Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 19:08:00 (GMT)
From: Sep 02, 2000 To: Sep 09, 2000 Page: 3 Of: 5


Nigel -:- Darshan, smoke and mirrors... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:25:39 (GMT)
__ Loaf -:- Darshan, smoke and mirrors... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 07:28:16 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Loaf - you tell it so well, and so few words.. -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:07:21 (GMT)
__ __ DeProGram Anand Ji -:- Darshan, smoke and mirrors... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:09:10 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Darshan, smoke and mirrors... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:54:15 (GMT)
__ Shroomananda -:- I remember my first Darshan. When I came around -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:41:18 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Oh shit, do I have to reply to this...? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:44:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ Michael -:- Can you believe this? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:03:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Yeah, will the room was filled with 'electricity' -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:45:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Question for Shroomanda.... (PLEASE RESPOND) -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:17:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- It's not the words, Nigel. It's the feeling behind -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:54:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- It's not the words, Nigel. It's the feeling behind -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 21:03:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Yeah, will the room was filled with 'electricity' -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:15:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Yeah, maybe you're right, Preacher. I'm just a -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:37:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- I wonder why Michael gets your back up -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 18:08:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- He's very dogmatic, Hal. Read some of my first -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:06:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Surely all anyone knows is what was written in ... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:41:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- If you want to go back and read the original posts -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:52:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- No need for that... -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:09:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- He's very dogmatic, Hal. Read some of my first -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:15:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I don't know, Jerry. But my point to the Preacher -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:44:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- YOU state it just as dogmatically, -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:49:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- When did I state it just as dogmatically, gerry? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:00:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- You are obviously a pathological liar -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:27:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Here I go being dogmatic again!!! -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:38:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomaanda -:- I never said that Jesus taught this Knowledge. -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:10:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- You're right Shroomananda, and I apologise; -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:04:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- So is it a fact or simply your belief that Christ -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:11:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Read the text again. -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:21:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Okay, you had your chance, Preacher. I see -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:30:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- How can you call me a proselytizer? -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:37:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- What about the streets of Gold in heaven, Preach? -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 06:08:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- What about the streets of Gold in heaven, Preach? -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:09:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Could possibly be a metaphor ? nt -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 06:51:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- You have eyes but can not see. nt -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:23:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- No, you are ignorant -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:42:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ X -:- No -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:13:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- X = misogynist creep -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 16:18:10 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Bullshit, X -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 14:47:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ GErry -:- Thanks Jim -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:08:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- I'm not planning to tickle him to death -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:41:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- My dear Lotus Eater, -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:04:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- Thanks Michael -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:08:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Thanks guys -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 19:15:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- I apologise for dissing Pink Floyd -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 13:09:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- I apologise for dissing Pink Floyd -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 18:28:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill -:- dissing stink Floyd -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:33:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- Not ignorant just stupid -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 07:40:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I was wondering the same thing... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:17:05 (GMT)

Jerry -:- Why is Stonor here? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 19:47:11 (GMT)
__ Stonor -:- Isn't this one of those unnacceptable OT person... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 06:13:16 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- No -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:23:28 (GMT)
__ Zelda -:- Stonor = new category -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:22:08 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- I'll say -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:47:24 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Stonor = new category -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:35:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Just re-read your post ... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:14:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Just re-read your post ... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:33:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- The nature of the 'beast', as I see it. -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:00:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Please look below for a real taste of Stonor -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:53:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- And Jim, I thought you were a freedom fighter for -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 06:27:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Stonor, I'm fighting for YOUR freedom! -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:04:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- In denial Jim? (nt) -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:43:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- And Jim is STILL avoiding the issue!!!! (nt) -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:34:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- I apologized for the metaphor, but now you're -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:18:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Stonor, you must be a terrible teacher -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 14:56:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- How easily you pass judgement on what you know nil -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:01:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I judge comfortably based on what I see -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:10:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- I'm so HAPPY you'll never be in my class Jim! -:- Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:37:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Stonor still waking up ... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:45:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Semantics girl, semantics -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:03:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- OK, take it easy boy ... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:17:34 (GMT)
__ Shroomananda -:- A non-anything! I knew you all would catch on. NT -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:15:05 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- So is three days as long as you could manage.. -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:40:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- So is three days as long as you could manage.. -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:47:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- It fits the profile just right -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:23:10 (GMT)
__ __ G -:- a 'non-anything' -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:23:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ Hal -:- a 'non-anything' -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:09:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- a 'non-anything' -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:18:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- I should have known nt -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:19:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- meaning? nt -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:35:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- meaning? nt -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:06:33 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Why is she here, Shroom? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:20:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I think she's attracted to Maharaji and/or -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:00:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Let me quote myself from a post to DD, Shroom ... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:53:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? You don't know do you? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:07:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? You don't know do you? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:43:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Yeah, well, you could be nothing more than an -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:50:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- I think that you are less than honest... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:10:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- What serious questions have you asked me, -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 06:18:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- I have asked you many questions -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:16:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Fine, Preacher, here's some answers. -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:00:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Fundamentalist translations? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:35:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- Looking for an easy mark, shroom? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:19:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Good post Rob....his feet weren't sweaty ..... -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:39:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Shouldn't you 'Know'? Don't you have 'K'? (nt) -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:19:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Just because I have Knowledge doesn't mean that -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:23:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rob -:- You just don't get it do you? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:27:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Sorry Shroom - no sarcasm emoticon. -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:52:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Oh, I've told my story, Stonor. Why don't you go -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:08:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE Mr Mushroom man? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:16:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- I agree with Shroom -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:34:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jenn -:- Weird is relative, Jerry -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:14:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Weird is relative, Jerry -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:30:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- It's all relative (joke) (OT) -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 14:26:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Weird is relative, Jerry -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:10:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- And just what is your 'level', Sir Dave? Why -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:20:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- But you don't enlighten me either -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:29:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I'm not trying to enlighten you or anyone else, -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:40:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Simon Satsang -:- I think she's attracted to Maharaji and/or -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:15:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- You're so phony (nt) -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:06:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ hal -:- a personal insult? nt -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:13:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- No, I think 'Shroom' is a hoax (nt) -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:15:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- you criticised me for making a comment about.. -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:22:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- no -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:28:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Well I really think that -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:32:22 (GMT)
__ gerry -:- That is a very good question, Jerry, one which -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:04:36 (GMT)
__ __ who cares -:- premie plant? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:13:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ SB -:- Really? Have you consider being wrong? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:03:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ gerry -:- premie plant? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:57:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- dictate policy? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:34:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- it's really endless with you isn't it, G -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:58:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- divisive -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:02:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- divisive -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:24:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Premie plant???!!!! Come on Gerry, not you too!!? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:10:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ who cares -:- Premie plant???!!!! Come on Gerry, not you too!!? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:25:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Stonor, read my post to G below, 'assumptions' -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:13:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Stonor, read my post to G below, 'assumptions' -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:23:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- assumptions -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:34:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ gerry -:- assumptions -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:09:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Trouble and strife -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:14:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ G -:- assumptions -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:58:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- assumptions -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:19:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Know what I'd like to see? -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:12:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- see it -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:16:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- I don't see it -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:31:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Know what I see? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:12:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Know what I see? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:25:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- OK, I'll try again, but I can't speak for G -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:07:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You're not even on topic anymore (nt) -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:39:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Topic schmopic, you are myopic and don't -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 16:55:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- case in point -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:26:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- would you care to address the issues... -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:31:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- You do come over as rather pompous.. -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:30:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- assumptions a ps to last post. -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:18:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ another -:- assumptions a ps to last post. -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:43:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- What???? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:27:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- assumption? -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:20:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Thanks Gerry (nt) -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:25:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- I could use a beer (nt) -:- Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:59:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- I had a nap instead, -:- Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:43:02 (GMT)


Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:25:39 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Darshan, smoke and mirrors...
Message:
Do try this at home…

Get a pair of insulated torch-type battery wires, preferably one red, one green. Conceal them in your fist with just the exposed ends showing, plus a bit of the insulation on each. Go up to anyone - a child especially, but it works just as well on adults - and ask them to touch both wire ends together. They usually recoil a little, suspecting a trick. So you smile and say 'No, go on… it's perfectly safe.' And you pretend-nervously touch the ends with your other hand to prove it's safe. They'll still hesitate a bit, but then if you coax, cajole or bully some more... ('You're not chicken, surely..?' sort of stuff)

When they finally do it, at the moment they make contact, make a loud 'Bzzzz!!!!' noise and they will jump out of their effing skins, I promise…

I don't know why I remembered this, but it reminded me of my first darshan and receiving 'Holy Breath'. (Whatever happen to…?) For newcomers to the cult, this involved cupping your right hand to your ear as you approached the 'throne', and as you bend to kiss the Armani socks, Mr Rawat would make this symbolic megaphone-thing with his hand, blowing through it into your ear… This was an 'important' step - a necessary step - in becoming a premie: M's recognising and accepting you as one of his chosen.

Now, the funny thing is, when I went through this ritual of self-abasement, I had an experience. You bet I did. And for a couple of years it was my one experience of anything resembling the so-called 'paranormal' in my short life. For with that sound of the breath in my ear came this involuntary spasm in the region of my solar plexus.

Internally I went 'Wow! - that was just SO….!' (Just wait until I tell the others…) But I staggered to my feet, walked on and stumbled into the Malaga daylight where a Mahatama gave me a toffee from a tray. More hindu trappings? (No, it was actually an eclair.)

Except it wasn't paranormal. It just wasn't normal, that's all. The whole rococo artifice of the setup was anything but bloody normal...

More like careful priming: the staging in hidden location; the slow, shoeless queueing followed by this accelerated last-minute spurt through the heavenly blue tunnel, and suddenly your first glimpse of the guru's by now heavily-imprinted features. The moment of recognition. The stories you had heard about people doing darshan service close to the throne can only handle ten-minutes at a time because of the 'sheer power' emanating from the man… (perhaps they weren't allowed to witness the brandy and ciggie breaks?!)

All these factors primed you for something very special indeed... Something way more than the sum of its parts. So that is what you experienced.

It's like your victim who, in the playground trick sees wires and unconsciously thinks 'electricity', is then powerless to prevent a reaction to an experience of that which is essentially nothing, but which triggers the nervous system into a dramatic response. Instead of going 'bzzz', M goes 'puff' and the magic dragon appears... Instead of seeing electricity, we 'saw' divinity. But same difference and dramatic reaction.

I had darshan again about two months later, and experienced nothing beyond the obvious sensations of doing what is required: queueing, tunnelling and toe-kissing. Basically, the sum of its parts and no more. But I put my disappointment down to my own lack of focus (Maharaji's 'the mirror', right?)

Yes, what about Maharaji's mirror? Premies still talk about it, don't they? More like smoke and mirrors: expectations of a glorious or remarkable happening, coupled with an unnaturally strong focus on the situation in hand will provoke the strangest reactions in an otherwise rational person. (It is like hypnosis again, but I'll give that one a rest for today..:-)

And like most aspects of cult life, it involves bypassing your conscious mind and hijacking the way you feel. They way you would or could (and in the right circumstances, should) feel anyway without any of the mystical bullshit.

No wonder our minds were the enemy - his enemy. As they are still…


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 07:28:16 (GMT)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Darshan, smoke and mirrors...
Message:
Controlled audiences have been granted by royalty/nobility to those in low status for many thousands of years.

The tunnel is as 'theatrical' and 'ancient' a construct as the grotto with father christmas in it.

Withholdng, anticipation, controlled access, removal.

They even play music in abbatoirs to calm the cattle down as they file in.

The whole notion of 'performance' is central to M's charms. He is most comfortable when he is 'on'

The Dalai Llama tells that when he met Mao, in order to ascertain the intentions of the Chinese who were threatening invasion of Tibet in the 50s - mao moved so slowly, so gracefully, that he was unable to confront him with any pertinent questions.

We are easily hypnotised, impressed and stunned by the performance of a golden moon like face.

And dont we know it.

Loaf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:07:21 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Loaf - you tell it so well, and so few words..
Message:
... I now understand how you got the job playing Santa. You're a natural. Break a leg? - no chance!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:09:10 (GMT)
From: DeProGram Anand Ji
Email: not given
To: Loaf
Subject: Darshan, smoke and mirrors...
Message:
Who remembers Guru Puja 74' in Amherst Mass? They had Mahara Ji's throne mounted on the side of a vehicle and everybody stood on the side of the road and waited for him to be driven by so they could bend over and kiss his feet. This was supposed to stream line the darshan process which was evidently quite an ordeal for his holiness. It was to taxing for him to sit for hours while people qued up to kiss his feet. That poor man he's really had a rough life. LOL!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:54:15 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Darshan, smoke and mirrors...
Message:
Now I know where I went wrong. My experience of holy breath at Copenhagen was one of complete nothinghappenedness. I immediately wondered how such a thing could make any difference - I mean, he didn't even blow for more than a split second and it was several feet away from me. I thought at first he'd missed his aim and someone else had got it.

He had bare feet and I didn't fancy him. I was more interested in the premie sister in front of me. All the time I was thinking that there was something wrong with me; I didn't take to him and I thought since most everyone else was adoring him, there was something terribly wrong with me.

I see you got this experience later on in your career.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:41:18 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I remember my first Darshan. When I came around
Message:
the corner, those eyes were looking right at me. Like they knew me. But those eyes were deep. I mean DEEP. You couldn't see into the depths of those eyes.

Give me a break, Nigel. You sound smarter than what you just said about smoke and mirrors. It was more than that and you know it. There was an experience around Maharaji. You can discount it now if you want but the fact remains that he knows something. I've felt it and so have you or you wouldn't have stuck around it for so long. Now that you're anti-Maharaji you try to rationalize it as being the tricks of a magician. But deep down, you know it was real. And it still is. You're just not recognizing it now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:44:09 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Oh shit, do I have to reply to this...?
Message:
No, I don't think I'll bother.

('cept to say you know nothing about me, Shroom, and your analysis is crap.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:03:59 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Can you believe this?
Message:
Mr. Mushroom person seems to think that one must believe EVERYTHING one has ever believed in one's life FOREVER!!! Gee, I once believed in the Tooth Fairy, and, damn, if I didn't have proof of the visit, yet, somehow, I no longer believe in this creature. But there was something, an experience, AND a quarter under my pillow where once had been my tooth.
It is my experience that M may know something: he can drive a car and can operate the remote control of his home entertainment center, but I don't believe that he knows anything particularly cosmic or any great truth.
Mr. Mushroom person, there are times during the church services when everyone is filled with joy, the room rocks and there is an electricity in the air; why is that? None of us are squeezing our eyeballs, and the 'Master' isn't sitting on his chair. There IS such a thing as a group high, and there IS such a thing as expectations, and this is what you experience around M. People here know this, and you know it but have yet to actually realize it.
You have been here long enough; it is time to step back and take an honest look at what you claim. It is time to take an honest look at the information you have found here. It is time for you to take an honest look into yourself and really examine things.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:45:13 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Yeah, will the room was filled with 'electricity'
Message:
at the last Pink Floyd concert I went to. So what? Knowledge not your cup of tea? Great. You can preach for your tea. I'll listen to him. He does make more sense than you, in my never to be humble opinion.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:17:53 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Question for Shroomanda.... (PLEASE RESPOND)
Message:
Shroom, you wrote:

I'll listen to him. He does make more sense than you, in my never to be humble opinion.

I would like to put it to you that wouldn't even be able to IDENTIFY - let alone make sense of - M's teachings (or those of anyone assuming spiritual expertise) if you read that person's words without knowing who the speaker was at time of listening.

You think you could do it? I bet you bloody-well couldn't...

M's trip is a personality cult and nothing more, and I have a neat experiment which might convince you of the truth of this.

Are you up for it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:54:38 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: It's not the words, Nigel. It's the feeling behind
Message:
the words. When Christ walked along the sea and said to Peter, 'Follow me', why did Peter drop his nets and follow him? It was a feeling that was conveyed, wasn't it? You think those disciples followed Jesus because of his miracles or to listen to lectures? No, they felt something. Christ knew something and they could feel his peace and joy. Anyway, that's what I believe. I wasn't there. But I feel something when I listen to Maharaji. No one I know can sit in front of thousands of people and speak the way I've heard him speak about life and Knowledge. That's why I listen to him. And when I heard him speak on Sunday at the most recent satellite broadcast, he did it again. I felt something.

I don't know what your 'test' consists of, but go ahead. If I feel like responding, I will.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 21:03:59 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: It's not the words, Nigel. It's the feeling behind
Message:
And Peter might say ' look where it bloody got me. Hunted and persecuted , wife and kids gave up on me . The Boss got crucified and then later on me , upside bloody down too. Then they started a religion which led to more death distruction and torture on this planet than pretty much anything else. Bloody unbelievable innit? If I ever get another life I'll just lead a simple life as a fisherman.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:15:25 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Yeah, will the room was filled with 'electricity'
Message:
I know that it is difficult for you to comprehend (I guess that statement makes me a bully), but YOU were the one claiming that because there was electricity in the air when you received darshan it was a legitimate spiritual experience. I was pointing out that people experience the same thing in many situations, which you proved by your Pink Floyd reference (you really still listen to that stuff? Do you ever progress in any area or do you hang on to everything you ever did? Still sleep in that bed with the wagon wheels for bedsteads?). What you think is unique is really quite common to many people who do not practice the meditation techniques M calls Knowledge.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:37:16 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Yeah, maybe you're right, Preacher. I'm just a
Message:
simple person. I don't have all the answers. But I guess you do. You sound like a realized soul. Why do you even have to Preach then, Preacher?

The Master said nothing. The student said nothing. Yet something was communicated. Something wonderful. Right, Preacher?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 18:08:54 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: I wonder why Michael gets your back up
Message:
You seem to have a particularly vicious way of addressing him PREACHER! Have you had a bad experience in your life with Christian indoctrination ? I assure you Michael is not 'that kind' of Christian. He's a person who really wants to help those in need , and he does know about 'the nollidge' you're refering to. Why so hard on him?

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:06:44 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: He's very dogmatic, Hal. Read some of my first
Message:
posts to him. He makes blanket statements without proof as if they are fact. What really irritated me about this guy is he said that the Knowledge that Maharaji is giving is not the Knowledge that Jesus gave. I challenged him on that one. He was never around when Jesus walked the earth. He's just read about him and speculated on it. But he didn't back down. He kept saying that Knowledge of Maharaji is not the same as Christ's was. It does get my dander up when people say things like that as if they are facts. If he had said 'it seems to me' or 'from my understanding' or something else, I wouldn't have challenged him. That's why I call him Preacher. The way he talked about it would lead one to believe that he was in the next room at the last supper.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:41:12 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Surely all anyone knows is what was written in ...
Message:
past times and Michael has two masters degrees in theology which prove that he has really studied the evidence. I'm not talking Aquarian Gospel stuff and new age speculation but real hard historical evidence. He seems to know all about that stuff. he even studied from origanal greek translations.

What makes you think that Jesus went round showing the 4 yogic techniques of knowledge ? I haven't come across any writings to support that belief and I don't count the Aquarian Gospel which is quite likely to be a fabrication of someone's mind. Or the Dead Sea Scrolls which were not thought to have been refering to Jesus. they never mention his name.

So what do you know that Michael doesn't ?

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:52:22 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: If you want to go back and read the original posts
Message:
I'm sure they are still there. I responded to Elaine when she asked for any books about Jesus, Buddha, etc. I recommended 'The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ'. Michael piped in and called it hogwash and said that Jesus never gave the same Knowledge as Maharaji. That's what I challenged him about. I don't know if Christ gave the same Knowledge or not. But the way he responded to me was that he DID know that Maharaji's Knowledge was not the same Knowledge that Christ gave. And he didn't back down. That's why I call him Preacher. He doesn't know yet he stated it as a fact. If he had qualified it in some way, I would never have challenged him. But he didn't. And he continues to say the same thing. So I'll continue to call him Preacher until he qualifies it and doesn't state it as a fact!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 02:09:37 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Shroomananda
Subject: No need for that...
Message:
I don't know if Christ gave the same Knowledge or not. But the way he responded to me was that he DID know that Maharaji's Knowledge was not the same Knowledge that Christ gave.

No you don't know, do you? That's the whole point: there is no evidence that JC did - as you concede - do the Maharaji 4-wheel-drive, six-lane-freeway enlightenment scam. (Which you have certainly claimed in the past.)

You don't have the knowledge base for expressing an informed opinion here, Shroom - but I guess that's never stopped you in the past...

Think a little and stop being so arrogant in the company of people who DO know what they're talking about, for once, hey?
You come across as an identikit cult-member full of so much hot air you must needs give vent in public and the devil mend the puncture.

And it whiffs a bit.

NB: this is just an impression of how you come across when posting to the forum. You might be different in real life, of course (assuming you have one...)

BTW: I'm a born-again atheist nowadays, but like and respect Michael in ways a cultist would probably not understand. He knows what he is talking about and thinks before arranging words on the page. I would never call Michael 'preacher', but the term would suit you down to the ground, me ole chum...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:15:29 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: He's very dogmatic, Hal. Read some of my first
Message:
How do you know that Jesus taught eyeball squeezing and snot sucking, mushroom? Where you around when Jesus was on earth?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:44:17 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: I don't know, Jerry. But my point to the Preacher
Message:
was that he doesn't know either, yet he stated it as dogmatic fact.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:49:04 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: YOU state it just as dogmatically,
Message:
With even LESS evidence. At least Michael as years of study and two masters degrees to back him up. What do you have besides the ramblings of a barely coherent drunk with an eighth grade education?

It's Gerry, by the way, not Jerry. Two distinct people, not that those details matter to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:00:47 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: When did I state it just as dogmatically, gerry?
Message:
I don't know what's got your dander up, gerry. I'm a college graduate. I rarely get drunk. I do have a few beers occasionally. I do make mistakes about the spelling of Jerry or gerry. You got any SPECIFIC dogmatic statements I've made that you want to challenge me about?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:27:16 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: You are obviously a pathological liar
Message:
and can't even understand plain English. Is this what nollidge did to you or were you always like this?

I hate your guru for what he's done to you and thousands like you. If there's a hell he's got reservations. First Class, of course.

I feel sorry for you, though.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:38:12 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Here I go being dogmatic again!!!
Message:
Okay, Shroomananda, I will explain this to you one more time. I will define my terms, just as I did last time. Also, please realize that I will not be using such sources as Hugh Lyn Cayce or anything from the akashic records, as that is not how historians work. I am not discussing the subject from some mystical point of view.
The working definition of the word ‘knowledge’ that I will be using in this explanation is: the four meditation techniques offered by Maharaji. I will not call them his techniques as it has been proven many times at this site that they are not his. So, when I say that Jesus did not teach the same knowledge as M, I am saying that he did not teach that meditation. Is that clear?
Now, I will go as far as to say that Jesus did not teach ANY meditation, that was not part of his tradition. Can you accept that? Now, before you go to mis-quoting the Christian scriptures, I think that I should be clear that when the phrase “laid hands on the person” is used in the gospels or any of the epistles, they do not mean “sticking one’s fingers in someone's eyes” or in their ears or whatever; it means the person was touched. And when Paul talks about laying hands on someone’s head, it means he touched the person’s head, as in a blessing, not that he stuck his fingers in the person’s eyes. There is no proof that Jesus, an observant Jew, followed Cabbala or any other mystic tradition, even if “the Aquarian Gospel of the Christ” makes such claims.
Now, you want to believe that Jesus ‘taught knowledge;” you have stated that your argument with me is that I am so sure that the “knowledge Jesus taught is not the same as M’s knowledge” to paraphrase you. I will state, and the gospels back me up here (remember, I have studied them and still read them everyday; I ‘m not talking about what you vaguely remember from Sunday School), that Jesus didn’t “teach a knowledge.” Jesus proclaimed the Good News (or evangelon, in Greek) of repentance and forgiveness of sins, and the coming of the Reign of God (or the Kingdom of God, or God’s Imperial Rule). He said to love your neighbor as yourself, to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, heal the sick, visit the prisoner, and welcome the stranger. He talked about money and its hold on people, but he did not speak about seeing a light inside, hearing a music inside, remembering Holy Name, or about drinking nectar. You can mis-use quotes from John’s gospel in a feeble attempt to connect the four techniques with Jesus, but I think that I answered those attempts in the piece I wrote for J-M’s site. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) do not support your mystic view of Jesus’ teachings, and John’s gospel must be twisted out of shape to back up such claims (we’ll leave the Gospel of Thomas alone for right now, but it doesn't support such claims, either).
So, if we define ‘knowledge’ as the four meditation techniques that you enjoy, and we use the synoptic gospels and the epistles which make up the body of work we will call the Christian scriptures, and we appeal to the tradition as passed on by Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Origen and the other Apostolic Fathers, we can safely say, without having sat at the Last Supper, that Jesus did not “teach this knowledge.”
Now, if you want to continue to believe that “Jesus taught this knowledge” there isn’t anything I can do about it, but rest assured that if you make such claims here, I will challenge you.
Look, the only reason that M and Yogananda and all those other so-called Past Masters include Jesus in their Pantheon is to give credibility to their teachings here in the West. That is the truth of the matter. Jesus didn’t teach ‘knowledge’ or Kriya Yoga or non-profit carrot worship meditation or any of that; he proclaimed what he called the Good News.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:10:04 (GMT)
From: Shroomaanda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: I never said that Jesus taught this Knowledge.
Message:
I did say that you don't know whether Jesus DIDN'T teach this Knowledge or not. YOU WEREN'T THERE! Give me a break. You can read whatever scripture or translation you want and I can do the same. We can say that it's written here and says so and so and blah de blah. THAT'S NOT PROOF! Either way, I can't say that Jesus taught Knowledge and you can't say that Jesus didn't teach Knowledge. There is no way to prove either one or the other. WE WEREN'T THERE! You can torture the text until you are blue in the face to support your belief system. All I ask is that you don't state it as a fact. IT'S SIMPLY YOUR BELIEF! Got it, Preacher?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:04:06 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomaanda
Subject: You're right Shroomananda, and I apologise;
Message:
I wasn't there in Jesus time, so how the hell do I know? Who gives a damn about the texts, I wasn't there! I've decided that I'm not going to believe anything anyone says happened before 1954, because I wasn't there! Heck, let's make it 1956, because, really, all I really cared about those first two years was what went on in my own bedroom, so I wasn't there and I can't know. Geez, I wish you had told me this before I went to all that trouble to study history!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:11:09 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: So is it a fact or simply your belief that Christ
Message:
didn't teach the same Knowledge that Maharaji teaches? Your sarcastic response is unclear to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:21:29 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Read the text again.
Message:
Jesus proclaimed the Good News (gospel, evangelon) of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and the coming of the Reign of God. No meditation, no knowledge so-called (to quote St. Paul). You want to pass it off as 'belief' because the facts bother you and threaten your mystical delusion. If you can pretend that it is all ambiguous and open to any interpretation, you won't have to confront the fact that there is no connection between the historical Jesus and your phony Master. No connection except for the attempt to education M at a Christian school. I'm sorry that you had such a bad experience as an Altar boy. I'm sorry that you are unable to read what I wrote without your 'concepts' getting in the way.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 01:30:51 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Okay, you had your chance, Preacher. I see
Message:
you are going to remain a dogmatic prosletizer. You're not going to be reasonable, I guess. But I don't have to listen to your 'preaching', Preacher. Go find someone who wants to believe your 'facts'. I deal in reason. I deal in experience. I deal in reality. I don't deal with fools. Bye, Preacher. Have a nice life preaching to the chosen ones. Hope you can save them from hell and damnation. By the way, are the streets of Heaven paved in gold? Is that a fact too? I'm sure since it is written, it must be true. Right, Preach?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:37:50 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: How can you call me a proselytizer?
Message:
I haven't called anyone to Jesus, I've simply pointed out the fact that there is absolutely no connection between Jesus and your 'Master.' Nope, Jesus didn't teach 'knowledge so called' and M is not proclaiming the Good News of repentance, forgiveness of sins, and the coming of the Reign of God. Jesus was a carbon-based life form; perhaps THAT'S the connection.

No connection at all. Just learn to accept it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 06:08:03 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: What about the streets of Gold in heaven, Preach?
Message:
It's written so it must be true, right? You don't call anyone to Jesus in your Church activities, Preacher? I thought that's what an Episcopal Preacher did.

You are very set in your beliefs. But since it's written, it must be true.

By the way, if you have the original Greek scriptures, take it to a non-religious translator and ask him or her to translate it. It's the Kingdom of God is INSIDE of you. Or within you.

Why don't you publish one of your sermons on this site? Do you write them out before hand? Or are they extemporaneous like the way Maharaji does it? I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say to your parishioners. Especially since you say that you don't call anyone to Jesus! Just think how many would see it here. You might even get a convert or two. Jesus could use a few more sheep, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:09:48 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: What about the streets of Gold in heaven, Preach?
Message:
'Streets of gold' is a reference to the description of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse of John; it is a metaphor and there are no streets of gold.

Just can't deal with the fact that there is no connection between Maharaji and Jesus, can you? That was what the post was about, and in your usual fashion you totally ignored it. I'm sorry, but you are the one who is coming off the fool here.

As for your understanding of the Greek, I know that it is troubling to have believed the text said one thing when it says another, but the fact is, and there are many English translations which agree with me, 'The Kingdom of God is in your midst.' No, Jesus did not talk about 'going inside.' Just accept it and move on with your life, to quote the many Premie visitors here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 06:51:09 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Could possibly be a metaphor ? nt
Message:
ch
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:23:43 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomaanda
Subject: You have eyes but can not see. nt
Message:
dddddd
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:42:05 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: No, you are ignorant
Message:
You are an ignorant person who insults people who really have dedicated their lives to changing the conditions of the world, unlike your Master. You are unkind, mean and vicious. You tell us nothing about who you are or the life you live. You just vouch for the vacuous words of greedy Rawat.

Nothing you say has any credibility.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:13:24 (GMT)
From: X
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: No
Message:
You can do better than this Marianne.
What purpose can you hope to achieve by hurling weak insults?
And Michael is dissing Pink Floyd for some misguided purpose. Good grief. It doesn't play well.
You know something good. Demonstrate it with confidence.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 16:18:10 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: X
Subject: X = misogynist creep
Message:
Well, his last three posts have all seemed to me to want to belittle or make females feel uneasy.

Women are under represented here both in terms of persons represented (say, appearing over a given period) and quite clearly in terms of numbers of posts. So that looks like a pattern to me.

X, are you sure my fight should not be with you (too). I mean, being as I don't want to associate with a misogynist creep.

I could be wrong, though. What d'you say, X?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 14:47:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: X
Subject: Bullshit, X
Message:
You can do better than this Marianne.
What purpose can you hope to achieve by hurling weak insults?

I guess it's called venting or something. Really, there comes a time in a discussion with someone as out there as a cult apologist -- which is exactly what you guys are -- where all that
's left is an expression of disgust and revulsion. I doubt Marianne's thinking of any particular 'purpose' when she insults Shroom like that. Other than to perhaps, just perhaps, shame him into behaving properly. The fact is, talking with you guys is often hopeless and futile. You're impervious to reason and proud of it. Hell, we don't even know who you are and yes, that does matter when your very good faith or lack of it becomes a central issue as it so readily does.

Sometimes when one's camping there are moments when you just want to swear at the mosquitoes. You guys play that role here and you know it. Congratulations.

And Michael is dissing Pink Floyd for some misguided purpose. Good grief. It doesn't play well.

You know nothing of how things 'play' here. How could you? You're not in touch with any of the people who've really been assisted by this and related sites. You're an anonymous cult member hiding not just from truth and reason but also from your fellow cult members! You want to know how things play here you're going to have to come out of your hole. Your judgment on its own is worthless.

You know something good. Demonstrate it with confidence.

It must be fun trying to be a junior Yoda after all those years following a vapid guru, huh? You're going to have to try harder though. This misplaced 'advice' is worthless.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:08:08 (GMT)
From: GErry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks Jim
Message:
You saved me the trouble. I almost (in fact did but deleted it) ripped into a litany of curses and name-calling which would wilt a marine because of what this gutless, anonymous 'X' posted to Marianne.

I have a real hard time when these vapid assholes attack either Marianne or Michael, two people (among others) who have dedicated their lives to making things better for other people.

The audacity of these people. They champion that spoiled greasy fraud who's rich beyond most peoples' imagination and tsk tsk at the very people who are shining examples of true humanity. It sickens me.

I'll never stop hounding this creep until he is, as someone else said, 'laughed off the stage of life.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:41:26 (GMT)
From: Lotus Eater
Email: None
To: GErry
Subject: I'm not planning to tickle him to death
Message:
Just the stage of PUBLIC life hahahaha

Actually, as a more recent ex I would like to talk to Michael about how he got involved in christianity. I don't understand, I really don't, it seems like going from the frypan into the fire. In order to leave the M&K cult you have to ask yourself the hard questions, and face up to your feelings about mortality, so why at that point buy another messiah's pitch?

What can we do to help eachother in the face of suffering? I get the feeling that Michael really cares and does a lot for people, I just don't get why it has to come along with:
get Knowledge and you'll be okay
get baptised and you'll be okay

As far as I can determine, there is no more rhyme and reason to the nature of our deaths and sufferings than there is to why my footstep fell there, killing and maiming those ants as opposed to a couple of inches to the left, thereby killing and maiming that other group of ants. Lesley

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:04:20 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: mgdbach@hotmail.com
To: Lotus Eater
Subject: My dear Lotus Eater,
Message:
You can e-mail me at mgdbach@hotmail.com and ask such questions. I don't think that the Forum is the proper place for that part of my story, although it is in my Journey.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 22:08:30 (GMT)
From: Lotus Eater
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Thanks Michael
Message:
I must have read your journey in the early days of looking at this site, but I'll go and re read it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 19:15:06 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: GErry and Jim
Subject: Thanks guys
Message:
Thank you for interpreting my rant. I just couldn't take shroom's treatment of Michael anymore.


Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 13:09:26 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: X
Subject: I apologise for dissing Pink Floyd
Message:
The reason I dissed Pink Floyd (and really, have they done anything REALLY worthwhile since 'Wish You Were Here' and that was a little dodgey, right?) is that the Mushroom had mentioned attending a PF show, and it seems to be illustrative of his 'you believed this once, you should believe it forever' stance. I was unfair to Pink Floyd.
The Mushroom has several points he drives home over and over and over and over: 1. K is a 'free gift.' 2. He enjoys it. 3. He enjoys listening to M. 4. M is the greatest everything on this planet. 5. You believed this once and you should still believe it. and 6. India is the only source of true spirituality.
I am tired of his worn-out tirades, and I think that it is beginning to show. I am very happy to watch Rob interact with him, but he (fungus) really isn't interested in any dialogue. I think that he is here to create distractions and to herd any potential wanderers back to the fold.

Does anyone here listen to music from contemporary bands?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 18:28:01 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: I apologise for dissing Pink Floyd
Message:
Hi Michael,

I'm a little old fashioned when it comes to music. I've tried a lot of newer bands like 'the verve' , ' massive attack ' and a few others but many of them seem to be rehashing music that's all been done before. I don't include massive attack as they have something new. I like a guy called Nitin Sahawney who is an English Asian and a fine jazz musician who was with Courtney Pine. He does a very eclectic mix of Indian ,ambient modern style with many varied influences. His latest product is called 'Beyond Skin' which I love.

Got any contempory suggestions ?

All the best
Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:33:43 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: dissing stink Floyd
Message:
I like buster poindexter's new spanish style album.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 07:40:03 (GMT)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Not ignorant just stupid
Message:
Spends an inordinate amount of time in here too! Just when, oh when, does shroom find time to immerse in his glory? Wow, imagine how much more realized shroom would be if the time spent here was spent meditating or doing service instead.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:17:05 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: I was wondering the same thing...
Message:

Perhaps it's because 'Shroom's' true realization is that Nollidge is basically worthless and it's much more fun to come here and joust with some 'minds' than to sit, bored, under his blankie.

All he really has is his long distance bhakti trip with his imaginery friend.

Goober must be laughing up his sleeve at these poor fools as he climbs into the back of his Rolls Royce.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 19:47:11 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Why is Stonor here?
Message:
Does anybody know? Stonor says she's explained it in the past, but I must have missed it. So could somebody clue me in? My understanding is that she was neither a premie nor an aspirant. Is this true? If so, what business does she have telling us how this place should be run? What's it to her?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 06:13:16 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Isn't this one of those unnacceptable OT person...
Message:
Isn't this one of those unnacceptable OT personal attacks? And it wasn't marked 'OT'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:23:28 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: No
Message:
I haven't 'attacked' anything about you. I'm merely puzzled as to your presense here and why you make the fuss that you do. But, it really doesn't matter. You obviously can't understand why anybody would feel that way, and consider it an 'attack' if they do. How do I reason with somebody like that? It's fruitless to even try.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:22:08 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Stonor = new category
Message:
if she is not a premie and not an aspirant and not an ex- maybe her observations could be useful.
you know like getting a second opinion on the BEHAVIOR in a situation.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:47:24 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: I'll say
Message:
Zelda,

I don't recall anybody asking for an outside efficiency expert to coach us on the best way to communicate with each other. Nor am I interested in what one would have to say. So, that being the case, I disagree with your idea that an impartial observer, which Stonor is not, is required for us to get a better grip on how we should behave.

Stonor is a passionate participant of this forum, which I think is kinda weird, since her affiliation with the cult is minimal, at best.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:35:47 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Zelda
Subject: Stonor = new category
Message:
Maybe it's my age but I've come to the realisation that you can't change people - they change all by themselves. This realisation can be alarming particularly when I am trying for the Nth time to get my children to eat with their mouths closed and not act like wild pigs at the dinner table.

Perhaps there is some hope there since they are still young but once people get into their forties, there's bugger all anyone can do to change them then.

There will always be dischord etc on this forum because the sort of people who feel moved to write on it feel they have something important to say. One thing I know - I am always right but the trouble is, everyone else thinks they are right too.

There have been many attempts to organise and police this forum but they never work. Best to agree to disagree because that's all you can ever do here.

One thing that works is not to take any criticism seriously. It doesn't matter what they think because they are not in your living room, after all. I dunno what the fuss is about regarding Stonor. It's up to her if she wants to attempt to give guidance here. Some people will listen to her and some people will voice an alternative opinion.

In the end - does it really matter?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:14:24 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Just re-read your post ...
Message:
You wrote:

In the end - does it really matter?

I would have thought that the effectiveness of this site in terms of generally agreed upon goals and purposes would matter even more to someone like you, than to me. Or have I completely misunderstood all your efforts?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:33:49 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Just re-read your post ...
Message:
I meant, does it really matter if you give your opinions here and some people agree and some people don't. That followed on from my point that much of what people write here will be both agreed and disagreed with by various people. There will never be total agreement.

That's the nature of the beast, as I see it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:00:58 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: The nature of the 'beast', as I see it.
Message:
The nature of the 'beast', as I see it, here, there, and just about everywhere that humans interact on this planet today, is not difference of opinion, but rather 'bullying', as some have called it, in order to silence those who disagree with the 'bullies'. You know, the old 'might makes right' - squash all dissenting voices. There are some who have been, and still are, general targets through cultural indoctrination from childhood, just like 'bullying' has at least some of its roots in certain childhood experiences. The 'beast' has become 'self-propagating' from the playground to international politics. And, as I've mentioned, I believe m is a good example of a very 'slick' 'bully'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:53:19 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Please look below for a real taste of Stonor
Message:
In a thread below, Stonor has equated her actions here, confronting the 'bullying' as she says, with those of World War II freedom fighters taking on the Nazis.

We're not talking 'grandiose' necessarily. Hm... change that. We're definitely talking 'grandiose'. Hilarious, pathetic but yes, grandiose.

(Sorry, was I supposed to make that an 'I' statement? Katie?)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 06:27:34 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And Jim, I thought you were a freedom fighter for
Message:
And Jim, I thought you were a freedom fighter for those enslaved to the bully m? Who are YOU fighting for, and against?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:04:22 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Stonor, I'm fighting for YOUR freedom!
Message:
Get lost, will you? Go find some friends to pester. You haven't made many here and no, it's not because you're a 'freedom fighter' (or not, depending on which post I read). People don't like your unctious prissiness, is how I see it. That, coupled with the fact that you don't have any real reason for being here -- which fact is apparent by what you post about -- makes people get sick of you. I'm sick of you and I just got back from a vacation!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:43:52 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: In denial Jim? (nt)
Message:
Gotta type something just to n't' you off! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:34:47 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: And Jim is STILL avoiding the issue!!!! (nt)
Message:
And analogy is not equation!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:18:09 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I apologized for the metaphor, but now you're
Message:
I apologized for the metaphor, but now you're off and running with a new attack. Bullying is not OK on any scale, and the same principles are in operation. No, I am not at all suggesting that what I am doing can compare with what the freedom fighters did, but anything to avoid the issue Jim?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 14:56:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Stonor, you must be a terrible teacher
Message:
Really, Stonor, I've thought a bit about this. You would be the last person I'd ever want to teach me anything. Look how dishonest you are!

No, I am not at all suggesting that what I am doing can compare with what the freedom fighters did, but anything to avoid the issue Jim?

First of all, there is no 'real issue'. I'm not about to start answering your questions about site policy or modifications. I think you have no business being here and have long overstayed your welcome as a casually interested new age gadfly.

But your saying that you're 'not at all' comapring yourself to WWII freedom fighters when that's exactly what you did is bizarre. You're too much, Stonor. Now you cna call this 'bullying' or whatever you want but I think you should find some web site that really does have some relevance to your life. This one doesn't and it's apparent in the ways you occupy yourself here. Because you don't have any real interest in the subject matter here, you just waste your time and everyone else's trying to drum up something you can get into. You simply shouldn't be here. You really are someone who should consider 'getting a life' as yours has nothing to do with Maharaji.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:01:12 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: How easily you pass judgement on what you know nil
Message:
Sorry, no room to for 'nt' and I don't like to blow my own horn, but you have no idea how wrong you are. There, I guess this isn't an 'nt' after all! ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:10:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: I judge comfortably based on what I see
Message:
Stonor,

Here's what I've seen so far:

1) On more than one occasion you've demonstrated that you don't reason well. You've offered some perfectly confused analogies and have responded just as innaccurately to others.

2) You try to hide from your own mistakes jsut as you did ehrre with that ridiculous WWII freedom fighter analogy. That, alone, is a terrible sign in a teacher.

3) You're far too new age to think clearly anyway.

4) Your personality seems way to prickly for a comfortable give and take such as good teaching requires.

Well, that's just my opinion. I'm sure you have your supporters and you apparently have a job. But yes, that's my opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 00:37:32 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'm so HAPPY you'll never be in my class Jim!
Message:
I've had enough of bullies like you, they get damn tiresome as they work so hard to prevent anything productive from taking place. And, as I've already said in a post a couple of months ago, problem is, most teachers in adult ed are too nice to stand up to them, and it has been getting out of control.

Get the analogy? ;-) If not, I can't be bothered elaborating ... some students I've learned I just have to give up on, at least for a while. :-) Maybe another teacher will be more effective with you. I wish you both luck.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:45:40 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Stonor still waking up ...
Message:
I'm not trying to give 'guidance', but I'm not sure what I'm trying 'to do'. And I haven't ever said that I am trying 'to do' anything. But, .... whatever.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:03:53 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Semantics girl, semantics
Message:
I just meant that whatever reason you have of posting here, be it guidance, commentary or whatever you want to call it. There's no need to split hairs.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:17:34 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: OK, take it easy boy ...
Message:
but that's not the vibe I got off your post, nor your terminology. You can read into them whatever you want, what can I do, right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:15:05 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: A non-anything! I knew you all would catch on. NT
Message:
NT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:40:25 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Shroomananda
Subject: So is three days as long as you could manage..
Message:
..before needing another fix of forum-sniping?

Thursday 31, in melodramtic sign-off, Shroomananda wrote:

. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I have caused you. I will not post again unless I really feel it necessary and then only with all due respect and forethought.

Seems strange that this apologetic cult-apologist - and one who has reported a wondrous merging with the infinite light should still feel such a ceaseless, incontinent need to spread his irritation and rage over a mere web-board. And a web-board where posters neither need his opinions, share his opinions, nor will be remotely persuaded by his opinions. Ever.

How about 'get a life', Shroom?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:47:12 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: So is three days as long as you could manage..
Message:
Ever heared of a night shift worker studying Computer Networks and Garaduated from Berkely. Get of it Shroomi the Broomi.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:23:10 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: It fits the profile just right
Message:
Now come on. Just look at the pics I've found of Shroomananda and tell me if that isn't an ex Berkeley graduate.

Click here to see that superior air of Berkeley

There's no doubt that he's refined and intallectually superior to this rabble. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:23:48 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: a 'non-anything'
Message:
A 'non-aspirant' and a 'non-ex-premie'
and a 'non-ex-aspirant'.

Does that makes someone a 'non-anything'
(aka a 'non-premie')?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:09:42 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: a 'non-anything'
Message:
They were Stonor's own words used in a description of herself in prior posts .

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:18:18 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: a 'non-anything'
Message:

They were Stonor's own words used in a description of herself in prior posts.

I already knew that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:19:40 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I should have known nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:35:35 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: meaning? nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:06:33 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: meaning? nt
Message:
You seem to be a know all. Are you familiar with that expression? You asked when I'm sure you must have Known what I meant .
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:20:40 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Why is she here, Shroom?
Message:
Do you know? Stonor doesn't seem willing to offer any information. Maybe you can tell us.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:00:45 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I think she's attracted to Maharaji and/or
Message:
Knowledge. All you guys talking about Maharaji and your 'cult' experiences has tweaked her curiousity. She sees the energy and passion here and wants to get a dose herself. But I think she's stuck in her intellect and can't feel what you and others are talking about. So she tries to 'teach'. She doesn't understand how powerful the forces are that motivate people here. Both positive and negative. That's why I've challenged her in the previous posts. To go beyond the intellect where the soul/spirit resides in stillness and joy. Or in righteousness and indignation. Whatever.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:53:25 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Let me quote myself from a post to DD, Shroom ...
Message:
I THANK GOD I NEVER GOT 'KNOWLEDGE'!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:07:07 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? You don't know do you?
Message:
You haven't really investigated it, have you? Have you listened to what Maharaji has to say recently, if at all? You know what ignorance means, Stonor? To not know. You don't know. You're just guessing. It's a pity. Why ARE you here, then? You don't want Knowledge yet you don't know what it is. Yet you come here to do....what? Exactly? Do you even know why you come here?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:43:01 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? You don't know do you?
Message:
Well, I've investigated it and I know; I'm not ignorant on the subject and I'm telling you that squeezing your eyeballs, sticking your thumbs in your ears, hyperventilating and drinking snot are not going to bring you any closer to THAT experience than taking a nap.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:50:15 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Yeah, well, you could be nothing more than an
Message:
ignorant preacher. But I support you in that most 'worthwhile' endeavor. You're probably a really nice guy. But what do I know? I'm following a 'con' artist who recommends that I squeeze my eyeballs and drink my snot. But I guess I haven't seen the 'light', right, Preach?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:10:01 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: I think that you are less than honest...
Message:
Shroomananda wrote: 'But I support you in that most 'worthwhile' endeavor.'
You have not shown any support for anything I do; you use the word preacher as a derisive term, you insulted the people of Panamá, you mocked my Native American heritage, and you attempted to use some strange metaphor involving tropical fruit. You spew your inane satsang (which is not the company of truth when coming from your mouth), you evade any serious questions by chanting the words 'free gift...I enjoy listening to Maharaji.
Don't insult me and the participants of this forum with your false claim of support for anything except M's lies.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 06:18:57 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: What serious questions have you asked me,
Message:
Preacher? I've seen nothing to your posts but dissing Maharaji and Knowledge. You're so enlightened. Tell me, what's this life all about anyway? Why did Christ die for my sins? Why am I still sinning? What is the word of God? You're a dogmatic, small-minded 'cult' member from what I've seen. Do enlighten me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 21:16:39 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: I have asked you many questions
Message:
I have asked you several questions, serious questions, yet you prefer to give flippant answers and then move on to your next disturbance rather than give thoughtful answers. I have also answered your questions, and you have ignored the answer or given a less than honest response. Do you remember asking me about the collection plate at my church after I asked how M was helping make the world a better place? You made a reference to M housing and clothing people in the ashrams. There were enough reponses to the ashram reference from former ashram members that I need not explain the mistakes in that line of thought, but I noticed that you did not respond to my discusison of what happens to the money at my church as opposed to what M does with money. The money at San Cristóbal does not support anyone's opulent lifestyle, no matter what you tried to infer.
I have asked you about the fact that there is a good chance that M doesn't know you from Adam, and you claimed that I wanted to have a Tea Party with him (believe me, I don't want to be anywhere near him!). It is my understanding that a teacher and student must have some kind of relationship, some give and take, yet if the teacher has no idea that the student exists, I don't think one can consider that a relationship.
I still say that you are less than honest about your presence here. You rarely answer any questions put to you; instead you toss off a one-liner and move on to some other statement. You claim that you experience peace, but your actions and words betray otherwise. You call me a small minded religious fanatic, and you make rude references to Christianity, but really, look at the history of our posts: I rarely talk about Jesus here. When Elaine posted a question about the Holy Spirit, I presented one of several views according to Christianity. I was attacked by you and some self-proclaimed Unitarian. You made claims about the 'Aquarian Gospel of Christ' and I responded. You made comments comparing Jesus and some 'Past Perfect Masters' and I disagreed strongly to your comments and claims. You claimed that Jesus said 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within you' and I showed, with several translations, that this claim was incorrect. I think that you have made more claims and comments about Jesus than I have at this site. I did say that Jesus did not teach 'Knowledge' and you became a bit un-glued, but I will continue to say this because it is true.
I have never claimed to be an enlightened being; I have never claimed to have all the answers. You claim that you have the Knowledge of God, and I say that you have nothing but some meditiation techniques. You say that M is special, and I disagree. I have been less than kind at times about your Master, that is true, and you have been quite nasty about my vocation. We will continue to disagree, because I do not respect your sources or your claims, and you don't respect anything about me. You can continue to claim to have that peace, that love, that experience, but your posts and attitude say otherwise.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:00:34 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Michael
Subject: Fine, Preacher, here's some answers.
Message:
Michael wrote:

I have asked you several questions, serious questions, yet you prefer to give flippant answers and then move on to your next disturbance rather than give thoughtful answers. I have also answered your questions, and you have ignored the answer or given a less than honest response. Do you remember asking me about the collection plate at my church after I asked how M was helping make the world a better place? You made a reference to M housing and clothing people in the ashrams. There were enough reponses to the ashram reference from former ashram members that I need not explain the mistakes in that line of thought, but I noticed that you did not respond to my discusison of what happens to the money at my church as opposed to what M does with money. The money at San Cristóbal does not support anyone's opulent lifestyle, no matter what you tried to infer.

Shroomananda responds:

If I've given flippant answers to you, Preach, then it's only because I've perceived a disdain from you about Maharaji and Knowledge. Also you make statements as if they are facts and I particularly dislike people who claim something as a fact without proof. It's one of my pet peeves.

Let's look at that ashram thing. I read Marianne's journey last night. Let me ask you, Preach, if Marianne had not received Knowledge and had the support of ashram life, where do you think she'd be today? I know that it's a speculative question, but it seems to me that as a 16 year old druggie high school dropout, she would not have been able to get to her position of death row attorney without a dramatic turnaround. I think the ashram provided her with sanctuary at a time when she desperately needed it and she was able to turn her life around. I'm know there are many more stories like that because I've met many ashram premies who now claim that because of the support they received there, they were able to make something out of themselves.

Okay, you feed and clothe a few people. And the donations allow you to live a lifestyle. Maybe not opulent but you do eat food and clothe yourself and so you are being supported, are you not? What kind of car do you drive? And what difference does that make? Maharaji is in charge of a world wide organization that produces videos, sends instructors around preparing people for Knowledge, rents convention centers and first class venues, broadcasts satellite events and many other numerous expences associated with his work. His lifestyle is only a small part of that, but for you to compare your small parish in Panama with what he's done and is doing in the world to make Knowledge available to people is simply ludicrous. If that is flippant or less than honest, then so be it. That's how I feel.

Michael wrote:

I have asked you about the fact that there is a good chance that M doesn't know you from Adam, and you claimed that I wanted to have a Tea Party with him (believe me, I don't want to be anywhere near him!). It is my understanding that a teacher and student must have some kind of relationship, some give and take, yet if the teacher has no idea that the student exists, I don't think one can consider that a relationship.

Shroomananda responds:

Yeah, well, if Maharaji doesn't know me from Adam, then I'm perfectly fine with that. He's seen me countless times at events and I've done service where I was right next to him. Maybe he doesn't know my name, which I doubt for reasons I won't get into here, but what does that matter to me? He knows my face. I know his. As far as your 'understanding' of what a relationship must be between a teacher and a student, I'm very comfortable with my relationship with him. He gave me Knowledge and I practice it. He speaks and I listen. It kind of works out really well in my never to be humble opinion.

Michael wrote:

I still say that you are less than honest about your presence here. You rarely answer any questions put to you; instead you toss off a one-liner and move on to some other statement. You claim that you experience peace, but your actions and words betray otherwise. You call me a small minded religious fanatic, and you make rude references to Christianity, but really, look at the history of our posts: I rarely talk about Jesus here. When Elaine posted a question about the Holy Spirit, I presented one of several views according to Christianity. I was attacked by you and some self-proclaimed Unitarian. You made claims about the 'Aquarian Gospel of Christ' and I responded. You made comments comparing Jesus and some 'Past Perfect Masters' and I disagreed strongly to your comments and claims. You claimed that Jesus said 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within you' and I showed, with several translations, that this claim was incorrect. I think that you have made more claims and comments about Jesus than I have at this site. I did say that Jesus did not teach 'Knowledge' and you became a bit un-glued, but I will continue to say this because it is true.

Shroomananda responds:

Look, Preacher, I only responded to you when you said that Jesus never gave this Knowledge. You don't know yet you still state it as a fact. You and I weren't around then, were we? We don't know about Jesus's Knowledge, do we? That's why I'll continue to call you Preacher. You state something as fact that you believe is true, but you don't know.

As far as not answering questions and slinging one liners, be specific. You've answered every question and never used a one liner? Come on! You are the one who keeps responding to my posts. I rarely respond to yours. I think you're a dogmatic Preacher who thinks he knows something. The original Greek translation is 'The Kingdom of God is inside of you'. Get a Greek scholar like Richmond Lattimer instead of these fundamentalist translators you quoted.

Michael wrote:

I have never claimed to be an enlightened being; I have never claimed to have all the answers. You claim that you have the Knowledge of God, and I say that you have nothing but some meditiation techniques. You say that M is special, and I disagree. I have been less than kind at times about your Master, that is true, and you have been quite nasty about my vocation. We will continue to disagree, because I do not respect your sources or your claims, and you don't respect anything about me. You can continue to claim to have that peace, that love, that experience, but your posts and attitude say otherwise.

Shroomananda responds:

Okay, let's agree to disagree, Preacher. I don't really know you so I can't say that I dislike you. I do dislike dogmatic statements though. Maybe they are just some meditation techniques. But before Knowledge, I didn't see light withim me. After Knowledge I did and still do. Since the Bible says that 'God is light and in him is no darkness' and 'the Kingdom of God is inside of you', I feel that the Knowledge that Maharaji gave me may be the Knowledge of God. I feel peace, love, joy and clarity within me. You know, that stillness. You don't? Fine. You don't want to? Fine. If sometimes my posts don't reflect that experience, then so be it. I still have darkness, anger, hatred, discontentment, etc, within me too, and maybe they come out once in awhile. Thank God I also have the good qualities too. That's what I need to focus on. But Jesus showed some anger and frustration at times, didn't he, Preacher? Not that I'm comparing myself to him but he is one of my ideals. He did throw the moneychangers table over, didn't he?

By the way, Lotus Eater in a response to your post up above to Marianne questioned why you would go from one 'cult' to another. Good question, don't you think, Preacher?


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 23:35:59 (GMT)
From: Michael
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Fundamentalist translations?
Message:
Well, you certainly tried to answer, and for that I'll give you credit. You, too, are incredibly dogmatic and sure that you are right, but can't see it.

I must say that your attack on the translations of the passage from Luke does exhibit your ignorance, but, I've tried, I provided several translations accepted by reputable scholars, and I have even read the Greek myself, but you want to believe that the Kingdom of God is within you, so, have fun.

If you really are interested in why I am not in your cult, read my journey. Of course, you aren't really interested.

I want to say that I am finished with trying to reason with you, but that would be giving up and would mean that I believe that you are beyond hope. You bring me very close to that point, as I find it exhausting to try to reason with unreasonable people. i'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by insulting the sources you consider legitimate, but your are a mystic and I am living in the real world. And I am trying to improve the real world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:19:56 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Looking for an easy mark, shroom?
Message:
Sounds like you are trying to do a number on Stonor, making her doubt her perception of rawat simply because she hasn't sat down and had THAT experience.

Well you know what, you really should leave her out of it then, and concentrate on the rest of us who have had THAT experience. I have, in fact - are you ready for this - I still do have THAT experience, whenever I want, actually.

Yes, it is nice, sometimes it is awesome, and probably well worth $29.95. It's neat, sure. Probably on a par with the pleasure a dog gets from licking its own balls.

But do I think I should 'dedicate my life' to that man, or make monthly donations to him, or support his lifestyle of yachts, mansions, reverance and worship? No, I do not. I also know now that I could have gotten THAT experience from any one of a dozen or more teachers, none of whom would have required me to wait five months, attend nighlty meetings, sing worshipful Hindi songs or kiss their sweaty feet.

Its the cult surrounding this 'simple experience' which is the problem, nit the experience itself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:39:01 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Good post Rob....his feet weren't sweaty .....
Message:
that was the dribble of a few thousand premies. YUK! No wonder a lot of folks came down with a virus after a 'festival'.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:19:47 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Shouldn't you 'Know'? Don't you have 'K'? (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:23:14 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Just because I have Knowledge doesn't mean that
Message:
I'm clairvoyant, Stonor. Of course, if you had investigated Knowledge and Maharaji you would have known that. So I ask again. Why ARE you here?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:27:55 (GMT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: You just don't get it do you?
Message:
You are in no position to ask ANYONE why they are here. All you do is spew out paragraph after paragraph of the same old crappy satsang we are sick of. Who asked you to do that? Have you no sensitivity to your reception here, or do you just not care? You really sound like a Jehova's Witness. What is your brief here, propogation by brute force? Counter all criticisms of your lord and master by sheer volume? We've heard your stroy, we know all about your wonderful experiences, so now what? Follow your lord's example of repeating it over and over in the hope that someone will eventually get brainwashed enough to join/rejoin the flock?

I'll give you a hint: it's not going to work. In fact, you are going to get people so pissed off you may just get voted out. Or is that your true purpose? To just fuck with us and piss us off? Its beginning to look that way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:52:38 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: Sorry Shroom - no sarcasm emoticon.
Message:
I've already explained once today why I'm here, and I've never heard you explain in any way why you are here at any time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:08:50 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Oh, I've told my story, Stonor. Why don't you go
Message:
back and read some of my first posts? Besides, I have the Knowledge that Maharaji gave me and all of the others here. They're expressing themselves about it the way they now feel. And I'm expressing myself. WHY ARE YOU EXPRESSING YOURSELF? That's all I'm asking. And you still haven't told me or anyone else here. I've read your posts. I end up scratching my head. What's her experience? It sounds like mumbo-jumbo intellectualizations, to me. Are you looking for the TRUTH? Are you looking for peace? Are you looking for happiness? Are you looking for a good argument? Enlighten me. I'm open. I'd love to hear your true feelings.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:16:07 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE Mr Mushroom man?
Message:
I guess you come here for a good argument; a bit of the old mental stimulation. I mean, it gets pretty boring trying to meditate and be holy all the time.

Better watch it though. You might come down to our level. Mind you, you've got the saviour of mankind to help you if that happens.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:34:12 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I agree with Shroom
Message:
I think he makes a good point. He's a premie arguing with exes. That makes sense. Stonor's neither, nor was she ever an aspirant, yet she's as passionate about this place as all three. I think that's weird.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:14:41 (GMT)
From: Jenn
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Weird is relative, Jerry
Message:
Hi, Jerry

A long time ago, Jim was asking for premies to consider listening to an 'impartial observer' Remember that? He wanted someone with no cult involvement to participate in discussion of the cult and offer their opinions about it to premies. This would show that other people outside the realm of Maharaji think the whole thing is bizarre. (Which they do) Could Stonor be that person? The impartial observer?

Jennifer
P.S. By the way, I think World Championship Wrestling is weird.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:30:40 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jenn
Subject: Weird is relative, Jerry
Message:
Jenn:
Hi, Jerry

A long time ago, Jim was asking for premies to consider listening to an 'impartial observer' Remember that? He wanted someone with no cult involvement to participate in discussion of the cult and offer their opinions about it to premies. This would show that other people outside the realm of Maharaji think the whole thing is bizarre. (Which they do)

Could Stonor be that person? The impartial observer?

Jennifer
P.S. By the way, I think World Championship Wrestling is weird.

Hi Jenn,

Please check my 'Trouble and strife' post in this thread. For what it's worth.

JohnT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 14:26:52 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: All
Subject: It's all relative (joke) (OT)
Message:
cq seems to have been too busy to post his jokes lately, so here's one I just got via email this morning, and yes, its title is

It's All Relative

One fine day in Ireland, a guy is out golfing and gets up to the
16th hole. He tees up and cranks one. Unfortunately,it goes into the woods on the side of the fairway. He goes looking for his ball and comes across this little guy with this huge knot on his head, and the golf ball lying right beside him. 'Goodness,' says the golfer, and proceeds to revive the poor little guy.

Upon awaking, the little guy says, 'Well, you caught me fair and square. I am a leprechaun. I will grant you three wishes.'

The man says 'I can't take anything from you, I'm just glad I didn't hurt you too badly,' and walks away.

Watching the golfer depart,  the leprechaun thinks to himself, 'Well, he was a nice enough guy, and he did catch me, so I have to do something for him. I'll give him the three things that I would want. I'll give him unlimited money, a great golf game, and a great sex life.'

Well, a year goes by and the same golfer is out golfing on the same course at the 16th hole. He gets up and hits one into the same woods and goes off looking for his ball. When he finds the ball he sees the same little guy and asks how he is doing. The leprechaun says, 'I'm fine, and might I ask how your golf game is?'

'It's great! I hit under par every time.'

'I did that for you. And might I ask how your money is holding out?'

The golfer says, 'Well, now that you mention it, every time I put my hand in my pocket, I pull out a hundred dollar bill.'

'I did that for you too. And might I ask how your sex life is?'

The golfer looks at him a little shyly and says, 'Well, maybe once or twice a week.'

The leprechaun is floored and stammers, 'What?! Only once or twice week?'

'Well, that's not too bad for a priest in a small parish.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:10:36 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jenn
Subject: Weird is relative, Jerry
Message:
Hi Jenn,

Love your prose on Autumn. Seriously, you have a gift. Feel free to share it anytime. However, I don't think you've hit the mark with quite the same dexterity in calling Stonor an 'impartial observer'. As I've said to both Zelda and Sir David, she's anything but. She's an avid participant on this forum, and as far as I can see, she's got no good reason to be.

You're right about WWF. It's weird.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:20:36 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: And just what is your 'level', Sir Dave? Why
Message:
don't you 'enlighten' me?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:29:01 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: But you don't enlighten me either
Message:
Mr Mushroom. Except to fill me with satirical thoughts. You see, I've heard it all before. I know the score and I even know what your answer to that will be.

I'm not trying to enlighten you Mush. But you are trying to enlighten us. That much is clear. But you're failing miserably it seems.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:40:01 (GMT)
From: Shroomananda
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: I'm not trying to enlighten you or anyone else,
Message:
Sir Dave. I'm expressing myself. You have a right to express yourself. I support that. Even to the extent of publishing some satirical pictures or making inane comments. Why not? Freedom is what it's all about, is it not, Sir?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:15:36 (GMT)
From: Simon Satsang
Email: foaming@themouth.con
To: Shroomananda
Subject: I think she's attracted to Maharaji and/or
Message:
Right on bro'. I mean, we all know that it's the Lord who's calling her to his feet and she may think she's anti-Maraaji etc but it's his love and his grace that is bringing her to him.

Just like all these confused ex-premies who only think they are against Maraaaji and Co but again, it's his love and his grace which is letting them say these things and realise that perfection of the perfect master who is beyond criticism, beyond all beyonds and who,like the lotus flower, sits in the mud and filth of all these stinking, rotten people and just gives and gives and gives of his holy darshan (via satellite) and who is the divine, radiant incarnation of THAT love and THAT clarity etc etc.

The only reason why that divine manifestation of THAT bliss, THAT joy has not smashed all these people's heads in with THAT divine hammer of Fakiranand is because he is above these filthy, disgusting moronic people who are the ex-premies and like the elephant walking through the village with the barking dogs, he does not even turn his head to acknowledge these pathetic excuses for people who have nothing better to do than take cheap jibes and snipes at the perfect Lord of the Universe without whom, this world and all the people in it would not exist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:06:07 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Shroomananda
Subject: You're so phony (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:13:51 (GMT)
From: hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: a personal insult? nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:15:30 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: hal
Subject: No, I think 'Shroom' is a hoax (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:22:00 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: you criticised me for making a comment about..
Message:
Stonor yet you make a blatent judgement of someone and then deny it. Jim's right. There is a lot of hypocricy going on. Like judging someone for being judgemental.

I dislike self righteousness in myself and others.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:28:21 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: no
Message:
I really do think that 'Shrooom' is a hoax.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:32:22 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Well I really think that
Message:
Stonor causes disruption and distraction. What's the diff ?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 20:04:36 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: That is a very good question, Jerry, one which
Message:
I have asked her several times. She certainly has become a disruptive element here and I can understand why some see her as a 'premie plant.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:13:59 (GMT)
From: who cares
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: premie plant?
Message:
pure paranoia.

It does not matter whether she had experience as an aspirant or premie! That she found her way here, indicates interest and therefore qualifies her to be here to discuss 'anything and everything about M and his followers'!?

What are you afraid of?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:03:50 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: who cares
Subject: Really? Have you consider being wrong?
Message:
Is ridiculos that this character that nobody knows can use this forum ALL THE TIME to preach, critique and correct everybody just because.

Funny logic.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:57:39 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: who cares
Subject: premie plant?
Message:
pure paranoia.

Perhaps. But not necessarily. I can see how some people might think that she is a 'plant. Someone (or maybe two) mentioned it as a possibility. I don't think she is. But I am confused as to why she is here.

does not matter whether she had experience as an aspirant or premie! That she found her way here, indicates interest and therefore qualifies her to be here to discuss 'anything and everything about M and his followers'!?

This is really loose thinking. I disagree with your statement. That would mean that anyone could wander in from cyberspace and be immediately 'qualified' to make judgements upon and dictate policy here. Does that really make sense to you?

t are you afraid of?

I don't understand what you mean. And this is a device similiar to 'So when did you stop beating your wife?' I refuse to fall for such a simplistic and obvious baited trap. Can't you do any better than that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:34:02 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: dictate policy?
Message:

who cares:
...discuss 'anything and everything about M and his followers'...

gerry:
That would mean that anyone could wander in from cyberspace and be immediately 'qualified' to make judgements upon and dictate policy here. Does that really make sense to you?

What you are saying doesn't make sense. Discussing things doesn't give someone any power to dictate policy. Do you think a 'non-anything' has no right to make comments on what goes on here? That sounds like 'Shroomananda' saying Stonor can't say anything about the cult. Maybe I should get a co-worker to post some comments.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:58:48 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: it's really endless with you isn't it, G
Message:
And you are testing my new found civility to the max.

You know what I mean. The jibe comparing me to Shroom is nothing but inflammatory and divisive.

Cheap shot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:02:34 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: divisive
Message:
What do you mean 'divisive'?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:24:08 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: divisive
Message:
OK scratch that word. I won't defend my useage. But I'd like to present a challenge:

Who are you?

I'm Gerry Lyng and I live at 220 Beck Street, McCleary Washington, USA

Now who are YOU?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:10:52 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Gerry
Subject: Premie plant???!!!! Come on Gerry, not you too!!?
Message:
Why is it that if people tell a lie long enough around here, people begin to think it might be true? Mili thought I was an ex who was faking my dialogue with him!! (As if I'd have bothered) Ask Deputy Dog if you think I might be a premie - don't you remember when he tried to propagat me, among others?! Get a grip!! Who cares?!!! This is yet one more reason why I don't like 'cults' of any kind. I am who I am. I can't be bothered to keep on going through this. You tell me how I can prove that I'm the non-anything that I've always said I am and I'll do it. You have my email address. And here I am contributing to more of this mindless babble that is doing nothing but avoiding the issue. I have to get back to work - I am not 'avoiding' anyone's challenge, but I have personal responsibilities to take care of.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:25:52 (GMT)
From: who cares
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Premie plant???!!!! Come on Gerry, not you too!!?
Message:
You said:I am not 'avoiding' anyone's challenge, but I have personal responsibilities to take care of.

Me too. more later perhaps. The sun just came out and I am going to get into its rays with my family and enjoy the beauty and freshness of the day.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:13:59 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Stonor, read my post to G below, 'assumptions'
Message:
I wish you would clarify some of things people have been asking you about all day. But you do what you want.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:23:38 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Stonor, read my post to G below, 'assumptions'
Message:
To what end Gerry? How many times will I have to do this? Why does it matter? I had a friend who got busted in Lima, to at least some extent thanks to premies, and wasted months emailing a premie who said he wasn't really one. I've been propagated on by countless cults and guru trips and felt alienated in every yoga/meditation class I've been in, from Buddhist to Christian, because I haven't been 'one of them'. And as I've said before I've come to care about alot of the people here and been very saddened by their experiences, but I've become equally saddened by the atmosphere here, which I think could be better if more premies and aspirants are to escape the m-machine. I hope that's good enough, because now I want to go get drunk, but I have too much work to do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 21:34:27 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: assumptions
Message:
gerry,

You are assuming that if someone wasn't an aspirant or a premie then they weren't affected by m. There are such people. Stonor is not a premie plant. There is no forum rule saying that a person has to give a detailed justification of their being here or even any justification at all. JohnT wasn't a premie and I don't think he was an aspirant either. I don't see people repeatedly asking him why he is here.

G

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:09:12 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: assumptions
Message:
There's a big difference in the quality of JohnT's communication and Stonor's. But I am very curious why JohnT is here and I've been meaning to ask him.

That said, I think he contributes to the conversation in a positive, meaningful way whereas Stonor seems to stir up dissention and negativity.

Of course people other than premies or exes were and are affected by the cult. Families of cult members, for example. I understand this. Perhaps Stonor has a family member or a friend that was a cult member? Other than that (well, maybe an employer) who else in your opinion would be affected by Rawat?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 12:14:28 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Trouble and strife
Message:
Gerry: There's a big difference in the quality of JohnT's communication and Stonor's. But I am very curious why JohnT is here and I've been meaning to ask him.

That said, I think he contributes to the conversation in a positive, meaningful way whereas Stonor seems to stir up dissention and negativity.

Of course people other than premies or exes were and are affected by the cult. Families of cult members, for example. I understand this. Perhaps Stonor has a family member or a friend that was a cult member? Other than that (well, maybe an employer) who else in your opinion would be affected by Rawat?

JohnT: Thanks Gerry. I appreciate your comments, and I am glad for your favourable impression. That means a lot to me. To answer the question (I am very curious why JohnT is here and I've been meaning to ask him), it's the wife, Gerry.

As she puts it, MrsT 'received knowledge' in 1986 or 1987 from a lovely woman called Irene Hall at her home in south London, England. She says it was a comfortable, cosy and intimate session, very sweet, with only one other person present, a young girl.

She still likes to think of herself as a premie because to her the term means a lover of this life (not m); and of that love inside. She feels there are many paths to the same place. Many of her friends are still in the cult - I feel it is the network of friendships as much as anything that keeps her hovering somewhat in m's orbit.

MrsT and I met in 1992; and we married in 1994.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:58:34 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: assumptions
Message:

There's a big difference in the quality of JohnT's communication and Stonor's. But I am very curious why JohnT is here and I've been meaning to ask him.

You are stating your opinion as if you are in a position to pass judgement. You are not. What you're really saying is that you don't like what Stonor writes. Too bad. The fact is that people have repeatedly asked Stoner 'why are you here' in an accusatory way. Not so with JohnT, because those same people like what he writes. I like some of what JohnT writes, I dislike some of what he writes. I wouldn't even think of voting for him to be booted out simply because he wrote someone I didn't like. That would be a real attempt at censorship. He has a right to be here and so does Stonor.

That said, I think he contributes to the conversation in a positive, meaningful way whereas Stonor seems to stir up dissention and negativity.

I read 'stir up dissention' as meaning that people might actually stand up to the bullies here and see what they are doing. Too bad. And is if negativity started when Stonor showed up. Yea, some people are reacting negatively to what is being addressed. Too bad.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:19:53 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: assumptions
Message:
Funny, now YOU are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing!

You are stating your opinion as if you are in a position to pass judgement. You are not.

What, I can't state my opinion? I can't make judgements? How ludicrous!

What you're really saying is that you don't like what Stonor writes. Too bad.

I like some of what she writes. She and I have a civil if somewhat bumpy relationship and have communicated off forum by e-mail. 'Too bad' How puerile!

The fact is that people have repeatedly asked Stoner 'why are you here' in an accusatory way.

The fact is many people are genuinely puzzled by Stonor's involvement here. I don't read 'accusation' into each inquiry as you seem to do.

Not so with JohnT, because those same people like what he writes. I like some of what JohnT writes, I dislike some of what he writes. I wouldn't even think of voting for him to be booted out simply because he wrote someone I didn't like. That would be a real attempt at censorship. He has a right to be here and so does Stonor.

Who said they didn't? But I do feel some people should be blocked, and I don't care if you think that is censorship or whatever. This is not a democracy.

I read 'stir up dissention' as meaning that people might actually stand up to the bullies here and see what they are doing. Too bad. And is if negativity started when Stonor showed up. Yea, some people are reacting negatively to what is being addressed.

Well you read into it anything you want. I think Stonor goes way over board with the 'bully' stuff. I often have problems understanding her meaning. Lurkex, I got. Different communication styles. I certainly DID NOT react negatively to the discussion.

Too bad.

Ga ga goo goo

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:12:38 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Know what I'd like to see?
Message:
So when Gerry said this:

There's a big difference in the quality of JohnT's communication and Stonor's. But I am very curious why JohnT is here and I've been meaning to ask him.

and you replied with this:

You are stating your opinion as if you are in a position to pass judgement. You are not.

did you realize what a pompous jerk you sound like?

Let me get this straight. Gerry's in no position to pass judgement on the quality of someone, in this case JohnT and Stonor's, communication. Why? Because G says so. Okay, I guess. That's the end of that. Gerry should probably ask you for a complete list of what matters he can pass judgement on and hopefully eliminate further mistakes like this.

But then what do we have here?

You write:

I read 'stir up dissention' as meaning that people might actually stand up to the bullies here and see what they are doing.

which, to my eyes, looks an awful lot like your passing judgement on the quality of others' communication, in this case the 'bullies'.

Now am I missing something or do we have a little rank hypocrisy happening here? Clarify this will you please, G?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:16:36 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: see it
Message:
I'll clarify what I meant and how I see the situation.

By position I meant 'social standing or status; rank'. By 'pass judgement' I meant 'censor'. By 'in a position to pass judgement' I meant in a position to censor (by voting out of the forum) based on a perceived 'quality' of communication. There is nothing stated in the forum rules about such a 'quality', that if a participant's posts don't measure up to a few persons' lofty standards of excellence or adhere to their party line, then that participant can be booted out.

This calling Stonor a 'premie plant' is an attempt to dream up a justification for voting Stonor out of the forum. The real reason is simply that Stonor wrote some things that a few of the forum readers didn't like. It's an attempt to suppress certain views by a perceieved threat of excommunication. It reminds me of a post of yours a while back when you wrote 'Who's next?' after a premie was booted out.

I'm critiquing, not passing judgement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:31:40 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: I don't see it
Message:
I have a very hard time discerning just exactly what Stonor means. I'm not the brightest bulb on the marquee but I'm not stupid either. I still don't understand why Stonor is here, how she got here, and what it is she would like to communicate. I also believe the onus is one the one initiating the conversation to make herself clear.

You are not making yourself clear to me in this post. What are you trying to say? Could you take it slowly and speak distinctly for us less intellectually gifted people?

I did capiche Lurkex just fine however, and took what she said to heart.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:12:46 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Know what I see?
Message:
I see a difference in interpretation of the way G used the word 'quality'. It was not, IMO, a 'judgement' on the quality of writing as a writing teacher might make, and an avoidance of the question G also asks.

But who asked me, right Jim?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:25:32 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Know what I see?
Message:
I can only guess what you're trying to say. Could you explain a little further please?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:07:51 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OK, I'll try again, but I can't speak for G
Message:
I can listen to a lot of music that is considered to be 'high quality' by many expert critics, but the intrinsic 'quality' of various music affects me in different ways. I listened to a piano competition once with a musician friend. All the contestants were, of course, very gifted pianists, but he was absolutely certain one in particular would win, while I felt that whoever won, one in particular affected me in a very special way - ps. my 'favourite' won.

As to my comment about G's other question, I can see why you'd have to guess. The posts above have gotten pretty confusing, at least to me because I don't have much time, but wanted to answer your question. I myself am quite curious as to why no one wonders and demands reasons for JohnT's presence here, which, from what I can read into his lack of an answer, is more tenuous than mine.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 15:39:30 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: You're not even on topic anymore (nt)
Message:
tttttt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 16:55:42 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Topic schmopic, you are myopic and don't
Message:
Topic schmopic, you are myopic and don't understand analogy. Must be the weak link in your chain of ill-logic. And you are as lost at the other end, as those premies you so redundantly laugh at, IMHO.

BTW, how 'on-topic' was/is this discussion of yours anyways?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:26:28 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: case in point
Message:

did you realize what a pompous jerk you sound like?

This is the type of bullying statement that is being addressed.

You might as well get used to it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:31:52 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: would you care to address the issues...
Message:
Jim has brought up? Otherwise it really looks like a cop out to me.

You are already very familiar with Jim's style of communication. And I for one am clear you consider him a bully. How about the issue of your rank hypocrisy? Jim's not the only one who noticed it. And yes you do come off very pompous and arrogant. And yes, that is my opinion and judgement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 23:30:05 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: You do come over as rather pompous..
Message:
Why is it so unnacceptable to say that? What's the big difference between that and calling someone a phony?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:18:47 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: G stonor, all
Subject: assumptions a ps to last post.
Message:
I meant to add that I don't think Stonor is a 'plant' but can understand why some people might thinks so. In fact, I think I said it elswhere but since everything is flaying so fast and furious here, I'll reiterate: I don't think Stonor is a 'plant.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:43:27 (GMT)
From: another
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: assumptions a ps to last post.
Message:
note he said(stonor) nt -no text and inside invites this person to go to life's fot, a premie forum. hmm

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 15:27:28
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Hercule Piroit
Subject: In context it was a pun on homo-erectus I think nt
Message:
Check out LaF

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:27:40 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: another
Subject: What????
Message:
There's more espionageish stuff than I've (n)ever read about here today.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 04:20:42 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: another
Subject: assumption?
Message:
Are you assuming that all who post at LaF are premies? That simply isn't so, there are ex-premies who post there.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:25:49 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Thanks Gerry (nt)
Message:
Wanna go get drunk?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 22:59:20 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: I could use a beer (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Sep 05, 2000 at 00:43:02 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: G and Gerry
Subject: I had a nap instead,
Message:
and just woke up from one of the longest, most detailed and strangest dreams I've ever had. LOTS of beginning part, but when I realized that the two puppets that wanted to do everything for me meant that I couldn't use my two hands myself, then I could knock over the dark menacing 'Slime' and he was 'Nothing'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index