broadly than you. Plus, what is 'religious' is also open to interpretation. [I would argue that neo-nazi's in some ways are a 'religion' in the sense that they have fairly strict 'religious' views). Some would not consider EST or LIFESPRING religious, for example, but I would certainly consider them cults, and I think they do meet the four characteristics. I think Singer and the others who have written about CULTS are using in, not like you, but in a broader sense.

Now, gregg says, you can recite mantras and not be in a cult. Yes, that's true: but reciting mantras is also a typical CHARACTERISTIC of members of many cults.

I disagree. Mantras are a characteristics of SOME cults, but not ALL cults and therefore it's incorrect to say it is a CHARACTERISTIC OF A CULT, because it only applies to some, not all. Actually, a mantra is just some kind of ritual or practice and the kind of ritual or practice is irrelevent on the basic level. The essential characteristic is that the cult members believe that the mantra, or whatever, is some kind of path or connection to some essential truth, happiness, etc. It isn't the ritual that makes a cult a cult, it's the import that is put on it that does. That's why Maharaji can get away with four, mundane meditation techniques as the 'practice.' If people believe they are some kind of path to truth and love, that is what is essential. It could be any techniques or no techniques and the same result could happen.

You did NOT say all four characteristics should be there, and that was the definition.

Maybe Jim didn't, but I did. I do think the four are essential for a group to be a cult, although the intensity of each will vary.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 05:02:19 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Mind control techniques
Message:
Mantras are a characteristics of SOME cults, but not ALL cults and therefore it's incorrect to say it is a CHARACTERISTIC OF A CULT, because it only applies to some, not all. Actually, a mantra is just some kind of ritual or practice and the kind of ritual or practice is irrelevent on the basic level. The essential characteristic is that the cult members believe that the mantra, or whatever, is some kind of path or connection to some essential truth, happiness, etc. It isn't the ritual that makes a cult a cult, it's the import that is put on it that does. That's why Maharaji can get away with four, mundane meditation techniques as the 'practice.' If people believe they are some kind of path to truth and love, that is what is essential. It could be any techniques or no techniques and the same result could happen.

I guess the main issue is the use of mind control techniques in cults/sects, and in EV.
Mantras, meditation are some of them.
Others are also used in EV.
Like staring at the guru for hours every week: that's a very powerful one, specially when the guru (or the focus point) has 10s of 1000s of light power aimed at him during 'events'.

Anybody has an idea of it's effect on anybody watching this brilliant focus point?

Even during day time and in the open, like in India, he has huge lights on him!

Why? Did you ever wonder why? I always thought it was for filming purpose. No! Those cameras don't need that much light. This is one of the basic brainwashing techniques: focusing at a brilliant point whilst listening to a discourse.

This is really disgusting.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 22:25:13 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: microvolt
Subject: what is a definition
Message:
Thanks for all that microvolt. (What a great name, by the way. Are you Jewish? No, seriously, if my band didn't already have a name.... I like it.)

Anyway, I hear you. You don't want to get dragged into a long discussion on this. I guess my take is this. Whether or not the sociologists would agree, I'd say all those groups -- maoism, militant vegans, neo-nazis -- are indeed cults. To me, all that matters is that rational thought's curtailed by the four things Joe mentioned. I don't think it's critical that the cult's large or small, young or old, socially accepted or not (consider Nazism in Hitler's Germany). Nor does it matter that the members live in society or apart. All that matters to me is the sabotaged thought process. (Naturally, then, I see a gradual slope going off in all sorts of directions, including the hills of mainstream religion.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 13:35:43 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Macro-watts
Message:
That's an eye-opener!

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:04:47 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: microvolt
Subject: I also disagree
Message:
You need to have all four elements. There are other elements, depending on the cult, but these four are essential. Why? Because a cult by definition doesn't tolerate dissent, it's a part of the system. It has a simplistic 'answer' (what cult doesn't?), there is a feeling of 'superiority' (of course), and there is excessive dedication and devotion.

These elements were developed from studying thousands of cults. If you read Margaret Singer's work, you can see how she arrived at them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 14:43:50 (EDT)
From: microvolt
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Margaret Singer
Message:
I have read some of Margaret Singer's articles. She did not study thousands of cults, Joe.

But I certainly agree that the four mentioned characteristics are typical of cults, but come on, they're not ENOUGH to define any group as a cult, as Jim suggested. That's silly. And that's not what Singer wrote, either. She did not say: 'If these four characteristics be present, a group should be regarded a cult'.

Here, we're talking about characteristics, not about a clear definition.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:11:29 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: microvolt
Subject: Distinction w/o a Difference
Message:
But I certainly agree that the four mentioned characteristics are typical of cults, but come on, they're not ENOUGH to define any group as a cult, as Jim suggested. That's silly. And that's not what Singer wrote, either. She did not say: 'If these four characteristics be present, a group should be regarded a cult'.

Oh come on. Can you think of any group that has the four characteristics that ISN'T a cult? I don't think it's 'silly' at all to include them as essential characteristics. After all, and as I said, every cult will also have other characteristics, but they will also have those as basic elements. Can you think of a cult that doesn't have them?

No, it isn't what Singer wrote, it's what I wrote. But Singer would certainly agree that the four characteristics are basic ones.

I think you're distinction between 'essential characteristics' and a 'definition' is meaningless. A cult is DEFINED by those four characteristics. They are what makes a cult a cult. I call that defining what a cult is, or a definition.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 04:43:54 (EDT)
From: Walter
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
Very good outline JW. Margaret Singer has done some good work but her research on cults involved a very narrow sample of what might be called 'New Age' groups, she did not look at long established organizations or groups, and she did not consider groups that had no leader. Groups like the Roscrucians who have no leader but follow arcane teachings. They are considered a cult. There are many leaderless cults.

Now I know this question was aimed at Mahjaraji and his group and I have generalized it into a macro perspective. But I still maintain that cults are defined by people on the outside of the group. I have never heard a cult identify itself as a cult, or a group member define his/her group as a cult. It would be refreshing to hear someone say 'I belong to a cult.' But it is usually the person who considers themselves a non-cultist who identifies others as belonging to a cult.

Nonetheless, I agree with your four point outline on cults. Helen also has some good points about public disclosure and the like in her post. You know there is the professional sisinct way of looking at things and then there is the general public's usage of terms. Like when somethings bad, that means it's really good. Language is always changing, slang, etc. and I think cult is one of those kind of words that means many things to many different people. Psycholinguistics or how we think about words.

Here's one, define the word; FRIEND, and I think just about everyone has their own definition of the word friend. Alot of words in the English language are subjective and fluid, they do not have static meanings. That's why sacred languages which have fixed or static meanings, like Sanskrit, Latin, Hebrew. Medical and legal terminology often has Greek prefix or suffix because it is sisinct. But English is a sloppy language, we throw it around and mix it up and then expect everyone to understand us.

So I'm long winded again, just thought I'd comment further.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:03:10 (EDT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: Walter
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
This dilema about the word cult is wierd.
The Rosecrutian literature from the old days
identifies the movement as a cult.
There were not the negative connotations on it.

Some streams of thought allott a whole different slant to the words that we use.
To a theosophist,(for whom the occult is a science) the concept of ego is a wonderful thing-
lining up with our ideas about a 'higher self'.
But lo if one speaks favorably of the ego in some religious circles or in a apres satsang situation.
Its like the words have a warp in them as time goes by.
I liked your post.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 11:01:53 (EDT)
From: Walter
Email: None
To: cp
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
Very correct cp. I think it was the Christians who put a spin on the word 'cult'. It used to be acceptable and even sacred to belong to a cult, but then around the 14th or 15th century all that began to change. The Christian Church started killing people, burning them to the stake, etc. because of their affliation with a cult. Cults were seen as a threat to Christianity, and they were skewed as black magic, evil, etc. That is where the negative connotation on cults stem from today.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:53:33 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Walter
Subject: I disagree, Walter
Message:
Alot of words in the English language are subjective and fluid, they do not have static meanings. That's why sacred languages which have fixed or static meanings, like Sanskrit, Latin, Hebrew. Medical and legal terminology often has Greek prefix or suffix because it is sisinct. But English is a sloppy language, we throw it around and mix it up and then expect everyone to understand us.

Walter,

Where'd you get this idea? I don't think it's right at all. Legal terminology, for example, is, at times, every bit as vague as English (or any other language). I think it's more a matter of the subject matter than what language is spoken. In the case of law, some concepts are vague and some not. Same with all languages, I think.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:03:40 (EDT)
From: Walter
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: We Agree To Disagree, Jim
Message:
Hey you're entitled to disagree and so am I, you don't need anyones permission, as was eariler stated it's a free country. I never said ALL legal terminology was precise. I said it has Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes that are more precise, DAAA. You ask where do I get my ideas,from studying and teaching different languages that's where, my college courses in medical terminology and legal terminology that's where. I stick by what I've said, so we agree to disagree. I don't want to make and argument out of it. These things are taught at most colleges and universities in the U.S.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 17:52:26 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Walter
Subject: Okay, but let's talk
Message:
Walter,

It looks like I'm the one who's going to end up wrong here. Really. My only knowledge, beside common sense (?), about this goes back to a few law school courses on word meaning and stuff. If you've got the goods, please share them. Honestly.

On the other hand, if you don't want to, I'll still defer to your training and say I'm probably wrong. I can be right next time, I guess.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:17:40 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Walter
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
Very good outline JW. Margaret Singer has done some good work but her research on cults involved a very narrow sample of what might be called 'New Age' groups, she did not look at long established organizations or groups, and she did not consider groups that had no leader

I don't know where you get this information, but Singer has studied New Age groups in the latter part of her career, but she has also studied traditional cults as well for many years. I don't know if you consider DLM, for example, a New Age cult. Singer considered it a traditional Eastern-based cult, and I think she's right.

I think you would find that 'leaderless' cults really DO have leaders. They just aren't called that. They generally have some kind of ministers, teachers, those who are more evolved, etc., those who 'educate' new inductees, etc. These 'leaders' are generally revered.

But I still maintain that cults are defined by people on the outside of the group. I have never heard a cult identify itself as a cult, or a group member define his/her group as a cult. It would be refreshing to hear someone say 'I belong to a cult.' But it is usually the person who considers themselves a non-cultist who identifies others as belonging to a cult.

Well, duh! Like alcoholism, anorexia and other addictions, one of the natures of a cult is that people in them don't think they are. Why? Because they think they are the exception. Since they have the ONE TRUE experience, belief, or whatever, THEY are not a cult, but all those others, are cults. I recall this distinctly during my career as a premie. I thought the MOONIES were a cult, the Hare Krishnas were a cult, the Children of God, were a cult, but premies and Maharaji were NOT a cult. Why? Again, because we were indoctrinated to think we had the one true experience, and Maharaji REALLY WAS the ONE TRUE Perfect Master, and the leaders of those other groups weren't. As you know, Maharaji taught that there was only ONE Perfect Master alive at a time, and he was essentially the incarnation of God just like Jesus Christ was. So, we made the exception. What I found out later, working with 'ex-cult' counseling groups, is that the members of those other cults thought exactly the same thing, and that they were, in fact, extremely similar to Maharaji's cult. That was very confronting to me, ever after I had become an ex-premie.

The other reason cult members don't say they are in a cult is that 'cult' has a negative connotation (for good reasons), and since most cults are propogational in nature, it's bad PR to call yourself a cult, because no one would join.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:22:08 (EDT)
From: Walter
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: 'What's a Cult? JW'
Message:
JW addictions are not a good example, people do admitt to being and alcoholic or anorexic. AA is a bunch of people admitting that they are alcoholic. There are people who use drugs who admitt that they are a drug addict, and they still continue to use drugs even after their admission. Although addiction can be said to be one of the characteristics of a cult.

Cults are looked at negatively not because of it's definition but because of a general public consensus about cults.

And as far as Margaret Singer is concerned, I have been to many of her lectures, and I have taught courses at Berkley as well. No big deal. What academic scholars talk about beyond their literature is much different than the published literature.

As I've said eariler, people are going to think about cults the way they so desire, regardless of the published literature or what conclsions are reached on this forum. The english dictionary does not well define the word cult and no university professor has the authority to define established words in the english language, they can only refer to characteristics and dynamics relating to such words.

So again, we agree to disagree. I can live with that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:29:51 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Walter
Subject: 'What's a Cult?
Message:
JW addictions are not a good example, people do admitt to being and alcoholic or anorexic.

Yes, that's when they realize they have a problem and try to do something about it. When people realize they are in a cult, they usually try to do something about that, too. But yes, it's only a good comparison, as I said, as to one characteristic, that people who are in a cult don't think they are, and it's also part of the nature of addiction that people who have the disorder don't think they do.

AA is a bunch of people admitting that they are alcoholic.

Yes, and this forum is a bunch of people admitting they used to be in a cult. True, one is STILL technically an alcoholic even if one doesn't drink, but that's not relevent to what I was saying. Again, the only comparison is the tendency of both addicts and cult members to think the problem doesn't apply to them. ['I am only a social drinker so I am not an alcoholic,' vs. 'this is the one true experience so I am not in a cult.']

Cults are looked at negatively not because of it's definition but because of a general public consensus about cults.

I think the public consensus about cults comes from what cults have actuallly done to people. True, the public consensus is probably simplistic as it is with most things. But I do believe that cults are inherently harmful, although the degree of harm varies from cult to cult, to be sure.

So, what is your problem with the definition, specifically? I'm afraid I can't tell where you are coming from.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 10:09:34 (EDT)
From: Victoria
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
Hey Joe,

I thought the MOONIES were a cult, the Hare Krishnas were a cult, the Children of God, were a cult, but premies and Maharaji were NOT a cult.

I agree with you, and we liked to point out the obvious differences between our experience and their cult. I am reminded also that I heard many times that our experience was what those cults were seeking...I remember hearing that Swami Satchitananda said that Guru Maharaj Ji was 'doing his work', that premies don't 'get' EST because they already have 'it' -- in fact they ARE 'it,' and that premies pass the Scientology test with flying colors...that premies already have whatever Scientology could offer and more.

I think someone near the top was feeding the rumor mill in hopes of retaining the strays.

Love,
Victoria
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 11:10:59 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Walter
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
...English is a sloppy language, we throw it around and mix it up and then expect everyone to understand us.

This may be true, but what I think is more true is that some people have better communication skills than others. They're clearer in their thinking and they have a better command of language. Blaming the language for not being able to get a point across has always struck me as a copout. It's like blaming your golf clubs for constantly hooking and slicing the ball. The truth is probably that it's really a lousy golf swing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 11:46:58 (EDT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
I agree Jerry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:56:55 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: 'What's a Cult?'
Message:
So do I. Excellent point, Jerry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 21:33:43 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Bravo JW!
Message:
And thanks for a great lunch!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 00:37:08 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: G's mom
Subject: Bravo JW!
Message:
Hi Mom:

Thanks. And thanks for the excellent company over lunch! Is E trying out as pitcher for the Dodgers?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 10:08:54 (EDT)
From: microvolt
Email: None
To: Jim & JW
Subject: last comment on this
Message:
Thanks for the compliment about my name, Jim.

JW, you read me incorrectly. Go check my previous post, I never said ALL cults practice meditation! And please, don't be so uptight about this. Your four points are nice and true, but they are no magic formula.

At least in sociology, cults are defined as RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS. That is, they must consist of people who share a collective belief in 'some weird shit', as gregg said, but that weird shit must be of a religious nature.

Now then the next tricky question, what is religious? As I read it, it must consist of belief in something like life-after-death, the existence of spirits, perhaps a god or several ones, perhaps the existence of destiny or a purpose in life. Sociologists fight about this definition even more. There certainly are questionable cases, like EST, but also buddhism, in a strict sense. Many don't even regard buddhism as a religion.

Now then, what is 'weird shit'? To me, it implies that the beliefs of the group in question are considered wrong, perhaps awkward, bizarre, by mainstream society. It is, of course, the winners who define reality and write history, so mainstream society might be equally wrong. As I see it, the world religions are also pretty much 'weird shit', memes.

Then, cults often share certain characteristics, but I can't see the value of boiling it down to exactly four. Some share some characteristics, others share others. You 'lose variance' that way, to use a statistic term, if you try to limit it to exactly the four mentioned. Look at Singer, the Guru Papers, and others, and you will find several other characteristics - like the use of mind-controlling techniques - mentioned.

I agree with you both that cult-like, political groups like neo-nazis are exactly as bad as religious cults, and share many of the same features. If you want to define them as cults, it's perfectly fine with me. There are good reasons for it, and I think they serve, to a large extent, the same functions.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:27:11 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: Thanks
Message:
Hi everyone

Thanks for some enlightening responses.

I feel like a schoolteacher again, 'Happy. Yours was very good. Why don't you come and read it to the class.'

It's a shame the premies kept quiet.

Anth
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:37:47 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: microvolt
Subject: Well, maybe not
Message:
Go check my previous post, I never said ALL
cults practice meditation!

Understood, and I never said you said that, and I dont' feel uptight at all. I think I got what youy said -- I just said that a mantra is not a characteristic of cults, it is a characteristic of A CERTAIN CULT, unlike the four I was talking about.

As I said, I don't know if all cults have a religious component -- I tend to think they don't necessarily have to be religious. That's why I mentioned Est and neo-nazis. I think they can be cults -- their devotion and dedication borders on the religious anyway. I just disagree with you that cults have to be religious. Where would you put est, by the way? Don't you think it's a cult? I certainly do, but I wouldn't call it religious.

Look, the four characteristics are the only ones I have seen that definitely apply in every case. I can't think of another one that does, and I haven't heard one from you either. Regarding mind control techniques, well, not allowing doubts, being intolerant of dissent or criticism of the cult or the leader, creating fear of leaving, etc., ARE mind control techniques. That's exactly what they are. So I don't disagree that cults use mind control techniques, in fact they are an ESSENTIAL part of a cult. But cults use CERTAIN KINDS of mind control techniques, and the essential ones are the ones I've mentioned, at least from what I can tell.

As I said, I've read and thought a lot about this, and the four were the essential ones. If you have others, I'm all ears.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 09:56:08 (EDT)
From: microvolt
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: ok
Message:
Joe, no point in going on arguing about this.You seem to be a nice guy from what you write, and I think we pretty much agree on the fact that the points you raised were good. But mind-control techniques are a fifth common characteristic, as you mentioned.
And, it's a matter of taste whether one considers non-religious movements to be cults or not. Definitely, they can function in pretty much the same way, without the religious connotation. But how about leaving this subject now, and move further upwards?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 05:24:52 (EDT)
From: student
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT
Message:
CHECK OUT THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA 1974 PG 145
I THOUGH IT WAS MIND THAT THERE WAS A WRITE UP ABOUT HIM IN IT. HOW COULD THAT INFO BE RELEASED AND EVERYONE NOT BE FLOCKING TO HIS FEAT?
I WAS SO LUCKY NOT TO BE BURDENED WITH BOOKS!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:39:05 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: student
Subject: ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT
Message:
We dont have that in our homes, why dont you just
type it and post it fer us?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:52:33 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: student
Subject: ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT
Message:
My version's a bit earlier. On page 145 it's got, 'Used as Bait for a Tiger's Trap. BY HENRY STONE. The fearful experience of an officer in Burma.' There's a picture of a man in a big turban at the bottom of a castle wall, saying, 'THE FLYMEN DROPPED ME WITH A CRASH.' but I think that goes with the piece on page 144, 'How I was Hanged. BY RICHARD AMBROSE HICKS ('TRICKY DICKY HICKS')

Is this what you mean?

Antony the Bookworm.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:59:07 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: student
Subject: ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT
Message:
Which volume are we talking about here?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:20:55 (EDT)
From: student
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: ENCYCLOPEDIA FACT
Message:
Sorry about that incomplete reference.
I havent opened them in 20 years.
We shifted the couch and it was holding up the back corner cause it was missing a leg.
After I finish my cornflakes ill type it out fer yi.:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:12:31 (EDT)
From: student
Email: None
To: thread
Subject: Britannica Fun Facts
Message:
HoK here goes

MAHARA JI

Called by his folowers a 'Perfect Master,' only one of whom can be alive at any given time, a 15-year-old boy guru from India, Maharaji Ji, toured the world in 1973 to bring world peace by giving to his listeners 'inner peace through spiritual knowledge.' He opened the U.S. leg of his travels with an appearance in New York City on July 28 and then visited several other cities before climaxing his trip with 'Millennium '73,' a three-day event in the Houston (Tex.) Astrodome. Along the way, in much publcized incident, he was hit in the face with a cream pie in Detroit. (In Paris, in September, he retired under a hail of paper darts from ribald Fench students.)

Although his followers claimed a risisng tide of enthusiasm for Maharaj Ji, Attendence during the tour was generally disappointing. This was especieally true in Houston, where only about one-fourth of the 66,000-seat Astrodome was filled each day. Undaunted, the guru's followeres ,who reportedly numbered six million, claimed that he would rule the world by the end of the 1970's.
Maharaj Ji was born Dec.10, 1957. at Prem Nagar in India. The son of Shri Hanji Maharaj, also a 'perfect Master'. He was named Pratap Singh Rawat. His father ,who founded the Divine Light Mission, died when the boy was eight. At that time , according ot Maharaj Ji, 'A voice came 'You are he , you are the one to continue'..... So they crowned me with the crown of Rama and Krishna and put the saffron mark of succession on my forehead.' He then took the name Shri Guru Maharaji Ji and Balyogeshwar ('child god').
Maharaj Ji decided to take his message of inner peace outside of India in 1970. He made his first appearance in th West in 1971 at a pop music festival in Glastonbury, Eng., arriving in a white Rolls Royce and taking the stage to deliver a Satsang ('truth-giving') for five minutes before the micrphone was shut off. His first American appearance took place in 1972 in the Colorado mountains
Although many of his followers called Maharaj Ji 'lord of the universe' and 'god incarnate, ' the young guru stated, 'I am a humble servant of God, trying to establish peace in the world.'

end quote

The article has a 5-3 black and white photo of M sitting in white robes ala indian in front of a very big smiling face of his father and sundry flowers and some Mahatma that I cannot identify but they all look like J to me at this point.
His expresson looks like a self satisfied teenager watching a bunch of lost youth coming to give him presents and hang on his every word . Also that family line of guruship is in his pose.

This is out of the Britannica 1974, (the events of 73.) The other thing is that Ted Patrick the Deprogrammer is featured on page 148 and the article mentions his work with the followers of Maharaj Ji and I am not typing that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:42:08 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: student
Subject: Ted P. deproges Premies
Message:
Sorry I'm always asking for favours -I need all the help I can get at the moment. When you have some spare time I would love to see what it says about Ted Patrick and deprogramming premies.

Please, Please, Please.

Thankyou, Thankyou, Thankyou.

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:42:36 (EDT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Ted P. deproges Premies
Message:
Liz
Yes I will type it out but it will have to be later. It is only one sentence
though.
Happy to be able to do it.
cp
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:24:33 (EDT)
From: cpudent
Email: None
To: cp
Subject: Ted P. deproges Premies
Message:
Liz

The article is about religion and the paragraph about Ted Patricks deprogramming also mentions Divine light Mission .
and the fact that Rennie Davis was a follower.
So the article does not state specifically that Ted deprogrammed premies, but he did. I can remember the shock we had when we heard that he was taking premies. It was like they were taken by robbers. I remember having the faith that nothing could ever deprogramm a devoted premie.
Someone else on the forum might have the direct reference.
There is a book about it I think.

It came up in the last few months.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 11:03:08 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Ted P. deproges Premies
Message:
Ted Patrick said that people in DLM were amongst the easiest of cult members to deprogram, because of the ridiculousness of their belief system. He would use logic and rational thinking to get the premies to see the 'light' so to speak. I remember premies being scared shitless of the guy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:18:13 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: cpudent
Subject: That's sad. Thanks (nt)
Message:
That's funny/sad! Appreciate it.
Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 19:54:07 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: cpudent
Subject: Ted P. deproges Premies
Message:
Hi cpudent,

I remember there was a long interview with Ted Patrick in one of the 1975 Playboy magazines. I think it was April or May. On the cover was...well never mind.

Anth the over excited.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:31:19 (EDT)
From: x-0-x
Email: Not at this time, thank you.
To: Everyone
Subject: Actually i'm a Knight, a joke.
Message:
...Does anyone or is that any one, Hmmm, well, you know what I mean. Then I asked, WHAT? Does any one here know/please tell your most funnyist '{Joke}'. Please tell me the funnyist JOKE that you honest to GOD know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 11:45:00 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: x-0-x
Subject: How Many Premies does it take
Message:
to change a lightbulb?

None. Everything happens by His Grace.

Anth the make it up as I go along.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:23:29 (EDT)
From: Denise
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: How Many Premies does it take
Message:
Hi Anth,

That reminds me of an old joke something to the effect of :

How many premies does it take to change a lightbulb?

Five, one to screw it in and four to share satsang about the experience.

Anyone hear this and remember it exactly?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:53:03 (EDT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Denise
Subject: How Many Premies does it take
Message:
hi Denise,

or maybe 660.

That's 18 co-ordinators, 36 security, 54 ushers, and 112 people to raise funds to support the event (because those who can't afford the voluntary £60.00 donation get in for free).

I know the numbers don't add up, but as it takes three days to change to bulb, everyone gets counted again each day, so we're talking 'total attendences' rather than the actual number of people who show up.

Anth
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:47:06 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: How Many Premies does it take
Message:
That's funny! Glad to see you back, old boy.

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 01:56:17 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: All
Subject: M's Joke
Message:
M does tell good jokes sometimes. Here's one. Not worth devoting a lifetime to but funny.

Man on beach hears voice bellowing in the sky 'DIG'
Man digs - find treasure chest 'OPEN bellows voice.
Man find chest full of Gold Bullion. 'CASINO' bellows voice
Man goes to Casino 'CHIPS' bellows voice.
Man changes bullion for chips. 'Roulette' bellows voice.
Man goes to roulette table. '27' bellows voice.
Man puts all his chips on 27.
Roulette wheel lands on 26. 'SHIT' bellowed voice!

We thought it was good anyway.....!

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:24:50 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: x-0-x
Subject: Actually i'm a Knight, a joke.
Message:
You raise the bar too high.
The FUNNIEST joke is hard to pick out.
Pick a topic and we can riff around it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:33:40 (EDT)
From: rrrrufff
Email: None
To: KB
Subject: ....to change a light bulb?
Message:
2
one to go out for ice cream and one to fool around with
the hounse mother.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 19:52:55 (EDT)
From: Denise
Email: None
To: rrrrufff
Subject: ....to change a light bulb? ot
Message:
What's the deal with ice cream and ashrams?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:30:59 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Denise
Subject: Ice cream and ashrams
Message:
Denise,

We ashramies of the early seventies were trained to act like sexless, unworldly little teletubbies. We really, honestly, no-shit, no-exaggeration, cross-my-heart-if-I-should-lie tried to transcend our mortal coils. I cannot overemphasize this point: we tried to 'die' to the world in order to be reborn in the 'word'. Indeed, we thought that Maharaji, his family and all the mahatmas were saintly because they were actually on the 'other side'. Maharaji used to speak in those terms exactly. We actually believed we were living in some cosmic divine play where the Lord was bursting out of us like a tentacled alien. Ours was but to trust and surrender.

Against this severe background of self-induced schizophrenia, all normalcy took on some interesting colour. But where did we ever see anything normal anyway? Not in our lives, that's for sure. Denise, you simply would not believe how austere and fanatical we were. Heaven's Gaters would seem like rather spaced-out community premies to us going by our standards for avoiding worldly activities. It was literally every fucking breath at a time. Give it your all, surrender, surrender, surrender.

And we definitely had no interest in the normal lives of the unbaptised, unborn-again hordes. They were dirty with the world. The mahatmas were saintly, our parents were lost in the carnal throes of maya.

So where did we have any release whatsoever from this hellish trip -- the very same that caused my friend Dave and so many others to kill themselves, let's not forget? In Maharaji, that's where. Don't forget, he was divine, he was the lotus flower floating on this scummy world, above and untainted by its gross vibration. He could play and in doing so break all our many, fast-forming spiritual concepts, shatter our spiritual egos and facilitate our real progress on this path of devotion.

And how would he play? Well, in '74 he learnt that he could liberate us by having a then-gorgeous, voluptuous premie stewardess suck his dick, etc. That was really liberating for all of us, let me tell you! But before that, though, there was ice cream. Maharaji allowed his perfect form to expand in love so that he could play and play and play with our hearts and minds. He did this by doing really zany, outrageously brilliant mind-blowing things. Stuff like running through the ashrams with his shoes on squirting water pistols at people! Ho ho ho! Or talking in a lazy, fake New York drawl about little kids with Superman comics. Or, since you asked, eating ice cream. What a guy, eh?

Naturally, as we struggled with the paradox of this entirely rigid yet supposedly concept-free path, we, too, indulged a bit. Ice cream became something of a sublimated catch all for all our other pent up drives and feelings. Can you imagine?

By the way, in case your recently repaired bullshit-detector starts blinking, let me remind you, I'm not exaggerating!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:41:32 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ice cream and ashrams
Message:
I would say it more simply than Jim, but I agree with him. I never lived in the actual ashram, but lived in a premie house where we followed ashram rules, and I had a lot of friends who lived in the ashram. FOOD, especially sweets, definitely became an obsession with a lot of ashram premies. (I do think there was a lot of sexual sublimation there.)

BTW, Maharaji supposedly liked Baskin-Robbin's Jamocha Almond Fudge flavor ice cream.

PS to Denise - I got your e-mail & will reply soon. Thanks (wish you'd post it, actually).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 02:08:46 (EDT)
From: Wet whistle
Email: None
To: Anyone
Subject: water pistols v chai shop
Message:
When M was young and had this thing about squirting his water pistol at us lowly premies at prem negar, some of us would rather sneak off down the chai-shop, like me.

M held a meeting and told everyone that no one should go to the chai-shop. Me being a tea-addicted Brit disobeyed the M's agya.
Him being the Lord of the Universe he found me out.

I think he was worried about the Arya Samaj (group that disagreed with people worshiping people} I think he was very worried the A.S. would talk some sense into us!

Wet Whistle
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Thurs, Jun 03, 1999 at 09:13:42 (EDT)
From: Denise
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ice cream and ashrams
Message:
Jim,

Thanks for this incredible, long, and well thought-out answer. It was funny and informative and I believe you. It really helps me to understand the true nature of the whole trip when people are as descriptive as you are. You should save this for a page in your book in the chapter about ashrams & craziness!

*Denise
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:09:02 (EDT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Denise
Subject: Ice cream, not SEX
Message:
Hi Denise! I got your email. I'll write back soon. We ate lots of ice cream when we lived in the ashram because we couldn't sleep with each other. Everyone accepted this as fact. In the ashrams I lived in, we were all ex hippies and had been fond of sleeping with others. Sooooo, food was the substitute. We ashram sisters were usually sort of chunky as a result. Yeah, I lost it once I got out only to regain it at 40!!!! The story is, food as sex substitute.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:13:42 (EDT)
From: x-0-x
Email: No thank you
To: KB
Subject: Actually i'm a Knight, a joke.
Message:
You said:
.........You raise the bar too high.
The FUNNIEST joke is hard to pick out.
Pick a topic and we can riff around it.

Just for you, ----------- ' Love '. Any easier?

By the way, the, 'riff', is but a reaction/commentary in words, music, or whatever to the, 'whatever', in this case the request for, {what I said}, your riff/plea/joke, has humor.

Unintended though, as it might be. ------......------... Ha ha ha.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 08:30:09 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: x-0-x
Subject: Actually i'm a Knight, a joke.
Message:
Dear x-O-x,
I don't see where it has to be M related so...

What did the blonde say when she looked into the box of Cheerios?...
OH! Donut seeds!

A woman finds a gieni lamp and rubs it to release the gieni who grants her 3 wishes.
Her first wish...a million dollars, poof, a million is stacked up beside her.
Her second wish...a yatch, poof there was a yatch in the water near where she was standing.
Her third wish...that her cat fluffy be turned into a handsome man, poof there he stood beside her in a tux, turned to her and said, 'Now aren't you sorry you had me fixed?'

:)
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:24:04 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Jokes
Message:
That's similar to my Maraji joke and funny too!

Realized I was giving M the credit for telling a good joke when he was only relaying something he'd been told by someone else.

Keep inTouch.

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:29:56 (EDT)
From: Catholic
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Joke
Message:
Dopey and the other six have an audience with the pope.

Dopey: Do you have any dwarfed nuns in the Vatican?
Pope: No (the rest of boys titter)
Dopey: Have you ever met a dwarfed nun?
Pope: No (boys howl with laughter)
Dopey: Have you ever heard of a dwarfed nun?
Pope: No! What's this all about?
Six jump up and down and scream: Dopey fucked a penguin. Dopey fucked a penguin.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 17:36:08 (EDT)
From: Does anyone remember
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The Tube Satsang?
Message:
Do I have this straight?

After you get K, you get put in a tube. You are travelling really fast because of good momentum. Each time you slow down, MJ will give you the momentum again. Then you come to a part in the tube where there are little slits. If you don't stay in the middle of the tube you can get stuck at one of these little slits. If you aren't careful, you can get sucked out of those little slits. You have to wait for MJ to get you out if you get stuck. After a while, there is no tube. If you don't travel straight, you will fly off into outer space. If you do travel straight, you will come to a cap at the end of your journey. No more worries?

When I think of it, it sounds like an ejaculation. What the hell? Did I imagine this; it's pretty hazy.

How about this one? I pick you up and I let you go. I pick you up and I let you go. Then, one day I'll pick you up and never let you go. (The result of long-term exposure to brainwashing.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 18:50:36 (EDT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Does anyone remember
Subject: The Tube Satsang?
Message:
You got the jist. I think it was from a satsang at a conference in Germany, 1976.

Also, note the threat of not doing as Fatguru says. You'll fly out one of the openings of the tube (into oblivion?). The guru's an asshole.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:00:18 (EDT)
From: Don't ask me
Email: None
To: Does Anyone Remember
Subject: The Tube Satsang?
Message:
Hi Does Anyone Remember,

I think he gave one like this at the conference in Tuscon in 1977.

Don't Ask Me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Sun, May 30, 1999 at 23:22:31 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Waving a white flag
Message:
and wearing my tin helmet.

I guess you know why. I just had the pleasure of catching up on my 6 o'clock thread. All I'll say is, hope you feel better for venting gerry, sounds like you are pretty uptight there laddie.

So you think someone who is a loner can't go out with the lads to a girly club, and ipso facto I'm a phoney poster? Ever been to one? See anyone who looks like a loner? Think about it. 'The lads', where I come from, usually refers to people you work with, not your soul-mates. It was my birthday last week, so Friday night a few of 'em wanted to take me out for some fun. Holy Christ, gerry, you might want to try a lap dance yourself, might relieve some of that tension!

As for Liz, I personally thought she was being sarcastic with the ABC thing. What, you think I get 10% of every ex-ex-premie's next donation? No way to get rich, I don't think.

Is that the end of it, or am I going to have to get stroppy?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:17:29 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: all
Subject: emergency meeting called for
Message:
the annual keith award committee. I think we have a strong candidate here. Would lawyers for both sides meet me in chambers immediately please...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:25:34 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: emergency meeting called for
Message:
Huh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:44:26 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: hello..tap tap tap..is this
Message:
thing on?

So gerry, you can only talk about me when I'm off-line, or what?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:16:44 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Dr ruthreichgerry
Subject: last word
Message:
OK so you don't want to talk. Fine. But look, don't you think that if I was bogus, I would have changed my name by now? I'd be coming from another direction, maybe like 'HI MI NAME BE SPARTAKUS I HAIT M. LORD LIVES OANLY INSIDDE MI ACID BRAIN'

No, I use Rob because that is my name. Rob Anderson, I live in Boca Raton florida and that's more than I know about you, OK.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:04:49 (EDT)
From: barney
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: last word
Message:
Rob, as the new webmaster starting June 1st I do have a question for you. I'm a little curious about the Turing machine that you're running. I've tried running them, but it always loses state and crashes. Can you help me?

Maybe you could email me at barney@ex-premie.org.

Of course, your privacy will be respected.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:16:58 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: last word
Message:
Barney

I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you mean. Seriously.

Rob
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:45:03 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: turing
Message:
OK I just jumped over to Alta Vista and looked up Turing machine. Alan Turing was a 1930's mathematician who produced a theoretical model of a computer before they were invented, so I'm assuming a Turing machine is some kind of server? In that case you must be referring to the fact that I am using a proxy server? Please let me know if that is causing a problem, because I was thinking of signing up with AOL anyway.

regards...ssshh, you know who.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:13:02 (EDT)
From: barney
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Yes, Alan Turing
Message:
Yes, that's the one. And yes again. Your system shows up as a Turning machine and I just hate those things. Ok, we're on the same wavelength. Just curious, but it's ok.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:18:22 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: Yes, Alan Turing
Message:
Thanks Barney,

Sorry if I come across as a bit paranoid re my id, but you've seen some of the heated replies I get! Letting off steam online is one thing, but I don't need trouble knocking at my door.

Rob
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:22:37 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: curious?
Message:
BTW any particular reason why you were looking anyway? I don't believe I've posted anything which would warrant 'investigation'
I know I got a bit testy with gerry, but I was quite severely flamed the other day.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 08:58:40 (EDT)
From: barney
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: curious?
Message:
Well...

It's ok that you might have flamed Gerry. That's goes with the territory.

I see all and by nature I'm curious. I understand and respect the right of privacy, but I'm also very concerned with protecting the integrity of the Forum. As open and as public as the Forum is to virtually everyone we have too many nutcases coming in here disturbing the peace. There's a new sheriff in town and he don't like troublemakers.

I don't mind people once in a while adopting a persona and posting with an obviously bogus handle, but there are also people who are trying to hide who they are or have been via technology like you have. And one of the rules of the Forum is to stick with one posting handle.

Basically, I'm saying that while I fully intend to respect the right of privacy of everyone posting on the Forum for obvious reasons (dealing with a Cult with fanatical followers) I intend to try to tighten things down to prevent any kind of abuse such as what we have from time to time seen. And one thing that I'm considering is shutting the technological door that you are using.

No one has the absolute right to post at the Forum. It is a privilege and responsibilities go with it. No, this is not about you, Rob, rather this is a general statement that I'm making. The Internet is a very interesting medium because there is so much information and relative anonymity. However, that information is very difficult to validate. Again, my primary concern is to provide a quality experience for the ex-premies and, secondly, anyone who is sincerely interested in what is said here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 09:43:47 (EDT)
From: floyd
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: you going to add cookies?(nt)
Message:
jjd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:58:33 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: will curiosity kill the
Message:
Catweasel, I wonder?

No, I do take your point and I'll abide by your wishes. I respect the fact that I'm purely a guest here, which is why I try to remain courteous and not react when things get a little steamy.

The proxy server has been my ISP & email provider since long before I started visiting the Forum, and it never occurred to me that anyone there would have a problem with it. I use it mainly to protect my children from predators while they are online, but I'm more than happy to find an alternative for myself.

Let me research a suitable provider, hopefully they are all accessible on a holiday.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:01:54 (EDT)
From: Gerry's in the house...
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Anything yu'd like to talk abo
Message:
ut, big guy?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 14:22:31 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gerry's in the house...
Subject: Anything yu'd like to talk abo
Message:
Sure. Firstly, well, sorry things got a bit unpleasant last time. Hopefully we can move on from there.

I'd really like to read up on this keith fella that Robyn thinks you think I am. Can you point me to an archive record so I can see what he's about, and why you would be pissed if you thought I was him?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:24:52 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: glyng@techline.com
To: Rob and Robyn
Subject: Anything yu'd like to talk abo
Message:
I'd really like to read up on this keith fella that Robyn thinks you think I am. Can you point me to an archive record so I can see what he's about, and why you would be pissed if you thought I was him?


No I don't think you are Keith, and Robyn, it's just an ongoing joke with me. I'm not obsessed with Keith and I don't REALLY think these other people are Keith. OK, ok I'll stop if it confuses you. But it was kinda fun (for me.)

Keith was a rather blustery fellow from Oz who drove us nuts with his constant satsanging. You are much more subtle than he, kinda like a snake in the grass, if you con't mind the comparison. Sure , you're probably an OK guy as that goes, but you are a premie, whose cult indoctrination runs deep and shows up in most everything you say, but in a covert manner.

See, you are not the run-of-the-mill premie we usually get here. Those poor bastards write like they haven't read a book in 25 years and it shows. This is why you are much more dangerous than they. Not that you are a threat to me personally, but I can see how you could be successful in ''turning'' a fence-sitter back into the fold. Which, of course, is what I am trying to prevent.

No, I'm not pissed at you because I think you are Keith, I'm pissed at you because you appeared to have negatively influenced Liz to go back to the cult. I took her literally and perhaps I was wrong. I'm still not sure about this.

Now I may be wrong about her, but I think I am correct in my assessment of you. Why else would you be here? Because you like seeing your precious fraud of a guru slagged? Come clean. What are your attentions?

Geez I sound like the father who just found out his daughter had sex with the kid next door...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 16:19:59 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I'm flattered
Message:
No really, I am! But I think the really brainy premies don't even give the Forum more than a cursory glance.

I believe in the freedom of the individual to make a choice in their lives, as to how they live it. I have no reason to even want to push 'fence-sitters' one way or the other. Why would I? Why would anyone connected with Maharaji want to cajole a person who once received Knowledge and then decided it wasn't for them (for whatever reason), to get back into it. Money? Please, our financial support has never been better, and its growing. We don't need your fifty bucks, thanks all the same. Whoever is out there sitting on the fence, well, stay there until your bum hurts, then make a choice or get a cushion.

Beyond the jokes and the chit-chat, which I find amusing, and beyond the intellectual tussles with true thinkers like Jim, Jean-Michel and Way, which really get my brain into top gear, my only real concerns are for the idly curious and the media who may passing through this site. This is a Public Forum, as I was recently reminded, and people from all walks of life have access to it. The posting of personal experiences, opinions and beliefs are the absolute right of those contributing, and I have no wish to repudiate any of them. There are also a considerable amount of 'facts' and accusations posted which are insupportable and deliberately misleading.

Is it not the case that the purpose of all that is to negatively influence the reader against enquiring about Maharaji and Knowledge? Thankfully there are enough references given to direct people to the 'enemy camp', ie the Elan Vital web pages etc. At least then people can take a look at both sides and form their own opinion, or would you rather they form your opinion?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 16:54:51 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: I'm flattered
Message:
really brainy premies

Isn't this somewhat of an oxymoron?
Just kidding.

You say you believe in freedom of choice. There can be no freedom of choice when brainwashing, mind control and hypnotic methods are applied to the unwary. There is no way to form ''your own opinion'' with this deliberate manipulation.

It's not about money, why do you keep bringing that up? Hmmm... maybe it IS all about money.

I believe there may be such a thing as spiritual awakening. Now I know this is not a popular view with the 'intellects' you profess to admire. My question to you is, has anyone in your cult had an awakening beyond some bhakti rushes?

I think the purpose of this website is to warn people about Rawat and his life-sucking cult, and also to offer support and encouragement to those who would seek to escape the manipulation and machinations of this cult.

You said I have no reason to even want to push 'fence-sitters' one way or the other.

I say this is a blatant lie as you have demonstated otherwise.

There are also a considerable amount of 'facts' and accusations posted which are insupportable and deliberately misleading.

Perhaps there are a few wild accusations tossed about this website. Perhaps not. What really matters is that people get BOTH sides of the story concerning the rawat gang.

Beyond the jokes and the chit-chat, which I find amusing, and beyond the intellectual tussles with true thinkers like Jim, Jean-Michel and Way, which really get my brain into top gear, my only real concerns are for the idly curious and the media who may passing through this site.

You speak with the arrogance and so-called spiritual superiority I have come to expect from even the most illiterate premies. So you've separated us out into the 'true thinkers' and--what? Fuck you.

How do know the idly curious and the media are ever come here? Why would you assume that?

Glad you are flattered, and find our ''chit-chat'' amusing. I think you are the height of arrogance and the depths of depravity. Why? Because you are smart enough to know better and you CHOOSE evil. Yes, EVIL. Because that's what this is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:29:49 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: I'm flattened
Message:
There can be no freedom of choice when brainwashing, mind control and hypnotic methods are applied to the unwary. There is no way to form ''your own opinion'' with this deliberate manipulation. I disagree. If I were brainwashed, I would not be able to form my own opinions, and I have expressed enough of those here to convince the worst sceptic that, if nothing else, I am opinionated.

I say this is a blatant lie as you have demonstated otherwise Please paste in quote(s) you are referring to.

What really matters is that people get BOTH sides of the story concerning the rawat gang. Exactly my point, thank you gerry.

So you've separated us out into the 'true thinkers' and--what? --people who can only respond with fuck you?

How do know the idly curious and the media are ever come here? Why would you assume that? Because anyone who has heard the name Maharaji, even in passing, may search the web and come across this website. How do you think I found it? I was actually searching Alta Vista for premie websites, would you believe!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:00:20 (EDT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: I'm flattened-- you should be
Message:
Of course you don't think you are brainwashed. None of us did. You can have opinions on a variety of matters and still have this blindspot when it comes to M. It's your programming (conditioning) kicking in. Do yourself a favor and get rid of it. But please don't come here, spew this shit and expect a rosy welcome.

I'd really like to hear about anyone in M's club who has attained any sort of ''awakening.''

I'll take a pass on the other stuff. Hell, you can even declare ''victory'' if you like. You're still in a cult and your mind is still infected with this destructive meme.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:33:05 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: I've been, you not?
Message:
I disagree. If I were brainwashed, I would not be able to form my own opinions, and I have expressed enough of those here to convince the worst sceptic that, if nothing else, I am opinionated.

I guess we've been through the same thing (reg m & k), more or less.

I would have said exactly the same thing (reg cult & brainwashing) a few years ago.

How come that I think otherwise now? How come that I can now say that I've been involved in what's called a 'destructive cult'?

Why don't you read some good books on brainwashing? Don't you know that a brainwashed person has NO WAY to think (s)he is brainwashed as long as (s)he is under influence?

The fact that I'd been braiwashed didn't hinder my intelligence and thinking abilities in many fields, and this is what makes it tricky!

The only way to be sure you're not brainwashed is to STOP exposing yourself to the influence, and see what happens (with the help of a professional preferably). This is what I did (in spite of m's warnings & the fear I had to do it).

And you can see the result!

Why don't you try? Why don't you check?

Any fear?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 20:11:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Well I'm not
Message:
Rob:

I've got a few things I want to discuss with you if you can find the time to take these up with me. One is this question of yours:

Why would anyone connected with Maharaji want to cajole a person who once received Knowledge and then decided it wasn't for them (for whatever reason), to get back into it[?].

Are you serious? How could a premie with just the slightest concern for others not do everything possible to save their doubting, wayward brethren from the abyss, when Maharaji said stuff like this:

'Because without Guru Maharaj Ji, everything just deteriorates in our lives. And it's like, maybe to some people that's like, 'Well, nothing has deteriorated in my life yet.' And yet we have to understand that for those people it is deteriorating, and that we have to come to that one conclusion in our own hearts.'

I mean check it out. There's Maharaji saying that even if you think you're doing alright without him, you're not. Everything in your life's just 'deteriorating' whether you know it or not. So what gives? Has Maharaji ever retracted this curse? If not, and you don't think he's lying, why aren't you doing all you can to save the smothered-heart apostates?

On another point, I'm pretty disappointed with you already. You told me you were friends with Raja Ji and I asked you to ask him something for me. You offered, instead, to give him a copy of a post should I direct one to him, so I did jsut that. In fact I wrote two. Now, this morning, when I ask you if you gave him the posts and what, if any, his answers were, you simply said 'yes' to the first question and 'none' to the second.

Rob, did you actually think that would suffice in any way whatsoever? Or is this simply your artful way of avoiding discussion without technically evading it? You know what I want to know. I took a few minutes each time writing those comments. If you really did show them to RJ, why aren't you sharing his reply? Is there something shameful or embarrassing about my posts or his answers to you or him?

I'm completely prepared to treat you with full respect and dignity. But not if you srew around with me. You knew I expected an answer because your invitation implied some sincere effort on your part to get me one. No, I'm not reading too much into this. I'd asked you questions about your friend and you demurred, saying that the questions would be best submitted to him directly. Indeed, you'd even assist. You implied, I'd suggest, a certain good-faith impartiality in the circumstances. After all, I could write whatever I wanted; you were just the messenger but you'd do what you could. I took you up on your offer, thinking you would actually maintain that kind of fair play. Instead, you come back with a smug answer saying as little as you possibly can. Is that fair? Honestly, is it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:16:42 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: longer reply
Message:
How could a premie with just the slightest concern for others not do everything possible to save their doubting, wayward brethren from the abyss, ...
Because I don't believe that just because a person stops practising K. they are headed for an abyss. OK, so you've found a old quote of M's, I don't know if he still abides by that evaluation, he doesn't seem to talk about 'ex's' these days. In any case, since spending time reading stories and forum postings, I would not say that (M's quote) applies to all concerned. I don't know if it applies to any, for that matter, because only you and your colleagues can say whether your lives have deteriorated.

If not, and you don't think he's lying, why aren't you doing all you can to save... I don't think he was lying when he said it at all. Neither do I know if he still thinks that, as I just said. That isn't the issue. I haven't been asked to jump in here and 'save' people, and I seriously doubt that I ever will be. I don't think it's necessary, and if it is, I'm simply not qualified to do that.

You told me you were friends with Raja Ji and I asked you to ask him something for me. I believe I said I was going to see him, not that I was his friend, which I'm not. I'll admit my response was cursory, to say the least. Jim, it was ten minutes to one in the morning, I was tired, I had been glued to this damn screen way longer than I intended, so I apologise for that. You were quite right to be peeved.

When the opportunity presented itself, I gave him an envelope, which he took without opening and carried on with his conversation. That was it. Yes, if I get the chance at the next event, I'll ask him if he read it etc, or maybe you'll tell me you've been in touch with him since then.

I know you wanted more than that, but I knew he wouldn't stand there with all the other people and read your letter, I did the best I could.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 21:56:00 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Thanks -- with reservations
Message:
Rob,

Thanks for explaining about the envelope. Would you just tell me one more thing for now about this: what did you say when you handed it to him? Absolutely nothing? Why?

Anyway, would you please remember to follow through, if and when?

As for this other matter, you say:

I don't believe that just because a person stops practising K. they are headed for an abyss. OK, so you've found a old quote of M's, I don't know if he still abides by that evaluation, he doesn't seem to talk about 'ex's' these days. In any case, since spending time reading stories and forum postings, I would not say that (M's quote) applies to all concerned. I don't know if it applies to any, for that matter, because only you and your colleagues can say whether your lives have deteriorated.

Rob, how can your conscience be satisfied with this bullshit? You can see that Maharaji's quote would be like Long John Silver's 'black spot' for any trusting premie. And you can't even say if this threat -- which is exactly what it is -- still holds. I mean, even Rushdie has a right to know if they're still gunning for him, doesn't he? But who can a premie like me ask? Not Maharaji; he's not talking.

So here you are speculating without foundation or authority. Maybe the threat never applied to everyone (where the hell'd you get that idea from? Not the quote I showed you, that's for sure.) Maybe Maharaji's changed his thinking. (Again, who knows? Does it even matter when Maharaji can give absolutely brilliant satsangs about watering your seeds, blah, blah, blah, such as he did the other night?) Or maybe it doesn't even apply to everyone or never did to begin with. Come on, Rob, you're talking like a clasic apologist. Know where you have to get to and make whatever bullshit argument you can in order to get there. This is a dishonest way to communicate!

But even better, Rob, in case you didn't read the quote fully, let me point out that Maharaji packs it with lots of poision. Contrary to your assurances, whether or not I think my life's deteriorating doesn't mean shit. Maharaji's point was that, regardless of whatever I think, it simply is. No qualifications, it just is. What's wrong? Didn't you see that?

You then add:

I don't think he was lying when he said it at all. Neither do I know if he still thinks that, as I just said. That isn't the issue. I haven't been asked to jump in here and 'save' people, and I seriously doubt that I ever will be. I don't think it's necessary, and if it is, I'm simply not qualified to do that.

I take it you're ruling out the possibility that Maharaji was lying, is that right? Fine, but tell me, Rob, what are the possible explanations for the comment in that case? And what are the implications for each should it be accurate?

And you're wrong as well about this not beign the issue. You questioned why you should care and I showed the exactly why. Let's put it this way: if Maharaji had said that yesterday and your wife stopped practising -- and you trusted him -- you'd have no choice but to think that she was beginning to rot whether she knew it or not. If you cared, you'd have no choice but to try to 'save her'. So now, the best you can say is that you don't think it's necessary. Your guru, coward that he is, takes no responisibility for leaving these kinds of thoughts out there. Why should he if addressing them would reveal how unwise and dangerous some of his earlier advice was, right? Might get people thinking about who the fuck he is in any event to tell people anything?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:30:34 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: re 'threat'
Message:
Jim,

I told him it was a letter from someone he knew from a while back, or words to that effect.

...But who can a premie like me ask? Not Maharaji; he's not talking.

Why would you even want to? You're not a premie any more, right? You can ask him yourself, in fact, really you should be addressing all your questions and arguments of late directly to him. Why have you chosen me to find answers for you? As in:

Rob, what are the possible explanations for the comment in that case?

I've said over and over, I can't and won't try to explain or justify any of the millions of quotes which keep surfacing.

You're obviously not satisfied with the answer I gave you, so why come back for more? That's why you're getting irate with me, so let's stop it before it gets out of hand. Send M. an email at his website. If that is too uncertain, write me out another letter and I'll see if I can find a more direct 'postal route' to him.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:52:50 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: You're on!
Message:
I've said over and over, I can't and won't try to explain or justify any of the millions of quotes which keep surfacing.

Well, this is blatant intellectual cowardice for sure. It is simply unacceptable in any company I'm aware of for someone to hold his teacher, mentor or leader's words at arm's length like this. You can't get away with it in politics, religion, any realm I can think of. But, well, it's clear that you think this is an acceptable enough trench to dive into. We'll let others judge that. You are here to affect Maharaji's impression, aren't you?

You're obviously not satisfied with the answer I gave you, so why come back for more? That's why you're getting irate with me, so let's stop it before it gets out of hand. Send M. an email at his website. If that is too uncertain, write me out another letter and I'll see if I can find a more direct 'postal route' to him.

Thanks. Here it is:

Maharaji,

I've been trying to reach you for a few years now. When I first left your cult I didn't try to contact you, neither before nor after. Even when I had a drink with your brother once and it became painfully clear that no one but you could answer some of the questions I had then, I still didn't try. I'm not sure why. I just didn't.

That all changed a couple of years ago. Since discussing you regularly on the internet and elsewhere I've tried, from time to time, to reach you. I've tried to get Linda Gross to set something up. I asked David Smith and David Coyne offered on his own to try to facilitate some communication. All those efforts failed of course. I doubt you even knew about them.

Beyond that, I wrote you one long letter and have sent you several emails. Naturally, I guess, I've heard nothing. I say, 'naturally' but that's probably wrong. There's nothing 'natural' about your avoidance of people like me. 'Unsurprising' might be more accurate. Yeah, I think it is.

Maharaji, I wonder if you yourslef wonder if you're going to be able to live your days out without ever having to actually talk to a former follower. Is that your perverse desire, my Lord? You demanded that we trust you implicitly and try, as best possible, to 'surrender the reigns' of our lives to you. Who'd have thought that now, years later, you'd be so afraid of us? Funny, eh?

Please give a biscuit to the bearer of this letter.

Sincerely (but no longer Yours),

Jim Heller
7 - 547 Herald Street
Victoria, B.C.
Canada V8W 1S5

(250) 360-1040

email: heller@bc1.com
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:16:46 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You're on!
Message:
OK, I'll print that out tomorrow (the wife's asleep, printer makes a racket) and I'll make sure phone calls tomorrow, see what the best route is.

Wonder who'll get the biscuit?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:42:51 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Thanks
Message:
You will, Rob. You will.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 23:29:39 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Rob, you're honest?
Message:
Not keeping the commandments these days allows me to
DOUBT wether you gave raja Jim's letters.
You may have at one time given him letters, but were they Jim's?

Whatever, why dont you have a more usual reaction to the
claims about his daughter and say to raja, 'I stumbled
across that ex-premie web site and they were saying that
Navlata is actually prems daughter and NOT yours.'

Then watch his face.
You claim to have judged the forum participants and decided
who was what. I hope your assessment skills are better
when you look at raja's face and see and hear his reaction.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 22:35:35 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: KB
Subject: Please drop it, Bill
Message:
Hi Bill -
Don't know if anyone will notice this since it's so far down in the threads, but I felt like I needed to say something. In my opinion, you should drop the stuff about Navlata's parentage. IT DOESN'T MATTER one way or another. And you could be hurting someone - or several people, for that matter.

We're talking about a human being here - someone who may read the forum (I am not sure how old she is). I don't care if you have the DNA tests or whatever - I just don't think it's fair to keep bringing this up. No matter what.

Take care -
Katie

P.S. I have a new e-mail address - see above!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 23:37:33 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I disagree, Katie
Message:
In my opinion, you should drop the stuff about Navlata's parentage. IT DOESN'T MATTER one way or another. And you could be hurting someone - or several people, for that matter.
We're talking about a human being here - someone who may read the forum (I am not sure how old she is). I don't care if you have the DNA tests or whatever - I just don't think it's fair to keep bringing this up. No matter what.

Katie,

I don't understand how you can say this. It absolutely matters if it's true. If Camelot was really so degenerate we all have a right to know, especially as so many are still searching for Maharaji's holy grail. Whart makes me uncomfortable is the thought that Bill isn't right, in which case this is really irresponsible rumour-mongering. But if it's true we all have a right to know. It's kind of the classic real-world example of that highly-abused maxim 'the public has a right to know'. In this case, in all the circumstances, this particular public does indeed have that right. Just like we're entitled to know about every last fling the Lord and Durga Ji, Goddess of Love, may have possibly enjoyed.

Could it possibly hurt or embarrass someone? Yeah. But the benefit outweighs the harm on this one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 09:28:32 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: re 'threat'
Message:
I've said over and over, I can't and won't try to explain or justify any of the millions of quotes which keep surfacing.

Of course not. There is no justifying what he said. It's just the cross, as a premie, you have to bear. Maharaji talked all kinds of shit when he was a kid, just like his dad before him, just like EVERY guru worth his salt . Every premie, I'm sure, wishes he hadn't. Unfortunately, he did and its a cross you're willing to bear, that you HAVE to bear. But never mind justifying or explaining. What do you THINK he meant by saying our lives would deteriorate without him? You know, don't bother. It's a stupid question. It's obvious what he meant.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 15:59:51 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Liz & the kid next door.
Message:
Hi Gerry,

I only just spotted your ref. to me here but have seen others like it and have not responded. Mainly because I felt stupid that you found me too stupid to come to my own conclusions about things. I don't know what happened, Around that time I did go to the satellite broadcast that never happened. But I'm still trying to get down to the truth about M. I'm not practicing or going to videos and am feeling better butthat maybe because I'm taking Prozac!

I'm most intrigued now that just as when I think I have a really good reason for leaving M - Linda Smith Ref to affairs with blondes and M's alchohol problems YOU are telling me not to believe a thing J.W. says. (Or did I misunderstand this?)

Confused,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 18:36:18 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Liz, the only reason to leave
Message:
is because you want to. Both camps can talk until they are blue, but it will not alter anything. I realized that I was too old for, as Jean-Michel put it, fairy tales. For you, it may be very real.

It was magic all those years ago, and many really special things happened. I can't even explain how they happened nor would I want to. I have been very B L A S T E D , but at what price? Over time, the spontenaiety evaporated and a sense of fear and obligation took over. I remember saying that the only time I really lived was when I was in front of MJ live. This is pathetic.

For you, things may be quite different. Only you can decide what is best for you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 08:25:16 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Rob
Subject: last word
Message:
Dear Rob,
I have hesitated to write this for a couple reasons. I don't read enough to have a firm idea of what I think of you. I have found you to be resonable wether or not you are a premie from what I can see. I just love Gerry, really but he does seem to have an obsession with Kieth. I don't understand that at all and I don't know how he choses who he thinks is 'playing' Kieth. Another problem with my voicing my opinion in opostion of that idea is that I always got along with Kieth as well and have emailed his wife from time to time. I have also gotten along with others that have been accused of being Kieth or others that have been less than popular here because of their fence sitting butts slipping a tad to far on to the premie side so I think my writing to you hear may really just be putting another nail in that coffin and I hesitate to do that to you. At the same time it is hard to watch this happen to anyone.
Re: Boca Ritan, I think that is the place where a friend of mine use to winter before he moved out to AZ, do you have to drive across a bridge to get there? He worked at a green house in the area some winters just to keep busy and earn some spending money.
I hope things settle for you here.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 12:45:00 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Robyn/et al
Subject: last word
Message:
Robyn,

Thanks for your concern, but as I haven't read any posts from 'Keith' I don't know who it is that Mr Gerry thinks I am! If you or anyone can recall a posting reference Keith from the Archives, it would save me unzipping thousands of files trying to find out who I am.

It looks like I may have to change my ISP, as Barney is unhappy with it being a proxy server, (no response from finger or ping), so I may be offline for an hour or two while I choose another.

Any recomendations? AOL seems a bit inefficient and has too many time-outs. AT&T junkmail the doody out of you, as do MSN.

Re Boca Raton, there is a bridge over the intracoastal, but I'm inland of it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:15:11 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Rob
Subject: last word
Message:
Dear Rob,
You don't realize that I live in countrybumpkinville! :) North Central Pennsylvania just below NY State. God it was an absolutely perfect weekend. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
My breaks died though on my car on my way home tonight, down the winding steep hills, I am very hard on machinery, just killed my mower on Saturday!
I guess you can get AOL from here but I am not sure and as far as ISP's you can have only the one, in my case, that is available. In some towns there are 2 choices. Here it is through the phone company, that is your only choice.
I wouldn't know where to tell you to find Kieth in the archives either. He hasn't been here for a long time, except for Gerry and I guess some others. It is quite odd.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:20:46 (EDT)
From: Dr. Ruth
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Waving your white dick
Message:
Shame on you Robbie!
Lap dances do not decrease tension...they increase tension.
And that tension can only be properly released in sexual intercourse.
So my handsome Robbie...my advice to you is to skip the strip clubs and go directly to your favorite brothel.
But whatever you do, please Robbie...DO NOT EJACULATE PREMATURELY!!
Thats the last thing this world needs...
another premature premie ejaculator!
Good sex Robbie!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:23:42 (EDT)
From: Dr Reich
Email: None
To: Dr. Ruth
Subject: Waving your white dick
Message:
Dr Ruth would you please e-mail? I would like to consult with you on this diagnosis.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:46:13 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Dr. Ruth
Subject: Tossing the caber
Message:
Are you propositioning me, Doctor?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:50:30 (EDT)
From: Dr. Ruth
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Tossing the caber
Message:
Are you propositioning me, Doctor?

My Dear Robbie,
Do you know what the word 'putz' means?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 01:55:34 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Dr. Ruth
Subject: oy veh
Message:
Its Yiddish for 'ornament'

Oh yes, and it also means 'penis' or 'simple minded person'

I take it you don't want me on your mantle-piece!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:11:59 (EDT)
From: Dr. Ruth
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: oy veh
Message:
I take it you don't want me on your mantle-piece!

If you forget about your Mahashmoochie, maybe we can talk about it.
But Robbie, tell me this...how can you really make good love to a woman if you have that little meshugenah on your mind?
Robbie, Robbie...wake up!!
Lap dances. Shmap dances. Shame on you!
Go see Dr. Reich, then come back and see me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 02:22:22 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Dr. Ruth
Subject: oy veh
Message:
Mahashmoochie, meshugenah

Uh, couldn't find those in my dictionary, so I guess it's 2-1 to you.

how can you really make good love to a woman if you have that little meshugenah on your mind?

well I find it helps, actually
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:07:22 (EDT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: questions for Rob
Message:
Rob
You may have said it before, but is it the meditation or the meditation and Marhaji fused together that has you hooked?
Are they inseperable to you because he showed you the meditation? Do you think he is part and parcle to the experience?
Are you married and if not , would you put your connection to Maharaji above one with your wife.
That sounds stupid in print because I personally feel that a place of peace inside, accessible by meditation, actually does take first place.
But it is the tie in with Maharaji that I am asking about.
Please note that I spell his name correctly out of respect for you and your obvious regard for him.
Not something I would usually do.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 03:28:01 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: cp
Subject: answers from Rob
Message:
is it the meditation or the meditation and Marhaji fused together that has you hooked?Are they inseperable to you because he showed you the meditation? Do you think he is part and parcle to the experience

Maybe it's because it's late, but I'm having real difficulty understanding some questions at the moment! Barnie just asked me about some machine I was running...anyway, I digress. I'm not being evasive, but for me it really is a simple relationship (I know, sounds repetetive) I enjoy doing the meditation, and Maharji is my teacher. In that role he helps me when the going gets rough, inspires me when I feel uninspired and I genuinely enjoy listening to him

Are you married and if not , would you put your connection to Maharaji above one with your wife.
Yes I am. No I wouldn't (Don't mean to be abrupt!)

But it is the tie in with Maharaji that I am asking about.
Well she has Knowledge also, and her own relationship/feelings for Maharaji, which happen to be slightly different from mine. The two things are different, one example might be like between your family - brother, sister etc and your wife. Love them both, but relationship is different and separate.

Please note that I spell his name correctly out of respect for you and your obvious regard for him.Not something I would usually do. Duly noted! Thank you (I have to confess some of the 'variations' are actually funny, though naturally I don't laugh :))
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:00:51 (EDT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: answers from Rob
Message:
ok
but he doesnt teach anything.
The things he says are basic, elementary recipes .
If one practices meditation that stuff is so obvious.
So I still come around to the fact that he is exploiting
his 'teacher' role to the maximum.
The results of the meditation is what teaches. Those results are available through different means.
Maharaji I think is caught in a job discription.
Yes he can be magnetic and all that but so are alot of people. Like Billy Grahm
I have had knowledge since the early 70s and my study of human nature tells me that he is very very good at the guru rap and his public personality carries it off . The result is the movie star lifestyle perpetuated by the guru/teacher/student myth.
Im going for a walk
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 04:04:05 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: cp
Subject: answers from Rob
Message:
Well I guess we disagree on a few things, then. Enjoy your walk cp
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 08:47:49 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Rob
Subject: answers from Rob
Message:
Dear Rob,
How does M, also out of respect for you, that's as much respect as I can muster, help you when things get rough? Is it like when people, not me, pray to god? Is M in god's traditional role for you? I have read some other's say that they have had guru's with whom they had more real relationships with in that they actually spent time together and 'knew' each other as individuals. M doesn't 'do it' that way he holds himself away, I guess he can have more devotees and I have to say that I feel that at this time he sees it as a bottom line, devotees=maintaining his current lifestyle. I think he is becoming more parinoid, freaking out about germs like Michael Jackson thus the videos and now pay per view or whatever it is. I met a person through this forum who was a PAM, person around M, if you haven't see that yet. This was when M was much younger, before millenium and he watched M go from believing he was god. And M was taking his responsibility in that role seriously but as he got older and started seeing he wasn't even in control of the little stuff and knew he wasn't god, instead of admitting to that, he started to shrink back and let himself be sucked in. To keep this farce going he has come to have less respect deep down and to deny it to even himself he has to hide behind the grand illusion, like the Wizard of Oz, who really isn't such a bad guy when he comes out from behind the curtain but while he is behind it had can be cruel and in control of people's lives.
I know I just wrote you a nice and friendly post and I also know that some, no, I think one person here thinks that is all I am. That is incorrect. I do have strong feelings about this and other issues but I hope that the difference is that I can voice my feelings but in a respectful, conversational style rather than fighting. You seem able to read the message even through critisism of M and I hope that is how you see this post.
I've just been wondering also if you grew up Catholic?
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 13:14:33 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: more answers
Message:
How does M, ..., help you when things get rough? Is it like when people, not me, pray to god?

He helps me by making available videos and audio tapes, and by flying around the world constantly to give inspiration. I suppose in that respect I actually help myself, by making the effort to sit down and listen, and then follow up by actually practising the techniques, which is what it really all boils down to for me.
I don't pray to M.; short of him having bugged my house, he wouldn't hear me! If I feel the need to pray, I pray to my Creator.

I can see you have strong opinions, as do I think everyone who posts here. All I have been trying to do is voice my own. If a person doesn't want to hear them or is offended by my stance, then they don't have to click on my posts...I always put my name to them.

As for growing up a Catholic, no, my parents never forced any religion on me, bless them. We only went to church when there was a wedding or a funeral.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 15:20:58 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Waving a white flag
Message:
Did you enjoy the Miami program? Come on, Rob. We know who was really doing the dancing.

Just teasing. He never dances at a one-day program. Even last year, I sat outside hoping to catch a glimpse of MJ driving in.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 16:30:49 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Dancer
Message:
Yeah, that was me doing the sword dance with crossed beragons.

I had a good time. Did you go?

You been reading this whole thread? I'm getting a regular bashing. Perhaps I'll go back to being a Watcher.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:30:42 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Dancer
Message:
Awww, come on, Rob. I'm just teasing. I really hope you had a good time. I used to, too.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 17:36:52 (EDT)
From: Mw
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: quiting
Message:
no no no,. you FNG nobody quits they just take breaks, if you had been watching you would know that. BUCK UP man. You might be just doing the limp wrist to the forehead inviting sympathy from the ladies. In that case you might get jumped again.

The satellite feed didn't happen where I am at, bad machine, so tell me what did Maharaji say? In few words as possible.

Mw
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:18:20 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: You're fibbing, Rob!
Message:
First, there is no such thing as firstly, secondly and so on, you intellectual giant, you!

Second, if there is no problem with the cash flow, why was I summoned to so many meetings about giving more. Yorum Weiss, David Smith, Raja Ji, Padarthanon and Sampuranand have all made pleas for more. Oh, yeah! There has always been a driving force to increase the monthly payments.

Third, if you are such a loner, what's with the WE. That royal 'we' would indicate that you are directly connected to EV. Although I felt very connected to MJ and my local community, I never saw myself as part of the organization. MJ deorganized, remember? Are you being paid with donation dollars? Please correct me if I'm off base.

Fourth, why do you care what people refer to MJ as? You said that MJ had evolved from the LORD and GOD (which were impossible concepts for you to fathom) to a person who inspires you. Many people and preceptors have inspired me, but I never cared what others called them. MJ was the only one I followed globally and kissed on the feet. I even drank his bathwater. When I believed in him, I would have wanted to tear the eyes out of anyone who called him the Lard or worse. I fear you are fibbing, premie ji.

My last word is a request. How about getting me an invitation to Montreal? I am banned from all future EV events. Apparently, EV's intellectuals perceive me as a threat. What do you say to the open-door policy and unconditional love? It's time to show what those four aces have done for you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 18:57:21 (EDT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: You're fibbing, Rob!
Message:
Gail
To get the record straight , I was the one that referred to the fact that I was spelling M name correctly in consideration of Rob.
As far as I know he didnt bring it up before that.

From what Rob hs said he is here to make sure that observing media get a balanced picture.
That translates to a propaganda moderater. Whether he is freelancing or paid is irrelevant.
So if media observe this site, there is always another premie presence besides the Wheezle because his form of PR can be seen to be the 'of the lunatic fringe at times.'
(no offence cat)

I think Rob has stated his position clearly and it is good to know where he is coming from.
Sounds like Gerry has his number so to speak.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:03:48 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Secrets Revealed!!!!
Message:
First, there is no such thing as firstly, secondly Well, according to my copy of the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, there is!..you intellectual giant, you! Well I am in Mensa, actually. (Gerry's going to hit me with another 'arrogant' claim)

..why was I summoned to so many meetings about giving more.. I'm sure that would have been explained at the meetings, assuming you went. Was that recently? Anyway Gail, you're going off on a tangent. I was being ironic, trying to illustrate how I fail to see what could motivate me to influence said fence-sitters.

Third, if you are such a loner, what's with the WEEconomy of words, change of style, who knows. Are we reduced to didacticisms? Are you being paid with donation dollars? Paid for doing what, exactly? Nobody is paying me to join in the Forum.

why do you care what people refer to MJ as? ...., I would have wanted to tear the eyes out of anyone who called him the Lard or worse.... Well if I did that, they wouldn't be able to read my words of wisdom, now would they? Remember the rhinocerous hide? Still applies. Just words, just people venting, no harm in it.

What I am reading in a lot of the posts addressed to me is anger because I don't fit the profile of what you think a PWK (Premie Wearing Kilt) should be, how he/she should act, relate to Maharaji, say, think feel. Maybe that profile is imaginary, maybe it's what you were years ago, I don't know. Look back through the postings, how many times can you read 'if you really are a premie...' or 'how can you say....if Maharaji is your teacher' etc etc. Hence all the dissecting of sentences, analysis of every word written, that is going on. Sorry, but I'm not going to squeeze myself into your box. I know who I am and what I'm about. I try to express that as best I can, so please try taking me at face value, just once.

love R.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 22:26:50 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: You flatter yourself now
Message:
What I am reading in a lot of the posts addressed to me is anger because I don't fit the profile of what you think a PWK (Premie Wearing Kilt) should be, how he/she should act, relate to Maharaji, say, think feel. Maybe that profile is imaginary, maybe it's what you were years ago, I don't know. Look back through the postings, how many times can you read 'if you really are a premie...' or 'how can you say....if Maharaji is your teacher' etc etc. Hence all the dissecting of sentences, analysis of every word written, that is going on. Sorry, but I'm not going to squeeze myself into your box. I know who I am and what I'm about. I try to express that as best I can, so please try taking me at face value, just once.

Rob,

I, for one, find you a completely unsurprising specimen. You're much like OP (i.e. 'Old Premie') who used to post here last year. Gracious (where she could afford to be), polished, comfortable, glib but respectful, able to commisserate over irrefutably tragic matters yet consistently willing to spin, spin, spin for Maharaji. Yes, I've seen your kind before.

Here's where you fail to persuade. While you're able and apparently willing to start discussing any issue, you're not able to carry the thread to its logical end. Instead, you'll find some reason, however thin, to curtail the dialogue rather than see it through. Maybe it's some responsibility calling. Maybe it's some convenient scruple you can wave around with some relief (like not wanting to pry into RJ's affairs, for example). Or perhaps, if all else fails, a friendly shrug. Aw shucks, you've been such a sport here for so long -- nothing like that immature asshole Catweasel, or that lacklustre chesire cat, CD, or even that blad-faced liar, Mel Bourne -- that maybe, jsut maybe, you can skate by like that.

But never, Rob, will you give anything your honest consideration if doing so threatens your Maharaji presets (or precepts). You're a tease, Rob. And sooner or later, like all good teases, people are going to lose their patience with you and simply tell you to get fucked. Deservedly, no?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:05:01 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: One OP to another
Message:
While you're able and apparently willing to start discussing any issue, you're not able to carry the thread to its logical end

Jim, what exactly is the logical end to any of these threads? Can't there be only one - I disagree with you and you disagree with me? Really, don't you see us going round and round the houses until one of us drops out through sheer brain fag? I've always favoured a quick reparte over long-winded debates. If that's a bad personality trait, sorry, it's the way I am.

Yes I'll curtail the dialogue - when I see isolated phrases of mine being spun off at some wild tangent to accomodate whatever particular gripe happens to be foremost in the other person's
mind.

But never, Rob, will you give anything your honest consideration if doing so threatens your Maharaji presets (or precepts).

What exactly is your yardstick for determining that I've given something 'honest consideration'? Haven't I said a few times 'you've got a good point there' or 'I need to go away and think about that'. Can't I consider something and still disagree with you?

So let's get back to that quote, then. I've had time to think about it a bit more and you know what - my life would deteriorate if I stopped practising Knowledge. I see that, there are times when I have gone for long periods without meditating or listening to Maharaji and I end up feeling bloody miserable. Empty, bitter and without purpose.

Jim, it wasn't a threat, it was more likely an observation. Strong advice, like you expect from a good teacher.

Your round.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:37:57 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: One OP to another
Message:
Jim, what exactly is the logical end to any of these threads? Can't there be only one - I disagree with you and you disagree with me? Really, don't you see us going round and round the houses until one of us drops out through sheer brain fag? I've always favoured a quick reparte over long-winded debates. If that's a bad personality trait, sorry, it's the way I am.

Rob,

The logical end isn't a stalemate, it's agreement. If we start off differing, that can only come through someone's concession. My experience with premies has been consistent without exception: no premie can discuss Maharaji at length without somehow obscuring the rational process. You ask who I am to judge? Fair question. I'm obviously partial. My challenge, then, as I've said many times, is to find a disinterested, impartial arbitrer, a judge. (I've actually done this, by the way. Buttonholed some indifferent common friend to ref my discussion with one of our premie friends. Done this a couple of times, in fact. Made a point, by the way, of asking the 'judge' to try to the depths of his conscience to play fair. Guess what happened?) Invariably the judge will start 'ruling' that the premie's either cheating or evading. If you don't know that you'll do that too, you just don't know yourself.

'Quick repartee' doesn't cut through all the dissembling and distractions.

Yes I'll curtail the dialogue - when I see isolated phrases of mine being spun off at some wild tangent to accomodate whatever particular gripe happens to be foremost in the other person's
mind.

This could be a legitimate grievance or it could be a red herring. If the quote is out of context and thus misleading, you're absolutely right. It's unfair. But if it speaks for itself there's no argument, I can see, in saying that you don't have to answer for it in isolation.

Take Maharaji for example. He says something like:

So that mind, that factor that's always against us, can get us; it has the potential of getting us. What I'm trying to say, is that I'm not trying to kid you when I say that the mind can zap you, the mind can get you. It can get you. And we have to be aware of that, and do something, and the only thing we can do to avoid that, is to surrender to Guru Maharaj Ji. So it's only our effort, premies, that's really going to do it. .....'

The passage speaks for itself, unless, of course, Maharaji's next words were something to the effect of 'and thus spake Shri Hans who, by the way, said some weird shit I never really understood let alone agree with.' Or if he maybe said 'hey, guys, I really am just kidding, you know.' Or maybe something as surprising as 'by the way, don't get me wrong, when I say 'mind' I'm really talking about deadly viruses. As you know, our family has a whole lot of bizarre jargon. Please don't mistake my word 'mind' with anything like the common word most of you grew up with.'

But, Rob, he didn't. His words speak for themselves. Thus, it doesn't matter what else you want to say, you're stuck with the fact that your teacher tricked me into thinking he was God:

The Lord Himself reincarnates, reincarnates, reincarnates Himself for the very purpose of saving us. And we do not even realize who gave us the authority to refuse Him! Who are we anyway? From which field do we come that we can reject, that we can refuse, that we can deny our Lord? This is something that
I cannot answer. And we do it every time!. Because we have got a stupid ego. ..... We just don't know that we are His puppets.

or:

So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. **** And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith.

There is no rational play around the facts, Rob. There just isn't.

So let's get back to that quote, then. I've had time to think about it a bit more and you know what - my life would deteriorate if I stopped practising Knowledge. I see that, there are times when I have gone for long periods without meditating or listening to Maharaji and I end up feeling bloody miserable. Empty, bitter and without purpose.

Jim, it wasn't a threat, it was more likely an observation. Strong advice, like you expect from a good teacher.

First, I have to insist that you examine why you even had to take us through this last two-step. A little skittish, perhaps? I mean, your answer now is yet another tack, trying to get to where you tihnk you need to go -- dry land. Why did you have to 'reconsider'? Was it something I said? That's scary.

But, anyway, here we are. You say it's no threat, just an observation. Fuck you, Rob. Let's have a little honesty here. Maharaji tells his followers, most of whom actually think he's God in human form, that if they leave him, whether they know it or not, their lives will deteriorate. I'll concede that this may, in some ways, be characterized as an 'observation'. Sure. Why not? It's also a 'statement', a 'prediction', a 'warning' or even, if you must, 'an english sentence'. But Rob, it's also a threat. Get real.

Your turn.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 00:58:46 (EDT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: says Mensa My Ass
Message:
If your posts are any reflection of the help your stupid guru has provided you, you won't be missing anything without him. What you don't understand is that most of us here have been where you are. Like a 12th grader looking at a 5th grader, we can see the stupidity in your thinking. And the cowardice.

What you're going to need to find your way out of this trap is courage. Because beneath your vapidness, you're just afraid you can't make it without this empty little man; your pathetic guru. We've all been there, too.

Eventually, if you're lucky, something will push you to test your delusion. And if that happens, you'll find you were wrong. You can make it without this fraud, who couldn't care less about you and offers you nothing. All you have to lose is your fear.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 18:30:25 (EDT)
From: dv
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Bravo Powerman!nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:23:49 (EDT)
From: Cat weasel
Email: Oh,so familiar
To: Rob
Subject: One OP to another
Message:
Rob,These people just see you as a vechile with which to bounce off and EX-press their singular illogical views.You see whats happened to a perfetly reasonable feline weasel?Jim,he see's himself as the real head of the tapeworm;the intellectual giant.
Anyway Rob ,forgive me for chatting with you,I would'nt wish to disturb your good and kind image! And its good to see you so popular.A guy like you could go along way on the Radio!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:51:49 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Cat weasel
Subject: Thanks, Cat
Message:
You're so funny, Catweasel. Every post of your's that I read I laugh at.

Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 08:16:38 (EDT)
From: Catweasel
Email: Dr Cat
To: Jerry
Subject: Thanks, Cat,but 20Mls !
Message:
Ease off on the Lithium Jezza!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 13:55:10 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: One OP to another
Message:
'I have gone for long without meditating and listening to M where I feel miserable and without purpose' I have felt this too, Rob and we both have to grow up and see we have been brainwashed.

We have to learn how not to feel miserable and without purpose for the sake of many other premies who are really hurting from all this.

Other premies who are feeling miserable because they are told to practice for a minimun of one hour a day and for one reason or another are unable to and riddled with guilt (and 'mind'.)

Instructors = Mahatmas = Money As He Asks They Must Always Send.

Regards,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 16:02:35 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Deterioration
Message:
I've had time to think about it a bit more and you know what - my life would deteriorate if I stopped practising Knowledge... Jim, it wasn't a threat, it was more likely an observation. Strong advice, like you expect from a good teacher.

He wasn't just 'teaching' YOU, Rob. He was warning anybody within earshot, that's how full of himself he is. And you have to admit, the man is very full of himself. How does he know how well I'll fare in life without him or K? He's a big fat fathead who thinks he's the living end. And he's a lousy teacher. The only thing I learned from him is what a jerk I was to believe he had something to teach.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 20:24:32 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: You're not arrogant...
Message:
you're a fucking egomaniac!!!

To wit:

What I am reading in a lot of the posts addressed to me is anger because I don't fit the profile of what you think a PWK (Premie Wearing Kilt) should be, how he/she should act, relate to Maharaji, say, think feel. Maybe that profile is imaginary, maybe it's what you were years ago, I don't know.

Now do you really think we are angry because YOU DON'T FIT SOME PROFILE? What a stupid thing to say! I suppose you also believe the world revolves around you. And we are just panting for your attention. NOT!

Mensa my ass.

PS I was in the National Honor Society in High School (until I got thrown out for not bringing any cookies to the bake sale) So there Mr Menses
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 21:26:26 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: You're not arrogant...
Message:
You tell him, Gerry!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Mon, May 31, 1999 at 23:27:18 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Last request
Message:
Gail

Forgot your last request, Montreal.

I suppose I could smuggle you in under my kilt?

Why were you banned? Were you a screamer?

Now I need to be careful here, because I'll be accused of trying to sway you over the fence. Best thing I can say is do whatever will make you happy. If that involves going there and rearming yourself with new quotes of his to shread apart here, then go for it. You'll find a way in, if you want to badly enough. Do the Canadians know what you look like? Wear a wig and glasses!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:18:05 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Am I screamer?
Message:
Please. I should have screamed when the chef called me a liar and a thief. I should have screamed when I was refused entry last December even though I had an invitation. No I've never screamed, Rob.

Do the Canadians know what you look like? Wear a wig and glasses!

Thank you, Rob.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 02:25:47 (EDT)
From: Fred
Email: None
To: Mw
Subject: No broadcast
Message:
Seems like the satellite didn't work in quite a few places.

What happened to Maraji's grace?

Fred
Return to Index -:- Top of Index
Date: Tues, Jun 01, 1999 at 03:08:04 (EDT)
From: Mw
Email: None
To: Fred
Subject: No broadcast
Message:
Its relative I guess.

Thinking about it..... 'my grace', 'Fred's grace'

Maharaji's grace, oh yeah, he is all encompassing, everything to set the reality clock with. Yep, yes sir re bob,

Mw
Return to Index -:- Top of Index