Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 08:58:02 (GMT)
From: Feb 02, 2000 To: Feb 09, 2000 Page: 1 Of: 5


Jim -:- The Dog Syndrome -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:19:42 (GMT)
__ Deputy Dog -:- The Dog Syndrome???? -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 14:03:55 (GMT)
__ Helen -:- Strategies of non-understanding -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 02:30:46 (GMT)
__ Haldor -:- The Dog Syndrome -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:49:37 (GMT)
__ __ AJW -:- Question for Haldor -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 15:49:23 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- Guys Like Dog -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:37:16 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- The Dog Syndrome -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:53:55 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- The Dog Syndrome -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:14:27 (GMT)
__ G -:- The Dog Syndrome -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:44:46 (GMT)
__ __ Gregg -:- Doggin' it -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:32:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Doggin' it -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:55:48 (GMT)
__ Deputy Dog -:- Well isn't that special! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:24:27 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Dog, u cn do btr thn tht -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:44:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Doin the best I can! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 03:56:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Evasive? Yep! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 04:51:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Just what I'm talking about! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 14:06:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Just what I'm talking about! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:36:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Curly -:- Whose way? -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:38:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Just what I'm talking about! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:31:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Apparently, Dog has left the building -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:59:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!!!!! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:49:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- I'M STILL DOING IT!!!!!! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 03:19:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Careful! -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:26:16 (GMT)

occasional mole -:- Propagation Desperation -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 14:51:54 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- But does Chris like pepper? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:17:45 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- But does Chris like pepper? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:28:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Little Rascals? -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:29:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Robyn -:- Little Rascals? -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 14:07:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- cartoons etc -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:12:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Robyn -:- cartoons etc -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:48:13 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- nauseating. And two points... -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:15:02 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- nauseating. And two points... -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:30:23 (GMT)
__ __ Marianne -:- Hahahahaha -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:57:39 (GMT)
__ __ Jean-Michel -:- listen to Ira Woods -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:21:03 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- Learn more on -Learning More- -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 08:50:05 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- No that's impossible -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 14:59:57 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Ev's officials pissed off? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 10:11:34 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Ev's officials pissed off? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 14:51:21 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- Ev's officials pissed off? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:04:29 (GMT)

Gerry -:- Gerry is an kissing ass ass! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:00:27 (GMT)
__ Marianne -:- Gerry is an kissing ass ass! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:50:24 (GMT)
__ __ corvuscorax -:- Gerry is a kissing ass ass! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:59:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ cqg -:- Quoth the raven ... (nt) -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:14:13 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- Gerry is an kissing ass ass! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:16:59 (GMT)

Peter Howie -:- Premie Language 'I feel...' -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:26:29 (GMT)
__ kmdarling -:- HEY PETER! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:19:11 (GMT)
__ __ Peter Howie -:- HEY PETER! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:07:20 (GMT)
__ Mike -:- Right on the money!!! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:06:23 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- or you're 'in your mind' -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 11:20:41 (GMT)
__ Eric Banna -:- 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.' -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 09:35:42 (GMT)
__ __ Peter Howie -:- Fuck off catweael -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:50:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ Catweasel? -:- I solemnly annoit myself? -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 00:08:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Peter Howie -:- Noticing being picked on -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:56:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Phillip Adams -:- Noticing being picked on -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 07:28:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ John Singleton -:- Correction:Picking hisNose!! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 07:32:04 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.' -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:12:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ John Singleton -:- 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.' -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:56:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Doktor Dirty -:- 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.' -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 03:13:32 (GMT)
__ Rex Hunt -:- Stone Dead For Years -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:00:17 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- You're damn tootin, Rasputin -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:01:47 (GMT)
__ G -:- I feel -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:23:35 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- I feel -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 08:46:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- I feel -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 13:34:51 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- ..therefore I know! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:00:01 (GMT)

Deputy Dog -:- Is there a God? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:06:36 (GMT)
__ Shiva-Krishna -:- Is there a dep? -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:29:49 (GMT)
__ EddytheHootle -:- 2nd Law of thermodynamics -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:54:47 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- 2nd Law of thermodynamics -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:17:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- Fly-in-the-ointment -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:38:18 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Wrong, wrong, wrong.... -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:10:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- You are right, right, right! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 15:33:14 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- Here, let me help -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 20:22:19 (GMT)
__ __ Mike -:- Your misunderstanding -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:59:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ EddytheHootle -:- Hopi Physics -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:36:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mike -:- Yeah, right! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:57:54 (GMT)
__ cqg -:- Do plankton ask ... -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:24:55 (GMT)
__ G -:- Is there a God? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:05:02 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Wiht all due respect, G -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:40:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- Twisting twisting -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:12:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Michael -:- Twisting twisting -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:18:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Twisting twisting -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:21:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Twisting twisting -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:32:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- natural selection -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:13:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- natural selection -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:25:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- natural selection -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 22:40:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- natural selection -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:21:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sagan's wrong on that one, isn't he? -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:33:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 20:11:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- the breath and the spirit -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:53:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- Really. I'm surprised at you two ;} -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:06:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cqg -:- spiritual used to be a meaninful word, like faith -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:20:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Encore, Encore! -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 22:27:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Twisting twisting -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:48:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- and the 'I' -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:47:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- and the 'I' -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 18:00:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ Mike -:- You're a peach, Jim -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 18:40:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- You're a peach, Jim -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 18:50:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike -:- Thanks Jim -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:00:02 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave, disjointed but -:- God is an Egyptian idea -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:46:23 (GMT)
__ __ cqg -:- God is an Egyptian idea -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:04:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- More Egyptian history -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:27:54 (GMT)
__ __ Robyn -:- God is an Egyptian idea -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:30:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- God is an Egyptian idea -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:30:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ cqg -:- God is an Egyptian idea -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:09:22 (GMT)
__ Mu -:- Is there a God? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:06:12 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Great question, classic error -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:52:02 (GMT)
__ __ Deputy Dog -:- Great question, classic error -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:02:08 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- That wasn't your question... -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:55:48 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Oh no! I mean 'Dog' (nt) -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:05:13 (GMT)
__ p howie -:- Is there a God? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:36:43 (GMT)
__ __ Arthur -:- Is there a God? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:08:19 (GMT)

Monica -:- Chicken Soup for the Soul -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 01:49:52 (GMT)
__ G -:- Chicken Soup for the Soul -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:23:03 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Chicken Pox Soup for the Soul -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:35:25 (GMT)
__ Roger eDrek™ -:- Whoa! Fairfield is Maharishi -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:13:53 (GMT)

Jethro -:- Lucy sends her love -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 22:49:28 (GMT)
__ I. Dunno -:- Emily loves Syd. -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:14:18 (GMT)
__ __ Jethro -:- Emily loves Syd. -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:38:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ cqg -:- Emily was long gone,long,long: -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 20:52:35 (GMT)

Roger eDrek™ -:- EnjoyingLife founders missing? -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:27:02 (GMT)
__ JHB -:- EnjoyingLife founders missing? -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 00:17:32 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Thanks! (NT) -:- Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 06:04:23 (GMT)

Roger Conspiracy eDrek™ -:- Bill Burke Furby Jossi Fresco -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:51:06 (GMT)

Nigel -:- Mel: response to inactive -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:33:55 (GMT)

Roger eDrek™ -:- New feature at Enjoying Life -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:00:08 (GMT)
__ Isn't that Special!! -:- 'Enjoying him' The Pictures!!! -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:51:43 (GMT)

Roger eDrek™ -:- Was I Wrong about Cerby? -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:24:25 (GMT)
__ Sir David Holmes -:- Was I Wrong about Cerby? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 01:40:06 (GMT)
__ __ Cerby -:- Was I Wrong about Cerby? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:59:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ Rob -:- Bless you my son! -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:03:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- All of my theories still stand -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:19:52 (GMT)
__ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Sir Dave, License or Licence? -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:09:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Sir Dave, License or Licence? -:- Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 16:43:45 (GMT)
__ __ Selene -:- It's all getting a bit much -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 01:58:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Always has been always will NT -:- Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:10:56 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- Was I Wrong about Cerby? -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:41:07 (GMT)
__ __ Ms. K -:- Uh, Roger and Selene... -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:47:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- Uh, Roger and Selene... -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:58:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- no excuses... -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:06:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ selene -:- notes I got em up the wazoo -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:12:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- notes I got em up the wazoo -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:14:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- Ms. K, I've underestimated you -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:55:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ms. K -:- Thank you, Roger -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:01:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- annoyance vs. threat -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:20:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Selene -:- annoyance vs. threat -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:27:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek™ -:- You've been violated -:- Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:44:49 (GMT)


Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:19:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The Dog Syndrome
Message:
I know we've all talked about this before but I thought this deserves a little more exploration. In a thread below, Dog says this:

Crawl to him - without him my life is meaningless - grovel before him. Sheeese! I'm obviously missing something here! I never got any of this. I never felt this way at all. It was always pretty relaxed IMO. I could leave at any time and chose to stay.

If that's what you Jim, Roger and the regulars here got, then I guess you're entitled to be pissed off. I never got this. My years as a premie have for the most part been pretty relaxed and enjoyable. If it hadn't been I would have left and gotten into something else.

Now Dog and I have talked about this before. Truth be known, he's an old premie friend of mine (I told him I'd 'out' him to this extent but no more). Knew him in a community I lived in in the seventies. Dog was a community premie. Indeed, Dog was more of a cat. Never given to devotional expression (you know, crying satsang about his increasing love for Maharaji -- yeck!), never one of those guys knocking on the ashram or community centre's door asking if there was anything he could possibly do such was his burning desire to do satsang. Really -- and I want to be entirely fair about this -- Dog was a very cool cat. Very.

So, in our recent email discussion, I posited the much bandied about theory, which I happen to believe, that people like Dog ran a survival racket on the old guru. Dummied down so as to be virtually impervious to Maharaji's real agya which was, for those unfortunate to remember, actually very, very simple: give it all, babeeeee! Shop 'til you drop!

I showed Dog some of my collected satsangs (which I can't post here cause I'm still in Seattle) where Maharaji made it abundantly clear that 'real' premies relentelessly tried to expunge their personal lives and identities on the Lotus Feet of Love. I told Dog that even though he sometimes heard those very same satsangs, he and his community brethren developed whole unspoken but subtly coordinated strategies for avoiding their obvious import.

So here's a question: do you think Dog or anyone like him could have possibly played that game without support? Say he lived in a community where every last premie was trying to be a true, blue devotee, you know, the kind which asks not what his guru can do for him but what he can do for his guru? Would Dog have been able to maintain his 'What me Worry?' stare in the face of m's obvious onslaught?

Sometimes I feel like an ex-Revolutionary Guard from Mao's Cultural Revolution. You know? Sure Mao wasn't responsible for that stuff! We only ate our teachers because we were hungry.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 14:03:55 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Dog Syndrome????
Message:
'Mediocrity finds safety in standardization.'
Frederick Crane
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 02:30:46 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Strategies of non-understanding
Message:
That is so true Jim. I subtley coordinated many strategies to avoid the import of the TOTAL SURRENDER message. I sort of rationalized it by saying that there was a place for everyone in M's world, even college students and career people, etc. I just knew internally that I couldn't go all the way with it. And it still screwed me up A LOT. So I can only imagine how it screwed up those who gave everything.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:49:37 (GMT)
From: Haldor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Dog Syndrome
Message:
Unlike DEP I did give it all up and moved into an ashram for a few years.My experience wasn't all great,sometimes I felt stressed out through lack of sleep and too much service. I didn't much like the organisation and must admit ,was a rather sleepy,unfocussed meditator at times. I felt my ego getting into being a somebody in the mission. The houses I lived in were very high rental so we didn't have much left over to donate, I think it was maybe 10%.My better experiences of knowledge came after I left.Maybe the ashrams closing was a great thing for many of us forcing us to face the difficulties of life and still maintain clarity. I think for myself and definitely don't go along with what comes down from the top.M gave me the techniques which are not exclusive to him but it seems that innumerable paths towards enlightenment use them.They do work for me however which is what I care about. m is just one of my sources of inspiration in life.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 15:49:23 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Haldor
Subject: Question for Haldor
Message:
So, I'm not clear about something here Haldor, maybe you can help clear it up.

Do you think Elan Vital (previously known as Divine Light Mission) is a cult?

Do you think it was once, but isn't anymore?

Do you think lots of premies make it look like a cult, but you're not into that side of it, just the experience and the master?

What difference is there between say, Maharaji and Rev. Moon for example?

Anth the curious. (feel free to quiz me back Haldor)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:37:16 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Guys Like Dog
Message:
I remember guys like Dog, gals too. I think some of them could have maintained their casualness without support for it. You see, Jim, there's guys (people) like Dog everywhere; easygoing, sometimes because their easygoing and sometimes because their dumb. You could stick a hot poker up their ass and they just glance around... casually.

Ever go into a store and there's a guy like Dog working there? Let me tell you, you might be waiting a long time.

The thing is, wherever the ability to be so casual comes from, it doesn't really matter. If you don't pay the money for a ride on a 747 that's going to crash, you can talk all you like about how safe 747's are. The point is, you never paid your dough and you never got on the plane.

Guru-chops said what he said, and he meant what he meant, and just cause some guy who was probably a busboy at some restaurant where you got jelly on your elbow because he didn't wipe the table right, didn't listen to the guru and do what he said, it doesn't mean anything about anything. It means he misinterpreted the Guru in the first place and it means he's still misinterpreting the Guru.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:53:55 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The Dog Syndrome
Message:
Jim: I tend to agree with you here. I was a pretty dedicated premie, but not quite the same as an ashram resident. Scott T and I had a mutual support system that helped us to avoid 'some' of the landmines that you experienced. Strangely enough, it was a 'place' that helped. If you remember Scott and I talking about a place called Quality-Pie, that's it! We used to go there to be able to talk with each other in a relaxed environment (e.g. no undesired 'ears' about!). To his great credit (and MY great benefit, IMHO) Scott would talk about some of his doubts, etc. Although, at the time, we convinced ourselves that the total-devotion thing was premie-generated; thus preserving our view of M as a laid-back guru/god. After all, does god really care if I'm a total vegetarian? Then again, if you actually READ the old M satsangs or watched the videos, you would KNOW where the ideas came from! To preserve our view of M as a laid-back god, we could have easily convinced ourselves that he was running a real lila on those ashramies! You know, getting them to totally devote and do exactly as he says because 'that's what THEY expected god to do!'

This is actually pretty dangerous territory because you can actually explain-away ANYTHING using that denial technique. You can get pretty good at it, too! Come to think of it Jim, this may actually make the exit more difficult for those guys than it was for YOU and other ashramies (???????) Of course, I'm not belittling the ashram ex's here, it's just a thought!

I agree, without a less-than-totally-dedicated-premie-support system, there are only two choices..... jump in the way YOU did or get out! Considering what M was saying at the time, I think 'getting out' would have been exceptionally difficult, too (after you bought the whole enchilada)! After all, who would want to rot like a bunch of vege's?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:14:27 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: The Dog Syndrome
Message:
Dear Mike,
I have seen so much here about that rotting veggie thing. I guess coming from the Catholic background I did I just thought of it as a parable or something. Not an actual thing that would happen. Hard to believe Jim the science guy would have bought that one! :) Maybe he wasn't a science guy yet.
Jim, I think it is neat that you knew Dog and still can have some respect for him. I have said many times that I never had a problem with the meditation and I held onto that rather then M as god or premies as role models or authority figures. Actually, you will not believe this but premies use to tell ME they saw me as a role model because I was a natural with the meditation. I didn't go overboard like some did, meditating formally for hours on end. I just did it like I was shown and it worked for me. I was very lucky, didn't realize how much till I landed here 2 years ago but maybe Dog was and is similarly lucky to have avoided all the bullshit from M and company.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:44:46 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: All
Subject: The Dog Syndrome
Message:
I agree, there has been a strategy of how to 'nibble at the bait without getting hooked'. It's a tricky thing to do, some are better at it than others.

It seems that M is constantly trying to thwart these attempts. Maybe that's one reason for shutting the premies up. I think I remember some premies coaching me on how to ask for Knowledge, like, how to go along with the game so you can get the techniques. M is making in harder for people to just act like they are going along with it, he wants them really hooked. You pretty much have to do long-distance traveling to learn them from M. Of course, you can get them here for free.

Some people who traveled half way around the world to Australia were actually turned down. I was there, I heard the interaction with M. I saw no rational reason for M to turn them down. It was all mystical, like somehow he 'knew' they weren't 'ready'. Actually, it was a mind fuck, a display of power, and a way to get them even more hooked.

So to listen to M to get the bait without being sucked in, you have to mentally fight against what he is doing. It got to the point for me where it wasn't worth it anymore. Not enough bait, too much hook.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:32:23 (GMT)
From: Gregg
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Doggin' it
Message:
Sure, it's possible...and always has been, even in the bhaktiest of years ('73? '76 with those weird blue leis over the naked dancing -- if you could call it that -- torso?) to be a Person With Knowledge and not get all weepy with devotion. I never happened to believe he was God or Lord, but I did see him as a magical super-being, a channel par excellence, etc.

But all you people who claim that 'it's all good' and that the techniques 'work:' why claim any allegience at all to a character like Maharaj Ji? If you want a guru, or a technique or three, fine, but it's a free country and you've got free will. Why choose Maharaj Ji, after all we now know about him? Why couldn't Dog, Haldor, et al make a little effort to discover a legitimate spiritual path? What's keeping them from leaving the -- OK, I'll use the word -- cult? Their posts are disingenuous, in a word.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:55:48 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Gregg
Subject: Doggin' it
Message:
I think Dog, Haldor, Mel, Shp are kidding themselves about Maharaji just being an inspiration in their lives. I think he's their reason for living but they know to admit that is just too bizarre, so they won't. You just can't listen to Maharaji for any length of time and not buy into his philosophy that he should be the center of your life and that without him you're hopeless. He pounds that message home relentlessly. Why would you keep going back for more if you didn't believe it, and somehow even get off on it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:24:27 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim and everybody
Subject: Well isn't that special!
Message:
Okay Jim, so now the cat is out of the bag, and everyone knows were are friends, isn't that going to hurt our credibility?

Powerman, it's a bit of an insult to say that I have misinterpreted the Guru. My interpretation is my interpretation.

And G I did get hooked, hooked on Knowledge, which ironically is freedom, inner freedom. I didn't have to fight against what M was doing. I meditated!

Gregg, thanks for your suggestion that I discover a legitimate spiritual path. I was probably not paying attention when you were sworn in as global arbiter in what is legitimate and genuine.

Gerry, M is not my reason for living Knowledge is. Knowledge is the centre of my life. There is an inner Maharaji and an outer one. I really value meditation. It's my security. M inspires to keep on doing it.

Mike I can leave at any time and choose not to.

Thanks Haldor, and Robyn we are birds of a feather.

-- Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:44:43 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Dog, u cn do btr thn tht
Message:
Hey Dog,

I'm not worried about my credibility and you don't have any so what's the diff? :)

No, really, you don't have any credibility when you swat so many shots into the stands. What am I talking about? 'My interpretation is my interpretation'. What kind of gobbledygook is that? Are you denying that m meant or means something when he speaks? Because, if not there's always a fair question of whether his words have been properly interpreted. This is true for anyone.

So we know that you interpreted m as you did. It's a truly ridiculous point to make unless, of course, you're suggesting that m's words are like chimp-generated art with no meaning other than whatever you choose to give it. Is that what you're saying? I sure hope not. It would be stupider than all get out if it was.

Okay, then, back to the issue: did you properly interpret m's words? (Warning -- I'm back in town and loaded with quotes.)

But what's this shit about an 'inner Maharaji'? Come on, Dog, spell out exactly what your beliefs are here. Don't be chicken and don't be coy. If you're either one you really have no business keeping these conversations going. Cards on table -- what do you mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 03:56:49 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Doin the best I can!
Message:
Jim,

Okay here we go! My interpretation is my interpretation. What's wrong with that! Most people here would understand that. Not everyone is like you Jim. People are different! (How's that for profundity?)

And chimp generated art???? Not gonna go there!

Fact is there was always a place for me in the premie community. True, I didn't toe the party line and made no secret about it. But I was never made to feel uncomfortable, I was never censured or shunned like the Amish (or worse like some other groups.) Generally speaking my life as a premie has been relaxed and enjoyable. I honestly have difficulty relating to most of the complaints here.

What are my beliefs? My beliefs are in my posts. A little Shakespeare, a little Rumi, some bible quotes. I love Buddhism, am a great fan of the Counting Crows and Annie Lennox. Love John Wayne and the 9ers. You read my posts. My beliefs are there.

You're just angry because I don't think the same way you do. You're upset and you are comparing me with other people so I'll stop living my life the way I want to. Nya nya nya!

I march to the beat of a different drummer. I took the road less travelled, all that stuff. The inner Maharaji is also called the Word, the Tao, the Buddha Nature, the Holy Name (remember that one?) the presence.

Did I properly interpret M's words. What kind of crap is that? I took what I liked and left the rest. That was my prerogative and that's what I did. Is that being coy (showing reluctance to make a definite commitment) or chicken (cowardly)? If I was chicken would I be taking you on? Would I be posting here?

By the way did your relatives talk you into taking the Forum? I hope they did.

-- Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 04:51:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Evasive? Yep!
Message:
Dog,

You sidestepped my point. Care to try again?

Do you think that you properly interpreted m's words, i.e., in the spirit he intended them or not?

And no, of course I won't take the Forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 14:06:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Just what I'm talking about!
Message:
Dog,

I'd say you're exercsing the very self-limiting 'dummying-down' I ws talking about.

But maybe you've been playing this game a little long, eh?

Maybe it's become second nature.

I mean, how would you feel if you had to admit that you purposely avoided m's real meaning as much as you did back when he was asking for so much more than you were willing to give?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:36:22 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Just what I'm talking about!
Message:
Jim,

You said, Do you think that you properly interpreted m's words, i.e., in the spirit he intended them or not?

M was talking to the 'ideal' card carrying ashram premie. There was and is room for everyone even fringers who had the occasional puff and were know to visit the local bar.

I'd say you're exercising the very self-limiting 'dummying-down' I was talking about.

Satsang, service and meditation was the message. Self-limiting and dummying down are your words not mine.

I mean, how would you feel if you had to admit that you purposely avoided m's real meaning as much as you did back when he was asking for so much more than you were willing to give?

Did I purposely avoid M's real meaning? No I did satsang, service and mediataion. Became a vegetarian, alienated all my friends by telling them their lives were meaningless without Knowledge, you know, the whole nine yards.

I did it my way!

-- Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:38:03 (GMT)
From: Curly
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Whose way?
Message:
Well, I remember Belkis the instructor telling us aspirants and making it very clear that we were NOT to do things our way, but HIS way.

I only like doing things MY way.

Curly

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:31:14 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Just what I'm talking about!
Message:
M was talking to the 'ideal' card carrying ashram premie.

Which is what he wanted all of us to be. Like you say, there was an ideal premie, one who gave 110%, and then some. Of course, the payback was supposed to be a millionfold, but I think most ashram premies will tell you that it didn't quite measure up to that.

But even for the fringe premies, it was still a pretty intense message. Maharaji wasn't just saying, 'Meditate. Be happy.' OK, he was, and is saying that. But along with that, there was, and is a lot of heavy shit about the glory of the master. He really pounded us with that, not just the 'ideal card carrying ashram premie.' Everybody. You're only letting in half the message, Dep. You're not allowing yourself to see Maharaji for the megalomaniac he really is, and time and again exposes himself to be. Unless you really do believe he's some kind of super realized soul who's one with God now, so much that he's merged with Him and can even dare to call himself that. I think you might, if only on a subconscious level. That is, after all, his message.

And if you don't, why would you want somebody as egotistical as Maharaji for a meditation teacher? It doesn't make sense. Maharaji, being the kind of master he is, is suitable for only one type of student, the one who wants to bow as low as he can before Maharaji, singing his praises first thing in the morning and the last thing at night. I don't think Maharaji is interested in any other kind. When has he ever given an indication that he is?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:59:03 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Apparently, Dog has left the building
Message:
Jerry,

Your clean, incontrovertible argument may be lost on Dog. He said up above he's leaving for a while. If it's any consolation, I got it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:49:20 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!!!!!!
Message:
Dog!

Please re-read the first question:

Do you think that you properly interpreted m's words, i.e., in the spirit he intended them or not?

This question calls for one of four answers and four answers alone. Either:

1) yes
2) no
3) I don't know

or

4) maybe

PLEASE feel free to elaborate however you wish. Explain, explain, explain away. But answer the question first. Otherwise, intentionally or not, you're just picking at questions, not really engaging them.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 03:19:42 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'M STILL DOING IT!!!!!!
Message:
Jim,

You asked, 'Do you think that you properly interpreted m's words, i.e., in the spirit he intended them or not?'

This question calls for one of four answers and four answers alone. Either:

1) yes* I'm still meditating, which is the point of the whole thing.
2) no
3) I don't know
or
4) maybe

-- Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 04:26:16 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Careful!
Message:
Dep,

He said a lot of things, didn't he? Are you prepared to consider all he said, not just 'enjoy!'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 14:51:54 (GMT)
From: occasional mole
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Propagation Desperation
Message:
Most communities won't spend the money, which comes from premies pockets, to invite one. This is paper is to give premies ideas why they should invite them.

--------------------------

TOPIC AND EVENT IDEAS FOR INSTRUCTOR TOUR PLANNING

In reviewing the answers found in the questionnaire sent out previously, and thinking about what would achieve the greatest long-term benefit, which of the following topics/events would you like to see an instructor focus on during a visit to your city/area over the next six months?

INSPIRATION AND EDUCATION AROUND PROPAGATION

* The process of being introduced, preparing for and receiving Knowledge - inviting people - the different ways to introduce someone
- the « learning more » phase
- the aspirant process
- the process for receiving Knowledge
- follow up and support for people who have recently received Knowledge
- video libraries
* MC training
* Events in languages other than English
* Other

INCREASING PARTICIPATION AND TEAMWORK

· Participation event- involving more people - Identifying and communicating needs (someone would during the event)
· Working as a team (focusing on benefits of teamwork; instructors won't organize your team, but could facilitate some communication)
· Help to identify the National resources available
· Other

ENHANCING EXISTING EVE \ITS THROUGH INSTRUCTOR PARTICIPATION IN:

· Introductory event-promoted well in advance

· Learning More events - when people are being introduced - through events, audios or videos on their own, saw M once previously - a LM event with an instructor would be an opportunity to invite them to hear more about the M and Knowledge.

· Aspirant Event (Preparing for Knowledge) helps existing aspirants and also is a catalyst for those who have been attending LM events to step forward and hear about preparation

· Practice for people who recently received Knowledge that have not yet been to one

· Meeting for people who recently received Knowledge for all 'PRRK'

ADDITIONAL WAYS TO CREATE EVENTS

· Extended time events like half day or full day events
· Event for PWK to showcase Introductory materials
· Area wide events where more than one community can get together
· Update events for PWK who attended the Satellite event that have not been around much
· Would it be helpful for an instructor to stay in one area over an extended period of time thereby allowing for a second visit to build on the first one?
· Other ideas

------------------------------------

Thursday, April 08, 1999 1:50:09 PM
Message
From: Marci Klein
Subject: Tour Information
To: MW CC
IMFORMATION FOR CHRIS WALKER'S VISIT

General Notes:
1. Please announce at events for pwk's or aspirants AS MUCH IN ADVANCE AS POSSIBLE BEFORE CHRIS ARRIVES: Anybody who has questions or topics they would like Chris to cover can be written down and given or sent to the city contact and made available to Chris upon his arrival. Give people an option to present this in a sealed envelope, if they feel more comfortable.
2. Give attention to thinking in advance about the layout of the event and having an appropriate number of chairs set up so that the room doesn't look empty and feels comfortable for all who attend.
3. Chris often meets people when he travels and has requested, if possible, to get invitations from every city who is hosting either an intro or l/m event sent to him so he can travel with these invitations and hand them out. For example, if you are going to an event in another city, and Chris will be coming to your city sometime after that event, maybe you could bring the invitations with you.

Please have available the following videos:

PWK Events
Practice and Enjoy (25 minutes)
Participation: A Remarkable Opportunity (21 minutes)
My Privilege (10 minutes)
If you are having a 3 1/4 hour event, also have these available:
One video before a practice session that runs 15-20 minutes. In Chicago, we used 'New Delhi Morning Session, 11/19/97'. This one was GREAT!!!
One by One OR Call and Response
The Human Side (11 minutes)

Aspirant Events
Preparing For Knowledge: Questions and Answers (19 minutes)
The Human Side (11 minutes)
The Seed (7 minutes)
If you are having a 2 hour event, also have these available:
Any recent aspirant video(s) that haven't been shown & run for a total of 20-25 minutes (to open the event).

L/M Events
The Bridge or another L/M video where M answers questions.
Also have available two or three 15-20 minute videos that haven't been shown recently for Chris to choose from.

Intro Events
Have available three or four 15-20 minute videos that haven't been shown recently for Chris to choose from.

Event format:
One hour event--video, Chris speaks 5-15 minutes, video
Two hour event--video, Chris speaks, video; break; video, Chris speaks, video
3 1/4 hour event--video, Chris speaks, video; break; video, Chris speaks, video; break; video, Chris speaks, video

If Chris will be doing one event in your city, you can consider doing two or three events in a row. For example, you can begin with an event for PWK's, break (give a chance for the next group of people to arrive), do a L/M event, break (give a chance for the L/M group to comfortably clear out), break, and then finish up with an event for aspirants. Before the aspirant meeting, it's not a formal break. Just invite the aspirants to the intro or l/m and say Chris will meet with them separately afterwards and show some videos and talk.

Personal notes:
For health reasons, Chris does not eat any salt at all. He eats lots of fresh fruits and salads, non-fat plain yogurt, oatmeal, non-salted nuts, fish, chicken and many other things--as long as it doesn't have salt!

Any further questions? Contact Chris via FirstClass or by telephone!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tuesday, October 05, 1999 12:21:35 AM
Message
From: Sharon Stokke
Subject: Recorded Info Lines
To: US City Contacts
Mail L TY-C
Mail L Danielle
Attachments: Info0999.pdf 20K
Dear All,
The following message was sent to National Contacts. Since we don't have one at present, I'm forwarding it to the cities as a courtesy.
Sharon
------
Here is the September issue of the information lines leaflet. It requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Please note:
This list was started at our Teacher's request and the intention was that the answerphones should be of the following standard:
1. They should be on a dedicated telephone line.
2. They should contain current video event information and nothing else.
3. They should not give an opportunity to leave a message.

There was also a feeling that the relevant information should be given in one call and people should not be directed elsewhere for the information that they called for.

The National Recorded Information Line number is not to be listed on Introductory Recorded Information Lines, but is able to be listed on General Recorded Information Lines.

Please make sure that your video event answerphones do not give a home address, only public places should be in the message.

You may already be doing this but if not, can you take responsibility in your city or area for these numbers?
Thanks.
-------------------------------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:17:45 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: occasional mole
Subject: But does Chris like pepper?
Message:
Hey, it is incredible reading this stuff. If I didn't know better, I would think that maybe the Lord isn't working his lila after all or that perhaps 'taking control and making us all one...' is more than one God can cope with. Or that - heaven forbid - Margie is covertly seeking advice on where to take his ugly cult because he doesn't know what to do to stop the decline in numbers, stateside.

Whatever next - focus groups? Voting..?! Perhaps a questionnaire-based analysis of students' opinions:

-We would like to know about your meditation experiences and relative appreciation of the techniques: Please rank the following in order of preference: (1) Light, (2) Music, (3) Word...etc
-Would you prefer to do them in a different order? With your eyes open? Do you know of any other traditional meditation methods that might augment and enhance the Knowledge experience?
-Would just meditating for twenty minutes attract and keep more PWK's?
-Would you like to see more trinket stalls at events? A licensed bar?
-Cartoons between video showings?
-Do you consider ten dollars extortionate for a guru mug?
-What do you think of special offer reduced waiting times for aspirants who bring a friend along? (Extra-fast turnarounds for families and coach parties..?)
-It has been suggested that our Teacher might benefit from a little more attention to his use of language, his dress sense and facial grooming. Your comments, please.

(All responses will be handled in the strictest confidence etc etc.. Thank-you for taking part in this study.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:28:36 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: But does Chris like pepper?
Message:
Dear Nigel,
Connecting this post to my post about the videos from JM, I think the cartoons between videos would definitely liven up those video events! How about some Little Rascals! Do you know those over there dear? When I was a pregnant premie, I'd race to drive my partner to work and then race home to catch the Little Rascals so for me they put me in a meditative state of mind. :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 09:29:24 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Little Rascals?
Message:
Robyn,

The Little Rascals isn't a cartoon. But if they start showing episodes of The Simpsons, I might start attending videos again. Homer is my hero.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 14:07:18 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Little Rascals?
Message:
Dear Jerry,
No they aren't cartoons but do you remember the 'shorts' they played before the main movie? Pre previews and much more fun, well the Little Rascals could be 'shorts' type of filming, silly. :) I have seen the Simsoms on occassion but out here in countrybumpkinville I don't get fox unless I take the little black and white to the 3rd floor and mess with the whole thing, moving the antenna and tv all over, takes about an hour. I don't have that kind of time! :)
Do you like South Park? My oldest daughter brought home a tape of a whole season's worth of them. She sat with me and if my attentions waivered she snapped me back to the task at hand. That in itself had me cracking up but I did like the cartoon also. We just ain't got no culture out here! :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:12:39 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: cartoons etc
Message:
Cartoons are a great idea. In the old premie days, where I was we had the cartoon 'The Sunshine Makers', we also watched 'Star Wars', and in '76, believe it or not, we watched a movie with some sex in it (due to a subversive influence). We also put on occasional plays and regularly had live LOUD music. Yea, the Vampire has sucked the life out of it. Note: one play was by these two guys who dressed up as the 'Guru Goons' and accosted someone on the street, pressuring him and yelling at him to follow Guru Maharaj Ji. The community coordinate did not appreciate it. Maybe there should be parody videos. It would be perfect lila, to blow spiritual concepts.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:48:13 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: G
Subject: cartoons etc
Message:
Dear G,
Parody videos, I love it! We could make them, bridging the gap between ex and premie. :)
Yes we had LOUD live music also, it was one of the best things looking back.
Love,
Raobyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:15:02 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: occasional mole
Subject: nauseating. And two points...
Message:
can anyone tell me why she has capitalized 'our Teacher'....must be a typo huh?

The reason that they do not want a phone machine that lets you leave a message is the Jim Heller could always call.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:30:23 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: nauseating. And two points...
Message:
Dear Susan,
Christ that was funny and the funniest thing about the Jim calling concideration is it may very well be true! :)
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:57:39 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Hahahahaha
Message:
Susan: You sure hit the nail on the head about the phone numbers and Jim calling. Come to think of it, Joe might call too!

Reading these recent messages from EV makes me think the organization is barely functioning. Remember the olden days when DLM operated out of big buildings in Denver? When there was a huge national staff? These messages sound so amateurish. They appear to be floundering.

Can you imagine how god-awful a whole day of videos would be? Sure glad I missed out on the turn to technology. So much easier to control than premies....

Love you, sister-girl,
Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:21:03 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: listen to Ira Woods
Message:
Some notes from the last regional meeting in Chicago, on 2/99

Sharon Stocky the last I knew, is the National Contact for the US.
Ira Woods was there and he gave interesting suggestions to the premies.

IraWoods:

1-You can put your all into Knowledge because it's the only thing that gives back.
2-Flow with Maharaji changes. (that's good one)
3-Use all info for support not written in stone (Always confusive, double messages.: You have to do what we tell you , follow the guidelines. Oh, is not written in stone=you are free-not!-)
4-M says 'water has a smell only the thirsty smell.'
5- Get good at propagation. Get the message out. (yeah, because it haven't happened yet.)
6-Don't be afraid to talk.
7-People who want to should propagate. (??)
8-Do what you can.

Sharon Stocky(National Contact)

1-Us has more potential.
2-Sync with M. (say what????hahaha)
3- Find a way to work together that works in helping him. - helping is underlined. - (OHHH....- I will listen to you M. because no one tells me what you tell me.' Don't know from where it came.
4-M.asked what's the problem in US?
Are people into it?
Or do organizers need to get it together?

Lard doesn't get it! He cannot put things together. They want to keep fishing for idiots who bite their hook, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 08:50:05 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Learn more on -Learning More-
Message:
This is a copy of a letter from EV to all US CC:

+++++++++++++++++++++

What is an Event for Learning More about Knowledge:

· It is intended to be an ongoing opportunity for those who have been introduced to hear more and learn more about Knowledge, over an indefinite period of time, until they decide for themselves that Knowledge is, or is not, something that they would like to pursue.

· It is a regularly held video event (perhaps once a week when there is no introductory event scheduled)

· It is not a part of a series; it is not meant to 'follow-up' one introductory event.

- Interested people attending any event of this type could have been introduced through any of these means:

- - Attending a video event

- - Watching a video given to them or shown to them by a friend

- - Listening to an audio tape

- - Reading an introductory publication.

- This event also serves as an introduction for some people who are coming for the first time.

- These may be people who could not attend an introductory event because of a conflict or illness.

- Guests might also be invited by those who have themselves juSt been introduced and are excited and simply invite friends to the next video they are attending.

The key components of an Event for Learning More are:
. An effective MC
· An Introductory element An early or beginning aspirant element
. The Brochure ( refer to sample under Information set-up)

Video Content of an Event for Learning More:

· Opening Video: A short Introductory video
· Second Video: A compilation video covering early or beginning aspirant topics; perhaps in Q & A format
. Possible close: Short video on 'What is next...'
or
An event video that covers all of the above

Some Suggested Learning More Video Combinations

One Breath 7 Mins
The Fine Line 30 Mins
Feel The Thirst 16 mins

Live This Moment 8 Mins
The Moment called Now 30 Mins
The Next Step 13 Mins

The Gift Of Life 4 Mins
Searching 18 mins
Feel Your way 17 Mins

Ocean 4 Mins
The Want Within 27 Mins
The Journey Home 19 Mins

A Simple Perspective 12 Mins
Within You 35 Mins

Feeling Of Life 15 mins
About learning 35 Mins

An Atypical Topic 32 Mins
M Answers Questions 22 Mins

The Possibility 9 Mins
The Simplicity Of Enjoying Life 19 mins
Learn To Admire 23 Mins
(Is first 23 mins of Hove)

Suggested Videos For 'Learning More' Events

INTRO
The Fine Line 30 Mins
A Moment Called Now 30 Mins
An Atypical Topic 30 Mins
The Want Within 28 Mins
Equilibrium 30 Mins
A Simple Rhythm 32 Mins
Feeling Of Life 15 Mins
Listen To You 30 Mins
Wembley Public Event '97 40 Mins
Miami, Sept 4 1994 50 Mins

Learning More

Searching 18 Mins
The Next Step 17 mins
Feel Your Way 17 mins
Feel the Thirst 16 Mins
Learn To Admire 23 Mins
The Simplicity Of Enjoying Life 22 Mins
The Journey Home 21 mins
M Answers Questions 22 Mins
Listen To The Heart 18 Mins
About Learning 29 mins
The Bridge 26 mins
One Kind Of Friend 22 Mins
A Remarkable Messenger 19 Mins
Learning To Listen 17 mins
Inside Of You 18 Mins
Conversations 22 Mins
Aspire To Learn 40 mins
Learning More Q&A Part 1 33 Mins
Come As You 44 Mins
Hove '94 60 mins
Within You 35 Mins
What A Gift 21 Mins
Q&A Amaroo '96 26 mins-

Shorts

The Possibility 9 Mins
ThisTime 4
Field Of Joy 7 Mins
One Breath 7
The Gift Of Life 4 Mins
A Simple Request 7 Mins

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 14:59:57 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: No that's impossible
Message:

'One Breath 7 Mins'

Well I knew the techniques had changed but this is going too far. Only a whale is going to manage that one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 10:11:34 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Ev's officials pissed off?
Message:
I've jus received the following email:

Greetings JM,

Do you have any idea how CRAZY it drives EV officials when you post EV documents on the ex-site?

Well, I have NO idea.

Why should they go crazy about this?

Is there anything wrong inside EV's organization? What do they fear?

If everything's absolutely clear, they should be proud of it! Don't you think?

Is it not about time to clear all this BS? What's the problem? Work on this guys, you're paid for this! How many time did Rawat tell you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 14:51:21 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Ev's officials pissed off?
Message:
They can't hear what they're saying. If it drives them crazy, what happened to their 'higher state' from Knowledge? And why not applaud the free publicity you are giving them?

Or do they admit that the documents are so daft that they should be ashamed of them?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:04:29 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Ev's officials pissed off?
Message:
Dear Jean-Michel,
This is the thing I, as a long time ex, can't fathom. It is truly beyond my comprehension. The video thing. I am shocked to see this, the first post, the suggestions on how to mix and match videos, organizing by slotting times for short, long, progression of topic. It all just seems so mechanical, I don't know how premies can do it and not see how steril it is and I surely don't understand how new people can get excited about it, do they know the premies can't talk themselves about their personal impressions, feelings, results of accepting m and k into thier lives. THIS DRIVES ME CRAZY!
I do think m has a germ thing, I heard it from an ex who was a PAM and I think that is one reason he went to videos also they make him tons of money without having to leave the mansion! YUCK!
I was not surprized to read recently that he is nothing much of a guru in India where they are a dime a dozen!
I am not so into all this m stuff but I know you, Brian and Katie, Dave and Rog bring this info out for those who need it and can't get it from a video from m! That is a great service you all provide.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:00:27 (GMT)
From: Gerry
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Gerry is an kissing ass ass!
Message:
aha
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:50:24 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Gerry is an kissing ass ass!
Message:
Gerry: I am not sure what a kissing ass ass is. This sounds distinctly like a Bart Simpson line. What the heck's goin' on up there since I left? Tell Patty to cut you off!

Love,
Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:59:05 (GMT)
From: corvuscorax
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Gerry is a kissing ass ass!
Message:
This is an ass!

Jamie
----------------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:14:13 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: corvuscorax
Subject: Quoth the raven ... (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:16:59 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Gerry is an kissing ass ass!
Message:
Or the opposite!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:26:29 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Premie Language 'I feel...'
Message:
Hi there,

I've been enjoying the discussions, fights, rants, railings, thoughtfulness, support etc of you mob of people.

I've noticed again the use of the term 'I feel that..' or 'I feel when...'. I notice it whan premies use it though I imagine many ex's do as well. This type of language came into prominant premie usage in the early 80's and maybe earlier in some areas. Maharaj Ji used it and still uses it a lot. I see it a lot in discussions. Not only with premies but the premie jargon is slanted this way.

What it actually means is 'I think that...' or 'I think when...'. Usually there is absolutely no discussion of feelings at all.

It seems to be a cunning way to have a semblence of working in the area of feelings without actually having to be in touch with any feelings. When I work in groups and anyone says 'I feel that...' I know that I will have to work to assist that person to actually know what it is that they do feel - which is some of the work I do.

At some time, in the premie world, it became uncool to talk about 'thinking' at all. Probably during the late 70's and early 80's anti-intellectual times.

I'll give you an example for myself...
'I feel that premies are very deluded' gives a semblence that what I have said comes from deep within me, or perhaps is intuitive or somehow wise. But in reality I 'think' that premies are deluded. However if I say I think premies are deluded I then have to develop an argument to support the thought or it might get rolled by one or other erudite person around here. I mean who can argue with a 'feeling'. Also the use of the 'feeling' word and others like it, muddy the arguments being presented. It has the effect of tying innappropriate feelings with thought processes. A typical Maharaj Ji axample
'I really feel that this world is longing for a saviour..etc'. What he is saying is that he thinks this. But the way he says it is much more loaded. And you can't argue with a feeling?

Those of us that recognise the importance of language usage to effect consciousness, learning, feelings and thoughts will not regard this as a trivial discussion, though it is somewhat complex.

I find this same issue very prevalent when I work with men in groups (but not exclusively). They want to keep telling me what they are thinking and shroud it with 'feeling' words. But when I ask them to let me know how they really feel (e.g. angry, sad, frustrated, glad, depressed) they find it very difficult indeed to recognise and then name any feelings at all.

This could be one hypothesis for some of the differences between premies and ex-premies - ex's have a greater acceptance that they have feelings, many different feelings and that it is OK to have them, express them and know them???

Cheers to any who are able to read all of this.

Peter Howie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:19:11 (GMT)
From: kmdarling
Email: darlingwave@aol.com
To: Peter Howie
Subject: HEY PETER!
Message:
Yes, I've had the same experience working with groups. In fact separating thoughts from feelings and clear languaging are a couple of things I emphasize the most.

I was interested to read your post, as it sounds like you're doing some similar stuff to me, and I rarely meet other ex-premies whose path has taken them quite the same way. I'd be interested to know what you do and where you do it if you feel like chatting. You could e-mail me if you like at darlingwave@aol.com. (I don't come here much). I teach trainings called Motherwavework in the Bay Area and on the E.coast (check out www.motherwave.com if you're interested) based on a combination of breathwork, belief change, wave motion and a sort of embodied advaita among other stuff. My journey is on this page under the name Katie Masters-Darling I think.

I guess the reason I was so taken by your post is that in my work I meet lots and lots of people who have come to the same sort of realizations as I have, who previously had gurus or some spiritual trip in the seventies. My husband, who is one of my fellow trainers, was with Muktananda, another trainer was with everyone, and a lot of people I run into who seem quite actively into whatever-you-call-it (ongoing personal growth, although I barely dare use any such phrase here) are ex-Rajneesh people. For most of these people it seems to have been a natural progression to move from guru-world into more exploration of feelings and un-demonizing the dreaded mind, and various other, more integrated practices to continue their paths. But I rarely meet premies on the same path. I have a few cronies from DLM whose journeys have paralleled mine, but it seems to be a small proportion considering that there were lakhs and lakhs of us (remember that Indian mahatma word meaning a 100,000 people––there were always a minimum of a few lakhs at any program they were describing!).

It makes me wonder if our cult was just the most deadening, soul-dampening, cynicism-and-depression-inducing growth-stunting lord of them all.

Whaddaya think?

Love Kathryn Darling

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:07:20 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: kmdarling
Subject: HEY PETER!
Message:
Nice to hear from you and a thoughtful post.

I will email you shortly (2-3 weeks) and chat further

Peter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:06:23 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Right on the money!!!
Message:
Peter: That was a superb analysis! Thanks for your thoughts! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 11:20:41 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: or you're 'in your mind'
Message:
I THINK this appeared when we were not supposed to give satsang anymore.

When you say 'I feel' that automatically implies there is some 'truth' - you are somehow 'inspired' - Rawat's almost speaking through you. Lots of implications ....

What can you object to someone saying stuff like this? I used to think the guy was an idiot, that's all, because he wasn't able to explain and justify his idea. Of course you can't say a thing to that sort of guy ..... you'd be considered 'in your mind'.

I remember instances when I started discussing that sort of ideas expressed under 'I feel', and that ended up in arguments, and disagreements....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 09:35:42 (GMT)
From: Eric Banna
Email: Oi!! PEEDA!!!! GET 'ERE!!!
To: Peter Howie
Subject: 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.'
Message:
This message has been deleted by the Forum Administrator.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:50:33 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Eric Banna
Subject: Fuck off catweael
Message:
Fuck off Catweasel/eric Banna etc etc,

You're anonymity gives me the shits. You are arguing from a position of immense cowardice. Is this the way you operated back then. I do speak to premies from back then!

And what the fuck. We are talking about the past you moron. Are you so in the moment that you relegate the past to non-existence and take no responsibility for yourself, your decisions etc. May they be never talked about and discussed. I don't like what M did then. But I sure as hell take responsibility for deciding to get with him and join the whole story. I don't take offence when you remember me as a striver. I was striving in the ashram. I wanted to get more into the centre of things. Closer to the 'boss' as he was called then. It was hard fucking work. Was it his fault? Well he did what he did and I did what I did. I don't like what he did and I don't like what I did. But this is all in retrospect and from a position of hindsight and of trying to learn from that time, to not make similar mistakes.

You can get pissed off with me etc, but why the necessity for threats and big noting yourself?

I'm also talking about the present on this list where both premies and ex's utilise the lingo that I discussed in this thread. Its not in the past it is in the present. Look at Ms latest. It is full of the same sort of presentation. Look at peoples stories - very similar. But so what? Others do it to - writers write in this way, advertisers use the language to their best advantage. I don't care if people do it. I am entering into a discussion with ex-premies who along with myself are trying to, amongst other things, develop an understanding of ourselves, our decisions and who we are.

Cheers and go to hell

Peter

I can't for the life of me work out who you are. But then I rarely remember premies except those I felt close to and shared

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 00:08:34 (GMT)
From: Catweasel?
Email: Omnipresent?
To: Peter Howie
Subject: I solemnly annoit myself?
Message:
This message has been deleted by the Forum Administrator.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:56:04 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Catweasel?
Subject: Noticing being picked on
Message:
Why didn't we meet at the last event I attended?

As for the mailicious things I've done - let me know, don't be so unclear, you snivelling, conniving bumptious cretin. Are you enjoying taking the time to provoke me? I notice you take great delight in doing it each time I post. Is it your sacred duty for M to take on this task. Have other devotees also got a particular person that it is their job to workover? Is it your delight to post in this manner. I'm fucking sick of it so piss off.

If there have been innaccuracies then cough up or shut up. You may not like my interpretations but you can only question whether or not I have the facts right. You can interpret them any way you like, as can others. You can also complain that the way I have let my interpretations be known has caused disturbances but again - cough up. who, when , where, why. General slander is easy and lazy. You have a better brain than that but maybe other things escape you!

As for creating disturbances - I haven't a clue what you even mean by a disturbance? Was someone upset? Was someone offended? Was someone taken to task? And seeing I don't know who you are I can't even see how I would listen to your proposals anyway, even if you did deign to respond in a meaningful fashion. I mean where
do you get your credibility from

Aarrgghh!!!! That'l do.

Peter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 07:28:28 (GMT)
From: Phillip Adams
Email: The Nude Ultra Light Pilot
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Noticing being picked on
Message:
This message has been deleted by the Forum Administrator.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 07:32:04 (GMT)
From: John Singleton
Email: None
To: Phillip Adams
Subject: Correction:Picking hisNose!!
Message:
VVVVV:):}
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:12:09 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Eric Banna
Subject: 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.'
Message:
Dear Peter,
I don't know if you know this person but right away I would be turned OFF by this post as far as 'looking' her up! I think with only being allowed to mindlessly watch video's they may have forgotten the way to speak to people with 'that feeling, that love' they feel inside. It must be trapped in there along with thier thoughts and words. So sad.
I can take some of your post to heart on a personal level also, as a person a LONG way away from m. Thanks.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:56:06 (GMT)
From: John Singleton
Email: Austalian Advertising Guru
To: Robyn
Subject: 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.'
Message:
This needs interpretation . Four X is Queensland's favourite beer[They can't spell up there]. Eric Banna is a well known comedian whose most best known character is 'Poida'[Peter], a rather unique Australian urban character not unlike Mr Yowie one presumes. I despair at the literal nature of our Northern friends.Life up there seems to be one serious drama after another.Incidentally the phrase 'I can feel a XXXX coming on' was from an inglorious Beer commercial where in advertising circles XXXX was generally accepted as being a Cricketer's flatulence potential during the ad. Now that puts a different 'spin ' on things doesn't it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 03:13:32 (GMT)
From: Doktor Dirty
Email: None
To: John Singleton
Subject: 'I feel..a XXXX coming on!.'
Message:
What a RELIEF!!!:))
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:00:17 (GMT)
From: Rex Hunt
Email: I'm Rex Hunt and Your not!!!
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Stone Dead For Years
Message:
Message removed by Forum Administrator.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:01:47 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: You're damn tootin, Rasputin
Message:
Absolutely, Pete. Nothing to add except that anyone who thinks this issue is trivial in the context of our broader discussion just doesn't understand the importance of words.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:23:35 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Peter
Subject: I feel
Message:
See www.dictionary.com - feel for definitions of feel. Some of the definitions relate to premie speak.

There is a lot of substance to what you wrote, although some of it might be slightly overstated. A good point is how little premies said (when they were allowed to) 'I think' (or 'I believe'). Although not an improper use of the word 'feel', why was it used? Because 'feel' is also related to emotions, maybe it was used to indicate a mix of belief and emotion and to hide behind the 'sacred' area of emotions. Your right, who can argue with a feeling? Also, saying 'I believe' is implying that 'I do not know', even though I 'have Knowledge'. So it was better to say 'I feel'. Oh so groovy, man.

I remember 'giving satsang' in the mid 70s about how 'mind' does not mean (to me) intellectual processes. It seemed that the premies were confronted by what I was saying, that there was an uneasiness. I said this before I got sucked in more. I believe that the cult-think is not entirely Prem Rawat's fault, some of it he might have picked up from premies. He once said 'when I talk about the mind, I don't mean the brain'. Maybe a part of him was trying to resist the cult-think himself. This could have been similar to the pressure-relief others have written about. The very fact that he said that indicated that all his talk about the 'mind' was very confusing. It's interesting to note that he stopped using that term, but I think the effect subtly continues. I don't think he wants people using their brains TOO much.

A side question: Why do some people think serenity and reasoning are mutually exclusive?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 08:46:33 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I feel
Message:
Because your brainwaves are faster when you're thinking then when you're sleeping, for example.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 13:34:51 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: I feel
Message:
G asked:
Why do some people think serenity and reasoning are mutually exclusive?

Runamok responded:
Because your brainwaves are faster when you're thinking then when you're sleeping, for example.

G responds:
By serenity I mean being 'unaffected by disturbance; calm and unruffled', not a lack of mental activity. I find that I reason the best when I'm serene. Thinking is not necessarily disturbed, uncalm, or ruffled. It seems that a word like serenity has a lot of connotations due to the concepts involved with the anti-intellectual trip.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:00:01 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: G
Subject: ..therefore I know!
Message:
I think Peter has hit on a really important point here. If you consider that we were affective creatures before thinking ones (both in our evolution, and also during our infancy) it makes sense that there will always be the soft option of going with what feels best rather than accept an uncomfortable truth. eg. to consider that Maharaji may have protected Jagdeo is a rational inference from the evidence we have heard so far; it is also a profoundly uncomfortable consideration for a premie to accept. It feels much better all round to believe that he could not have known anything about it. And even if the evidence became overwhelming there would still be that 'feeling' that Maharaji must have had his reasons which are not for you or I to know about...

Unless we learn to get a buzz from a rational approach to the world, we will settle for the buzz of whatever feels best and think irrationally. Same for exes as for premies, alas, and something we should be on our guard against. But how? Probably, as Peter suggests, don't say 'feel' when you really mean 'think', would be a start. Or asking others to challenge our assumptions and beliefs is also a useful exercise since we are unlikely to be feeling the same as everyone we talk to.

G: to your side-question: I agree. I certainly don't think serenity and reasoning are mutually exclusive - though they serve independent functions, qv serenity cannot explain the world. Reasoning can at least try to make sense of it, but is emotionally neutral. I always hated that 'head vs. heart' nonsense - I think we have to blame Aristotle or CD or someone...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:06:36 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Is there a God?
Message:
If a space ship crashed on to our planet, and we saw the craft with its high tech gizmos etc., we would immediately assume that there is intelligent life in outer space.

But what about inner space? Scientists say that there is as much information in one strip of DNA as there is in the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica. Could this just be the product of random chance?

To say that life on this planet came about as a result of blind chance would be like saying that Webster's Dictionary came about as the result of an explosion in a print factory.

Is there a God? I think the very least we could say is I don't know.

-- Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 02:29:49 (GMT)
From: Shiva-Krishna
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Is there a dep?
Message:
Heed my divine web site and pray for your very existence!

Hinduism

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:54:47 (GMT)
From: EddytheHootle
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: 2nd Law of thermodynamics
Message:
The total Entropy of the Universe is always increasing...This means that the Universe tends to a more random state with time... This means that the existence of complex biological entities are totally at odds with the 2nd law of theromdynamics...Our existance, and the existance of other species is a Weird Odity....if you calculate the probability of suh a complex biological system comming together and developing, it is so tiny, so small.....you can say it is a 'miracle' in non scientific terms...

If the earth changes its orbits by a fraction of an amount one way....the surface temperature would be too hot to sustain human life....and vise versa..the other way...everything would freeze...Again..the odds of having this perfect balance....the probability of this is so minute....that it would be considered impossible...

Who is the Designer...the Master Planner....???

Yes you can deny His extistance...but be sure that your existance is temperal...so who are you to Judge that which Is?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:17:09 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: 2nd Law of thermodynamics
Message:
The total Entropy of the Universe is always increasing...This means that the Universe tends to a more random state with time... This means that the existence of complex biological entities are totally at odds with the 2nd law of theromdynamics...

Yeah, but still here we are. Scientists agree that the evolution of complex systems draws from the chaos of the universe. While the TOTAL entropy of the universe is increasing, that doesn't mean that all systems within it are impossible if not for the intercession of a divine hand.

People like to talk about the odds of things working out the way they did, how impossible they are. But if you think about the laws of physics being what they are, could things have materialized any other way? Isn't everything in the universe just obeying the forces acting upon them? That being the case, isn't there really just ONE way that the universe could have evolved? This is it.

Think about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:38:18 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Fly-in-the-ointment
Message:
Jerry: Another example of a fly-in-eddie's-ointment; let's see how he explains these.... the very existence of galaxies (very predictable, non-random entities) which are NOT becoming more random in their existence or behavior; and black holes (singularities), the very antithesis to randomness.

Of course, if he really understands the law (as he copied it from an internet site for beginning chemisty students), then his explanation should be quite compelling. Care to answer, Eddie?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:10:11 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Wrong, wrong, wrong....
Message:
Entropy only applies to 'closed' systems, ie, ones that receive no energy from beyond their boundaries.

The earth's biosphere is not a closed system so the conditions for life to evolve were there and require no miracles - just an awful lot of sunshine. (You cannot even pull in the 'vast improbability' factor, because of the existence of so many millions of stars that do not, to our knowledge, support life. It is like if the chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 10000, there is nothing remarkable about you winning provided there are approximately 99,999 losers. Wouldn't you agree?

(You can, of course apply entropy principle to the universe as a whole, and life on earth will be over in about three and a half billion years time.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 15:33:14 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: You are right, right, right!
Message:
Nigel: I don't know why you bothered trying to explain this to someone who obviously doesn't understand the first thing about it. Once again, they take a thing/concept/idea 'out of context!' It's the key to their entire belief system and they are obviously very good at it (legends in their own minds!).

Considering the vast, incomprehensible numbers of stars in the 'known' universe (and the recent discoveries of protoplanetary systems confirmed by Hubble-vision), even the most skeptical among us has put the numbers at 30,000 plus chances for life, such as ours, to exist on planets yet to be discovered. That really isn't much, considering the potentially large numbers of protoplanetary systems (even more systems than we originally thought!). Orion, alone, is spitting them out in incredibly large numbers and THAT is just one 'star nursery' that's been doing it for a very, very long time. Statistically speaking, given just the numbers that we know about, the chances for life to NOT exist is as near to zero as it can be and not actually be absolute zero.

This is the stupidest of anti-evolutionary arguments. If EddieTheIdiot (PhD) would actually do some minor research, he would already know this. I won't even go into his... ahem... definition of entropy. I'm actually rather surprised that you tried..... he he he :-) Of course, I KNOW I'm preaching to the choir when I'm speaking with you about these things :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 20:22:19 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Here, let me help
Message:
Hey, your PhD-ness.... or is that penis:

Existence is NOT spelled 'existance' or 'extistance'

Vice versa is not spelled 'vise versa' (unless you are a plumber who sings)

Oddity is not spelled 'odity' (unless you are rather odiferous)

Temporal is not spelled 'temperal' (unless you are really pissed at someone)

Coming is not spelled 'comming' (unless you are...... well, never mind).

Now, I suppose that you are going to tell me that your PhD is in English. Still going to make fun of native americans, moron? Yeah, you probably will......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:59:01 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Your misunderstanding
Message:
of science defies description! So where did you get your degree in physics? In astrophysics? Pacific Western, maybe?????
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:36:25 (GMT)
From: EddytheHootle
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Hopi Physics
Message:
Mike..I dont go chasing rocks...you sandle licking Rock Nut.

Its a PhD Mike if you know what that is....

Mike Dont Tell me you are trying to Reinvent the Second Law of Thermodynamics.....well....maybe your grama taught you at the Hopi Physics School

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:57:54 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: EddytheHootle
Subject: Yeah, right!
Message:
Sorry Eddie.... I believe you to be a liar! Unless, of course, you got it from U of H. They pass out PhD's like candy. Well, so does Pacific Western (the life-experience school....).

No, my friend, I won't get into a pissing match with you..... you aren't worth it. Your disdain towards native americans pegs you better than I ever could.

By the way, I'm not a geologist (rock nut), I'm an astrophysicist. There's no such thing as a Hopi Physics degree, you moron! By the way, your prejudice is showing, shit-for-brains!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:24:55 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Do plankton ask ...
Message:
Do plankton ask ...

“... is there an ocean?”

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:05:02 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Is there a God?
Message:
Is there a God? I don't know. But here's my two cents:

There does seem to be design in nature, I would say that most people when they look at nature would conclude the same thing. Some have proposed the theory that life came about only by blind chance. This theory is piggy-backed onto the theory that we evolved and various theories describing factors in evolution. There is evidence that we evolved and evidence for some of the theories about factors in evolution. There is no evidence for the theory that life came about only by blind chance. This theory, given how hard it is to believe, requires extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the claimants of the theory. It is not enough just to give evidence that it might be true. Just because something might be true doesn't mean that it is true. The theory defies common sense. I will be very skeptical of it until proof is given. Some 'skeptics' choose not to be skeptical about it, I don't understand.

What is meant by the word God? There are many different concepts that fall under that word. I think that they are all, to some degree, inaccurate. Maybe it's better to be open and thankful to 'whatever is there' without labels and concepts. This is not to say that we shouldn't use the word God, just to have some humility when using it. I think how a person lives their life is more important than whether they believe in 'God' or not.

There is life and awareness and being. Sometimes we experience the 'good' stuff: love, serenity, happiness, etc. It's worth the effort. But even when I suffer, there is something good going on, I'm still alive and aware, and I am.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 16:40:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Wiht all due respect, G
Message:
With all due respect, G, you've got it backwards. There is, in fact, all sorts of evidence of evolution. What there is not, however, is a scintilla of evidence of an intelligent designer. But you're damn right that most people think one exists nonetheless. Most people, however, are unfamiliar with the breadth and power of evolutionary theory. That is, they have no idea how natural selection's able to simulate design given long enough and they are equally unaware of just how long natural selection's been 'playing' this game. (Hard to get away from the 'intelligent agent' fallacy even in language, isn't it?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:12:34 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Twisting twisting
Message:
Did I say I didn't believe in evolution?

I said 'There is evidence that we evolved and evidence for some of the theories about factors in evolution.'

You reply 'you've got it backwards. There is, in fact, all sorts of evidence of evolution.'

You are twisting my words. Actually what you are doing is worse than that. Stop it. Don't resort to dirty debate tactics, it's totally illogical and emotional.

Again, you are equating evolution with the notion that evolution happened purely by blind chance. The reason you equate to two is because you assume there could not be any intelligent design behind it. That is only your opinion, you do not know that.

Why are you so afraid that someone could believe in evolution and also believe in intelligent design? Why is it so confronting to you?

There's no evidence for an intelligent designer? Open your eyes. It is absurd to say that apparent design is in no way evidence of design. Where did the design of airplanes come from?

As to natural selection, sure it occurs and is part of evolution. But it has be deified and personified into a modern Unconscious God that 'simulates' and 'plays'. 'Natural Selection', that deified form of natural selection, is a substitute for 'God', just another weak attempt at explaining it all away. Something to believe in so one can feel 'I know what's going on and those idiots don't'. Fuel for pride.

Why are you not even a little skeptical of your God?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:18:33 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: G and Jim
Subject: Twisting twisting
Message:
I agree with G that there is one can believe in God and believe that evolution is the method God used to create life. Jim, there are several scientists in my congregation in Gamboa; they are research scientists with the Smithsonian Tropical Reseach Institute on Barro Colorado Island here in Panamá. They believe in evolution, and in fact I have heard one lecture on evolution and whether a new synthesis was needed, and this man also believes in God. These people have done more than just read Dawkins, they are well-versed in the theory of evolution.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 23:21:02 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Twisting twisting
Message:
Michael,

I guess it was just a matter time before we would agree on something. You were spot on when you said, 'One can believe in God and believe that evolution is the method God used to create life.' Agreed!

I included the Rumi poem to show just how limited our human sensing instrument might be. I personally don't know if there is a God. As an agnostic I'm keeping my options open.

IMO the Judeo / Christian image of God based on the ancient kings of the Middle-East is definitely not appropriate. Is a paranoid dictator constantly on the guard for rebellion a fitting image for the staggeringly powerful energy behind billions of galaxies? I don't think so.

No, I'll stay down in the relatively safe state of 'I don't know!'

I'm reminded of the arrogance of theologians of a hundred years ago who concluded that the universe was created 5005 years ago at eight o'clock in the morning. They came to that date by adding up the genealogy in the Old Testament.

As G said earlier, 'I think how a person lives their life is more important than whether they believe in 'God' or not.' Another good one!

-- Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:32:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Twisting twisting
Message:
Hey you guys!

G:

Sorry if I was a bit sloppy. You're absolutely right that you do indeed say you believe in evolution. The problem is, 'evolution' as I understand it, is all about natural selection instead of intelligent design. The way you're talking about it doesn't make any sense to me. Could you explain yourself further? How could this process be 'guided'? I tend to agree with Nigel (and guys like Dawkins) who say that if you buy natural selection, the only kind of intelligent designer that could exist is the kind that started the process and left it alone. Why? Because natural selection accounts for all the rest.

Michael:

What we're dealing with is a very powerful, deeply entrenched sense of religion that even many scientists still succumb to. Your friends might wring their hands hoping for a 'new synthesis' that allows for God but let's see them publish something. If they're like Behe they'll avoid all peer review and appeal to ignorance. If they're not, they won't get past page one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:13:06 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: natural selection
Message:
Ok, I think we are getting somewhere.

It has not been shown that natural selection implies no design, nor that natural selection accounts for the rest.

How can natural selection be guided? I think the question should be how can the forces behind evolution be guided? One way is that the Creator created these forces. Let us set aside all concepts of what the Creator is and just say that it means whatever allowed us to be here. I don't think it makes sense to say that the universe came from absolute nothingness, for that would imply no potential for existance.

The other issue is a broader philosophical issue. Does the Creator play an active role in the universe, if so, how? You could argue that there are those things that happen by the laws of physics, which are deterministic and therefore do not require intelligence, and then there are those things that happen 'by chance', which also does not require intelligence. Assumptions assumptions.

The laws of nature are apparently fined-tuned for life. So that at least suggests there could be a Creator 'who' set things in motion and then 'relaxed'.

The laws of nature are predicable and constant (from a Newtonian sense at least). There seems to be some metaphysical interpretations of this predicability and constancy. The assumption that the Creator created and then didn't do anything seems to be viewing the big picture from a human perspective in several ways. One thing is that we are viewing it from within time and from our notions of causality. We view the universe as a billiard game, one ball hits another ball and so on. Another view is that God is like a guy who makes the watch, winds it up, and then doesn't have to do anything. There are some unstated assumptions behind this. One is that the universe is self-generating. Another is that this constancy does not require guidance. Why is it that the laws of nature are constant? no one knows.

There are different interpretations of 'chance' and 'randomness'. At a basic scientific level, chance and randomness are mathematical concepts, they are not forces. I think the view of chance as a force goes back to the notion of luck and is superstitious. Some feel that they imply no intelligence. Mathematics and therefore science does not state this. Some people have suggested that it is via 'chance' that God plays an active role. In a situation where 'chance' is involved, what is determining the outcome? Something is. We just can't predict it.

Some definitions of chance:

1.
a.The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.
b.A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck:
Chance will determine the outcome.
2.Often chances. The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability:
Chances are good that you will win.
Is there any chance of rain?
3.An accidental or unpredictable event.

My comments:
'unknown' means we don't know what it is.
If we can't predict something, it just means we don't know much.
'seems to' is not scientific, it means we are guessing.
There also 'seems to' be design in nature.
'assignable cause' does not mean 'no cause'.
To say that 'Luck caused it all' is superstitious.
People are very loose when using this word, often mixing the different meanings.

Some definitions of random:
1.Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective:
random movements;
a random choice. See Synonyms at chance.
2.In Statistics: Of or relating to the same or equal chances or probability of occurrence for each member of a group.

My comments:
We cannot measure the set of mutations throughout time, so we don't know if they have a pattern or not. Actually, they do have a pattern, since we are here. Maybe the question really is: are the forces that cause mutations random? Again, measurements are impossible. As to 'purpose' and 'objective' or lack thereof, I don't consider these to be scientific issues. Also, when mutations are considered 'random' in scientific experiments, that is from a statistical sense. Different meanings get mixed up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:25:24 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: G
Subject: natural selection
Message:
Check this G (et al)

'Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best
biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The
analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All
appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of
physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs
his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his
mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin
discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and
apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no
mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.
If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 22:40:32 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: natural selection
Message:
Regarding The Watchmaker Argument.

I'm not a theist nor an atheist. I say be skeptical towards all these concepts. Face it, we know very very little. Why do I say that I am not a theist? Because I don't have a concept of God that I believe in. My issue here is with the atheistic view, rather than defending a theistic view.

There is a lot of assumptions stated as facts and theories stated as knowledge in that link. Also there are some illogical statements. I don't have time now, maybe I'll pick it apart later.

I'm not hung up on the watchmaker analogy, neither Paley not Dawkins can really use it without criticism.

The notion that 'God' must have a father, i.e. must be caused is due to the 'Big Daddy' concept of God. It assumes God has a form and is some 'thing' that must be caused.

Dawkins statement on that page reads like bullying extremist propoganda (e.g. 'wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong' vs 'incorrect'), and is quite unlike the proof of a mathematical theorem. In mathematics, first asumptions (axioms) and the rules of logic are stated. From these, theorems are derived. Where has Dawkins stated his assumptions as assumptions? Where does he say These are my assumptions ...? Where are his logical proofs? He says that this is the way it is and that's that. That's his idea of a proof.

Even if natural selection is blind and all that, so what? Natural selection did not create itself. Natural selection is just a weeding out process and is a factor in evolution. To him it is the Unconscious God from which all blessings flow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:21:29 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: G
Subject: natural selection
Message:
Dawkins can sound almost evangelical at times! And occasionally he comes across as a suitable subject for using that old 'Balony Detection Kit' on.

I was pleasantly surprised to find Carl Sagan [in 'The Demon-Haunted World' -Science as a Candle in the Dark. © 1997] saying:

'In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide buildup of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-generational meta-mind.

Spirit comes from the Latin word 'to breathe' . What we breathe are air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made.), or anything outside the realm of science. (my emphasis) On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.'

G, you say: 'I don't have a concept of God that I believe in'

That open-mindedness is admirable. IMO, whatever theists imagine God to be becomes a limitation (in their own minds) on the boundaries of what 'the infinite' CAN be.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:33:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Sagan's wrong on that one, isn't he?
Message:
The etymology of a word and its meaning are two different things. Sagan's going way too far here to make a point which, if I understand him right, is that, traced back to its origins, the word 'spirituality' should not neccesarily imply anything nonmaterial. See how he hedges with his 'despite usage to the contrary'? What he really should have said is 'despite universal usage to the contrary and, in fact, the entire history of the word's development over many centuries, 'spirituality' should mean .....'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 20:11:07 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Message:
Jim: WELL SAID! The etymology of the word 'spirit' and the early religious 'significance' of the word 'breath' must be taken together.

Our early ancestors thought the breath and the spirit (the supernatural kind) were the same thing. They thought the 'spirit' entered upon the first breath of a person's life and exited through the nose upon death. Even a cursory reading of 'ancient' thought will bare this out. Sidebar: I guess, using the 'wisdom of M,' this would mean that a pre-birth baby is 'dead' and therefore, can be eaten...... he he he he... SORRY, I couldn't help myself! :-)

A modern analogy would be the word, 'aloha.' Literally, it means 'I share breath' or 'sharing spirit' (the same meaning, as WE know it, in this context). 'HA' is breath. Aloha DOES NOT mean 'I love you' or 'goodbye' or any of the other nonsense that has been used to explain its meaning. Although, to a Hawaiian, the act of 'sharing breath' is a very loving gesture (and so the secondary meaning). This belief goes way, way back. Likewise, the ancient Hawaiians believed that the 'spirit' entered and exited through the nose. It would be ludicrous to believe that our earliest ancestors were using the word to mean the 'physical breath' or the breathing of molecules.

On a side note: the Hawaiian term 'haoli' DOES NOT mean 'foreigner,' as has been put forth by those that would be apologists for a racial term. Literally, it means 'without breath!' Again, the operative word is 'HA,' breath. The reason that the word came about was because of white skin. Anyone that was 'white' must be 'the walking dead' or 'spirit-less' (due to their 'lack' of color). Of course, our behavior over there didn't help any!!!!! :-)

GOOD TAKE, Jim. If that's what he meant, he was juuuuust a bit 'outside.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 01:53:36 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: the breath and the spirit
Message:
Mike wrote
Our early ancestors thought the breath and the spirit (the supernatural kind) were the same thing. They thought the 'spirit' entered upon the first breath of a person's life and exited through the nose upon death. Even a cursory reading of 'ancient' thought will bare this out. Sidebar: I guess, using the 'wisdom of M,' this would mean that a pre-birth baby is 'dead' and therefore, can be eaten...... he he he he... SORRY, I couldn't help myself! :-)

Interesting. I remember M talking about one of his kids being born and said something like 'people don't know the significance of that first waaaaaa'. Also, recently he was talking about the breath in a very mystical way. Something like... when you breath in, something is taken in, when you breath out something is let out. Those weren't the words but that was the gist of it. I believe he's talked that way before about the breath. Also he keeps talking about 'your last breath'. Seems like he's got some old-time thinking going on.

Remember 'Holy Breath', what was that about? I could never figure that one out. I got a slide of him doing that Holy Breath thing. I remember after supposedly 'receiving Holy Breath' that I felt nothing, I thought that maybe he missed! Tried again at least once, still felt nothing. I never used my reasoning to analyse the situation, I guess I didn't want to.

I was thinking about just this topic of the breath, that people didn't know about oxygen and carbon dioxide, and that they probably saw it not as a process, but as life. I can see why they thought that way.

I like being aware of my breath, but I see no reason to mystify the breath. I think there are a lot of people who do 'breath meditation' who don't mystify it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:06:13 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Mike and Jim
Subject: Really. I'm surprised at you two ;}
Message:
'. . . once a person admits to not believing in God, this raises the question of whether or not that person believes in America . . .'
[Chief spokesman for National office of the Boy Scouts]

-------

You could take up Frisbeetarianism, n.:

The belief that when you die, your soul goes up
on the roof and gets stuck.

-------

-------
God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is blind
Therefore, Ray Charles is God
-------

Me? I like the sound of this:

'Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence,
it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.'
[Bertrand Russell]
-------
and this:

'I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion,
as organized in its churches, has been and still is
the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.'
[Bertrand Russell]
-------

and this:

'I don't care if it rains or freezes,
'long as I' got my plastic Jesus,
sittin' on the dashboard of my car;
It makes no difference if we hit a bump,
-he's held on by a suction cup,
sittin' on the dashboard of my car.'
I can even go a hund'rd miles-an-hour,
as long as I've got that dee-vine power,
sittin' on the dashboard of my car.'
['Plastic Jesus', circa 1969, sign-on
song of disk jockey Don Imis]

-------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 21:20:22 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Jim and Mike
Subject: spiritual used to be a meaninful word, like faith
Message:
'Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.'
[Rev. Donald Morgan (b. 1933), 'Atheist theologian']

But seriously:

'The sentient may perceive and love the universe, but the universe may not perceive and love the sentient. The universe sees no distinction between the multitude of creatures and elements which comprise it. All are equal. None is favored. The universe, equipped with nothing but the materials and the power of creation, continues to create: something of this, something of that. It cannot control what it creates and it cannot, it seems, be controlled by its creations (though a few might deceive themselves otherwise).

Those who curse the workings of the universe curse that which is deaf. Those who strike out at those workings fight that which is inviolate. Those who shake their fists, shake their fists at blind stars.'
[Michael Moorcock, from The Chronicles of Corum]
-------

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 22:27:57 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: Encore, Encore!
Message:
ANNNNNNNNNND...... Pranam to Ray Charles! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:48:23 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Twisting twisting
Message:
Jim, my friend was not 'wringing his hands hoping for a new synthesis;' he was addressing the question. He decided that a new synthesis was not needed. Now, it is quite possible that God set the process of evolution into motion and left it alone; not everyone believes that the process needed to be guided. My friend has published, but the his last publication was on tropical ecology. I know that this is difficult for you, but I still think (not feel) that my friend's work and knowledge on the subject is more authoritive than your simply reading Dawkins. I think that there is still room for God in the subject.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 19:47:27 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: and the 'I'
Message:
Michael: It's funny, but back in my early 'spiritual' days, I thought this way and many religionists thought I was crazy.... he he he :-). I just didn't see the argument between science and religion..... After all, though the bible may not possess the evolutionary 'resolution' that science discovered to be present in the fossil record, they DID get the relative 'order' of species correct. Who the heck knew what a 'god-day' was, anyway? But, it did strike me that those guys KNEW the order of life appearance (even if it was in fairly general terms).

There is another issue that 'I've' been dealing with, too. As strange as it may sound, it's the 'I.' Where in the heck did my 'I-ness' come from. Explaining the evolution of 'consciousness' still doesn't explain 'me.' Explaining the evolution of thought, still doesn't tell me squat about 'the one that is watching' the thinking process (or directing it, if you will). 'Someone' is actually 'listening' to those words in my head. This is a tough one for me (in terms of atheism) and the books I've read still don't explain it sufficiently. Why 'me'? What 'me'? Where 'me?' Ok, we can do without the 'why,' because the answer could be simply stated as, 'because!' he he he :-) But, I think the rest of the questions are quite germaine.

Jim: Sorry, but even with my astrophysics background, I don't find the arguments for purely-evolved consciousness very compelling. To be fair, though, I AM NOT a biologist (as you know!) My own perception of 'me-ness' tells me that there is something basically wrong with the concept. There 'may' be a physical answer to this, but I haven't heard it yet! One of the problems that I have with the 'purely physical' explanation is this: a person with brain-damage (e.g. cerebral palsy) is no less a 'conscious' being. If the memory centers are wiped slick, do the 'lights' go out? No, they don't. The individual may not be able to 'communicate' or 'motivate,' BUT..... the lights are still on. Who in the heck is 'watching' all of this? When a very few of those people have been given the ability to communicate (against all medical odds) we find that out! There really was 'someone' in there, despite the brain-damage! I know, I know, we could go on forever about 'which' part of the brain was damaged, etc, etc. BUT, if that be the argument, then where EXACTLY am 'I'? You know what I mean? The explanations, as yet, haven't even come close to that one (IMHO).

ALL other 'things' except 'I-ness' are more than adequately explained by pure evolutionary theory (including non-life evolution, such as the 'evolution' of galaxies, stars, etc). Everything from the big-bang on...... no doubt about it to my mind, anyway. But, 'I' is another question.....

BTW Jim, the 'consciousness' issue as I've stated it above, is the area that I mentioned months ago as being my one big problem spot with Dawkins, et al. OK, hit me with both barrels..... he he he :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 18:00:11 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: and the 'I'
Message:
Jim: Sorry, but even with my astrophysics background, I don't find the arguments for purely-evolved consciousness very compelling.

That's right up at the edge of being a non-sequiter, don't you think?

To be fair, though, I AM NOT a biologist (as you know!)

That helps.

My own perception of 'me-ness' tells me that there is something basically wrong with the concept. There 'may' be a physical answer to this, but I haven't heard it yet!

Well what have you read? Current brain research seems to strongly indicate that our brains have devloped 'modularly' and our sense of self is really covered with all sorts of 'stitch lines' on close examination. May I suggest a book, Mike? How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker. Here's a link:

http://www.human-nature.com/books/pinker.html

How the Mind Works

You can read the first chapter on that site. Check it out and see if it interests you. It sohuld, it's right on topic.

One of the problems that I have with the 'purely physical' explanation is this: a person with brain-damage (e.g. cerebral palsy) is no less a 'conscious' being. If the memory centers are wiped slick, do the 'lights' go out? No, they don't. The individual may not be able to 'communicate' or 'motivate,' BUT..... the lights are still on.

But I think you're wrong about this. Clearly memory, emotions, cognitive skills, etc. do disappear when certain parts of the brain are hurt or ruined. I don't know why you're saying otherwise. Now the brai nalso has a great capacity to jerryrig bridges over hurt sections to keep functions alive if at all possible (so I hear -- as if I know anything really about any of this!) but that only works up to a point. And my point is that function is indeed tied to the physical form.

Who in the heck is 'watching' all of this? When a very few of those people have been given the ability to communicate (against all medical odds) we find that out! There really was 'someone' in there, despite the brain-damage! I know, I know, we could go on forever about 'which' part of the brain was damaged, etc, etc. BUT, if that be the argument, then where EXACTLY am 'I'? You know what I mean? The explanations, as yet, haven't even come close to that one (IMHO).

With all due respect, I'm guessing you're not to wel-versed in the 'explanations'. Could that be true?

ALL other 'things' except 'I-ness' are more than adequately explained by pure evolutionary theory (including non-life evolution, such as the 'evolution' of galaxies, stars, etc). Everything from the big-bang on...... no doubt about it to my mind, anyway. But, 'I' is another question.....

BTW Jim, the 'consciousness' issue as I've stated it above, is the area that I mentioned months ago as being my one big problem spot with Dawkins, et al. OK, hit me with both barrels..... he he he :-)

That's it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 18:40:57 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You're a peach, Jim
Message:
Jim: You are right, I'm not well versed in the subject matter. I have enough to do keeping current in my own field. I've read Pinker, too. Thanks.... it is, in fact, good reading! Make no mistake, the 'ideas' and thoughts that I'm the most critical of (scientific or otherwise) are my own! I hold nothing that I say or think to be sacred, by ANY stretch. Anyway, enough self-deprication... he he he :-)

I think that you misunderstood a portion of my little diatribe. You said, 'Clearly memory, emotions, cognitive skills, etc. do disappear when certain parts of the brain are hurt or ruined.' I'm in full agreement with this. But, these are 'skills,' 'storage' and 'personality.' What I'm talking about is the consciousness, itself. The 'watcher,' itself. The 'witness,' itself. I know this isn't entirely clear, but I'm doing the best that I can, since I don't think there is an applicable vocabulary for it. I'm not necessarily talking about anything supernatural, here. I just want to know 'what' is watching the activities. That hasn't been explained very well, yet. For lack of a better term, there APPEARS to be a 'singularity' (me) that is observing the functioning of the brain and the external world. Where in the heck is it and 'what' is it? Does that clarify the question, a bit? It's that apparent 'singularity' that is the unexplained/confusing part. Trying to use the analogy of a computer is incorrect (separate functions, separate programs, tied together to make a whole) because it was, is and always will be separate and distinct set of subprograms that are not 'aware' of any 'singularity.' Is this a bit clearer, Jim?

By the way, the above is not meant to be patronizing or anything else..... it's a tough question to ask and it's on the very edge of my ability to express it with ANY clarity, at all he he he :-)

Awaiting thy response!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 18:50:06 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: You're a peach, Jim
Message:
Mike,

I feel like such a poseur talking about these things sometimes. Please, allow me to self-deprecate. I'm no brain scientist. Why, it even stretches the word a bit to call myself a 'scientist' at all. (Just kidding!)

Anyway, Pinker deals with your question in a few places, if I recall. I'll try to find them and get back to you with chapter and verse.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 19:00:02 (GMT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks Jim
Message:
Jim: Almost real time, here.... he he he:-) Please do give me the chapter and verse. I read, but didn't see it. I'm REALLY glad that you understood the question. Like I said, it's a tough one to verbalize, probably due to the fact that it's a relatively new science and we hadn't 'gotten there,' yet!

As far as the 'education' thing goes, you know that we have both had to take classes that had little to do with our particular major. Astrophysics and Law aren't Biology, but I'll bet you had a bit of training in the subject, as did I. You are probably right, though. To answer this one likely requires someone well-versed in the subject of brain-science. It's not exactly 'old hat' knowledge, yet! :-)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:46:23 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave, disjointed but
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: God is an Egyptian idea
Message:
Even if there is a God, it makes no difference. When the chips are down, it's stark, basic reality we have to contend with in this world.

Many people close to me have had out-of-body experiences and have floated around and looked down at their body. Loads of people have had this experience and it was not in a dream. I haven't experienced it.

It was an Egyptian Pharoah, about 100 years before Moses, who came up with the idea of just ONE God. He started his own cult. The idea of one God caught on after that.

I think the Chinese have a good idea, praying to their ancestors. That seems sensible, because some people DO see ghosts now and then.

Regarding this planet and life - if there was no big Moon going round our planet and stabalising it on its axis, the world would be a very much more hostile place and life on land would be unlikely to develope. But it's not grace which put the Moon there cos if there had been no Moon there would be no us to pontificate about it, if you catch my drift. Or then maybe the octopi would have evolved into something fancy but then, if they were going to, they would have done so anyway.

The idea of a King of kings type God is a recent Medieval concept. Personally, I think what is here is enough to be going on with.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:04:58 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Sir Dave, disjointed but
Subject: God is an Egyptian idea
Message:
Dave, are you referring to Akenaten ?

'Akenaten's reign was not without it's dark side. He destroyed or descrated virtually all the temples of the other gods, including Amon, the main god of the dynasty. He had the word 'gods' in plural hacked out of inscriptions. He even destroyed his father's cartouche because it bore the name of another god, Amon.

Akenaten's attempt at reform failed. After his death the Egyptians returned to their previous culture, and Akenaten's son Tuthankaton (the living image of Aton) changed the religion of the country back to the original beliefs, and changed his own name to Tuthanhkamon (or Tutenkahmun, the living image of Amon)

Akenaten was said to have a deformed hunchback appearance; although that could just be propoganda by his successors. It is not certain what became of Akenaten's mummy. Some say it was destroyed by the priests of Amon to prevent him from going to the afterlife.

Akenaten has been called the first Monotheist and for that reason is generally seen as a 'good guy'. He's even considered to be predecessor to Judeo-Christian type monotheism. The psychologist Sigmund Freud argued (in Moses and Monotheism) that Moses was an egyptian who got his beliefs from Akenaten. Even the infamous occultist Aleister Crowley considered that he was Akenaten in a previous life.'

There's more to this than meets the eye ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:27:54 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: cqg
Subject: More Egyptian history
Message:
That's right, Akenaten was the Pharoah who I was refering to. Actually he was heavily persecuted in his childhood because of his 'disability'. I have never heard that he was a hunchback but he did have a physical syndrome which causes elongated features and which looks slightly unusual.

He was more or less excluded from the royal family's life and was shunned all except by his mother who was just one of the pharoah's several wives. However eventually his brothers all died and Akenaten the underdog was left inheriting the throne of Eygypt.

Because he had been previously excluded from the important royal family religious rituals, he now turned against the custums and ideals which had been previously witheld from him. He struck out on his own and moved away from the royal palaces and started his own religion in the desert with his own immediate family, friends and followers.

I guess he was the first real 'drop-out'. He sought his own God and his own religion and way of life and did not go back to the royal palaces which were his birthright. His destruction of the other Egyptian gods was obviously a reaction to the cruelty he had suffered as a child and young man.

Many Egyptians joined him in his desert kingdom because they too were tired of mainstream Egyptian civilisation.

Strange that Akenaten is rarely spoken about, while his son, Tutenkahmun, is a household name. But it is believed that Tutenkahmun was indeed murdered at a very young age by an ambitious and jealous member of the royal family.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:30:25 (GMT)
From: Robyn
Email: None
To: Sir Dave, disjointed but
Subject: God is an Egyptian idea
Message:
Dear Dave,
Hi, Dave. :)
'It was an Egyptian Pharoah, about 100 years before Moses, who came up with the idea of just ONE God. He started his own cult.
The idea of one God caught on after that.'

Do you know where I just learned this? On a Disney movie! The Prince of Egypt. I got it for a friend's little boy for xmas. I thought it was the best Disney movie in an age.
Love,
Robyn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 01:30:30 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: God is an Egyptian idea
Message:
I must get to see that movie, Robyn. My children would like it too since they're into Egyptology.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 21:09:22 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: God is an Egyptian idea
Message:
There's more
here (article: Monotheism of the Ancient Hebrews: Evolved, Invented, Stolen or Revealed?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:06:12 (GMT)
From: Mu
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Is there a God?
Message:
Do you want there to be one? An embodiment of universal realization? A Krishna concious omnipotency? A messiah? Too bad.

There is no enlightenment, only awakening.....

Whatever I touch, I touch god. Whatever touches me, touches god.
Whoever I see, I see god. Whoever sees me, sees god.

There are dimensions and dimensions. There is no reality. One reality is all there is.

Religion is the opiate of the insecure.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:52:02 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Great question, classic error
Message:
Run,

You really should read some evolution stuff. The theory explains exactly how fallacious, albeit understandable, that thinking is. Your anaolgy would only make sense if a dictionary was a self-replicating organism that evolved via random mutation and natural selection over a virtually incomprehensible time frame. Honestly, why not take a look? Buy Dawkins' River out of Eden or The Blind Watchmaker. Climbing Mount Improbable spells out the theory elegantly as well. You're asking great questions but I think evolutionary thoery might surprise you with answers you never anticipated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 15:02:08 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Great question, classic error
Message:
Jim,

Here is poem by Rumi that really hits the spot for me.

Wean Yourself

Little by little wean yourself.
This is the gist of what I have to say.

From an embryo whose nourishment comes from the blood,
move to an infant drinking milk,
to a child on solid food,
to a searcher after wisdom,
to a hunter of more invisible game.

Think how it is to have a conversation with an embryo.
You might say, 'The world outside is vast and intricate.
There are wheatfields and mountain passes,
and orchards in full bloom.

At night there are millions of galaxies, and in the sunlight
the beauty of friends dancing at a wedding.'

You ask the embryo why he or she stays cooped up
in the dark with eyes closed.
Listen to the answer.

There is no 'other world.'
I only know what I've experienced.
You must be hallucinating.

--------------------------

IMO how could we possibly know it all?

-- Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 17:55:48 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: That wasn't your question...
Message:
Excuse me, Dep, but wasn't your question about how do complex things (eg.life-forms or the structure of DNA) come into existence? - and not whether it is possible to know 'it all'
(for which you would first have to define 'all' before considering whether or not 'all' is knowable).

But some things, at least, are knowable, so why change the subject now you have been given a useful lead? Unless Rumi has anything to say about the evolution of complex life-forms (and on the above evidence he doesn't) then, like Jim, I suggest you try Richard Dawkins. Believe me, he can be a surprisingly enjoyable read.

'The Blind Watchmaker' gives an irrefutable (IMO) answer to your question about complexity which was first posed by theologian Bishop Wilberforce in the 19th century as a challenge to Darwin. Wilberforce argued that if you found a watch on the seashore, you would have to conclude it was designed and had not merely assembled itself at random - hence the title.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 05:05:13 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oh no! I mean 'Dog' (nt)
Message:
g
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:36:43 (GMT)
From: p howie
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Is there a God?
Message:
Hi there,

This is a question I often ask myself. However my partner never asks this question. Ever. She can't, in fact understand why so many people are disturbed by questions of God, and life after death and 'greater purposes', etc. I love this about her. She's had discussions with the 'best of them'. Lately when she asks me if I think there is a lack in her I tell her I think she must be an enlightened buddha. She then of course asks me what I mean and I begin to use terminology that requires a person to be both interested in 'god questions' and to believe that there is a meaningful answer to be gained somehow. This means the answer is generally tautological so she remains bemused.

When I am with her I often ask myself the question 'How come I am burdened with these silly questions about God?' Previously I used to think I was special because of these questions now I feel slightly burdened.

Cheers and thanks for the question.

Peter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 06:08:19 (GMT)
From: Arthur
Email: None
To: p howie
Subject: Is there a God?
Message:
Why are you asking that question?

Just live and enjoy life for godsake!!!!!!!!

I think the existence of a God isn't questionable. The only real thing is LIFE. Life evrywhere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 01:49:52 (GMT)
From: Monica
Email: manmanm@kctc.net
To: Everyone
Subject: Chicken Soup for the Soul
Message:
I have just been made aware of a link between the Chicken Soup for the Soul books and the Maharaji Institute in Fairfield, Iowa. What I have heard is that Jack Canfield and Mark Hansen are using the funds from their popular books to fund Maharaji advertisements and promote the movement throughout the world. Is there any truth to this information. I would LOVE to hear from people who have anything to say on this subject.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 04:23:03 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Monica
Subject: Chicken Soup for the Soul
Message:
Check this link University Graduate Publishes New York Times Bestseller.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:35:25 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: G
Subject: Chicken Pox Soup for the Soul
Message:
The Chicken Soup series of books, which collect positive and uplifting stories from people around the world, was originated by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen, who are also listed as co-authors. The series has been highly popular, with many titles making the New York Times bestseller list.

Ok, if somebody made the best seller list with a compendium of feel good stories supplied by the public I'm sure that a book of stories with the opposite can sell just as well.

So, start sending me your negative and degrading stories now or I'm going to beat you with a stick!

Yes, I'm sick, but I still have to pay back my bookie for last week's SuperBowl.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:13:53 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Monica
Subject: Whoa! Fairfield is Maharishi
Message:
Subject S.B.: Whoa! Fairfield is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi country

Don't know anything about the Chicken Soup stuff, but do know that Fairfield, Iowa was the home of Maharishi Institute. The Maharishi of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) fame.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 22:49:28 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Hamzen
Subject: Lucy sends her love
Message:
Ever see Emily play?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:14:18 (GMT)
From: I. Dunno
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Emily loves Syd.
Message:
That's by my old friend Syd Barrett (early Pink Floyd) He lost it from taking too many drugs in the sixties. I think M helped a lot of people out of THAT kind of mess anyway.

Forever perplexed,

I. Dunno

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 18:38:23 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: I. Dunno
Subject: Emily loves Syd.
Message:
Never heard of Syd Barrett.

I've never known m to help anyone out of any type of mess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 20:52:35 (GMT)
From: cqg
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Emily was long gone,long,long:
Message:
She was long gone, long, long gone
she was gone, gone, the bigger they come
the larger her hand 'till no one understands
why for so long she'd been gone.

And I stood very still by the window sill
and I wondered for those I love still
I cried in my mind where I stand behind
the beauty of love's in her eyes...

She was long gone, long, long gone
she was gone, gone, the bigger they come
the larger her hand 'till no one understands
why for so long she'd been gone.

And I borrowed the page
from a leopard's cage
and I prowled in the evening sun's glaze
her head lifted high to the light in the sky
the opening dawn on her face...

She was long gone long, long gone
she was gone, gone, the bigger they come
the larger her hand 'till no one understands
why for so long she'd been gone.

And I stood very still by the window sill
and I wondered for those I love still
I cried in my mind where I stand behind
the beauty of love's in her eyes...

She was long gone, long, long gone
she was gone, gone, the bigger they come
the larger her hand 'till no one understands
why for so long she'd been gone.

She was long gone long, long gone.

copyright Syd Barrett or has someone bought him out?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:27:02 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Everyone
Subject: EnjoyingLife founders missing?
Message:
I'm really a busy beaver today, aren't I? I'm avoiding doing some very unpleasant work around the house like cleaning the toilets like I had to do when I lived in the ashram. Last post, I swear.

Anyway, I'm very curious about this brother team of Mark and David Litchfield of Cerberus, Inc.

While my immediate question might or might not get me info on Mark and David, I visited EnjoyingLife.org to see if Mark and David might have been listed as founders of ELK along with Cainer and I cannot find any reference or link on ELK that lists the founders names.

Can anybody help on this?

Does anyone remember the original list of founders of ELK?

Has ELK seen the wisdom of being discrete?

Could Jonathon Cainer be working ELK as a silent advisor?

Has our presence made changes to EnjoyingLife.org?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 00:17:32 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: EnjoyingLife founders missing?
Message:
Roger,

I see no one else has answered this, so I hope you get to read this. The original founders are still on ELK in the site intro, site expectations and terms. They are:- Mark Winter, Josie Winter, and Colin Bardell.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 06:04:23 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: JHB
Subject: Thanks! (NT)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:51:06 (GMT)
From: Roger Conspiracy eDrek™
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Bill Burke Furby Jossi Fresco
Message:
Oh, my god! This is really it. STOP THE PRESSES! Call Janet Reno and the British MC5!

We've got all of our duckies in a row now! A premie plant, Jossi Fresco, Furby, and Boca Raton, Florida. BTW, Boca Raton is espanol for 'Rat Mouth'. Jossi Fresco is responsible for many of the Maharaji websites.

Boston Herald.com

Furby's Web domain names at a premium
by Bill Burke
Wednesday, December 16, 1998

Whenever a hot consumer fad comes into vogue, there are dozens of enterprising Web speculators ready to capitalize on it.

The current Furby frenzy is no exception.

When early rumblings began to herald the arrival of a full-blown nationwide Ferby meltdown, Tiger Electronics of Vernon Hills, Ill., wisely registered the domain name 'Furby.com.'

If the toy manufacturer thought that ensured some sort of exclusivity, however, it was mistaken.

Virtually every variation of the Furby domain name has been registered recently, according to InterNIC records, and Net speculators are starting to get wildly creative in their quest to claim a piece of Furby online.

Furby is the wildly popular 'interactive pet' manufactured by Tiger Electronics. A shortage of the toy has created massive demand, and Furbies are now commanding extraordinarily high prices.

The official Furby site was launched last spring to little notice. However, as the summer wore on, and demand began to exceed supply, Furby speculators took to the Internet in droves. Jossi Fresco, of Boca Raton, Fla., registered 'Furby.net' - a Furby owners club -- in mid-August.

Soon after it became apparent that there was money to be made on the Furby craze, and Furby domain names took on a new value.

'Furbies.com' kicked off the flood, which was registered to a user in Illinois. That same user spent much of the fall registering Furby-related domain names, including 'Furbys.com,' 'Furbiesforsale.com,' 'Furbys.org,' 'Furbies.org,' and other variations on the theme.

Evidently, it worked. According to site administrators, 'Furbys.com' and its counterparts were overrun by '10 times the number of requests' than could be handled. The ensuing bottleneck, further compounded by a deficient early request system, resulted in thousands of submissions that could not be filled.

Not to be outdone, a budding Furby financier in Fallbrook Calif. posted sites bearing the URLs 'Furbysale.com' and 'Furbysforsale.com.'

But where there are sites like 'Furbylove.com,' there is bound to be a dark side. Tucked in among the Furby auctions on eBay and Furby classifieds on scores of personal homepages, is the 'Assassinate Furby' site, and perhaps more ominously, the 'Furby Autopsy.'

'When our beloved lil' Furby, Toh-Loo-Ka, kicked the electronic bucket, we did what any bereaved owners would do: we hacked him up and took pictures,' administrators at the Furby Autopsy site said.

The site offers directions on how to conduct your own Furby autopsy, photos of the subject with TV coroner Quincy and a little Furby toe-tag, and a detailed explanation of the 'official cause of death.'

'Assassinate Furby' offers visitors a chance - through some clever, and mildly-graphic Shockwave animation -- to act out virtual violent fantasies about the toy by either ripping its ears off, or putting it in a microwave.

-------------------------------

Among the sites featuring Furby URLs:

Tiger Electronics' official Furby site
Furbys.com
Furbysale.com
Furbysforsale.com
Furbylove.com
Furby.org
EnjoyingLifeWithFurby
Furby.net
Furbies.com
Furbiesforsale.com
Furbys.org
Furbies.org
Furbyland.com
Furbytoys.com
Furby Autopsy
Assassinate Furby

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:33:55 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Mel: response to inactive
Message:
Mel, I replied to your last post to me before the thread went under. So in case you didn't see it:

>>
Mel, you wrote:

In response to the $64,000 metaphor….….. Mel, but has Maharaji brought you from death to immortality?

Not in my practical experience to date. I’m mean I haven’t died yet, so I don’t know [1]. Even in a “metaphorical” sense I don’t know, but maybe if you define the breath as the “life force” and that this life force is “immortal” in the sense that it handed down from generation to generation by the process of procreation, birth etc, then yes I am in contact with something that seems to be immortal (as we all are although we may not recognise it as such) [2]. However, I have no way of knowing whether I will continue to experience or be concious of this “Immortality” after death, I guess I will have to wait and see, won’t I?. This is not something I speculate on though, because people have many strong feelings on the issue of “life after death”, I personally have doubts about an ongoing conciousness, but who knows [3].

In response to your “Well Mel” post

Personally I wouldn’t be comfortable showing my friends the quote that you have posted. The way that Maharaji is communicating in that quote is clearly in a more traditional Rhadasoami context and is quite alien to the “Western” framework. It would be interesting to know how old this quote is or whether it is from a translation of more recent satsang delivered for Indian devotees [4].

I do, however, accept that Maharaji communicates in this way even though I have difficulty in really understanding it or assimilating it into my own cultural framework. This isn’t really an issue for me, though, as I explained in my opening post....

For me Maharaji was correct when he explained the potential of Knowledge and the profoundness of the experience, so I have respect for him on this basis [5].

>
Mel, I would like to take you up on the points numbered above.

(1) Absolutely! And the fourth son of Hans Singh Rawat has not yet died so he doesn't know either, does he? Millions would sacrifice the things they hold most dear for a guarantee of eternity. Prem made that guarantee on numerous occasions. He became fabulously wealthy. I see these facts as connected.

(2) This, to me, is an absurd and antiquated conceptualisation, but similar to those I recall trying to square with common sense when I was into books like The Autobiography of a Yogi. Mel, as I am sure you are aware, breathing is a process, not a force. We know what is inhaled and what is exhaled; how a certain balance of gaseous molecules keeps the blood oxygenated and how the wrong balance will kill us rather quickly. Even as a metaphor, the prana hypothesis no longer makes the starting blocks. (My pancreas, spleen and genitals are no less necessary, no less handed down, and no less the 'life force' than is my respiratory system.)

But more seriously: what on earth can you mean by 'something that seems to be immortal'? Wouldn't one have to be acquainted with immortality in the first place to even make the comparison? And this is no idle nit-picking: this kind of statement gets right to the heart of the 'as if' factor because Prem's addresses do not employ expressions like 'seems' or 'as if'. When he speaks of 'that energy' which is our 'inner connection with the master', he plays it for real. And surely he has to, to maintain his following. (Imagine if he were to say one day ' I happen to know these four simple meditation techniques so - hey! - why don't I just publish them for free on the web alongside my personal endorsement and inspirational thoughts..?)

The literal, or 'spiritual' interpretation of Prem's words requires magical thinking. The metaphorical interpretation does not. This is why I regard the question important enough to keep banging away at it.

(3) So perhaps Prem, too, should become sensitive to these 'strong feelings', no?

(4) The quote is from the 1990's. (J-M's site provides chapter and verse.)

Please spare us the 'Radhasoami' rationale. Indian culture may be more superstitious than ours but that is poor justification for a meditation teacher (whose children, of course, had the best of western educations) to prey on those superstitions with an assumed divinity. Irrespective of cultural factors, I would say the following statements are self-evident:

Either one has to pray to the 'Living Lord' to receive 'his Grace' and experience 'Knowledge' or one does not.

Either the practice of 'Knowledge' will change your life such that ' all the powers of prosperity and success are ready to serve you and you are free from all bondages...', or it does not. (A huge slice of magical thinking there, wouldn't you say?)

Either Prem keeps schtumm about the necessity of devotion to the master in the West or he throws it in unnecessarily when addressing an audience in the East.

These deliberate manipulations have more the ring of a financial consultant's recommendations - or those of a political spin-doctor - than an honest desire to impart the truth as he sees it. In the same speech he raises the issues of reincarnation and rebirth. He is, of course, well aware that his audience shares these beliefs. In such a context his claims to carry the personal 'Grace' or 'power' to deliver his devotees from death itself cannot be viewed as a figure of speech. So either Prem is being deeply cynical (because he does not believe his own claims), or he is profoundly deluded (because he does believe them).

(5) It is my impression that Maharaji goes out of his way never to explain anything - because he cannot. Plenty of claims, assertions and warnings, for sure; all those constant reminders of his own importance to the meditating student. But explanations… wherever did you hear any?

Nigel

(Reply if you like, but I don't think I have anything more to add.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:00:08 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: New feature at Enjoying Life
Message:
From Enjoying Life - For Those Who Appreciate The Teachings Of Maharaji, there is the Graphics and photo gallery

Following is the description of this new and exciting feature that is going to inspire and motivate the premies:

We have been planning for a while to display artwork - photographs and graphics - and now we have started.

Eventually we will create a separate gallery, but for the time being we will display them in 'Expressions'. We hope to post the contributions sent to us over past months. If you have anything you would like to post, please send it via the 'Submit' form. Click the 'Browse' button which will then open a window allowing your to select an image or file from you hard disk.

The latest entries are:

From Magdeline Pereira, Eureka, California, USA: 'So much love in my heart.'

From Raja Pandeyan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 'Keeping in touch.'

From Marion Sutton, who lives in Yokohama, Japan: 'The gold within.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:51:43 (GMT)
From: Isn't that Special!!
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: 'Enjoying him' The Pictures!!!
Message:
See the interaction? That is for the ones that say that premies cannot talk. There you have it? How idiotic!Is a tennis match! You never get to touch the opponent. He is in the other side. Far. Longing...UP, up... and the premie have the 'opportunity' to see his pictures, to adore him...and The Devotion thing, you know...Gratitud. It's tooooooo MUUUCCCCCHHHH!!
Maharaji and Co, all of you are cheap asses!!

You should see how funny you all look from afar.

PUT him in a pedestal. Continue please. Leave behind the evidence. He is there to be adored. He is the love...Continue. We are all watching.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:24:25 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Everyone
Subject: Was I Wrong about Cerby?
Message:
Yes, I know that most of you do not give a damn about this stuff...

Put it in the believe it or not category then.

Oh, boy! This could be just a coincidence, but one never knows what is real in this Cybernetherworld. Would Rob Anderson Cerby be so careless to lead us to his real identity? I hope not.

Besides, I did not perceive Cerby JavaScript skills to be that highly developed. Cerby's JavaScripts appeared to be very crude and only worked about half the time. All of which led me to believe that he was learning JavaScript at our expense.

Big question: Does any of the following ring a bell for anyone?

  • Mark Litchfield
  • David Litchfield
  • 14 Burnell Road, Sutton, Surrey
  • Putney, London

I just found an interesting Internet security citation to Cerberus Information Security.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Founded in late 1999, by Mark and David Litchfield, Cerberus Information Security, Ltd are located in London, UK but serves customers across the World. For more information about Cerberus Information Security, Ltd please
visit their website or call on +44(0) 181 661 7405

Cerberus Information Security - the Company

Address:
Sutton Office: 14 Burnell Road, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom, SM1 4EE
Putney Office: 123 Howards Lane, Putney, London

Telephone:
Sutton Office: +44(0)181 661 7405
Putney Office: +44(0)181 516 9392
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 01:40:06 (GMT)
From: Sir David Holmes
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Was I Wrong about Cerby?
Message:
Rob/Blackdog/Cerberus is English (I have his voice on a sound file) and he lives in America. That is what I've deduced. I suspect East Coast America. He's a mixed up dude but intellegent. That's just the sort of person who is swallowed up by cults, isn't it.

Now what is an Englishman doing living in the US? He'd have to be working doing something. Perhaps he's a part of an organisation called Elan Vital. Or not. He proved himself to be a compulsive liar, that's for certain. I wonder which one of this forum participants he is now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:59:28 (GMT)
From: Cerby
Email: None
To: Sir David Holmes
Subject: Was I Wrong about Cerby?
Message:
AAACHOOO!!! *OOPS*
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:03:00 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Cerby
Subject: Bless you my son!
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 03:19:52 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Rob
Subject: All of my theories still stand
Message:
Rob, er, Cerby, or is that Michael Robins?

We know that you could be anyone, but we have a lot of reason to believe that you live in the Southeast U.S. Yes, you might not be Andrea Robins, but that doesn't mean you are not her husband.

Ok, we might be wrong so how about you just coming clean and telling us who and where you are?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:09:56 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Sir David Holmes
Subject: Sir Dave, License or Licence?
Message:
And in Rob Anderson Cerby's post with the admission of the Maharaji Agya scam he writes:

'Marianne, I hope you've got a sense of humor sugar, I think you've ended up with the most egg on your face. Oh, that form thing? That's a request for a drivers licence, not a passport. Got it from the California DMV website, courtesy of Alta Vista.'

Isn't 'licence' the UK spelling of the U.S. word 'license'?

And this could explain how Cerby is so fluent and at ease with his English personality. Yes, I agree that he lives in the U.S. Southeast (the Florida Bermuda Premie Triangle most likely.)

As others here have told me, I'm telling Rob Anderson Cerby, 'I'm not through with you yet.'

Sir Dave can you email that file with THE voice? I want to run that through my Israeli Truth Detector software and might send it to one those Speech Reversal guys on the Art Bell show like his buddy David Oates.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 08, 2000 at 16:43:45 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Sir Dave, License or Licence?
Message:
The British spelling of the word licence is licence. Actually, I didn't realise Americans spelt it differently, with an 's'.

That sound file is on its way to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 01:58:10 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Sir David Holmes
Subject: It's all getting a bit much
Message:
I agree. He's around all right.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 02:10:56 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Selene
Subject: Always has been always will NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 19:41:07 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Was I Wrong about Cerby?
Message:
That is very coincidental that the company is from
London. the name would make sense for a company of
that nature though.
I couldn't even read it! It wouldn't let me override
and I'm not about to try to download anything they
reccommend!
I need Proxomitron but it won't run on a Mac :) :)
Opera wouldn't either most likely.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:47:59 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Uh, Roger and Selene...
Message:
I was the first one who called the person who was posting as Blackdog 'Cerberus' (about five months ago, maybe). It was a joke - relating to the fact that Cerberus is a dog with three heads (BlackDOG...multiple posting names, etc.) He said he liked the name and that he would use it started using it instead of Blackdog or whatever else. Of course, Cerberus could have co-incidentally been the name of his company, and I just happened to hit on it, or else he used my suggestion for the name of his company, but I distinctly remember that I was the first person on the forum to use that name.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:58:55 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Ms. K
Subject: Uh, Roger and Selene...
Message:
I had an excuse, I was on psycho med leave at the time
you named him.
But it would make sense he'd have a start up company
if he is studying security as a CS major.
Not sure where the harm is exactly.
But then, as I said, I couldn't read the thing!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:06:13 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: no excuses...
Message:
...without a note from your doctor (snicker).

Seriously, I probably should have mentioned this before. I doubt if I would have remembered it if I hadn't made the post myself. (And I DO think it's a great name for a net security company!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:12:29 (GMT)
From: selene
Email: None
To: Ms. K
Subject: notes I got em up the wazoo
Message:
copied in triplicate with every signature you can
dream of. It's amazing what a bureaucracy (how in
HELL do you spell that?) asks of an employee
who is requesting UNPAID leave.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:14:49 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: selene
Subject: notes I got em up the wazoo
Message:
Yeah, I KNOW (and sympathize). Can you imagine if we worked for the FEDERAL government?

Ms. K
Who has had to submit her social security card and vita (resume) PLUS transcripts at least three times to the same institution in the past 10 years.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 20:55:45 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: None
To: Ms. K
Subject: Ms. K, I've underestimated you
Message:
Ah, Ms. K, I have truly underestimated your powers.

Ms. K, in your very quiet way you have successfully hidden your skills and abilities of really being on top of all of this stuff.

P.S. This was a sincere compliment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:01:23 (GMT)
From: Ms. K
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: Thank you, Roger
Message:
I see it as an annoyance rather than a serious threat, but that doesn't mean I don't know it's there :).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:20:04 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Ms. K
Subject: annoyance vs. threat
Message:
Yes, good point. After all, what can they really do?

However...

The instilling of fear and confusion is a powerful and often used techique of counterintelligence. And such a sign of any type of intelligence would be the first we've ever seen from them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:27:42 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek™
Subject: annoyance vs. threat
Message:
That's true. I experienced it this week so I have
to agree on that point. Intimidation works, even on
me! Well it usually has a counter effect though.
Makes me mad and want to get em.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 21:44:49 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek™
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Selene
Subject: You've been violated
Message:
Yes, it makes one very angry.

I had someone climb into the rear window of my apartment once. They must have been idiots because they only managed to steal a broken CB radio that was in a drawer. They didn't take the stereo?

I was pissed! I tightened up security around the place where you drill hole in the window frames and drop heavy nails in them to stop the window from opening up all the way.

I made a sign and put it on the window inviting the asshole to try it again.

It's like I could smell them within my apartment.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index