Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 14:48:02 (GMT)
From: Nov 07, 2000 To: Nov 18, 2000 Page: 4 Of: 5


Mili -:- A Question for all of you Science Buffs -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:52:25 (GMT)
__ bill -:- A Question for all of you Science Buffs -:- Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:27:39 (GMT)
__ janet -:- i know someone who did. he can't repeat it. -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 06:47:03 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- So why start a new thread here... -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:13:11 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- So what's your motivation here... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 22:26:33 (GMT)
__ __ Salam -:- I know why -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:42:22 (GMT)
__ JohnT -:- A Question for all of you Science Buffs -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 21:14:43 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- I did this!!!! I was 10! -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:10:59 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- Stanley Miller -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:42:26 (GMT)
__ __ Mili -:- Stanley Miller -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:10:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Maybe no, maybe so -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:09:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Mili -:- Conscious machines ??? -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 14:53:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Conscious machines ??? -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:11:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Wiser to keep YOUR mouth shut sometimes, Mili ... -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 15:40:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- I'd side with Penrose on this any day now -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 20:36:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Oh really? -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 20:53:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What's your point? -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 00:18:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- If you didn't get it by now -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:52:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- If you don't get science by now -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:10:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- I'd like to see you get out of this one -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 13:40:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Simple enough to show it's possible in the lab... -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 22:14:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- There's nothing to get out of, Mili -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 16:40:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- I give up -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 17:39:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- OK, we'll talk about what you said -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 19:39:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- It was a joke -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 08:55:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Rape is a joke? -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:51:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- So you are saying -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:34:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- So you are saying -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 14:40:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- I can agree with that -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 15:28:47 (GMT)
__ __ gerry -:- book suggestion for Mili -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:33:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- How about 'Are You My Mother?' (nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:42:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Isn't it 'Twameva Mata?' ie 'You Are..' nt -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 00:29:11 (GMT)
__ Dr Reich -:- I created 'life' in the thirties -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:31:15 (GMT)
__ __ Mili -:- I subscribe to this -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:22:57 (GMT)
__ Sir Dave -:- A Question for all of you Science Buffs -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:02:14 (GMT)
__ __ cq -:- And THAT form of alien life was created by ... -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 15:43:05 (GMT)
__ __ Steve Quint -:- A Question for all of you Science Buffs -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:45:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Steve Quint -:- A Question for all of you Science Buffs -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:48:48 (GMT)
__ JohnT -:- Routine poetic response -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 14:14:35 (GMT)
__ __ Larkin -:- Hey - I do poems too...! -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:29:04 (GMT)

Brian -:- Ex-Premie.Org is Moving -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:10:35 (GMT)
__ Brian -:- An easy way to contribute - PayPal -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:13:11 (GMT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Paypal is only in the USA -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 09:37:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- They're now international, Dave -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 13:19:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Thanks for letting me know (nt) -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 15:14:37 (GMT)
__ __ Lurking poster -:- An easy way to contribute - PayPal -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 07:24:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ Brian -:- An easy way to contribute - PayPal -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 18:15:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- An easy way to contribute - PayPal -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 00:30:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Brian -:- An easy way to contribute - PayPal -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 03:49:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- I sent money with paypal -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:23:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- idea -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 17:35:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- I hate forms -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:50:20 (GMT)

Jethro -:- Sai baba exposed--link -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:10:27 (GMT)
__ Nigel -:- Thanks Jethro.. -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 18:50:05 (GMT)
__ __ Jethro -:- Thanks Jethro.. -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 19:51:45 (GMT)
__ Stonor -:- Great site! -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 05:21:12 (GMT)
__ __ Salam -:- Great site! -:- Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 16:11:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- Great site! -:- Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 22:39:29 (GMT)

goreous george -:- how many ex's does it take to screw in a light -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:54 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- how many ex's does it take to screw up... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:57:43 (GMT)

Jim -:- Continuing 'discussion' with Mili -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:12:46 (GMT)
__ John Stuart Mills -:- Continuing 'discussion' with Mili -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:06:11 (GMT)
__ __ Steve Quint -:- Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg? -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 06:27:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ cq -:- Seriously good answer Steve. Now 4 the tricky one -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:10:36 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Continuing 'discussion' with Mili -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:43:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ John Stuart Mills -:- Continuing 'discussion' with Mili -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:53:39 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- You, sir, are a genius! (nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:05:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Bimbo -:- You, sir, are not a genius! (nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:50:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Mission Imp-possible(nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 14:06:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bimbo -:- About mission Impossible(nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:20:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- About mission Impossible(nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:32:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Bimbo -:- About mission Impossible -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:58:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You, sir, are a genius! (nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:33:03 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Johm Stuart Mills -:- You, sir, are a genius! (nt) -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:07:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott -:- You, sir, are a genius! (t) -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:40:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ John Stuart Mills -:- You, sir, are a genius! (t) -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 03:33:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- No open discussion here? -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 18:13:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ J.S. Mills -:- No open discussion here (If you don't agree) -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 03:41:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- And you sir, prove exactly why it HASN'T changed -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:09:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ J.S.Mills -:- The media vehicle silly, not the main event! -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:33:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- No open discussion here (If you don't agree) -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:37:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ J.S.Mills -:- Open discussion :heres a bit ( don't agree?) -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 11:31:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Premie till summer of '98 -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 01:28:22 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Sorry but I really don't find him inspiring -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:13:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ J.S.Mills -:- Sorry but I really don't find him inspiring -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 21:25:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You, sir, are a genius! (t) -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:12:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ John Stuart Mills -:- You, sir, are a genius! (t) -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:44:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- You Sir, are dreaming (sigh) -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:28:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ J.S.Mills -:- You Sir, are a bad dream! -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:42:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- there is no new thing under the sun -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 14:20:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ J.S.Mills -:- there is no new thing under the sun -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 03:45:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- nothing new under the sun -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 07:56:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Malcolm Muggeridge -:- nothing new under the sun -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 11:39:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Your credentials, here, are your words -nt- -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 16:48:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ J.S.Mills -:- Your credentials, here, are your words -nt- -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 20:56:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- So Goodbye. -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 13:05:31 (GMT)
__ gErRy -:- I dunno know, Jim -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:44:00 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- The dumbing down of Mili -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:32:08 (GMT)
__ Peter Howie -:- Continuing 'discussion' with Mili -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:01:35 (GMT)
__ __ Jim -:- Very inner wrestling point, Peter -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 01:46:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ ham -:- Well if you'd actually BOTHERED to read Maturana -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 09:48:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well that's your opinion -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:35:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- ' just imagination' -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 21:41:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ stonor -:- Thanks for the link Jim, and hamzen ... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:10:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ stonor -:- Conversation and culture ... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 22:37:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ hal -:- and another one Ham-Go get 'em ! nt -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:45:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ Peter Howie -:- Very inner wrestling point, Peter -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:07:09 (GMT)
__ Patrick -:- Continuing 'discussion' with Mili -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:28:54 (GMT)

Patrick -:- This is topical! -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 19:11:09 (GMT)
__ Happy -:- nice post -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:55:55 (GMT)
__ Peter Howie -:- This is topical! -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:27:53 (GMT)
__ Curious George -:- Another Cracker! -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:52:58 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Interesting indeed -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 22:32:32 (GMT)
__ __ frodo -:- Giving-up fun was a waste of time -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:19:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ Stonor -:- 'desires' NOT 'desire's' -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:46:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- and yes, that should be discretion... -:- Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:12:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ National Enquirer -:- Sex at IHQ mid-70's -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:35:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Ben Lurking -:- Sex at IHQ mid-70's -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:48:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Disculta -:- Sex at IHQ mid-70's -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 02:04:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Katie -:- Celibacy pre-Montrose -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:43:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ TED Farkel -:- Celibacy pre-Montrose/Hard and fast ?oh yeah... -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:51:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ National Enquirer -:- Celibacy pre-Montrose -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:03:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Celibacy pre-Montrose -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:07:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's not how it was in Canada -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:46:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- That's not how it was in Hartford -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:15:45 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- That's horrible, Cynthia -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:49:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- In answer to your question, Katie -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:59:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- In answer to your question, Katie -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 15:10:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- So true, -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:52:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- So true, -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:57:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dv -:- So true, -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 00:58:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- I remember that song -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 15:41:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- more -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:02:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- see below (nt) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:08:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- I am so sorry that happened -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:43:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- in Miami it was both, from what I could tell -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:58:30 (GMT)
__ __ Patrick -:- Interesting indeed -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:36:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ ham -:- Corruption of innocence and loss of hope -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:10:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Envy's not necessarily bad -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:13:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Patrick -:- Envy's not necessarily bad -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:08:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- I hope I'm not intruding but I need some advice... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:12:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I hope I'm not intruding but I need some advice... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:22:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Jim..I'll email you -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:32:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Jim..I'll email you -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:37:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Jim..I'll email you(sorry) NT ABOVE ^^^ -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:34:01 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Jealousy and envy. -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:40:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ Peter Howie -:- On Jealousy and envy. -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:40:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ cq -:- That's a very personal interpretation, Peter -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:57:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Jealousy and envy. -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:44:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Jealousy and envy. -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:54:34 (GMT)
__ Bin Liner -:- .............his human weaknesses -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:32:15 (GMT)
__ __ Susan -:- interesting post -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:48:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ Bin Liner -:- Lack of integrity -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:17:27 (GMT)

Nigel -:- Reply to Mili from Inactive (consciousness) -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 18:01:18 (GMT)
__ Mili -:- Reply to Nigel -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:41:04 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Mili on 'consciousness' (and attitude to rape?) -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:43:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ Nigel -:- Mili's theory in full... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:46:53 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Or to be fair... -:- Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 00:11:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- And my reply... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:56:18 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Oh, for fuck's sake.... -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:04:37 (GMT)
__ __ hamzen -:- The problem is not your experiences but -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:26:20 (GMT)
__ __ __ curious prudent george -:- The problem is not your experiences but -:- Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 09:39:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- I disagree -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:44:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ Hal -:- Good post Ham Zen . -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:43:06 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- Thanks, Nige -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 19:21:36 (GMT)
__ __ Nigel -:- Thanks, Jerry.. -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 19:33:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Bush or Gore? -:- Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:36:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Or Danny D? -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:23:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hey, that's not fair! -:- Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 01:34:54 (GMT)


Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:52:25 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: A Question for all of you Science Buffs
Message:
From what I gather, it's a widely held belief in the scientific community that life could've arisen from some kind of 'primordial soup' in the conditions that prevailed on the Earth a billion years ago.

Does anyone know whether there has been an experiment performed to confirm this theory? I.e., has life been synthesized in a test tube somewhere as of yet? Is anyone seriously attempting to do it at all?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:27:39 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: A Question for all of you Science Buffs
Message:
I will try to find the paper I have on it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 06:47:03 (GMT)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: i know someone who did. he can't repeat it.
Message:
he doesnt know what led him to combine the things he did...but he succeeded. he's never been able to duplicate it or remember how he did it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:13:11 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: So why start a new thread here...
Message:
..talking about science (superficially) when ten seconds ago you said you had 'better things to do...' watching breath etc. (just like Shroom, SHP, Bjorn etc) ??

Don't you have a cult to go home to?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 22:26:33 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Mili
Subject: So what's your motivation here...
Message:
Hard evidence or loopholes?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:42:22 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I know why
Message:

His question is a leading one.

If you answer it then you come to the conclusion that in the beginning there were bugs, and the bugs turned into humans. That means there was no god, which also means that maharaji is the original bug, because without him nothing exists.

So there you have it. Blubber is a bug.

Salam poking his grey matter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 21:14:43 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: A Question for all of you Science Buffs
Message:
Panspermia just pushes the problem of the origin of life back further in the past - whether Earth was seeded by an alien sneeze or cosmic dust. My own feeling is it's likely that life erupts whenever it can.

In any case, the important things to note are

  1. replicating molecular systems exist

  2. and they evolve

The mystery is really the fact of life, not its origination. I favour the idea that surface adsorption onto fine clays played an intermediary role on the route to free floating systems.

But is it not an extraordinary universe where the very earth comes alive!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:10:59 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: I did this!!!! I was 10!
Message:
When I was 10 years old at the back of a comic book I ordered sea monkeys.

Yes, I did.

And you add water and there is 'life' in the test tube, glass whatever. But they do not look like monkeys at all, they look like little bugs, shrimp or something.

Three years later I fell for the Guru scam.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:42:26 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Stanley Miller
Message:
You could have found this yourself if you'd done a web search. But that's okay. I know thinking comes difficult to premies. But not to fear; once you let go of the gugu, it'll all come back to you :))

From The Origin Of Life On Earth

By the 1930s Alexander I. Oparin in Russia and J.B.S. Haldane in England had pointed out that the organic compounds needed for life could not have formed on the earth if the atmosphere was as rich in oxygen (oxidizing) as it is today. Oxygen, which takes hydrogen atoms from other compounds, interferes with the reactions that transform simple organic molecules into complex ones. Oparin and Haldane proposed, therefore, that the atmosphere of the young earth, like that of the outer planets, was reducing: it contained very little oxygen and was rich in hydrogen (H2) and compounds that can donate hydrogen atoms to other substances. Such gases were presumed to include methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3).

Oparin's and Haldane's ideas inspired the famous Miller-Urey experiment, which in 1953 began the era of experimental prebiotic chemistry. Harold C. Urey of the University of Chicago and Stanley L. Miller, a graduate student in Urey's laboratory, wondered about the kinds of reactions that occurred when the earth was still enveloped in a reducing atmosphere. In a self-contained apparatus, Miller created such an 'atmosphere.' It consisted of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen above an 'ocean' of water. Then he subjected the gases to 'lightning' in the form of a continuous electrical discharge. After a few days, he analyzed the contents of the mock ocean.

Miller found that as much as 10 percent of the carbon in the system was converted to a relatively small number of identifiable organic compounds, and up to 2 percent of the carbon went to making amino acids of the kinds that serve as constituents of proteins. This last discovery was particularly exciting because it suggested that the amino acids needed for the construction of proteins - and for life itself - would have been abundant on the primitive planet. At the time, investigators were not yet paying much attention to the origin of nucleic acids- they were most interested in explaining how proteins appeared on the earth.

Careful analyses elucidated many of the chemical reactions that occurred in the experiment and thus might have occurred on the prebiotic planet. First, the gases in the 'atmosphere' reacted to form a suite of simple organic compounds, including hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and aldehydes (compounds containing the group CHO ). The aldehydes then combined with ammonia and hydrogen cyanide to generate intermediary products called aminonitriles, which interacted with water in the 'ocean' to produce amino acids and ammonia. Glycine was the most abundant amino acid, resulting from the combination of formaldehyde (CH2O), ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. A surprising number of the standard 20 amino acids were also made in lesser amounts.

Since then, workers have subjected many different mixtures of simple gases to various energy sources. The results of these experiments can be summarized neatly. Under sufficiently reducing conditions, amino acids form easily. Conversely, under oxidizing conditions, they do not arise at all or do so only in small amounts.

Similar studies provided some of the first evidence that the-components of nucleic acids could have formed in the prebiotic soup as well....

Doubt has arisen because recent investigations indicate the earth's atmosphere was never as reducing as Urey and Miller presumed....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:10:09 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Stanley Miller
Message:
Jerry,

I know all about Dr. Urey's experiments with urea that revealed the 'primordial soup' to be a lot like urine. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist!)

What I am asking you is, has there been an experiment ever that has produced a living, kicking little bugger? To my knowledge there hasn't, and I don't think there ever will be one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:09:05 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Maybe no, maybe so
Message:
I don't know of any experiments that have created actual little 'buggers', but I know there is research being done in the AI field where they just might, just maybe, might create, someday in the future, and don't discount the possibility, conscious machines. I'm also aware that they're messing around with DNA computers, so who knows where all of this is going to lead to? We've just begun to explore the possibilities in this century. 500 years from now? 1000? It's a world I don't think we can even fathom, Mili.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 14:53:28 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Conscious machines ???
Message:
Sometimes it really is wiser to keep your mouth shut, Jerry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:11:04 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Conscious machines ???
Message:
Not so fast, Mili. Keep an open mind an get a copy of The Age Of Spiritual Machines before you open your own mouth too soon about it. Here's an editorial review:

How much do we humans enjoy our current status as the most intelligent beings on earth? Enough to try to stop our own inventions from surpassing us in smarts? If so, we'd better pull the plug right now, because if Ray Kurzweil is right, we've only got until about 2020 before computers outpace the human brain in computational power. Kurzweil, artificial intelligence expert and author of The Age of Intelligent Machines, shows that technological evolution moves at an exponential pace. Further, he asserts, in a sort of swirling postulate, time speeds up as order increases, and vice versa. He calls this the 'Law of Time and Chaos,' and it means that although entropy is slowing the stream of time down for the universe overall, and thus vastly increasing the amount of time between major events, in the eddy of technological evolution the exact opposite is happening, and events will soon be coming faster and more furiously. This means that we'd better figure out how to deal with conscious machines as soon as possible--they'll soon not only be able to beat us at chess, they'll likely demand civil rights, and they may at last realize the very human dream of immortality.

It's evolution, dude!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 15:40:02 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Wiser to keep YOUR mouth shut sometimes, Mili ...
Message:
... especially when the ideas you close your mind to are being taken seriously, viz:

http://www.science-books.com/nsplus/insight/big3/conscious/day2c.html

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 20:36:38 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: I'd side with Penrose on this any day now
Message:
If you read that article carefully, you'd notice that the 'conclusion' was just a lot of 'what ifs'. Face it dudes - wishful thinking is all that it is. Science fiction can be nice sometimes, though. I just saw the X-Men movie. The theatre was full of kids!

So I guess it's safe to say that no one has synthesized anything resembling a conscious, living thing in a laboratory so far.

Except Dr. Frankenstein, of course.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 20:53:30 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Oh really?
Message:
Here's the 'what if' you refer to Mili:

QUOTE:

'But what if we built a computer much more complex than any that humans could
design, Hillis asks, by letting evolution serve as the engineer? Such a computer--far
more powerful than any available today-- might well be capable of what we
recognise as intuition. ' ENDQUOTE
.
.
.
Is that idea beyond your potential comprehension, Mili?

Evolution (which Maharaji - like us - has only been the product of - or would you disagree?) has produced creatures that can envisage a higher intelligence. Yes?

Why have you taken the Maha to be that higher intelligence?

Or haven't you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 00:18:54 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: What's your point?
Message:
Mili,

What does the fact that nobody has created a real life Frankenstein prove? What does that give you licence to gloat over?

I'm assuming you're trying to make a point in this. Instead of us guessing what that is, why don't you come out and tell us, so we'll know what we're arguing about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:52:05 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: If you didn't get it by now
Message:
My point, Jerry, is that no one has witnessed life arising by itself from some kind of 'primordial soup', or performed an experiment to that effect, and yet a lot of people seem to take it for granted that this is what actually happened.

It's quite unscientific to embrace this sort of a belief as some kind of 'scientific truth' without the experiment to confirm it, isn't it? When all that it is, is just somebody's guess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:10:39 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: If you don't get science by now
Message:
It is not the case that scientific thinking demands experiments. Astronomy, for example, is unable to experiment on its subject matter, the stars. We do not need to be able to contrive stellar formation in a laboratory to gain knowledge and insight into the natural processes involved.

Nor do we necessarily need experimentation to confirm the knowledge we have gained by observation and understanding.

It is in foretelling the future also (and not just by predicting the results of experimentation; or yet even more narrowly, by being able to manufacture) that our understanding gains verification.

So it is for astronomy; and so it for evolution.

Remember dudes: GRAVITY'S a theory; EVOLUTION is a fact!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 13:40:52 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: I'd like to see you get out of this one
Message:
John T,

You said '...nor do we necessarily need experimentation to confirm the knowledge we have gained by observation and understanding.'

So, have you witnessed the origin of life, or can you name anyone who has?

What you are saying basically is, it hasn't been observed, it can't be verified by an experiment, but we know all about it anyhow.

I think you guys should all get a honorary PhD degree, or something.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 22:14:00 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Simple enough to show it's possible in the lab...
Message:
There have been rudimentary lab experiments involving the creation of RNA reactions which go on to replicate themselves over a number of generations. (I'll look up the references if you like.)

It seems wholly unnecessary to call in 'panspermia' explanations if the raw ingredients for life are present on Earth.

I predict we'll see new lab-generated 'living' organisms within our lifetimes, and many people will have to radically rethink what they mean by 'life' (and its so-called sacredness).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 16:40:38 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: There's nothing to get out of, Mili
Message:
JohnT: '...nor do we necessarily need experimentation to confirm the knowledge we have gained by observation and understanding.'

Mili:So, have you witnessed the origin of life, or can you name anyone who has?

What you are saying basically is, it hasn't been observed, it can't be verified by an experiment, but we know all about it anyhow.

JohnT: I'm saying you do not show any understanding of science, or the scientific method. Of course, it is possible to gain knowledge of the world through observation and understanding (without experimentation). In particular, one can do this without being able to manufacture the thing understood.

How could things be otherwise? You seem to be confusing scientific understanding on the one hand with the manufactured products of a practical engineering that could be built on the basis of that understanding (given sufficent interest and resources).

Very strange.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 17:39:53 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: I give up
Message:
Either you and I live in some different, parallel universes, or we attribute completely different meanings to the same words we use, John T.

Nice talking to you. Have a good day.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 19:39:14 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: OK, we'll talk about what you said
Message:
Mili's post to forum (Mar 28, 1998) to JohnK:

>>> M would sometimes speak about reincarnation, but it was always tongue in cheek. My theory is that consciousness is an intrinsic potentiality in matter which gets its fuller expression in higher life forms...
.
.
.
...Why don't you go do something more useful than write these inane posts here, like go get raped by a mahatma or something...
<<<

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 08:55:27 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: It was a joke
Message:
And a bad one at that, I admit. But changing the subject doesn't do you any good.

You don't know what the origin of life looked like and what it took for it to come about. Face it, dodo.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:51:09 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Rape is a joke?
Message:
What's your problem? I haven't changed the subject - they were your words in your post about the matter we are (ostensibly) discussing.

Jerry has answered you adequately already.

What I am showing readers is that you put overmuch store in a particular idea (that no-one has witnessed life emerging from non-living matter) when it really is not that significant an observation, to those who understand the scientific method, at any rate.

That is, the claim by which you set so much store really doesn't matter much in scientific terms (no-one has witnessed the birth of a star either -- but we can see around us stars in states that can be arranged in an evolutionary sequence of stellar formation. It is the same with the evolution of life).

Nor does it matter in terms of your Master's teaching.

So why the intense emotional involvement? You've made a rigid distinction between living and non-living matter into something that looms large in your mind. It has become so important to you that you 'joke' about the sexual violence of your Master's 'holy' men...

Now you have acknowledged your attachment to a particular idea (of the origin of life) lead you to make a particularly nasty joke. Good. But will you now apologise to John K for your nasty 'joke'?

Mili's post to forum (Mar 28, 1998) to JohnK


>>> M would sometimes speak about reincarnation, but it was always tongue in cheek. My theory is that consciousness is an intrinsic potentiality in matter which gets its fuller expression in higher life forms. A rock is less conscious than a sponge. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, is denying the belief that any life form is inherently 'superior' to any other. Who's to say thhat sharks, for instance, are not superior to human beings. They have evolved perfectly into a niche of the eco-system where they did not have the necessity to evolve further for millions of years. Why don't you go do something more useful than write these inane posts here, like go get raped by a mahatma or something...
<<<

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:34:29 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: So you are saying
Message:
that the origin of life has been observed?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 14:40:47 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: So you are saying
Message:
Mili,

The origins of life haven't been observed, no, and they're never going to be. Those origins are long gone, and far as we know, there was no intelligence yet evolved to watch them as they played out, so we try to put the pieces together in retrospect. It's all we can do. I, myself, am fascinated by the way scientists do this, by the way in which they apply reason to come up with a viable scenario. Are they wrong in what they've come up with so far? I don't know. Maybe they are. Maybe a hundred years from now there'll be new theories to replace the current ones. More likely, the current ones will just be refined to provide a more likely scenario. But curious minds are always going to inquire about those origins and try to figure them out. It's human nature.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 15:28:47 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I can agree with that
Message:
I have no problem with being fascinated by it all, and continuing to seek understanding. It's just that it's healthy to 'empty your cup' sometimes, as the old Zen saying goes, and admit that you haven't got it all figured out.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:33:13 (GMT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: book suggestion for Mili
Message:
You might like this book: The Light in the Skull by Ron Glasser, MD. Amazon reviews
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:42:42 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: How about 'Are You My Mother?' (nt)
Message:
gggggggg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 00:29:11 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Isn't it 'Twameva Mata?' ie 'You Are..' nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:31:15 (GMT)
From: Dr Reich
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: I created 'life' in the thirties
Message:

Iss this der same 'Mili' who tried to get my books burned in Latvia?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:22:57 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Dr Reich
Subject: I subscribe to this
Message:

Panspermia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:02:14 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: A Question for all of you Science Buffs
Message:
There have been many experiments auch as this. Recently scientists were able to create the organic proteins that are necessary for life but nobody has actually created life itself from dead matter.

A lot depends on what you call 'life' in this experiment. If a scientist could produce a strain of virus or bacteria from an organic protein then it would be right to say that life had been created where there was once none.

Simple bacteria could have been the beginnings of life here which eventually evolved into what we have today. In fact, life could have started on Earth by an visiting alien accidentally sneazing as he stepped out of his flying saucer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 15:43:05 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: And THAT form of alien life was created by ...
Message:
... OK, who farted?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:45:47 (GMT)
From: Steve Quint
Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com
To: Sir Dave
Subject: A Question for all of you Science Buffs
Message:
Thank you for settling the question of where m came from.

No wonder he's afraid of germs. His better side doesn't want that accident from occuring again.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:48:48 (GMT)
From: Steve Quint
Email: the_avenger55@hotmail.com
To: Everyone
Subject: A Question for all of you Science Buffs
Message:
Sorry, that should have read 'His better side doesn't want that accident to occur again.' I just woke up.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 14:14:35 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Routine poetic response
Message:

    Star Dust

    From base atoms in starry heat combined
    Flung far out to dust deep space;
    The cooling cloud in time,
    Contracts to earthly shape.

    In aeons slow, fine muds quick came;
    Warm waters solved the living code;
    By copy built atomic chains.
    Self-started, life evolved.

    Exploding stars our substance formed,
    And still, our fabric feels the light.
    Clay that felt no Godly hand;
    Earth walks on earth by right.

    No part's not mine, no part not yours.
    No Lord, no Boss to fuss and fight;
    We go by Natural Law;
    All Earth, All Ours, by right.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:29:04 (GMT)
From: Larkin
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Hey - I do poems too...!
Message:
When Adam delved and Eve span
Who was then the guru-man?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:10:35 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Everyone
Subject: Ex-Premie.Org is Moving
Message:
We're moving
Sometime before the 25th of this month, I'll be moving the site and its forums to a new server. There are 2 reasons for the move:

  1. Lack of any response from tech support in handling the problem that we're encountering with their servers that cause random posts to be unreadable for up to 8 hours after they are verifiably written to disk.
  2. Mounting financial penalties for exceeding our allowed 5 Gigabyte limit of data transfer per month. Last month we used over 12 Gig of the server's bandwidth. 75% of that was used by the forums, and 99% of that by Forum 5. There were over 185,000 messages read last month on this forum - with over 10,000 messages read on the busiest day.

While there is no guarantee that moving to another server won't cause some other server-based software problem to crop up, we couldn't get any worse support than now. At least we can hope to control costs by moving to one with a much higher limit on bandwidth use. Perhaps forum traffic will continue to grow beyond the new (very high) limit, but that's a problem that doesn't require me to spend hours on the phone undergoing musak torture.

The current plan is that at the time of the move, the forums will be locked to posting and become Read-Only for a few days. They will unlock after the move. Just like our current server, the new server allows scripts to run outside of a cgi-bin directory, so I'll try to set the forums in the same directory structure that they now have. That way the URL's will still be the same.

If for some reason I can't put them where they now are, you will find that you can access the site but your bookmarks for the forum don't work. In that case you can find the forum via the site page links - and then bookmark the new URL.

I'll be moving my own domain there also, since it's currently hosted by these same idiots. By moving it first, I can ensure that these forums will work there since the Recent Ex's forum is hosted on that domain and runs the same software as these (and has been dealing with the same error-free but empty file reads).

This will cost money
My appeal on this forum for funds to support the cost of maintaining this site on the web for another year is now in the archives, while people are freely abusing this resource to discuss the US elections - regardless of its intended use.

Of the many who read this forum, few responded to my appeal. Of those who did, 3 sent money. Since the cost of moving this site to a higher-bandwidth server is going to be higher than the money that already wasn't available to stay where we are now, I've spoken to the FA about the possibility of running banner ads on the 'Read Message' page whenever the site falls into the red. He likes the idea, but it's not something that I want to do - only something that I'm willing to look into to cover my costs.

Only one person sent a check in the requested format (made out to our current server), and that is being returned. One sent a check payable to me personally, and the other sent cash to avoid having to deal with the foreign exchange rates. However, since I have to pay the new server in a lump sum, it's probably for the best that only one contribution has to go back.

Previously the yearly cost (before bandwidth penalties) was $227.00 USD. The new server will cost $323, with an initial $20 set-up fee. We have less than half of that raised.

If anyone wants to help with the costs, it will be greatly appreciated. But you will have to make the payment out to me personally this time. If you have an issue with that, then don't volunteer. There is no way to offer an accounting to anyone that couldn't be faked anyway, and I have no desire to try to overcome anyone's suspicions. In the 3 years that Katie and I have run this site, we've yet to make a penny from it. At the moment, Katie is actually out $35 for having paid this year's domain name renewal fee.

Email me at: brian@ex-premie.org for a revised set of payment instructions if you want to contribute to the cost of keeping this site online - and this forum banner-free.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:13:11 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Brian
Subject: An easy way to contribute - PayPal
Message:
For those who responded and received the instructions on sending money to support the site (and to anyone else who would like to contribute), here is another way to send money other than by mail. It also serves as another source of income for the site.

Someone wanted to send it via PayPal, and so I signed up to be able to receive funds that way. After doing so, I was sent this auto-email from PayPal. If anyone has been wanting to sign up for their services, they can use 'brian@ex-premie.org' as the psrson who referred them, and PayPal will donate $5.00 USD to the cause.

Even Maharaji can donate this way :)

********************

Thank you for joining PayPal! To express our appreciation, we will add $5 to your account for everyone you refer to PayPal.

Just forward the email below to all your friends and family. When they click on the link to sign up, you'll get $5 as soon as they verify their account!

*************************

Did you know you can send money online with PayPal?

PayPal lets users send and receive money online. Use PayPal to split restaurant tabs, collect club dues, pay friends for movie tickets, or buy an item at an online auction. PayPal charges the money to your credit card or bank account. It's faster, safer and easier than mailing a check.

As soon as you sign up and complete the bonus requirements, PayPal will automatically add $5 to your balance!

We're confident you'll want to use PayPal, but if not, you can transfer the money to your bank account at any time. No strings attached. Click on this link to sign up and see for yourself:

https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=brian%40ex-premie.org

After signing up, you'll get an email like this to send to your friends and family. PayPal will give you $5 for each friend you refer. It's that easy!

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

'Best of the Web' - Forbes

'Using the service is actually safer than a check or money order.' - Wall Street Journal

'The beauty is that you can send money -- real money, not one of those gimmicky Internet currencies -- to anyone with an email address.' - New York Times

'PayPal can play a major role in your life. You can use it to pay for stuff at auction sites, settle dinner debts with friends or nudge your cousin to repay that $50 he borrowed at the family reunion.'
- Time

'This is truly one of the easiest services to use. Setting up an e-mail account at Yahoo! takes longer!' -- Internet.com

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 09:37:39 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: sirdavid12@hotmail.com
To: Brian
Subject: Paypal is only in the USA
Message:
Last time I looked at Paypal and got all excited about it, I went to sign up and then after signing up I read a bit of small print on the site that said the service is only available within the USA.

So if you're outside of America, you can't send or receive money by Paypal. It can only be sent by people within America to other people within America.

I find this one of the most irritating aspects of the web - many American sites think that America is the whole world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 13:19:40 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: They're now international, Dave
Message:
http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/approved_countries-outside will tell you more.

PayPal is now available in the following countries:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
France
Germany Hong Kong Ireland Israel Italy Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Singapore South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 15:14:37 (GMT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: Thanks for letting me know (nt)
Message:
x
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 07:24:15 (GMT)
From: Lurking poster
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: An easy way to contribute - PayPal
Message:
I just tried it and it looks like paypal wont give you $5 unless I sign up with a premier or business account--

a mere personal account wont work it seems--

plus it wont take my phone number.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 18:15:25 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Lurking poster
Subject: An easy way to contribute - PayPal
Message:
Sorry, guess I didn't read the fine print.

Oh well, for those who have/want it it's there to use.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 00:30:55 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: An easy way to contribute - PayPal
Message:
Brian:

I used it, but don't know how it would work for someone without a PayPal account. I can see how they might send a link that you can use to make the deposit into your PayPal account, but how would you get money if you weren't a PayPal customer? Do you print out a check?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 03:49:57 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Scott T.
Subject: An easy way to contribute - PayPal
Message:
I'm not an expert on PayPal, but the info is on their site under the 'Help' links.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 06:23:19 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: I sent money with paypal
Message:
Thanks Brian first for all your work on the site, and for making it easy to send money with the paypal account!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 17:35:22 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: brian
Subject: idea
Message:
I love ebay so that is why I am so comfortable with paypal.

I have an idea you might want to consider. You could have a permanent link to the paypal logo on the site for contributions. I know the very first time I found the site I would have sent something. On ebay it is pretty obvious you can get a paypal logo for your webpage to link them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:50:20 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Lurking poster
Subject: I hate forms
Message:
let alone filling electronic ones that half the world will know about. I am sticking to my original promise, kangoroo mail pal
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:10:27 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Sai baba exposed--link
Message:
Interesting link. Ex-premie.org is mentioned

http://www.saibabaguru.com/

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 18:50:05 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Jethro
Subject: Thanks Jethro..
Message:
For some reason I found no reference to ex-premie.org, at least where I'd have expected it to be, ie among the ex/anti-cult websites listed.

Also, I found the 'GOD IS WITHIN US' slogan on the home page both unnecessary and off-putting.

Still it's got some great links to vital information. Interesting that, like Lardy-arse before him, SB has declared the internet off-limits. I wonder how long before he'll have to about-face and get his devotees to set up an official Sai Baba site - if only as a damage-limitation exercise?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 19:51:45 (GMT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thanks Jethro..
Message:
Nigel,The ref to the ex-premie site is on the links page.

I agre with the rest of your post.
Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 05:21:12 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Great site!
Message:
Thanks Jethro,

That's a great site. I particularly enjoyed reading 'Krishnamurti' dissolves the Order of the Star, effectively resigning:

Here's a paragraph from it:

“I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 16:11:20 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Stonor
Subject: Great site!
Message:
This is another site that I found to be good

http://psg.com/~ted/bcskeptics/sbmir/contents.html

Excerpts :

The purpose of this study is to present, in summary form, the paranormal claims made about Indian guru and holy man Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and various investigations that have been done of them.

The summary is intended for two audiences: those who have heard of Sathya Sai Baba through the second-hand stories told by devotees, but who have not looked at the original sources of these stories; and those who are familiar with some of the writings of devotees but not with the literature of those who have made investigations of his claims.

For those who have a nodding acquaintance with the claims made by devotees, it may be helpful to have gathered in one place original sources of some of these stories. What follows is my collection of texts referred to by those who promote the claims of Sai Baba's psychic powers. Of course it is an abridgement; and any editor's selection is open to charges of bias. My rationale in selecting just this much of a much larger literature is that I am interested in just the paranormal claims, not the dogma of the religion. For the latter, the reader must refer to the sources listed in the bibliography.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 22:39:29 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Great site!
Message:
Hi Salam,

Hope you caught my explanation of the Cone of Silence before it disappeared into the abyss along with you-know-who, who has had at least 9 lives here! ;-)

Actually, I'd read about Sai Baba last spring when I was doing more surfing on the various guru-trips, and I've never been particularly interested in Sai Baba or the paranormal per se. As I wrote above - the Krishnamurti text was very interesting and actually has some relevance to your 'end of the age of gurus(?)' question you asked a while ago. There may have been something else there on that topic as well.

I've found the differences between the way various anti-cult sites are organized and the information they choose to post quite interesting as well. I think it's useful for sites like these to provide links to other anti-cult sites, as it helps the general pattern of cultic abuse to become more clear. But then, that's been my personal approach to the problem of all these things for a long time. I read broadly, find what seems to be consistent and relatively true, and in the process gradually begin to see a pattern of both the good and the bad.

But I will check out the site you mentioned - thanks!

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:54 (GMT)
From: goreous george
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: how many ex's does it take to screw in a light
Message:
sorry
misprint
meant to say screw up..
anyway..
the FINAL ANSWER IS:
none...
u can't...
now...which one of you brits voted for bush ?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 08:57:43 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: goreous george
Subject: how many ex's does it take to screw up...
Message:
...Divine Light Mission?

Not many Benny.

Anth the srewy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:12:46 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Continuing 'discussion' with Mili
Message:
In a post that soon went inactive, Mili side-stepped my accusation that he has no intellectual integrity by asking me the following:

Foget about different theories and interpretations of the world, Jim.
When you are asleep, and dreaming, are you still not breathing, just like you are when awake?

Yes. So?

Are you not still alive?

Yes. So?

That's the one thing that is constant - it sure qualifies as being 'real' to me.

How 'bout facing THAT squarely for a change, big boy?

Does anyone know what he's talking about? Is Mili really just saying that you're alive as long as you're alive? Is that possible, that he'd be saying that? Amazing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:06:11 (GMT)
From: John Stuart Mills
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Continuing 'discussion' with Mili
Message:
He is saying that you have no control or choice over your involuntary act of breathing ....stupid! It is the ultimate philosophical dilemma. The Mind Body problem . Chemico-brain reaction syndrome. Which came first , the chicken or the egg?
Who breathes you? Who controls that function?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 06:27:05 (GMT)
From: Steve Quint
Email: the_avenger@hotmail.com
To: John Stuart Mills
Subject: Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg?
Message:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

My friend who happened to be a 'premie' from 1971 to 1974 solved this one recently.

The answer:

Neither.

The rooster.

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:10:36 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Steve Quint
Subject: Seriously good answer Steve. Now 4 the tricky one
Message:
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?

Martin Luther King, Jr. : I envision a world where all chickens will be
free to cross roads without having their motives called into question.

Neil Armstrong : One small step for chickenkind, one giant leap for
poultry.

Carl Jung : The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt
necessitated that individual chickens cross roads at this historical
juncture, and therefore synchronicitously brought such occurrences
into being.

Timothy Leary : Because that's the only kind of trip the
Establishment would let it take.

Jack Nicholson : 'cause it fu*kin wanted to. That's the
fu*kin' reason.

Bob Dylan : How many roads must one chicken cross?

Colonel Sanders : I missed one?

Roseanne Barr : Urrrrrp. What chicken?

More at: http://www.whydidthechickencrosstheroad.com/

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:43:23 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: John Stuart Mills
Subject: Continuing 'discussion' with Mili
Message:
Have you never heard of involuntary muscles which are, nonetheless still controlled by the brain? Are you nuts?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:53:39 (GMT)
From: John Stuart Mills
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Continuing 'discussion' with Mili
Message:
Look Jim , my very proper Lawyer type person; you may well go to the grave argueing this one. There are whole Philosopy courses structured around this one! (as I was alluding to in my previous post).The real question is far more basic than even your petulant ,critical ,analytical mind can grasp. In the words of that giant of Science from yesteryear ,Dr Julius Summner Miller-

'Why is it so?'
So snap out of it Scrooge . On this one you are way out of your depth!Involuntary muscles huh? Do they keep working involuntarily when you die? I reckon your brain is definitely an involuntary muscle.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:05:31 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: John Stuart Mills
Subject: You, sir, are a genius! (nt)
Message:
fffffffffff
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:50:55 (GMT)
From: Bimbo
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You, sir, are not a genius! (nt)
Message:
Jim
I really feel sorry for you. Your posts proves that you never experienced the power of life.

And you stayed in the cult for 15 years?????? Really? What a wast of time.

Ask any person who almost died, or a person who understands something about life, and they will understand.

I think you are too stupid to understand anything at all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 14:06:12 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Bimbo
Subject: Mission Imp-possible(nt)
Message:
Bimbo:

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain the mind body conundrum to those of us with design confusion, such that we can apprehend the problem accurately and cast our electoral votes as a true reflection of what we actually think, rather than a true reflection of what we don't know how to think. In the mean time, we should wait for the absentee ballots from the involuntary muscles and nervous to come in before making any concessions, even though we presume from past experience that they will be similarly uninformed, ignorant, and just plain biased. At some point we will just have to call an end to this process, and declare a winner, for the good of mankind and the New York Stock Market.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 15:20:23 (GMT)
From: Bimbo
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: About mission Impossible(nt)
Message:
In trying to overlook the crap you write, I will try the mission impossible. Or will I?

With all respect, how can one explain the smell of a rose to an eximo.

Understanding is one thing, intelligence another. The way I see it, you are more intelligent than me, yet you lack understanding. Because understanding is based of something deeper than thoughts. It is im my perspective a combination of experience and comprehension that makes one understand.

This subject is about how life itself in its purest forms manifests itself in 'grosser' substance. In doing this the mystery lies in between these two 'layers'. I could try to explain to you, but since you obiously lack the experience to comprehend, there is no way to understand. If you experience it, it is easy to understand, if not it will be mission impossible.

The really stupid opnes are those who believe they understand , but have neither comprehension nor experience to reach the level of understanding. And yet they crap things up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:32:54 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Bimbo
Subject: About mission Impossible(nt)
Message:
Bimbo:

This subject is about how life itself in its purest forms manifests itself in 'grosser' substance. In doing this the mystery lies in between these two 'layers'. I could try to explain to you, but since you obiously lack the experience to comprehend, there is no way to understand. If you experience it, it is easy to understand, if not it will be mission impossible.

Ah, but you see I maintain that it is *I* who understand the secrets of the universe, and it is *you* who have have distorted and misinterpreted them. I am simply frustrated that I am not able to explain my profound insights to you. Alas... I think you must have prejudiced yourself, and I can find no remedy.

--Scott 'pure life in grosser substance' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:58:48 (GMT)
From: Bimbo
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: About mission Impossible
Message:
When you write; 'Scott 'pure life in grosser substance' T. ' it is obious to me that it is such a difference in our 'grasp' of reality , that reasonable exchange of perspectives are no longer possible. An discussion about this is meaningless.

End of story.

But just to repeat, there is a need for an 'I' to experience something and thus comprehend something that leads to an understanding. Sorry to say, but with no experience no real comprehension and no real understanding. And what concerns life, this is a 'to be or not to be' ongoing situation.

Bimbo the nonbrainer in good spirit

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:33:03 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You, sir, are a genius! (nt)
Message:
Jim:

I don't get it either, but that just means I'm too stupid to get it, not that the argument is invalid. I'm thinking about asking my brain for a recount.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:07:54 (GMT)
From: Johm Stuart Mills
Email: Next Semester: Hegel and the purpose of life
To: Scott T.
Subject: You, sir, are a genius! (nt)
Message:
Now studets we have suffered a little diversion here from the subject at hand- Metaphysics.. There is no 'I' in the experience of an involuntary muscular action. No control, no desire, no active direction. You become an objective observer whatever of whichever involuntary action you may be experiencing. Breathing is an excellent example. Ultimately so is death. An aethiest takes the behaviorist path and simply says 'Actions beget actions' (and hullo to Jim Heller here!)
Others may feel that the level of physical ,chemical and electro brain activity points to some form of higher intelligence ( A big goodbye to Mr Heller on that one!)
So back to Milli's point(No relation!).When you lose consciousness during sleep amd you continue to breath in an involutary way ( as described by that scientific genius Mr James Hellyer) , what power or energy, what force, what intelligence created such a wonderful model?
If you are not sure of what I am speaking of and would like to experience it first hand to gain a better understanding and perspective of this amazing phenomena , you could sit quietly and practice the techniques of Knowledge. That way you could get a better understanding of the involuntary muscular action described by Mr Hellyer and your interesting ability to continue to participate in the ongoing experience of life irrespective....In its purest form.....Consciously
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 02:40:19 (GMT)
From: Scott
Email: None
To: Johm Stuart Mills
Subject: You, sir, are a genius! (t)
Message:
Johm:

(Is that a Scandihuvian name, BTW?) I suppose that after having practiced said techniques for mucho years it would yet be difficult to convince you that I'd given the thing a fair test. But aside from that I really have no way of knowing whether the experience you now are enjoying so blissfully might seem to me, should I be able to apprehend it even relative to my present miserable state, like a step down. In other words, perhaps I should be inviting you up here?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 03:33:08 (GMT)
From: John Stuart Mills
Email: Who was Karl Marx's mentor?
To: Scott
Subject: You, sir, are a genius! (t)
Message:
I am purely an intellectual Scott. No mention was made of 'Blissful experiences'.Nor did I lay claim to such a personal experience. Harking back to the original premises it would seem you have lost interest in Metaphysics and are now pursuing the same blind path of rhetoric that Mr Hellyer prefers. It's probably an invountary action . However it is more likely a conditioned response ala Pavlov's dog. To think freely requires an open free forum of expression. That is not the case here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 18:13:34 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: John Stuart Mills
Subject: No open discussion here?
Message:
You are in fact engaged in an open form of expression right here in this very thread. So just because someone can't get your drift then it's not an open discussion? Sorry don't get it.

By the way I'm an ex premie and I know where you're coming from. I happen to have experienced a transcendent energy of life accessed through focus on breathing. It is very difficult to try and explain these things isn't it? Better just to feel it.

All mammals breath involuntarily during sleep and it's an extraordinary ability that the brain has developed.

Imagination is to me a more incredible thing than breathing.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 03:41:27 (GMT)
From: J.S. Mills
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: No open discussion here (If you don't agree)
Message:
Hal , would you say that people with alternative opinions to those promoted here , are treated with respect?
The same top down bullshit happens here. At least there is a very strong move to destroy that sort of behavior at the place you ran from. (No, not M but the petty self created Honchoes, given an inch and taking 10 miles)
I watched you come here Hal and get dised until you folded
The main protaganists here(apart from ANTH and a few others haven't been involved for 10 to 20 years. It is ludicrous for them to even comment on current happenings.)
Put simply, in most parts of the world , the thing everyone here is complaining about simply does not exist in the format described.The Goalposts have been well and truly shifted.
As for all the bunkum about Trains, Boats Planes and Automobiles really doesnt worry me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:09:41 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: J.S. Mills
Subject: And you sir, prove exactly why it HASN'T changed
Message:
As for all the bunkum about Trains, Boats Planes and Automobiles really doesnt worry me.

According to you cult thinking and guru worship is no longer on the agenda, yet you give gm slack you would never give to any politician who had trains & boats & planes, and was a lying alcoholic.
Special by any chance is he!!!

Give us a break, then there's the fact that darshan still goes on, what's with THAT, apart from talks in India where he is explicit, and talks in the west where the perfect master is implicit.

No all you're saying is that he realizes the hindu shit underr all this for want of a better word, 'theories', don't sell, so he hides the facts. This isn't change, it's spin.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:33:00 (GMT)
From: J.S.Mills
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: The media vehicle silly, not the main event!
Message:
I don't have a problem with Darshan. Nor with Master. YOu is lookin in from the outside . You see a storm . I'm surfing.
And who said the basics have changed? There is only one major difference. None of you are there. So everything is kool huh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:37:30 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: J.S. Mills
Subject: No open discussion here (If you don't agree)
Message:
J S Mills,

I think that there is a respect here but one has to earn it. Sure I know what you mean about differing from the norm and getting jumped on. Premies do get jumped a lot here especially when they talk of having a superior understanding.

I find that if I stick to my guns and am not condescending then even when I express my subjective experiences that it's fine. However I'm not a premie so there is much more tolerance.

I too found it a bit strange how out of touch the people here were when I first came. It seemed very strange to me that there were those who were only involved for a year or two in the early seventies who were attacking so vehemently and complaining so loudly. Also that they were going on and on about squeezing eyeballs to see light etc.

It was later clear that although these folks had left so long ago they needed to make sense and resolve that period of time. They had perhaps not looked at that period until they found the forum and never discussed it with any other ex premies.

There are plenty of people who no longer follow Maha who still use the breath to focus on and who find great benefit from it. We object to Maha not the ancient techniques. We feel that he has hijacked sincere seekers and imprisoned them in a web of deceit.

Personally I have no gripe with premies. To me there is one cult leader and only cult victims thereafter.

By the way your wrong about Anth , he was involved up until 1998 I believe.

Best wishes.
Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 11:31:45 (GMT)
From: J.S.Mills
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Open discussion :heres a bit ( don't agree?)
Message:
I meant to close the brackets after (' and a few others)Yeah I understand what you are saying Hal about those long ago types needing to let out whatever. But I'm not talking about them . They're really obvious. It's the people who profess great knowledge and understanding of current activities that bug me.
People like Jim , Jerry, Marianne ,Peter Howie et al.
For me I'm actually grateful to M. Ancient techniques or not, he's the one who has kept me at it for the last 20 something years. I don't feel ripped off by him, not at all. I've enjoyed most of it and had many a good laugh out of it , often at the expense of religious dickheads!
The way it is now is a lot cooler , especially in the Northern Hemisphere. Your interaction is with your Television set , your invited friends and him. Its no more expensive than hiring a couple of first release video's or paying for that football game or the Golf (Much less expensive than one of THOSE video's) You go see him....If YOU want to....Really Hal, what's the fuss.And if you can't afford a Cable link well there's always someone who will invite you.Think about it.....you and your TV set in your loungeroom...who's gonna fuck it up for you? Your 'Local Contact'?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 01:28:22 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: J.S.Mills
Subject: Premie till summer of '98
Message:
Hey, J.S., I was involved in this thing on and off throughout the years until the summer of '98. I had a whole collection of videos (bootleg copies I made for myself... shhhhh!) that I watched religiously. So, I do know, quite well, how Maharaji presents himself these days and how that differs from yesteryear. And yeah, like you I thought that was a good thing, that M was finally removing all the confusion created by premies, but not him. No, never him. I held him blameless. After all, he's enlightened, right? Of course, it HAD to be those UNenlightened premies of his that were causing all the confusion.

But the truth is, J.S., whatever confusion surrounds Maharaji, then or now, was and is created by Maharaji, simply because he plays a very devious game of cat and mouse as to what this Knowledge is really all about. He just doesn't spell it out. What is Knowledge? Is it a means of realizing God, or is it just a technique for understanding life? Or do the two mean the same? And just who is Maharaji? Is he the Perfect Master, Guru who is greater than God, humble meditation teacher, humble servant of God? I mean it just boggles. Clarity, the thing Maharaji has staked a claim on, is the last thing he's been able to achieve, and that's HIS fault, nobody else's.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:13:41 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: J.S.Mills
Subject: Sorry but I really don't find him inspiring
Message:
Although I still enjoy exploring my life and consciousness, I find much more inspiration in Jung and Zen than in watching Maha talk.

For me he offers an incomplete spiritual teaching and doesn't stimulate my intellect. I know he's supposed to touch my thirsty heart but he just doesn't anymore.

I'm really enjoying being part of the human race and not being involved in an exclusive little cult.

True spirituality is defined not by separation but by union., union with the whole , union with the life force, Great Spirit, Tao, or God, that which lies behind creation and binds it together.
Anything that imposes limits on an infinite divinity is not a complete spiritual system or experience. To me the ultimate truth cannot have any form whatsoever, no gender , no race and most importantly NO HIERARCHY.

There are many practices which can lead to union or reunion with this life. We can use yoga or prayer, meditation, chanting or sex. We can play sports. We can eat good food or engage in intelligent, funny or meaningless conversations. We can run up hills or swim in the sea. Or we can sleep. Ultimately no particular practice is needed , when one becomes balanced and united in oneself. A true path is not one that requires slobbering at the feet of a separate god-ego but one that leads to union with the quality of divinity itself.

'Surrendering to the master ' does not refer to giving your power away to a man who is pretending to be God and who will then abuse you in an unkind, egotistical and tyrannical manner.

For the most part surrendering to the master has gotten a bad name because of power hungry egotists who have set themselves up as gods on earth. They don't have the follower's best interests at heart, they only have their own agendas. A true master is not interested in holding things above his disciples heads but in enlightening the disciple to the ultimate truth so that the disciple can then become his or her own master.

The definition of a true master in my book is not one who enslaves followers in a rigidly controlled system but one who frees a person from all outside authority to allow the person to find his own autonomy and sovereignty. maha doesn't fit those criteria.

Any person who is interested in establishing themselves as a figure of reverence and in aquiring little peons all around who will do their bidding is not a true master but an egoist on earth. anyone who thinks they alone have the true way to enlightenment is suspect.

True understanding comes when one realises that omnipresent divinity is all around and is not localised or focussed in any one form or format.

So there you go old chap. So for being preachy but I'm feeling rather loquatious today,

Kind regards and if you enjoy telly gurus enjoy.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 21:25:02 (GMT)
From: J.S.Mills
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Sorry but I really don't find him inspiring
Message:
Hal, I was into Zen ,Tantra and all sorts of other interesting things. Don't quite see it your way. That's OK.
Technology makes my life easier. Its as simple as that.Beats the Hell out of Teletubbies!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:12:48 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: John Stuart Mills
Subject: You, sir, are a genius! (t)
Message:
John(m?):

So, you have no experience you wish to share; but rather wish to share your unfree thoughts about what others might possibly or hypothetically experience, in a forum you regard as closed and stifling? Do you have a streak of masochism? Why not go for a bike ride instead, or a nude row... or a nude bike ride?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:44:38 (GMT)
From: John Stuart Mills
Email: The father of Logic
To: Scott T.
Subject: You, sir, are a genius! (t)
Message:
Such things are not becoming of great philosophers. Are we dreaming or are we awake? Or are we dreaming we are awake?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:28:44 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: John Stuart Mills
Subject: You Sir, are dreaming (sigh)
Message:
Perhaps you are just dreaming you are a great philosopher and intellect?

For what it's worth, that's my take. Try waking up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:42:50 (GMT)
From: J.S.Mills
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: You Sir, are a bad dream!
Message:
Oh my God, what is this sewer? I must leave.
PS: The whole treatise I gave you before is directly from my textbooks. There is nothing new under the sun.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 14:20:59 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: J.S.Mills
Subject: there is no new thing under the sun
Message:
From Ecclesiates, Chapter 1.

    9. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
    10. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
    11. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
    12. I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

So this is a text book of yours. And the others, pray tell?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 03:45:49 (GMT)
From: J.S.Mills
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: there is no new thing under the sun
Message:
Pleassssse!! Try any course matter on Metaphysical Science from any up to date University Philosophy Degree course.
As for the Bible.....Man that just plain sucks. Good thing they nailed him up to save the likes of you and me I say!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 07:56:54 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: J.S.Mills
Subject: nothing new under the sun
Message:
I think you are lying.
  • Had you skill in philosophy you would not claim authority (an up to date University Philosophy Degree course), but would instead rely on the light of reason to carry your argument.
  • Nor (of course) would you claim 'nothing new under the sun' while citing up to date as part of your credentials.
  • It is hardly likely you would compare yourself to John Stuart Mill (and should that hubris occur to you, you would have got the name right!)
  • And you would be willing to cite some writers whose works have made sense to you, as I asked.
Here's a bit from Chapter 5 of Ecclesiastes I think you won't like...
    4.When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
    5.Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

Premie Ji, you cannot think straight and yet would persuade others that they are at fault, and that your Master is true.

That won't work, you must know that - so why are you really here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 11:39:24 (GMT)
From: Malcolm Muggeridge
Email: Bring on the LIONS , Caesar!!!
To: JohnT
Subject: nothing new under the sun
Message:
Look you silly bugger ,there is humour in this world. You should also contact Monty Python and let them know they got old J.S 's surname wrong as well. I suggest you read Hegel. As a die hard Christian that should really fuck you over.
My credentials are impeccable but John..There none of your business!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 16:48:41 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Malcolm Muggeridge
Subject: Your credentials, here, are your words -nt-
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 20:56:51 (GMT)
From: J.S.Mills
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Your credentials, here, are your words -nt-
Message:
So what?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 13:05:31 (GMT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: J.S.Mills
Subject: So Goodbye.
Message:
Your credentials are your words

You've shown you are not serious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:44:00 (GMT)
From: gErRy
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I dunno know, Jim
Message:
How 'bout facing THAT squarely for a change, big boy?

sounds like some sort of Latvian come on or something...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:32:08 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The dumbing down of Mili
Message:
Does anyone know what he's talking about? Is Mili really just saying that you're alive as long as you're alive? Is that possible, that he'd be saying that? Amazing.

Yes Jim, this is exactly what he's saying. If you'd hung around listening to Maharaji as long as Mili has, you'd be dumbed down to this way of thinking too. It's the heart and soul of Maharaji's message from the 90s. You're alive because you're alive. Ask any premie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:01:35 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Continuing 'discussion' with Mili
Message:
One one level he's saying 'This is my Universe and it sure beats yours'.

On another level, let's say the technical level, he is referring to the idea that the breath and breathing is a direct connection with spiritual or life-giving forces. I imagine that he has been practicing the 'word' for long enough to have developed a significant pleasure loop in breathing which gets all sorts of hormonal and other delightful things going for him. We could refer to self-hypnosis and other psycho-cyberbetic processes to discuss it in detail. But Mili sees the breath as 'breathing him'.

Rather than perhaps, as you or I might see it as the breath and breathing being part of a complex biological response of having living biorganic body.

There is a strong apetitative response to breathing that is moment to moment. This means there is a desire to breath and then this desire is fulfilled. Getting a pleasure response going as well, which can easily be generated through practice, one might easily imagine 'being breathed', being one with the life-force. Etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 01:46:48 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: Very inner wrestling point, Peter
Message:
Sorry about the pun. I just woke up.

I've never heard that word before, apetitative, but I find the idea intriguing in this context. Where'd you come up with this? It makes sense.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 09:48:13 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well if you'd actually BOTHERED to read Maturana
Message:
or any second order cybernetic stuff you'd know how many of these kinds of self referential systems of a biological nature there are, and not just the one Peter's talking about here.

For a starta every single drug that can be taken, apart from alcohol, only works because there are receptor sites already in the brain for them to latch onto. In other words ALL of these drugs are already in the body. Since the feedback loop/self-referential nature of our brains is integral, they can be activated by ourselves in a number of different ways, with choice and involuntarily/unconsciously.

Denying the intensity of an experience, in premie terms, as just pure delusion, is pure delusion, because it denys the hormonal/chemikal nature of all experiences.

One thing putting up boundaries to keep out the propaganda bollox jim, but it's something else when you try to deny peoples experiences as just imagination, as though even imagination doesn't have a hormonal/chemical nature involving REAL state changes.

By the way the cybernetic reality view is now becoming quite mainstream, even Dennett & others of a similar ilk are starting to engage in dialogue, because the linear models don't actually work beyond localised systems. When you get to the meta level, functions that pull it all together, you are talking second order stuff.

Denying peoples experiences is bollox, the problem is their explanations, which is why Mili is up shit creek without a paddle.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:35:16 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: ham
Subject: Well that's your opinion
Message:
or any second order cybernetic stuff you'd know how many of these kinds of self referential systems of a biological nature there are, and not just the one Peter's talking about here.
For a starta every single drug that can be taken, apart from alcohol, only works because there are receptor sites already in the brain for them to latch onto. In other words ALL of these drugs are already in the body. Since the feedback loop/self-referential nature of our brains is integral, they can be activated by ourselves in a number of different ways, with choice and involuntarily/unconsciously.

I've tried to read Maturana. I really have. And I don't apologize for nothing. The guy struck me as painfully obscure and I gave up. Indeed, I couldn't help but get the impression that this stuff was wilfully obscure, almost like fingerpainting with big words. I passed.

Below is an example. While it may not be Maturana himself, this, if you can believe it, is the introduction to his work. If you or anyone would translate this into english, I'll consider it:

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

http://www.informatik.umu.se/~rwhit/ObsWebIntro.html

Addressing Essential Circularity without Going in Circles

Dr. Randall Whitaker

There is an essential circularity in the nature of living systems.

They exhibit a configural circularity in their componential constitutions, which are tightly interconnected and mutually interdependent. Living systems exhibit a temporal circularity (i.e, cyclicity) in their behavior, which evidences no intrinsic 'purpose' beyond maintenance of their constitutional and configurational integrity. Given sufficient neural complexity and recursivity, a living system can generate, maintain, and re-engage internal phenomenal patterns (descriptions) induced by external perturbations. This permits the system to function as an observer within the epistemological scope circumscribed by these constitutional and behavioral circularities.

There is an essential circularity in a living system's experience.

The course of actions ('responses') is mediated 'internally' by the organism's propensities (circumscribed by its configural circularity). Correspondingly, the course of situational transitions affecting the organism ('stimuli') is mediated 'externally' by those potentials the world affords. The reciprocal engagement of subject and world is not reducible to exclusive determination by one or the other.

There is an essential circularity entailed in exploring 'cognition'.

There is no approach to exploring or explaining cognition which does not entail and employ the very faculties being explored and explained. To date, the primary response to this paradox has been to ignore it and proceed in a linear explanatory progression from a presumably fixed fundament. Where that fundament is 'objective reality' (i.e., the world as we presume it to obviously be), the mediation between situation and action is explained in terms of ordered inference with respect to a model of that reality. The typical approach employed in devising such models is reduction of the subject phenomenon into atomic objects (components, constructs, etc.) from whose character everything can be explained. Although it seems effective in (e.g.) physics, this approach breaks down when confronted with the tacit, extralinguistic, emotive, and/or intuitive character of that which we humans seem to do. The objectivistic basis for this conventional approach is further disputed by recent trends toward (a) more commonly seeing ourselves operating in multiple 'worlds' (particularly social ones) and (b) increasingly acknowledging the degree to which each of these 'worlds' is molded by contextual and conceptual factors intertwined with the very act of engaging it.

How can we reason about circularity without falling into 'circular reasoning'?

In recent decades, there have been a number of attempts to devise 'holistic' or 'systemic' frameworks addressing our nature from a perspective more useful than that of objectivism. This is a difficult pursuit. Once a presumed (and presumably knowable) 'real world' ceases to serve as a fixed (and presumably known) base from which to build, the comfortably linear progression of conventional explanations is less obtainable. The farther one gets from explanatory reliance on atomic 'objects', the less able one is to link explanations with discrete elements and pursue proof through experimental demonstration or rigorous inferential means. As a result, alternative theories must often be judged with respect to their overall explanatory coherence. Unless they can be grounded in demonstrable facts, such theories run the risk of being seen as 'circular' in the negative sense of 'deducing X from a presumption of X itself'.

By employing a rigorous framework addressing these essential circularities.

The substantial documentation available at this Web site concerns one such 'systemic' framework addressing living systems, their phenomenology, and their cognition. This framework -- termed autopoietic theory -- is the product of some 30 years' effort by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. Autopoietic theory directly addresses and successfully analyzes the basic configural and operational circularities of living systems. It accomplishes this by shifting explanatory focus from atomic referents in an objective world to essential relations among processes in a phenomenal domain. As a consequence, the derivative circularity of experience and the fundamental paradox of cognitive enquiry are not neglected. Instead, they are highlighted as basic maxims:

'All doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing.'

'Everything said is said by an observer.'

Autopoietic theory's foundations are laid out in detail, and their consequences are derived with considerable care. The theory has been invoked and applied in fields including immunology, human-computer interaction, family therapy, sociology, economics, postmodern philosophy, and public administration. Building upon this base, Varela has recently outlined an alternative to prevailing cognitivistic and connectionist models of cognition -- an enactive cognitive science. The consequences of autopoiesis and enaction thematically parallel the foci of other current analyses of humans and their activities in terms of (e.g.) systemics, complexity, and subjective experience. Unlike some of these other approaches, autopoietic theory obtains focus on the only element common to the range of such topics -- the human herself, operating as an observer.

After studying and applying a variety of other theories, I have come to believe that Maturana and Varela's work provides the broadest, the most consistent, and the most useful available theoretical base from which to explore these issues.
As a demonstration of that belief, I have established this Web site as the largest publicly-accessible collection of resources for exploring Maturana and Varela's work.'

----------------------------------------------------------------
Denying the intensity of an experience, in premie terms, as just pure delusion, is pure delusion, because it denys the hormonal/chemikal nature of all experiences.

I never did that. I never denied that I or anyone ever had in
intense 'experience' meditating. I know it's possible cause I'd been there myself. But I also know that all of my 'lose-myself-in-the-light' or 'lose-myself-in-the-word' experiences came to a mind that was entirely dedicated, spoon fed and torqued up for a so-called 'divine' interlude. My guess at this point is that I was simply experiencing my brain accomodating my imagination, in that respect. There's the light you get when you compress the nerves in your eyes (I don't even know if it's all properly the 'optic nerve') and then there's what your mind does with it. I know what mine did and that was all sorts of premie-trained projections. If that's what you're calling 'hormonal / chemical', yeah, of course. It had to be SOMETHING lending a hand to my imagination like that.

One thing putting up boundaries to keep out the propaganda bollox jim, but it's something else when you try to deny peoples experiences as just imagination, as though even imagination doesn't have a hormonal/chemical nature involving REAL state changes.

Who's ever done that. Sure, religious practices can trigger religious 'experiences'. But the practitioner invariably attributes truth value to those experiences, puts them in some sort of real world context, that simply isn't true, in my opinion. Thus -- 'just imagination' is ultimately correct.

Question: did all those premies who saw Maharaji's face in the light in the knowledge session in Nelson, B.C. in which everyone was completely blown out earlier that night by Tejeshwaranand's satsang ('I was with Jesus...!) really see his face or not?

Answer: No, they only saw what their imaginations conjured up for them.

That's my belief anyway. What's yours?

By the way the cybernetic reality view is now becoming quite mainstream, even Dennett & others of a similar ilk are starting to engage in dialogue, because the linear models don't actually work beyond localised systems. When you get to the meta level, functions that pull it all together, you are talking second order stuff.

Well, same as above. If someone can show me a clear intro to this stuff I'll look at it again. Otherwise, it seems like some sort of effort to blur the very notion of reality.

Denying peoples experiences is bollox, the problem is their explanations, which is why Mili is up shit creek without a paddle.

I agree. If Mili says that he had a profound meditation, I don't think he's lying. But as soon as we consider what that meditation was, I'm going to look to the brain and no further. He's going to look a lot, lot further. That's a very real difference that shoudln't be obscured.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 21:41:54 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: ' just imagination'
Message:
Thanks for the 'just imagination' comment Jim. It set me thinking about imagination. JUST imagination eh?

Where the hell would science be without imagination? who could invent anything without first having the imagination, the vision of making something better.

Human rights would never catch on if people didn't imagine it could happen. Women wouldn't have the rights they are now at last being given if some women and men hadn't had imagination.

So are you saying that something that comes from imagination is not real? Of course it isn't totally real until it is manifested by us practically but imaginations have a strong tendency to manifest.

I love my imagination. Imagine the beach in the Carribean you could be sitting on now instead of freezing your balls off in Canada. You could prabably make that a reality if you wanted...but you have to imagine it first.

Cheers hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 17:10:45 (GMT)
From: stonor
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks for the link Jim, and hamzen ...
Message:
I've been reading 'Ghandi's Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence' by the Psychoanalyst, Erik H. Erikson. He mentions that Ghandi said that God appears to you not in person, but in action. Reminds me a bit of'All knowing is doing and all doing is knowing.' Will read more at that site as I won't make it to the library before the holidays to read up on the systems thinkers you referred me to, I don't think. Sounds like I've got some interesting reading to do, but I will spend a bit of time at that website before then. And I'll do my own search as well.

Good talking with you hamzen,

Stonor

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 22:37:57 (GMT)
From: stonor
Email: None
To: hamzen and Hal
Subject: Conversation and culture ...
Message:
From the glossary of terminology at that site:

Conversation and Culture

What we say and do in conversation does not instruct or convey, nor determine a response - it simply triggers changes in the emotioning and languaging of another, which, in turn, shape the next bit of the conversation. Meaning arises in the flow of conversation. It does not reside in words themselves, nor can it be transferred from person to person.

The conversations form a network and these networks of conversation constitute our culture. Our culture changes by this process of conversation, mostly amongst small groups of people at a time.

Therein lies great hope and also great responsibility for the way we relate to others.

Seems an appropropriate quote for a forum like this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:45:11 (GMT)
From: hal
Email: None
To: ham
Subject: and another one Ham-Go get 'em ! nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:07:09 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Very inner wrestling point, Peter
Message:
From zoology/biology.

We have appetitive behaviour for many things. The most common is of course food. Before we eat it, or when hungry - food is the most glorious thing - the wine smells great, the food looks terrific. Once we've eaten we don't think/care much about food. Hard to think about the next meal seriously. Sex before we've had it - hormone make our bodies hyper-sensitive and (for many men - (myself included) a hole in a fence looks sexy - once had it - the urgency diminishes - TV now looks good. But because it is appetitive it will return. So we will need to eat again and we will want sex again.

When we breath we are fulfilling a very short term appetitative behaviour. Sometimes (when meditating) I've felt like I will never need to breath again. But I always do.

There are probably heaps of psychological appetitive behaviours. Smoking for one - mind you it also has physiological reasons as well. But darshan would be appetitive, satsang, meditation - all self-created appetitive behaviour. Sometimes the pleasure is in the relief from the urgency to have the appetite fulfilled.

Cheers

Peter Howie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:28:54 (GMT)
From: Patrick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Continuing 'discussion' with Mili
Message:
That's the one thing that is constant - it sure qualifies as being 'real' to me.

Since the movement of breath stops when you die one might have thought that matter, which lasts much longer doesn't it?, qualifies as being even more 'real' or 'constant'. But to try and say something in the universe is the most constant seems silly since everything in the universe is forever changing energy isn't it? (I'm no physicist I afraid)

Even if we can agree that the experience of meditation on your breathe is nice, it seems a great leap to say that it's something to do with Maharaji.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 19:11:09 (GMT)
From: Patrick
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: This is topical!
Message:
A friend relates that a premie lady he knows was disturbed by something she heard Maharaji say.

Maharaji was apparently discussing the Monica Lewinsky / Clinton debacle with a few people in private.

Maharaji apparently said words to the effect that 'the people who were upset with Clinton were just jealous that he was having so much fun.' I understood that he said this in front of Marolyn and that although the latter was apparenty unflustered, this other premie lady took it badly - ie as a rather too macho comment for her tastes! It blew her 'concepts' and she has now had felt compelled to re-assess things a bit, according to my friend.

I would guess that Maharaji would also say that disgruntled premies (such as those whom he forbade the indulgence of 'wordly pleasures' whilst he clearly was enjoying them fully) are similarly 'just jealous'.

I agree with him but would say that it is not 'just' jealousy alone that makes people question their relationships with him. 'Rightly jealous' would perhaps be a better description!

One difference with him and Clinton is that Maharaji advocated that committed premies should 'renounce the world'. I don't think Clinton made moral demands on anyone. (of course he was quick to pretend to be all repentant and moral, when he was caught out with Monica.)

Political power structures of all-sorts (including the Pop World for instance ) seem to give their 'stars' plenty of opportunity for such indulgences, but there the performers are most often admired for their excesses! Of course the 'stars' are unashamed role models for many people who aspire to be as them. It is given that these are ordinary people who, through luck or talent have earned an envied position. We could be like them! No premie need waste their time aspiring to share Maharaji's indulgences in his autocratic world though.

I think that modern western political systems, certainly in the USA and UK, have to some extent evolved built-in safeguards that permit leaders to exercise their position to indulge themselves privately if they wish, but prevent them from letting this effect their job. Certainly the conditions are that they don't get caught doing controversial things.

In a way the nature of politics is that it needs people who are rather unscrupulous to fight equally unscrupulous opponents.

There is some comparison to draw with Maharaji I feel.

We can see from Hilary Clinton's recent electorial success, for instance, that responsible and 'moral' people are perfectly willing to vote someone into a responsible job who may be 'deeply flawed as an individual' (This is a quote from a TV program about the Clintons, who were both described, amongst other things, as being absolutely inured to lying whenever it suited their ambitions- not something that people seem too bothered about)

It is the leaders commitment to certain political goals which is the main consideration for voters The fact that they demonstrate ruthless ambition may be may bolster the impression that the he or she has the stomache to fight hard to achieve political ends. Even moderate alcoholism or drug abuse may be acceptible to the inner teams that support powerful leaders. Of course Kennedy's inner circle did not consider his habits innappropriate, but understood the public would not see it this way and so sought to cover up his activities.

Is this not exactly what we see with Maharaji?? Is not the comparison with Clinton even more uncanny considering the resemblance of his one of his alleged mistresses' name to Monica Lewinsky? Are we not looking at a political phenomenon here - in short- a political leader. Something Elan Vital is keen to deny.

Premies attitude to Maharaji is very like a voter's attitude to a President.
I say this because I spoke with a premie (once a UK co-ordinator) the other day who expressed that it was a shame that people allowed their feelings about Maharaji as a person to put them off being his 'pupil'. In short he implied that people who judge Knowledge by Maharaji's behaviour were making a big mistake -totally missing out and denying themselves that wonderful experience. Of course he as much admitted that Maharaji, as a person, was surely not everyone's 'cup of tea' although he loved and admired Maharaji deeply. But he could not see how Maharaji's private behaviour should rightly reflect on his role as a Master.

It seems to me that Premies could be said to have, albeit silently, 'elected' Maharaji as the figurehead of their experiences and beliefs, and that they, like those who elect these presidents etc. do not consider that it matters a jot whether their Master is a nice person or corrupted by his position etc. What is important is that he in some way acts as a catalyst for their experience. Or put another way -fulfills their needs. Most actually like him the more for his human weaknesses.

Am I right that premies accept that Maharaji is the 'man for the job' despite his character flaws, much in the same way that a country tolerates a leader who seems to be going roughly in the right direction? In other words with hope rather than certainty?

I suppose my feeling is that if God were to exist and seek to influence us via any particular chosen man, it would be most unlikely that he would also inspire this 'chosen man' to feel that he needs to cover-up for his human weaknesses (as Maharaji seems to have done -' a la Presidente' - by encouraging his inner circle to do so for him). Rather one would have thought that he may , like Clinton at the very least, have the foresight to see that to admit to his human frailness and acknowledge mistakes with appropriate accountabilty and integrity, would serve him well.

There is one last comparison that comes to mind bearing in mind that Dettmer's writings paint a picture of a man who apparently really does seem to have some disdain for those who believe in him.

Hilary Clinton is said to have commented to her driver after speaking to a hall of honest-to-good country folks - ' get me outta here as fast as you can'.
She allegedly then likened the crowd, that she had just been so keen to woo, to people 'straight out of the film Deliverance' !

Finally, I have been truly wondering whether it is I who am long imprisoned in this restricting belief that I should be honest, integral and well-behaved!

I was in the late seventies (naively) shocked to learn that Mahatma GuruCharanand, a supposed celibate celebrity I think you'll agree, had indeed had marvelous sex, and when he was instructor too! - with my best friends girlfriend! (At least that's what she told him and he told me ~ all malicious lies of course!)

Anyway, since all these 'once denied' things are generally now being furtively whispered as being true, even by premies, I wonder if I was the stupid, tight-arsed one (thank you Mark) who could justly be derided for obediently having been celibate in the ashram, when Maharaji had simply supposed (judging us naturally by his own standards) that we would know that we didn't really have to take his instructions literally !

Silly me!

Maybe if more of us had followed the example of the much favoured Mr 'Loose' GuruCharanand then we would not now be 'eaten up with regrets' after all. I mean it's our fault for being so stupid as to have taken Maharaji's Agya (order) so seriously isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:55:55 (GMT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: Patrick
Subject: nice post
Message:
- well written and full of insights. Thank you, Patrick.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:27:53 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Patrick
Subject: This is topical!
Message:
Once again apost that clls for no reply but stands on its own. Great stuff.

With regards to Hilary 'slagging off' (English expression) or privately putting others down - I am reminded of some work I did with an improvisational theatre troupe - called Playback Theatre - go se it near you if you hear of it. Anyway - we were performing for a group of parents who has Sudden Infant Death Babies - we were part of a program to support SIDs parents who were supporting others. In our warm-up process we started making terrible commenst about bead babies, murderous parents, dopey accidental killers etc. We laughed ourselves silly then got concerned that someone had heard up - we were warming up in a room about as big as a broom closet. Anyway we all then got the guilts and wondered how unfeeling we all were and felt quite down. Then, when performing, one of the participants in the conference told us (this is part of the process)about how the night before many of them had got quite drunk and started telling each other dead baby stories and other nasty things and they had all laughed themselves silly. We all felt much better and I now feel better to let my wicked nature prevail at times - in the company of close friends or confidential colleagues. It often frees me up to continue my work (with groups) in a different manner. A bit like ex-premies getting together and creaming premies - not so nice but Oh such fun. e.g That SHP....' or 'That Jim....' etc

Cheers

Peter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:52:58 (GMT)
From: Curious George
Email: None
To: Patrick
Subject: Another Cracker!
Message:
Dear Patrick,

Thanks for the great post!

Too bad M refused to let Charnanand marry eh?

Regards,

Curious George

Another BEST OF I think.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 22:32:32 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Patrick
Subject: Interesting indeed
Message:
Patrick,

I'ver always thought that 'jealousy' applies to matters of the heart (i.e. who's got who's affections) and that 'envy' covers everything else. But otherwise, I think you're right on with this.

I have to admit, I, too, feel like I played my premie years in the worst of all ways. I was too 'uptight' to really fuck around and have a good time. I honestly believed that the orthodox premie approach (i.e. trusting Maharaji explicitly) was the ticket. And now everyone laughs at me! My old ashram mates say i didn't stay the course long enough and thus did nothing, know nothing, or worse. The premies who did their own thing laugh at me for taking all that heavy shit seriously.

You know? Yes, I think you do.

So Gurucharanand was getting laid as long ago as the '70s? That's important info beyond it's pure gossip value. Can you elaborate in any way whatsoever? Proof? Details even?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 07:19:29 (GMT)
From: frodo
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Giving-up fun was a waste of time
Message:
Jim I started out heavy. I thought I had to give up everything.
I was so young at the time, I was almost a virgin. I thought I could not party anymore. So I did not.

I was invited to go to Miami to help at deca. So I went.

I found out real quick that giving up sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll was not manditory, in fact I don't think that it is the propose of knowlege and Maharaji at all. Live and learn.

I saw Married premies enjoying life to the fullest, and they where enjoying the company of other women to the fullest also. And there I was thinking I had to be a Monk. Wine, woman, and song my man. I found out, you don't give-up the things you desire. Enjoy your desire's first. Wear out the pleasure.

I had to get the desire's out of my system before I could experience any of the experience Maharaji was talking about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:46:26 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: frodo
Subject: 'desires' NOT 'desire's'
Message:
Have you considered getting an education as a supplement to 'knowledge'? It would do you the world of good.

Personal discrestion in the use of your gift of 'freewill' is also a highly recommended addition to meditation and knowledge and education of any form.

Love ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 04:12:09 (GMT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: frodo
Subject: and yes, that should be discretion...
Message:
but you used 'desire's' twice, so I'll interpret it as more than just a typo.

and btw, like Gandalf, please use the name 'frodo' with more respect, if at all ... Tolkien is turning over in his grave (and I would 'sleep' better as well ... not that you're concerned, it seems).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:35:58 (GMT)
From: National Enquirer
Email: None
To: everyone
Subject: Sex at IHQ mid-70's
Message:
News Flash!

Sex was happening in the IHQ ashrams in Denver. The prevailing 'understanding' was what's good for the guru is good for the devotee. Many of the honchos were certainly X-rated enough to know about M&M before the wedding.

When M&M were married in early '74, many IHQ ashramers 'came out' regarding their ongoing relationships. It was amazing how many 'holy rollers' were involved. Sources close to IHQ say it was observed that Mike Donner and Barbera Kolodney spent quality time in her room in the basement at 1410 High Street. Willy Svab had a lady friend. I can't remember all of the other specifics but these relationships were not kept hidden - more like don't ask / don't tell. The ashram this reporter was in - 1263 Josephine Street - was apparently filled with gay couples. Let's just say those of us 'brothers' who were straight stopped using the men's group shower. At least two sets of my 'house parents' were coupling on company time. The house father on Bannock Street (don't recall his name but he was the one who questioned M about being on a control trip) spent the house cash on pot. Even before the marriage, a former lover of Saint Mishler described their in-ashram liasons as early as '72.

Even though there was still a strong renunciant contingent, and that's what got put out to the provinces, many of these relationships continued in one form or another throughout this time - early 1974 through 1976 when it all came unglued.

Film at 11 unless Bush concedes the election.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:48:16 (GMT)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: National Enquirer
Subject: Sex at IHQ mid-70's
Message:
I lived in the ashram up at the end of race street (1232?) in 75-76, about 2 blocks from Cheeseman park. I had an affair with a woman for an extended period of time but we were discrete (I think). Near the end of that relationship(?) a premie who has her name on a bunch of legal documents was making passes at me, which as a good brother I rebuffed, or maybe I was shy, either way it was going on all over. We would walk over to the park after ss or evening meditaion and you always ran into other 'couples'. The amazing thing is both of those women are still active around M. Nothing like sneaking into the meditation room late at nite when everyone was in bed for a 'slowie'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 02:04:04 (GMT)
From: Disculta
Email: None
To: Ben Lurking
Subject: Sex at IHQ mid-70's
Message:
I was at the other one (1560 Race) 75-76, and I used to make out in the meditation room at the top of the house which used to be MJ's bedroom.

Of course, I married the person I was making out with!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:43:58 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: National Enquirer
Subject: Celibacy pre-Montrose
Message:
Hey NE -
I don't think they had a hard-and-fast rule about celibacy in the ashrams before the Guru Puja festival at Montrose (July 1972). So you might want to consider that as well.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:51:57 (GMT)
From: TED Farkel
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Celibacy pre-Montrose/Hard and fast ?oh yeah...
Message:
Dear Ms. Katie-

If I had been around in those days, trying to be celibate, while serving our lord, I think it would have been HARD and FAST, and then back to service...

Just an opinion...
TED Farkel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:03:50 (GMT)
From: National Enquirer
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Celibacy pre-Montrose
Message:
Point taken. This reporter does remember skinny dipping at Guru Puja Montrose - our Summer of Love.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:07:15 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: National Enquirer
Subject: Celibacy pre-Montrose
Message:
Yes, I heard that Denver was a lot of fun until Maharaji showed up and ruined everything (seriously!). Actually, the summer of 1976 - before 'rededication' was pretty fun too.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:46:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: National Enquirer
Subject: That's not how it was in Canada
Message:
In Canada, we were good little cult members. Hardly anything happened, at least not in any of the ashrams I lived in.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:15:45 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's not how it was in Hartford
Message:
If anything was going on in the ashram's I lived in I certainly never knew about it.

Jim, I see what you meant about how I worded my post below...(snicker)

Yikes! Yuck! Icky!! Charanand was altogether unattractive, in my eyes.

Chard did however, give advice to a premie who is a close friend of his (to this day), with whom I was having a relationship in our pre-ashram days 1976-78.

Hell, I'm sick of talking code, when I said I had no choice in the matter, I was talking about being tricked, betrayed, and coerced in a dreadful way into having an abortion. There, it's said. That feels better (sigh)

Charanand Gee advised this premie that he should focus his life on surrendering to M, become celebate by joining the ashram, in essence abandon me when I was under the impression M didn't approve of abortions. The subsequent events leading to the abortion are too lengthy to post here. I'd like to post my story in Shattered Lives and Tragedies. I was coerced, through the cult's brainwashing, and intense pressure from this premie's powerful family. It was awful--and I am a pro-choice woman.

Fuck Charanand and Fuck Maharaji, too.

I'm okay, I've worked it all through....just hearing of the Chard's sexual exploits after giving such 'lofty' advice has me sincerely miffed.

See ya,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:49:58 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: That's horrible, Cynthia
Message:
I had experiences which could fall into the same category (they were caused by pressure on people to move into the ashram), but were not of that magnitude. And as it happens, some of the people who were most vocal in trying to convince people to break off relationships and move into the ashram were NOT celibate themselves. It seemed to be OK not to be celibate - just not OK to be in a committed relationship. I still feel bitter about this because these people made me feel really bad about myself for even wanting a relationship.

I hope you DO write about this - would you consider amending or re-writing your journey's entry?

Love to you -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:59:30 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: In answer to your question, Katie
Message:
yes I would like to do that.

I'll talk to you in a couple of days. Today is my day!

Thanks for your support,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 15:10:09 (GMT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: In answer to your question, Katie
Message:
Cynthia,

I think the stance of abortion in m’s cult is the most disgusting thing I have come across. I knew of a female premie that was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, she did not know what to do, thinking that she maybe taking a life. She had to wait until she got a reply from fatty. That attitude makes me absolutely sick. It was not that the other party (i.e. the father) was not interested, rather it is the denial to the father and total disregard to what he felt.

Being a premie is worst than being a slave. I am glad I shock that leach of my back.

Salam

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:52:13 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: So true,
Message:
I knew of more than one heavy that coerced people into the ashram that was less than celibate.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:57:23 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: So true,
Message:
The implication is that if you were REALLY devoted, or somehow 'higher' than the premie norm, you could handle a sexual relationship. However, the rest of the premies (including me) were seen as not being able to deal with this and remain devoted enough - just another extension of the X-rated thing!

Susan, I was so stupid and naive back then that I don't even know if there was sexual activity among ashram premies in DC. I know some of them were really serious about their vows, some got married and left the ashram after M got married, but couldn't tell you about the rest.

I hate thinking about this, even now.

Love to you - hope you're not suffering during all the OT election talk :).

Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 00:58:38 (GMT)
From: Dv
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: So true,
Message:
I was hit on in the McKinley St shram, but I was so 'pure' (and nervous) that instead I grabbed a guitar and we wrote Boy From Prem Nagar.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 15:41:27 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dv
Subject: I remember that song
Message:
Did it make it nationally, or was it local? It was (unintentionally, I'm sure) very funny.

Re getting hit on - I know what you mean, especially about the 'pure' part - aaaagh!

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:02:04 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: more
Message:
I have learned to stay out of the politics generally, since obviously I am a little different from the norm here.

Still curious about the Yingling list of monmots :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:08:57 (GMT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: see below (nt)
Message:
(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 19:43:21 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: I am so sorry that happened
Message:
I get the sick impression that the guru was against abortion until he realized it was more profitable to advise in favor of it. Seriously. He seemed to change his stance on it during those days of join the ashram or else. I seriously think he felt all the premie children were competition for the money that was rightfully his.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:58:30 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: in Miami it was both, from what I could tell
Message:
Well, it was hard for me to tell, but I think there were many semi-secret trysts going on. But I also think there were a lot of Ashram premies that were 100% faithful to their vows, in fact, I would say most.

Without a doubt though I saw the most likely people to be breaking vows and certainly not living as austerely were the PAMs. It makes more sense now that we know about X rating too. I think that premies always tended to copy the masters habits to a sickening degree. I heard that when it became known he was a smoker premies not only took up the habit to a large degree but also had to smake his brand. Do they also tend to indulge in courvoisier like the Ladies Man?

Oh god that would make a GREAT parody. Oh Drek, any way to cut and paste the guru's face on Tim Meadows?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:36:01 (GMT)
From: Patrick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Interesting indeed
Message:
I'ver always thought that 'jealousy' applies to matters of the heart (i.e. who's got who's affections) and that 'envy' covers everything else. But otherwise, I think you're right on with this.

Is there a word that describes wanting what others have in a way that is healthy? Even 'envy' is seems to imply a certain amount of desiring something for the wrong reasons. But everybody is envious of somebody who has something good and it can be motivating in a healthy way. When someone wins the lottery if we didn't feel some envy we would probably not be human. My kids show jealous tendences all the time, but it is a part of their learning process to discover that envy has to be a balanced emotion.

All this talk about 'desire' being wrong seems like medieval myth mongering to control people with fear. Does anyone really suppose for example that Maharaji is beyond wanting stuff that he sees others having? No way and yet we were taught to shun desire.

Desire to have what good things others have (jealousy in the 'bad' sense of the word) seems only destructive when it turns into hatred towards those who have it - or the wish to take whatever is deemed desirable away from others so you can have it instead!

So Gurucharanand was getting laid as long ago as the '70s? That's important info beyond it's pure gossip value. Can you elaborate in any way whatsoever? Proof? Details even?

This is what my best man at my wedding told me. I gues it would have been around '76-'77 in California. I've known him since he was 14 and got Knowledge with him. He used to kind of brag about this to people occasionally - but he is a current premie of the more unorthodox variety, who see everything as perfect and he seemed to think it was rather cool that Charanand had been seduced by his sexually ambitious girlfriend. I am certain that he personally was telling the truth. That leaves the girl who may have been lying but knowing her I doubt it - she was very sexually active.

Anyway Guru Charanand could deny it couldn't he? if it became an issue. (not that it will). All these stories are basically deniable, but my experience tends to make me think that they are almost all true. Maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it. I mean how many premies a year ago would have not thought that there was any likelihood that Jagdeo was a paedophile? Not many. All of these rumours start as 'shock horror revelation' and then settle into reluctant fact as time goes by.

I have nothing personally against old Charanand except maybe that he was quite happy to pass on to us the heavy righteous rap about dedication, surrender, etc. and came on like the saint that everyone thought he was. I am sure he deserved some good sex for once in his life. I really hope he had a good time. I actually just feel so bitter that all these people who I was clearly supposed to revere and heed as Mharaji's channels were actually not practicing what they preached. If I had known then I would have not invested so much time and trust.

I feel that these stories are valuable not even because they are true or false, but that I have come across them at every turn, like it or not, during my premie life, and I resent that I should have to silently brew about things that have made me gradually lose my faith in God. Something that was a beautiful pure, wonderful aspiration that has been knocked out of me by all of this.

My little 4 year girl told me tonight that she prays every night for God to keep me, her brother and mummy safe. She is so innocent and sweet. I also shared her simple faith in God until events gradualy made me doubt that my absolute trust in Maharaji was safe. I feel sort of corrupted by my premie life.

I am pissed off that after being so dedicated to truth that I should have to keep mum about the things that I truly have heard that make a sham of the comittment that I made in totally good faith. You know what I mean? I am really sick of hearing rumours of hypocritic behaviour and having to ignore the implications. I have heard things that put me off that I cannot even bring myself to say here..and these are things I have witnessed myself. The truth is usually worse than the rumours in my experience. I firmly believe that now.

I suspect that if it wasn't for the terror that premies have of Maharaji we would be hearing all kinds of similar stuff. It sickens me that so many premies have sold out their integrity.
Sometimes I get calls from people who read the forum but are too indifferent or scared to tell share their stories. They clearly would like me to speak on their behalf (to take the flak) - sometimes I can't resist but usually I just tell them to do their own dirty laundry.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:10:19 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Patrick
Subject: Corruption of innocence and loss of hope
Message:
I have heard things that put me off that I cannot even bring myself to say here..and these are things I have witnessed myself.

At some point I think you'd find it really healthy to get this stuff out.

The loss of hope, loss of that sweeetness, was a big one for me too, which I thought was unresolvable for a few years, but it definitely isn't, and I now know a few people who have resolved this dilemma and ended up in very similar state of mind.

BUT I would never have been able to reach it, and I suspect neither would others I know, without contact on a regular intimate basis with 20-35 year olds who are able to balance their and other peoples shadow sides AND STILL hold onto the sweet part. In the process the naivete of our generation is blown away and the gorgeous part is grounded. If one wanted to get a bit new agey about it you could call it truly taoist.
This debate within the social zeitgeist can be mapped back to the failure of the sixties and the refusal of the following generations to go down the new age route. It took thirty years but has definitely been resolved.

I know a lot of younger people who relate to aspects of hippy culture and don't mind people calling them 'fucking hippies', but they are not hippies as we knew them.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:13:34 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Patrick
Subject: Envy's not necessarily bad
Message:
I've got a friend who says he never feels it but I think he just has to be kidding himself. When you're a kid and you see your friend's new bike, you want one. That's life and I don't think it ever really changes. And I don't think it's bad.

Patrick, you're such a nice guy (honestly) and that's why you're trying to fit together two such contradictory attitudes as these:

Patrick's one opinion:

I am sure he deserved some good sex for once in his life. I really hope he had a good time.

That's one. Don't deny it.

But -- aha! -- then there's this thing here:

Patrick's OTHER opinion:

I am sure he deserved some good sex for once in his life. I really hope he had a good time. I actually just feel so bitter that all these people who I was clearly supposed to revere and heed as Mharaji's channels were actually not practicing what they preached. If I had known then I would have not invested so much time and trust.

I sense a seething anger there, Patrick. What did the girl look like?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:08:11 (GMT)
From: Patrick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Envy's not necessarily bad
Message:
Jim wrote:
Patrick, you're such a nice guy (honestly) and that's why you're trying to fit together two such contradictory attitudes as these:

Patrick's one opinion:

I am sure he deserved some good sex for once in his life. I really hope he had a good time. etc.


Nope you're right about this Jim. I'll retract that statement. Let me be more honest...

If he enjoyed sex with this lady then that would make him even more guilty of having double-standards. I actually hope that she made him feel like the weak-willed hypocrite he was - 'Cos that would be what Maharaji would have wanted us all to feel if we dared to disobey his Divine Order to be celibate.

Is that better?!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:12:18 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I hope I'm not intruding but I need some advice...
Message:
Hello,

I've been reading the website and links--there's so much to read. Today, I read the section called Shattered Lives and Tragedies. That was right after I read Susan's letter to m section. I feel very stunned and I request your advice.

Something happened to me after I received knowledge that to this day has left a hole in my heart. It was a tragedy I experienced due to trickery and betrayal and it involved Charanand and a premie I had a relationship with. I need advice about how I should tell this story.

Mahatma Guru Charanand Ji as I always heard it was a realized soul. Having just read the Shattered Lives section and now this 'Charanand fucked women in the 70's' really caught my attention.

I don't have to talk in code to tell you I had no choice in the matter. What should I do?

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:22:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: I hope I'm not intruding but I need some advice...
Message:
Hey, Cynth,

Email?

heller@bc1.com

or maybe even call if you like:

(250) 360-1040

Too much

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:32:29 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim..I'll email you
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:37:40 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Jim..I'll email you
Message:
OK, a friend's coming over but I'll check my email in a while.

Too much

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:34:01 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Jim..I'll email you(sorry) NT ABOVE ^^^
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:40:37 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jealousy and envy.
Message:
I've always thought that 'jealousy' applies to matters of the heart (i.e. who's got who's affections) and that 'envy' covers everything else. But otherwise, I think you're right on with this.

No big deal, Jim, but I think 'jealous' originally means the desire to hang on to what you've got (eg. to 'jealously protect' one's lover or bank balance) while 'envy' is the desire to acquire somebody's 100ft yacht and matching Gulfstream jet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:40:19 (GMT)
From: Peter Howie
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: On Jealousy and envy.
Message:
I've been using jealously to describe when I want what another person's got and envy when not only do I want it but I want the other person to not have it any longer.

So jealously is pretty benign for the other person but envy might lead me to want to pull down the other person. Serious work competitors can sometimes get envious of their colleagues and want to derail their careers. Politicians are often ruled by envy often termed pay-back.

Cheers

Peter

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:57:08 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Peter Howie
Subject: That's a very personal interpretation, Peter
Message:
I think Nigel's nearer to the dictionary definition of the meaning of those words, regardless of the interpretation the likes of Dr Kenner gives.

As the Oxford English Dictionary says of the word JEALOUSY:

'Troubled by the belief, suspicion, or fear that the good which one desires to gain or keep for oneself has been or may be diverted to another; resentful towards another on account of known or suspected rivalry'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:44:48 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Jealousy and envy.
Message:
Yeah, that makes sense actually.

OK, nap time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:54:34 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jealousy and envy.
Message:
OK, nap time.

I'll give you a shout when Mili replies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:32:15 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Patrick
Subject: .............his human weaknesses
Message:

are precisely what turned me from being a premie into an ex-premie , when I 1st found out about them a few months ago.

Any premie who knows about this stuff & disregards it , is contemptible.

Political leaders' foibles , however gross , are irrelevant if they don't interfere with the job.

They have , after all , been elected to deal with more important things than who's shagged whom , who drinks too much ,& all that shit.

Their legitimacy rests on the process that the public has agreed , whatever it's flaws , is the best one for choosing a leader.


The legitimacy of a spiritual leader , especially one outside any traditional framework , rests on the extent to which he embodies the virtues he preaches.

Rawat has , for all his life in the West , hidden 'himself' from the people he encouraged to devote themselves to him.


If he can be compared to any sort of 'leader' , he ranks only with the gangster despots who hold so many people in their thrall.

Be proud that you weren't a scumbag like him when you thought you were living in his 'shelter'.


Rawat is a betrayer of Love , Truth , & Justice.

He's lucky he never made it to be a World Leader , he'd need more than the wpc to protect him now , if he had.

ALLONS ENFANTS.............

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:48:47 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Bin Liner
Subject: interesting post
Message:
I just read Michael Isikoff's story of the Clinton saga. I too kept seeing cult analogies everywhere. It was a good book too.

I do not think Clinton operates a cult, that is not at all what I am saying. But he does deal with problems by insulating himself from blame, and he does blame the people who see his problems as having something wrong with them because they see them. It makes perfect sense to me that Rawat would make such a joke.

Uck.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:17:27 (GMT)
From: Bin Liner
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: Lack of integrity
Message:

is the problem.

Rawat's is worse....... he betrayed the heart & he can't be kicked out of office by due process.


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 18:01:18 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Everyone
Subject: Reply to Mili from Inactive (consciousness)
Message:
Now in the inactive, I wrote a long, honest reply to Mili's question: 'Do you know what consciousness is?'

Mili replied:

Nice conversation you were having with yourself there, Nigel.

Well excuse, me, Mili. You asked me a question and I did my best to answer it.

You know what your problem is? You are having these imaginary conversations with your 'opponents', including me. You make up their arguments and viewpoints by yourself, and then you try to counter them. You are talking to yourself most of the time, basically.

No I am not. I am talking to you. (Though if you duck the issues it becomes like talking to myself.) I am challenging your assertions about consciousness and the breath. You asked me a straight question, I gave you a considered reply, the detail of which you prefer to ignore.

I was never a serious fan of 'mystical' explanations of consciousness, though I do think they are worth considering. All these people who wrote the Upanishads, the Sutras, the Tao Teh Ching and other stuff were trying to tell us something and they were not dumb. It's pretty arrogant to just shrug it all off.

…in the way you have just shrugged off my 'emergent property of biological systems' explanation?

On the other hand, what need is there to explain everything away? It's there.

First, to explain something is not necessarily to explain it away. And such explanations can spare us the misguided effort required to spend years in thrall to the latest exponent of the guru game, be it Lao Tzu, Harry Krishna or Maharaji. I'll concede that Lao Tzu at least had a poetic way with words, but when it comes down to it, the teachings of all self-proclaimed masters boil down to a typical mix of the banal and the cryptic: hints of a privileged perspective you are required to take on trust they possess. They might inspire but they never inform.

And of course consciousness 'is there' (what isn't?) So what?

Do you think you can improve on it? Better to observe more, and gain some more empirical understanding of the stuff.

No, I never said that, and why would I want to improve on it? To your second question - and to repeat - are you saying watching your breath is observing your consciousness? If so, what are you watching it with?

If matter is all that there is, then of course consciousness is an inherent property of matter. Even atoms of hydrogen 'sense' each other gravitationally.

Category error, Mili. You are confounding effect with affect.

But matter is not all that there is. There're also these things called 'energy', 'information', 'space' and 'time'. All of the physical laws put together cannot explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to classical physics the direction of time should be able to go both ways. Obviously it doesn't. So, it's just been stated as a Law on the basis of empirical evidence.

What has any of the above to do with consciousness and the limitations I suggested on its occurance?

Anyway, I understand how futile it is to try to 'prove' anything to you. So I am not even going to try.

(Can't do, more like..) So you'll continue to accuse ex-premies of talking bullshit, whilst purporting to understand something about concsciousness (from breath watching) the rest of us don't?

Sorry, I have better use of my time. I am more inclined to go with Jerry's definition of consciousness though (although I don't quite understand this thing for piss he has - it's not the greatest pleasure to be had from life, in my experience).

That's a fallacy at the end of your 'argument', by the way. A Fallacy of Analogy, I believe it's called. Look it up.

What fallacy? I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:41:04 (GMT)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Reply to Nigel
Message:
Nigel,

A fallacy of analogy is when you take two totally unrelated statements and base your judgement on one of them according to whether the other one is true or false. For instance, you could say ‘A Maserati is a car that sucks because the sky is not green’. Get it?

Now let’s get one thing straight – I don’t mind anyone reading books, and I am not about to suggest you don’t read them, either. It just seems funny to me that you are reading books to understand yourself, when you can have firsthand experience of yourself at every moment. Introspection (and that’s what Knowledge is) has proven to me to be a much more powerful tool to understand myself by myself. And I don’t need some committee’s certificate or your approval for the insights I gained thus.

Yes, I like to read science and philosophy sometimes. It’s like a hobby for me, but I am not obsessed by it. Maybe that’s because I understand that it is not possible to reduce life to a formula, like x=y+z. Life is so much more than that! It’s color, movement, elation, surprise, and more. And that can never sufficiently be written down on paper and stuffed in a book.

In the words of Walt Whitman:

WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

I can understand that sentiment perfectly.

Mili


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:43:18 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Mili on 'consciousness' (and attitude to rape?)
Message:
Mili's post to forum (Mar 28, 1998) to JohnK

>>>
M would sometimes speak about reincarnation, but it was always tongue in cheek. My theory is that consciousness is an intrinsic potentiality in matter which gets its fuller expression in higher life forms. A rock is less conscious than a sponge. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, is denying the belief that any life form is inherently 'superior' to any other. Who's to say thhat sharks, for instance, are not superior to human beings. They have evolved perfectly into a niche of the eco-system where they did not have the necessity to evolve further for millions of years. Why don't you go do something more useful than write these inane posts here, like go get raped by a mahatma or something...
>>>

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:46:53 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Mili's theory in full...
Message:
As I was saying, M would sometimes speak about reincarnation, but it was always tongue in cheek. My theory is that consciousness is an intrinsic potentiality in matter which gets its fuller expression in higher life forms. A rock is less conscious than a sponge. Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, is denying the belief that any life form is inherently 'superior' to any other. Who's to say that sharks, for instance, are not superior to human beings. They have evolved perfectly into a niche of the eco-system where they did not have the necessity to evolve further for millions of years. The chemical elements of which the Earth is made required billions of years of galactic and stellar evolution for their manufacture in the stellar interiors, for their distribution through interstellar space by explosions and stellar winds, and for their subsequent accumulation in the clouds of dusty hydrogen from which our sun was born. Then, following the formation of the Earth from that solar nebula, the development of such a complicated organism as man required another several billion years of genetic evolution, from the blue-green algae through the simple poly-celled organisms, the mud worms, the chordates, the vertebrates, the fish, the finbacks, the mammals, and, finally among the mammals, the primates, including man. (There is, of course, nothing final about it. We think of it as final only because we see it from our own point of view.) All these things arise by transformational causation from hydrogen but how can the hydrogen exist without perception? Is there an objective universe existing without perceiving subjects? First we must ask: What is perception? We think of ourselves as perceivers, but we are smart enough to understand that our sense of perception is associated with the consciousness of a highly evolved, multi-celled organism with an elaborate brain made up of billions of individual cells. And we also understand that we are not, in any way, aware of the consciousness or the perceptions of the individual cells of which our bodies or even our brains are composed. Is perception limited to such poly-celled organisms or do the individual cells have their own perceptions? We know that the individual cells do have their own perceptions, or at least that they respond to the same sort of stimuli as those to which we, as poly-celled organisms, respond. In fact, our own sense perceptions depend entirely on the fact that even single protoplasmic cells respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism. The interesting thing is that just as our sense perceptions depend on the perceptions, or at least the responses, of single protoplasmic cells, just so the perceptions, or responses, of the individual cells depend on the responses of the individual atoms to those same five forms of energy. Even the primordial hydrogen atoms respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 00:11:50 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Or to be fair...
Message:
..the archives mangle the paragraphs. I'll repaste Mili's theory with what I assume would be the logical breathing spaces.

>>>>

As I was saying, M would sometimes speak about reincarnation, but it was always tongue in cheek. My theory is that consciousness is an intrinsic potentiality in matter which gets its fuller expression in higher life forms. A rock is less conscious than a sponge.

Stephen Jay Gould, on the other hand, is denying the belief that any life form is inherently 'superior' to any other. Who's to say that sharks, for instance, are not superior to human beings. They have evolved perfectly into a niche of the eco-system where they did not have the necessity to evolve further for millions of years.

The chemical elements of which the Earth is made required billions of years of galactic and stellar evolution for their manufacture in the stellar interiors, for their distribution through interstellar space by explosions and stellar winds, and for their subsequent accumulation in the clouds of dusty hydrogen from which our sun was born.

Then, following the formation of the Earth from that solar nebula, the development of such a complicated organism as man required another several billion years of genetic evolution, from the blue-green algae through the simple poly-celled organisms, the mud worms, the chordates, the vertebrates, the fish, the finbacks, the mammals, and, finally among the mammals, the primates, including man.

(There is, of course, nothing final about it. We think of it as final only because we see it from our own point of view.) All these things arise by transformational causation from hydrogen but how can the hydrogen exist without perception? Is there an objective universe existing without perceiving subjects?

First we must ask: What is perception? We think of ourselves as perceivers, but we are smart enough to understand that our sense of perception is associated with the consciousness of a highly evolved, multi-celled organism with an elaborate brain made up of billions of individual cells. And we also understand that we are not, in any way, aware of the consciousness or the perceptions of the individual cells of which our bodies or even our brains are composed. Is perception limited to such poly-celled organisms or do the individual cells have their own perceptions?

We know that the individual cells do have their own perceptions, or at least that they respond to the same sort of stimuli as those to which we, as poly-celled organisms, respond. In fact, our own sense perceptions depend entirely on the fact that even single protoplasmic cells respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism.

The interesting thing is that just as our sense perceptions depend on the perceptions, or at least the responses, of single protoplasmic cells, just so the perceptions, or responses, of the individual cells depend on the responses of the individual atoms to those same five forms of energy. Even the primordial hydrogen atoms respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:56:18 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: And my reply...
Message:
Mili - you really do seem to mix and match some mutually incompatible concepts in a glorious fudge of a theory that is full of logical non-sequiturs. You also make frequent passing references to scientists (including one of my heroes Stephen Jay Gould), in what looks like an effort to lend credibility to your ideas. I am not sure whether you really understand some of the people you cite.

According to your theory ‘consciousness is an intrinsic potentiality in matter which gets its fuller expression in higher life forms.’ Why should we expect this to be so? Surely the main reason that a rock is less conscious than a sponge is that a rock is not conscious at all. It is also a pretty dubious assertion that a sponge is any more conscious than a rock. Sure, a sponge has a primitive nervous system, but one whose behaviour could be explained in terms of simple physical and chemical reactions. (re-read your Blind Watchmaker here, page 7 , where Dawkins discusses Mont Blanc’s credentials as a ‘complex thing’).

You ask how can the hydrogen exist without perception? Is there an objective universe existing without perceiving subjects?

What kind of a question is that? It sounds like something a Scientologist would come up with. There is certainly no subjective universe without perception (by very definition), but that, I think most people would agree, is the opposite of what you are asserting.

We know that the individual cells do have their own perceptions, or at least that they respond to the same sort of stimuli as those to which we, as poly-celled organisms, respond.

Again the ‘perception’ of a cell may be analagous to human perception, in that there are apparant similarities in the way something appears to respond to external stimuli, but it is a million miles from being homologous, ie., involving similar processes. Consciousness and perception are the products of living, waking, brains. The rest is just chemistry.

The interesting thing is that just as our sense perceptions depend on the perceptions, or at least the responses, of single protoplasmic cells, just so the perceptions, or responses, of the individual cells depend on the responses of the individual atoms to those same five forms of energy. Even the primordial hydrogen atoms respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism

Ditto my last comment (+ physics!) Just for the record, Gould hates this sort of thing. In 'Life’s Grandeur' he rips to shreds a similar theory by M Scott Peck contained in that godawful, perennially best-selling paperback 'The Road Less Travelled.' (In this, Peck tries to explain evolution in terms of an underlying consciousness that powers life forward against the natural forces of entropy). Similar ‘purpose-driven’ accounts of life’s origins have been fudged together by people like Gopi Krishnan (‘Kundalini’), and Teilhart de Jardin (‘Omega Point’). In each case it is the psuedo-scientific work of the true believer, trying against all the evidence to the contrary, to smuggle their religious views into the equations. It looks like you might be trying to do the same.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 23:04:37 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk
To: Mili
Subject: Oh, for fuck's sake....
Message:
A fallacy of analogy is when you take two totally unrelated statements and base your judgement on one of them according to whether the other one is true or false. For instance, you could say ‘A Maserati is a car that sucks because the sky is not green’. Get it?

Yes, I knew what both 'fallacy' and 'analogy' meant already. But thanks, anyway. So where, exactly, did I commit this outrage? That's what I was trying to work out.

Now let’s get one thing straight – I don’t mind anyone reading books, and I am not about to suggest you don’t read them, either.

Who's taking about books? What about my reply to you? What about the original consciousness post you didn't begin to reply to? I was talking about books with Jerry. I was talking about consciousness with you. Consciousness apparently located in the breath. Remember?

It just seems funny to me that you are reading books to understand yourself, when you can have firsthand experience of yourself at every moment.

Can't you have both?

Introspection (and that’s what Knowledge is) has proven to me to be a much more powerful tool to understand myself by myself. And I don’t need some committee’s certificate or your approval for the insights I gained thus.

I'm glad you realise you don't need a committee to make up your own mind about things. So how badly do you need a guru?

But you can't use your lovely experiences to decide that (a) the ex-premies here lack 'understanding' of consciousness (ie. the Mili variant) or (b) they have therefore no right to criticise Maharaji.

Yes, I like to read science and philosophy sometimes. It’s like a hobby for me, but I am not obsessed by it. Maybe that’s because I understand that it is not possible to reduce life to a formula, like x=y+z. Life is so much more than that! It’s color, movement, elation, surprise, and more. And that can never sufficiently be written down on paper and stuffed in a book.

In the words of Walt Whitman:

WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

I can understand that sentiment perfectly.

Mili

Yes, I like Walt Whitman, and I could list you a ream of poets I love, quotations too - but I don't think you even understand how far off the original posts which you initiated about consciousness you have wandered. Constantly changing the subject the moment you feel uncomfortable is no substitute for argument or even for polite engagement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:26:20 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: The problem is not your experiences but
Message:
your explanations.

I don't doubt for a moment that you have experiences that are valuable to you from meditation, and I don't doubt that you are able to enhance the quality of those experiences over time,
but you don't just do that mili, and nor does any other premie who comes here.

You set a belief system as the explanation for those experiences, and then run dry because that belief system does not explain those experiences.
Because you then see that belief system ridiculed, and you are not prepared to compromise your experiences one iota, you disappear or come out with ridiculous one liners.

I still have a great time meditating when I want to, and it's ALWAYS accessible after years of practice, yet according to big boy that isn't possible; so do followers of lots of other teachers/practices, but more crucially so do other people have those quality of experiences doing anything. It's down to personal states and attitudes WHATEVER you are doing because those states are a biological function of awareness that comes with the package.

Mr Rawat's only function for someone who believes in him is to provide a belief that everything is ok, that he is THE man. He is used as a security for internal launching, but that does not mean he is doing anything but being used as a blank mirror.
This is why you can't deal with his alcoholism, abusive character and control freakiness, you need him to be blank to project, and anything that can interfere with that is inadmissable.

I suggest the true test for you or any premie about how grounded your experience is, to find how much you need the illusion, is to walk for a while while still practicing. That experience even he admits is built in, if you were connected to that state without the beliefs and baggage, you'd be able to maintain it.

You're in a religion mili, you practice idolatry worship, and your baggage is crucial to that.
The very baggage he's says gets in the way.
It does, it stops you ever getting beyond a certain point because you need that child like dependency on maha or else the status quo is threatened, that's why you can't deal with his human weaknesses, and see it all as negativity/hate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 09:39:23 (GMT)
From: curious prudent george
Email: None
To: god
Subject: The problem is not your experiences but
Message:
if i were to post down here.
would anyone actually read it.
i mean really
maybe 3 people...
i don't get it
i'm a hippy @hart
where's yo'hippiness
w/the technology of the new millenium.
if we ever get there.
where's that positive attitude.
we can not polute the rivers...it's simple
ralp nader knows it.
y don't u ?
talk trash...doesn't do ralphy boy any good.
y do u talk trash..i thought you were intelligent
bradley talks no trash...
politics...that's it...jim resigned as the el capitaino
other than janet reno
does anybody, any soul, any 'thought' actually read this stuff ?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:44:58 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: I disagree
Message:
I don't doubt for a moment that you have experiences that are valuable to you from meditation,

...agree

and I don't doubt that you are able to enhance the quality of those experiences over time,

....disagree

I think that doing the techniques is going to yield some sort of experience, of course it is. That goes without saying for pretty well anything. Howver, the whole notion of 'progress' only stems from the whole spiritual path bullshit that is, don't forget, part and parcel of the culture that's selling these techniques as golden keys to the golden kingdom.

I think it's a myth that the experiences get better over time. In MY experience, what made them better was one thing only and that was the amount of religious zeal I brought to the table. In that respect, most of my deepest, most apparently profound experiences with k were at the beginning because that's when I actually thought I was going to 'merge with the infinite', just like Maharaji was and just like he promised, sooner rather than later. After being a premie for a few years and noticing that neither I nor anyone else for that matter seemed to ever actually 'get anywahere' my expectations fell off as did the intensity of my meditations. The more I stoked the fire, the bigger the flames.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:43:06 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Good post Ham Zen .
Message:
' Followers never make it '
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 19:21:36 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Thanks, Nige
Message:
Hi Nigel,

I was thinking about your explanation of consciousness, and Mili's reaction to it, earlier today. I don't know what civiliztion it was, the ancient Greeks or Babylonians, or some other, when they conquered a city, one of the first things they did was burn down the libraries. Mili's brushoff of your learned explanation struck me as being akin to that, a totally crude reaction toward something he could learn and benefit from. Whatever, if it means anything, thanks for taking the time to post it.

It's similar to the post you posted a couple of years ago, and launched me on my own adventure of studying consciousness in a more scientific, realistic, and fascinating light. I've since met the likes of Antonio DiMassio, Collin McGuinn, and Daniel Dennett (who, actually I could do without), to name a few. So, thanks for your invaluable input on this topic that at least one person smart enough (moi, if I may say so) was clever enough to take advantage of. What do premies say, 'one man sees a piece af glass, the other a diamond?' I guess, this time, Mili saw glass, not knowing any better.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 19:33:44 (GMT)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Thanks, Jerry..
Message:
As it happens, the content was largely adapted from that post of a couple of years ago - well spotted, Sir! It's not as if I can be bothered with all that typing, given the kind of reply I was (righly) expecting from Mili.

But glad someone, at least, appreciates and shares this kind of approach to mind/body questions - especially since the typical premie shrug can be a frustrating thing to deal with.

I think the 'library burning' analogy is spot-on, remembering how all books and magazines were banned from the ashrams.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:36:17 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Bush or Gore?
Message:
Both of you guys have offered some really great science-oriented commentary to this farcical intrigue and I, for one, really appreciate it. Thanks to you both.

Jerry, I don't know who the other two guys are but I wonder why you said that about Dennett. Hm?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:23:43 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Or Danny D?
Message:
Hi Jim,

I gained a little from reading Dennett, but I just didn't care much for his style of writing. I found other authors, like that Dawkins fellow you hear about, much more invigorating. What about you? I know you have a copy of Consciousness Explained. Did you gain much from it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 01:34:54 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Hey, that's not fair!
Message:
You KNOW I never really read the sucker. You're right, too dense, too referential, too THICK. If I wanted to spend my life plowing through thick forests of words I would have gone to law school. Or yeshiva, maybe. But no, this was too much. I tned to lean more towards 'The Rolling Stone History of Rock and Roll'. It can get a little hard too, in places, but I'm committed to making my way through it this time (what's that they say about the seventh something?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index