Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Feb 07, 2002 To: Feb 14, 2002 Page: 2 of: 5


gerry -:- We have liftoff... (nt) -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 15:22:33 (EST)
__ Mercedes -:- Thanks Gerry...(nt) -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:30:28 (EST)

Your Premie -:- Why have you abandoned me? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:59:10 (EST)
__ Richard -:- Re: Why have you abandoned me? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:10:51 (EST)
__ a fly on the wall -:- Beat me! Whip me! ... -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:17:59 (EST)
__ wolfie -:- Re: Why have you abandoned me? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:00:20 (EST)
__ Tonette -:- This is a joke right? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:46:40 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- I don't think so, Tonette -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:37:46 (EST)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- Oh wow, whoops, sorry....... -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:24:39 (EST)
__ Patrick W -:- Never be fearful again Your Premie -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 06:06:56 (EST)
__ __ cq -:- 'God to a goldfish is a bigger Goldfish' -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:14:06 (EST)
__ PatC -:- Good luck, sister er brother? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:23:55 (EST)
__ __ OTS -:- Re: Good luck, sister er brother? -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 17:12:37 (EST)

Maharaji -:- Thank you, DJ -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:25:32 (EST)
__ PatC -:- Re: Thank you, DJ -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:29:23 (EST)
__ __ Richard -:- Thanks Pat -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:34:08 (EST)
__ __ __ PatC -:- Re: Thanks -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:36:53 (EST)

Jerry -:- The David Blaine cult -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:11:51 (EST)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: The David Blaine cult -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:58:45 (EST)

Patrick W -:- I think-Knowledge good/Gurus bad -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 07:02:07 (EST)
__ OTS -:- John*****BEST OF BORING*******[NT] -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:13:23 (EST)
__ Pullaver -:- Re: I think-Knowledge good/Gurus bad -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:10:43 (EST)
__ Mike Finch -:- Patrick, Jim and PatC and others -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:25:06 (EST)
__ __ Dermot -:- Hold on a second, Mike. -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:25:59 (EST)
__ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Hold on a second, Mike. -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:02:33 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Hold on a second, Mike. -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:01:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Hold on a second, Mike. -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 13:09:51 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim the ONLY forum watchdog -:- Nice try, Dermot -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:21:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Nice try, Dermot -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:13:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Tongue-in-cheek -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:45:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Ddermot -:- It's ok Jim -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:52:13 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Nonsense, Dermot -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:08:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- I'm glad -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:30:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: I'm glad - to Dermot OT -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:37:43 (EST)
__ __ PatC -:- Knowledge and meditation -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:44:50 (EST)
__ __ __ Francesca -:- Pat, your rundown was FAB! :) -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 15:45:41 (EST)
__ __ __ A Friend -:- Re: Knowledge and meditation -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 15:23:46 (EST)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- Hi, Friend, I was reading your posts... -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 16:22:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Hi, Friend, I was reading your posts... -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 17:14:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Thanks, Mike! (nt) [nt] -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 15:48:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Thanks, Mike -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 17:28:55 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Thanks, Mike -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:49:01 (EST)
__ __ PatD -:- Re: Patrick, Jim and PatC and others -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:15:55 (EST)
__ __ Dermot -:- Re: Patrick, Jim and PatC and others -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:14:11 (EST)
__ Bryn -:- Onward ever onward! -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:17:41 (EST)
__ Francesca :~) -:- Showing someone, or ... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:58:08 (EST)
__ __ Francesca -:- Other teachers -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:01:03 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim -:- At least it wasn't plastic surgery -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:23:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Francesca :~) -:- As I told in my story many times -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:14:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- I like what you have to say -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 21:57:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- How do you know they know ANYthing? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:09:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- I'm not sure mastery is the word -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:00:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- But ARE there really any trails? -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 16:45:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Yes there are trails -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 01:43:30 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hm, that's not quite what I meant -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 13:18:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Hope this is the last on this -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:46:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Well said, Fran, but I'm green;) with envy -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:23:46 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Who's the watchdog?????? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:23:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- I won't be taking this thread elsewhere -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:52:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, you miss the point -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:18:13 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Just great, Francesca -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:07:02 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca :~) -:- company of truth or sangha -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:14:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- What is IS! -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 22:34:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Thanks for the link -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 14:23:26 (EST)
__ __ Dermot -:- Yep,neatly sums up M/K Francesca [nt] -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 19:06:48 (EST)
__ Jim -:- No way -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:30:01 (EST)
__ __ Patrick W -:- Re: No way -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:09:33 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Re: No way -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:14:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Patrick W -:- Re: No way -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:01:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- A few things -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 17:35:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Patrick W -:- Re: A few things -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:45:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Re: A few things -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 20:41:47 (EST)
__ __ Dermot -:- Agreed Jim -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:54:24 (EST)
__ Occasional Poster -:- Thanks Patrick ... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 14:52:27 (EST)
__ PatC -:- Thanks, Patrick -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 13:29:27 (EST)
__ __ Patrick W -:- We need to break the spell. -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 14:51:28 (EST)
__ __ __ cq -:- BEST OF FORUM - raising important questions -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:23:51 (EST)
__ __ __ ChrisP -:- Breaking out of an invisible mould -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:27:43 (EST)
__ __ __ PatD -:- Interesting thoughts PW -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 19:28:46 (EST)
__ __ __ PatC -:- Re: We need to break the spell. -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:11:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Loaf -:- Meditation OT ?? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:32:43 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: Meditation OT ?? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:15:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- A had another aspirant.. but he passed away -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 05:04:24 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- That's better than mislaying an aspirant [nt] -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:42:55 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Loaf -:- thats why aspirants need co-ordinating -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 04:15:16 (EST)
__ Richard -:- EX-cellent dissertation, Patrick -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:59:30 (EST)
__ __ Marshall -:- Absolutely Fabulous -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:39:00 (EST)
__ Livia -:- Re: I think-Knowledge good/Gurus bad -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:36:38 (EST)
__ Jerry -:- I think Knowledge bullshit/Gurus too(nt) -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:16:25 (EST)
__ __ Joy -:- I agree w/Jerry--but great post anyway, Patrick -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:34:43 (EST)

Steve Mueller -:- Nurturing Each Other, Not Nitpicking -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:52:31 (EST)
__ Tonette -:- Hello, it's easy to get hurt feelings here -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:37:04 (EST)
__ __ PatC -:- Dear sensible Tonette -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:37:24 (EST)
__ __ __ Tonette -:- And this forum is primative -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:12:18 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Steve Mueller -:- Can't get rid of Steve that easily -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 20:55:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Can't get rid of Steve that easily -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 22:07:54 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Steve Mueller -:- Same as what I told mystery woman Z -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:40:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Did you read MD post up top -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:13:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: And this forum is primative -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:31:43 (EST)
__ hamzen -:- And some don't post here because it's so 'nice' -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:09:10 (EST)
__ __ PatC -:- it's so 'nice' -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:25:30 (EST)
__ JHB -:- Nitpicking? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:38 (EST)
__ Brian Smith -:- The Beatles were more popular -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:19:13 (EST)
__ __ PatC -:- Re: The Beatles were more popular -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:05:12 (EST)
__ Jim -:- Um, er, well, uh, um, hm........... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:23:58 (EST)
__ __ Pullaver -:- Well said, Jim. (nt) -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:15:38 (EST)
__ __ Cynthia -:- Oh Puleeze, the recent exes? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:43:43 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim -:- But you HAVE to hurt people .... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:27:43 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: But you HAVE to hurt people .... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:44:23 (EST)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Thanks for the excellent link! [nt] -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:47:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- The truth hurts -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:36:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:24:24 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- No offense, but you sound like -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 00:52:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: No offense, but you sound like -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:43:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- So which is it? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:12:23 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Re: So which is it? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:43:54 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Brilliant, Tonette. You're on a roll! [nt] -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:40:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why can't you see this obvious fact? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:39:43 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:34:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Really? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Really! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:06:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Spare me the gobbledygook, please! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:18:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- What ?????????? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:24:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Brian, did you read my response to Dog below? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:58:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Re: Brian, did you read my response to Dog below? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:22:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Sorry, shouldn't have said 'transcendent', but... -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 12:56:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- No way to get high here -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:11:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Brian, another scrupulous man -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:50:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What kind of 'knowing' is that then? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:17:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then????? -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:30:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Talking a little further on this -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 13:47:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Adding a little more -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:39:43 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:12:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Thanks for the link -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:51:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh yeah, there's harm alright -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:41:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- You can have the last word on this -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 13:33:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:42:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim the Forum Watchdog -:- Why try to salvage something here? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:12:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Jim, Grandfathering vs Revisionism -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:38:38 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oops! Wrong article! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:15:41 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Oops! Wrong brain! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:22:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:06:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry, I left out the best part -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:34:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- That's certainly true ... -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:27:18 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The best part. -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:54:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: What ? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:50:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Been there done that -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:31:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog=) -:- Re: Been there done that -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 18:18:31 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Possibly -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:22:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim the Watchdog -:- Christ, Brian, you can't be serious! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:33:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- What Now ? -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:39:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Funny, they kicked me out too -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:05:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Hilarious & Bizzare -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 14:47:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Dog's erroneous assumption -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:52:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Dog's erroneous assumption -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:11:30 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: Dog's erroneous assumption -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:28:02 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Landmark forum not forum7, I think? [nt] -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:50:46 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 19:03:30 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:25:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- If you want to help, scram! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:56:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What what ? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:20:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- What It Is -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:50:23 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Thank's Brian! [nt] -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:59:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- Truth or truth -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:43:21 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Truth or truth indeed! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:48:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- Hear and Now -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:29:20 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Re: Now and Zen -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:45:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- Zen Again, darlink -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 16:54:50 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- The mind, Poochie? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:56:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- The mind, PatC! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:57:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Poochie, I'm just an old acid-head -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 14:58:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Dog, what evidence do you have?? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:06:13 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Brutal Honesty Hurts... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:35:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Point well taken.. -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Steve Mueller -:- Saying you have to hurt people -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:59:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: Saying you have to hurt people -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:33:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Saying you have to hurt people -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:17:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- God, Steve, it was just a joke! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- But what if someone doesn't know it's a joke? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:22:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- It can be a problem -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:51:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: It can be a problem -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 13:35:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: It can be a problem -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 15:18:04 (EST)


Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 15:22:33 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: All
Subject: We have liftoff... (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:30:28 (EST)
From: Mercedes
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Thanks Gerry...(nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:59:10 (EST)
From: Your Premie
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Why have you abandoned me?
Message:
Dear Maharaji, I speak to you with all of my heart as I understand it.

I have so many questions that I have never dared to voice until now.

Ilove/ed you more than any one in my life.
I have set up my life for the past 30 years in order to serve you alone.

I do not/did not expect this to mean that you would find me worthy of your benevolence.

I only prayed with all of my being that I could help you and be smiled upon by you.

From the first moment I saw your picture I felt you were the one. I had no compunction but to act accordingly and follow your directions which were to move into the Ashram and give my all, my all to thee.

I have forsaken a life of some financial wealth as my parents were opposed to my devotion to you from the start and as I directly went against their wishes in this it affected my support from them.

I have spent the past 27 years as a volunteer. Giving my all in whichever way I could.

I have seen many things.
I have been on the receiving end of great human abuse because I was deemed a 'Nobody'

I am a 'Nobody' along with all the rest of the Planet called 'Somebodies'

Something is Terribly wrong with this picture.

Each and every person who sincerely comes to the 'Feet of the Master' is supposed to be the most noblest of souls.

I truly believe that there is NO 'Feet of the Master'

Only Sincere Souls, I mean no spiritual connotation by this as i have lost even my faith in this at this point.

Maharaji, are you even listening to this one cry to you?
Please, I am sooo hoping that you will allay my fears and heartfelt pleas after all these years.

You are my one and only Master and I implore you to help me.

I have written to you innumerable times over the past years.

I have been in your presence and had personal service and had opportunities to speak with you, but I have been too afraid, for many obvious reasons.

I crave personal contact and direct guidance from my teacher to whom I have Dedicated Everything.

I have NO idea how to instigate this beyond the means available to me,

I have Never received a response from your office via letter or email in all of these years.

I have been focussed on you alone for over 27 years and without any direct guidance or encouragement. This is now wearing on me.

Please Help me.
I am confused.
I have read the accounts here on Forum 7 and I find them too compelling to dismiss.

Please explain this and I shall have no problem replacing you back where you rightfully belong.

My Perfect Master.
Lord of My and any other Universe.
Maharaji my all my Lord to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:10:51 (EST)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Your Premie
Subject: Re: Why have you abandoned me?
Message:
Dear 'Your Premie',

If your post is sincere, it is so poingnant and sad. It strikes to the core of the fact that longing for Maharaji's love will always be just that. Longing without fulfillment. What you speak of is the insatiable longing for what is already yours to begin with. Begin to love yourself as you've described your love for M. You are the source of love and pain in your own life, not M.

If your post was meant as a spoof, it perfectly captures the same conundrum of longing that I've stated above.

All the best to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:17:59 (EST)
From: a fly on the wall
Email: None
To: Your Premie
Subject: Beat me! Whip me! ...
Message:
... make me write GOOD checks.

You are kidding, I hope. Either that or being melodramatic.

If you are for real, you've worked yourself up into a state. I sincerely hope you can find some peace. (Not kidding.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:00:20 (EST)
From: wolfie
Email: None
To: Your Premie
Subject: Re: Why have you abandoned me?
Message:
Hi,

I don't know wether I should cry or laugh. I think this is the story of a fake devotee. I and I and I and I and I, a real devotee should take more care for the Lord, you should not complain so much about yourself you should weep tears of sadness that there are so many people who critizise the Lord of the universe. Anyway, what I have learnt, a devotee does not care to be a nobody. Don't fool an old devotee.

If you don't know what I'm talking about then I excuse myself, I can't believe that a person can be so naiv. I can't believe that someone can be ín that state of mind for 28 years, sorry I prefer to think this is a joke like the one from Swamiji Suchbanana.

.......ciao we are one in the spirit...........wolfie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:46:40 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Your Premie
Subject: This is a joke right?
Message:
And if it isn't, well, all I can say is Maharaji didn't abandon you. How could he? He never knew you from a hole in the ground to begin with! He was never with you in the first place.

But surely this is a joke, what you wrote. It's gotta be.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 08:37:46 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: I don't think so, Tonette
Message:
Of course you could be right, but I actually think it's sincere. It can't be easy for premies who are extremely devoted.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:24:39 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Oh wow, whoops, sorry.......
Message:
Well, let me drive another knife into this most damaged person's heart why don't I?

To the person named 'your premie,' my deepest condolences. But it is true that you have not been abandoned, you've been wandering from the truth, yourself. There's only one way to go from here, that's up. Look at this way, you've got lots of company.

Godspeed to you, Premie.

Thanks for the heads up John.

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 06:06:56 (EST)
From: Patrick W
Email: None
To: Your Premie
Subject: Never be fearful again Your Premie
Message:
Dear Your Premie,

I think the real God is helping you wake up from this cult.

Yes the stuff that people like Mike Dettmers reported about Maharaji's Secret Life is very compelling - hard to believe at first. Take it on board and throttle any fears you have at birth. Kick out the Jams! Don't be afraid to look! In fact make some effort like you always did to find out the TRUTH with an enormous capital 'T' for once. Prop your eyes open with matchsticks if that's what it takes. Talke the bull by the horns. Fear is the soul killer- fear is the true evil. Don't be afraid to ask Maharaji some hard questions - but don't expect a straight answer. If you feel the need - stop meditating (don't worry you can take that up again any time -I have) but it will show you that your fine without that habit- for that is what is also you are enslaved to as well.

You sound a lot like me a while ago if you don't mind me saying. I wrote some very similar pleas from the heart. Writing such stuff is very cathartic in itself.

It hurts to realise that the person you had cherished , enthroned , replaced your beloved concept of God when you were child with, is distinctly unaware of your existence, flawed and not in the slightest bit concerned about giving you a part to play in his Great Plan. Basically he doesn't have a Great Plan. He's making it up as he goes along. Well - you guessed that already didn't you? It's not a 'Lila. ' It's down to earth up to each and every person to decide what happens next and you better start thinking quick before your whole life slips away waiting for his great 'Lila' to unfold.
God to a goldfish is a bigger Goldfish. Time to see M for what he is - a powerful, manipulative human being whose own delusions of grandeur are so strong that others are taken in.
As you may have noticed Maharaji has no confidence in our ability to help him whatsoever when it comes to sharing the good stuff. We just get in the way. He thinks he's the only one capable of inspiring others.You are free to go and get some measley job and get your own life together as best you can. Just still give generously and keep the meditation secret - it's so intimate that way isn't it? Just between you and him. Perfect- no one can get in between then can they? Heard that kind of talk before? let me give you a clue.. think of a sexually abusive father talking to his scared child. 'It's our little secret isn't it? I think we should keep it that way.. don't you?'

He's not God and he is very pissed off that people like you and I keep reminding him that he pretended he was - how he promised that we could be his 'hands and feet' and that surrendering the reins of our lives to him would be rewarded - Jesus style- in Heaven. Your vocation is actually not serving him - he can't handle your love - your life. He took our time and money and spent it on providing himself and his family with a jetset lifestyle whilst we scratched our heads and tried to work out what our heartfelt and hopeful sacrifices had been all about. Remember the bit about your sacrifices being unconditional? Well, Maharaji owes us NOTHING. Get it? So as far as he's concerned we'd better just crawl back into our RATHOLES and ENJOY LIFE.

Here you go...I wrote this some years ago when I was still coming to terms with the disillusionment I felt after years of following Maharaji and practising knowledge. I surrendered to Maharaji, as he said to, in the ashram and felt bitter (in my 30's that my sincerity , dedication and heartfelt youthful energies had been wasted.) I have posted this here before but here it is again - because I empathise - even sympathise with you and think you may relate.

This is reproduced exactly as I jotted it down in a notebook. I absolutely never intended to show this to anyone, it sounds rather naive to me now, but this was a real spontaneous outpouring of my feelings as I approached my mid-life.

I think it reveals how I truly felt let down by my Lord and Master, Maharaji and how I desperately wanted to refind my lost childhood innocence and unembittered ÔlongingÕ. It also shows that I longed for a truer revelation of God in my life.

MY PRAYER

All my life I primed myself for something great.
To be a part of something ÔgreatÕ is the cherished goal of the soul of youth in Man.
I determined at an early age to give myself to a positive cause, thinking a mundane existence to be avoided at all costs.
I jealously idolised those who achieved apparent success and awaited my turn to contribute, to be used, to be a part of a Great Cause.
An elusive Great Cause it is proving to be. If life is a Ôgiving back of loveÕ to my Creator, then let it be so in thought ,word and deed.
Let the goal be clear, the faith be strong and the heart determined. DonÕt allow thoughts of decay and age to depress the soul, to sublimate oneÕs body into a meaningless existence.
Let passion rule where intellectual knowledge becomes impotent.
Give the fire in the heart oxygen to burn and explode.
Let me be in moments of Truth like the child I was/still am.
Free me from the bonds of egoism and let my life be full of delight and wonder so that each day is filled sufficiently for a lifetime.

Reveal thyself O mystery
DonÕt delay or let me be tricked into false sacrifice.
The dangers of waste and bitterness are too great -
Time is too precious and the need too strong.
Open my eyes to the meaning of life that is there; Tear down the hated symbols and rituals that rape my pure innocent heart and murder the true love within.
Arise inner God Child perfect and free,
Awaken lover within to my trueself.
Find strength and pure intent and behold.

Let me be found as I am lost. Let my purpose be clear as I am unsure.
Focus my emotion into everyday life, make it a practical force.
Let me be a noble soldier fighting for a just cause.
Let me feel the energy of youth flush through my body and mind.
Let me train to achieve.
Let me enter middle age with pride and integrity, not inner shame that I wasted my my time in delusion or gave myself in vain.
Let me argue.... Let me use my intellect...
Let me know why I must act...
Let me be unafraid..
Banish fear altogether..
Let me laugh and cry...
Let my heart be full as it is now hungry.
Let my gratitude return for life as I have grown bitter...
Let my soul live as my body lives.
Let life be full of deep joy.
Let me find the way to real faith and Knowledge.
Let me live a full life.
Let me turn over a million new leaves and let me blossom before I die.
Let this be it ; the life that fulfils itself utterly, that turns itÕs back once and for all on illness death and sorrow..
these hands respond to the power of love with absolute certainty, this mind serve the spirit with efficiency and excellence until the end...
these eyes see with clarity the way ahead and perceive all the joy and wonder of the universe...
these ears hear the undistorted voice of the Creator in the Creation.
Let inspiration in at every turn, let time stand still and the heart awaken.
Let a deep conviction grow where true logic has destroyed shallow meanings,.
Let Knowledge replace hope and reality dawn and never set in this being -
And fast!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:14:06 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: 'God to a goldfish is a bigger Goldfish'
Message:
Memorable little saying there, Patrick! (your own or a quote?)

'God to a goldfish is a bigger Goldfish. Time to see M for what he is - a powerful, manipulative human being whose own delusions of grandeur are so strong that others are taken in'.

Here's a little more of M's megalomania (from the Nottingham 30th anniversary event):

'Do good deeds ... and many people get in to this, y'know ... do good deeds.

There is no deed greater than to impart 'Knowledge' to a person who is ready for this gift of Knowledge.

If there is a charity, then this is the greatest charity there is. Because it is a gift that is given - unattached.

Unattached. With no expectation of anything in return.

Because the master knows - nothing can be given in return'.

Once again, the Master Bullshitter blows his own trumpet - but with such exaggeration, he loses all credibility.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:23:55 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Your Premie
Subject: Good luck, sister er brother?
Message:
You said: ''From the first moment I saw your picture I felt you were the one...''

I used to tell myself that too but have finally remembered that I never liked the guy or ever really trusted him. Ain't hindsight wonderful? But I used to hype myself up to believe in him and sometimes it really worked. I hope you see one day that you have been doing that too out of hope or wishful thinking.

I also hope for your sake that you finally realize that everything you ever felt for Rev Rawat was something which you projected onto him and he is simply another very flawed human being who may have started out being sincere but soon let his greed and venality over-rule what little conscience he ever had.

Good luck.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 17:12:37 (EST)
From: OTS
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: Good luck, sister er brother?
Message:
Pat, right on. I agree with the fact that we did the projecting. [And I might add that your kindness overall in your posts is refreshing and warming -- when weighed against some of the infighting on F7.]

Regarding “From the first time I saw his picture”: When I received K, I was given a “K packet.” In there were, of course, the Five Commandments, along with some other shit and I’ll never forget a black and white 8x10 photocopy of M at about age 14 wearing a short-sleeve stripped colored (Western) sport shirt. I recall that this shirt was just like all the ones I myself used to buy at “Jules” (my neighborhood boys’ and men’s shop, where I purchased all my clothes till I was 17). Looking at the picture of my new “master” wearing a shirt from Jules was so puzzling. I had to work even that much harder to realize Knowledge, believe me. Eventually, I wore down, and somehow bit for all it’s worth down the devotional path -- hands folded, eyes down, surrendered. What a waste of 30 years.

To that person who wrote that letter at the start of this thread: We're with you. It IS crushing to realize how we were taken. And it brought an initial tear . . . but time will heal. I pray.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:25:32 (EST)
From: Maharaji
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Thank you, DJ
Message:
You've proved yourself to be my truest of devotees. You risk absolutely nothing by saying absolutely nothing. You have completely realized Knowledge.

I will be there at your last breath.
Maharaji

FYI: DJ just did a drive-by spamming without contributing a single vowel of content. Pathetic. His, er, contributions have been deleted.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:29:23 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Maharaji
Subject: Re: Thank you, DJ
Message:
Sorry I just deleted him and blocked him. It's D-J-U-R-O a well known spamming premie troll.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:34:08 (EST)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Thanks Pat
Message:
I was having a bit of fun above posting as the M-ster. The most telling of his/her posts is the one in the Krishna lawsuit thread. His/her question, 'Why do you mind?', sounds like a carbon copy of M's arrogant retort 'Why do you want to know?' when asked if he meditates. So that would make DJ the perfect student.

Richard who never replies to trolls so I let M do it for me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:36:53 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Re: Thanks
Message:
I don't have the time right now to clean up all his droppings but just got rid of the crap spam. :C)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:11:51 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: All
Subject: The David Blaine cult
Message:
No, I don't think there really is such a thing. Is there? But on South Park last night Kyle and the boys got caught up in it. They went to a David Blaine magic show and were so blown away by the tricks he performed that they went to a seminar to learn them, but when they get there, instead of learning magic tricks, they get indoctrinated into the David Blaine cult because the greatest magic trick is 'learning to be happy', and only David can make us all that.

It was kind of silly but it did ring bells. You go to one of these cult seminars thinking you're in control of your life, and then somebody starts browbeating you that you're not and only service to the cult leader can make you that way. it totally fucks up you're head and has you thinking the way the cult leader wants you to which is basically, 'I must kiss his ass.... I must kiss his ass. There's no hope for me unless I kiss his ass.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:58:45 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Re: The David Blaine cult
Message:
What I liked was the 'Super Friends' group, especially Moses. How do you kill a large animated stone statue of Abraham Lincoln? With a large animated stone statue of John Wilkes Boothe, of course. (Good thing Jesus was a carpenter, too.) I wonder how 'Seaman' (pronounced 'semen' for a giggle) got admitted to the Super Friends. He doesn't seem quite on the same spiritual plane with Moses, does he?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 07:02:07 (EST)
From: Patrick W
Email: None
To: All
Subject: I think-Knowledge good/Gurus bad
Message:
On 'Life's Great' Lou wrote the following , eliciting my response reproduced below:

i know of someone who took the techniques from EPO and it did not work; so she became curious, interested in K. and finally ended up asking for K., receiving it and is still enjoys it to this day. After everything is said, the true experience still stands out

I would like to comment on this post because it touches on something that I have been considering for some time, namely, the question of whether Maharaji has some unique mysterious power ('Grace' as we used to call it) through which somehow he can influence a person's experience of meditation.

I would like to mention that my position is that I have practiiced meditation as Maharaji taught daily since 1974 until the mid nineties when I developed misgivings about Maharaji's methods and emabarked on a process of questioning my commitment and his role as a teacher.
Although initially I found that it was helpful to stop meditating- to take a break - I could not entirely reject the practice because I found it pleasurable and peaceful. What I rejected were, as far as I was concerned, the concepts surrounding the experience - 'What it was' and 'who gave it to me' - for example.

Lately I have been regularly meditating and have been as blissful as ever doing it . ( I still call it 'meditating' because I feel that 'practicing' is current premie terminology which implies that I also do 'service' and feel the desire listen to M to enhance and maintain my experience. This is not the case).

People like Lou are fond of relating instances where people have learned about the techniques from a source such as Ex-Premie.Org, or a Raj Yoga book where there is little or no 'inspiration'- encouragement to practice etc. (quite the opposite in the case of EPO) and who then go on to 'receive Knowledge' from Maharaji and 'Bingo' get results.

I strongly feel that it is important to see what is going on here in some more depth than just to believe , as certainly used to be the case, that Maharaji uniquely holds the key to ones experience of meditation.

I acknowledge that Maharaji's organisation (largely thanks to our financial contributions , and other input) provides an appealing and practical instructive environment where there is some encouragement, preparation and care taken to ensure that someone interested in meditation of this kind can get results- and there is some sense of community and follow-up.
Much of the experience is due to ones own comittment and application and enthusiasm in devoting time to practicing the meditation.

What I am wary of is the 'bad' innuendo that accompanies the 'good' instruction. By this I am talking about the 'divisive' ideas that people innevitably get that the 'Knowledge' comes from Maharaji and that he has Godlike powers, therefore deserving more respect and even adulation than he really deserves or is healthy for both parties.

At this point I would like to mention a couple of facts which satisfy me that the interpretation of the experience of Knowledge as being Maharaji's unique gift is wrong.

Firstly, there are many people who have wonderful meditational experiences of what we called Light, Music, Holy Name and Nectar from other Gurus. A prime example of this is Maharaji's brothers followers in India. They offer the same thing in a different cultural context with diiferent numbers of adherents etc. (and other religious concepts involved)

Secondly, I can sit down and meditate just as I have always done and feel the same bliss and devotion to God that I always felt despite being highly critical of Maharaji's methods and indeed without feeling any need to see him , listen to him or have anything to do with him. Also I personally saw Light very brightly in my head before I ever heard of Maharaji and recognised it as a pleasurable and valuable experience. I also had an instinctive emotional 'spiritual' feeling about it.

I would say however that, as someone who does deeply appreciate the feeling that meditation brings I am by no means forgetting the means by which I was personally introduced to what has been a great means of 'going inside' and feeling peace and ecstatic, even transcendental bliss on many occasions.

My acknowledgement of Maharaji in the equation of Knowledge and I has evolved over 30 odd years to a point where I see him as being a capable teacher but not a 'perfect' one - albeit he is a very succesful one who has also successfully monopolised the teaching for a number of reasons.

The way I see it is that his competence as a teacher does not mean he is perfect or infallible as some seem to believe. I believe that with some adjustment his 'teaching' could be much more successful and of benefit to mankind.

Generally I would say that the improvements that could make Knowledge a more realistic and helpful proposition for the world today would center around the dismantling of the idea of Maharaji being the lynch pin and 'owner' of the experience. In other words I think Maharaji's success as an 'authoritarian' is archaic and impossible to make palatable to a more enlightened age however he twists and turns to present it differently- or that people conspire with him to attempt to perpetrate his authority.

There is no doubt in my mind that Maharaji comes from a tradition of authoritarian masters who used fear as well as love in their 'parental / God /Lord' role-playing to their disciples. Despite the controversial revisionism that suggests that all is well within the Maharaji camp and that the 'rotten apples' have either been weeded-out or excluded themseves (ex-premies) I predict that a course of action by Maharaji which does not include him coming very drastically down from his pedestal and coming squarely to terms with his now grown-up and critical 'children' will only result in futher dysfunction and conflict.

If 'spiritual' health is a resource that should be freely available to humans, as Maharaji implies by insisting that Knowledge 'appears to be' free of charge to one and all, then he needs to accept the fact that 'fat-cat ' bosses have no place in a modern corporation whose responsibility is primarily to it's shareholders. Even if one sees the vehicle for Maharaji's work as a 'charity' - for indeed that is the status it has been accorded at times - then the problems of 'hocus-pocus' , cult beliefs, dysfunction, hypocrisy, his grossly disproportionate financial benefit compared to that of others involved, and trail of disillusioned former workers needs to be addressed- faced- not brushed under the carpet with the risible pretence that all is going ahead perfectly well.

Maharaji is fond of citing the much used Indian-Guru rebuttal 'The Dog's will bark'' to counter,and diminish the relevance of critics however apt or even helpful their criticisms may be. The use of the derogatory term 'dogs' leaves one in no doubt as to his disgust for those who dare dissent or moan that they have been mistreated.

As long as Maharaji stubbornly sticks to the delusion that he is somehow essentially superior to the rest of the human race the respect he earns will be as short-lived as the time it takes initially impressed customers to see through the whitewash and see their experience in a truer light.

The experience does and will endure for those who have put the effort in to do those techniques but, I believe we could all share in the inspiration we have felt and get together to organise that the knowledge be taught without the deification and investing of authority in any one man who clearly has no more mysterious powers or divine authority than any man or woman.

Even if Maharaji is capable of inspiring and teaching, that should not mean , as it has done, that we or others with inspiration should keep it secret and just refer others to him.

My frustration has long been that I love the experience and long to share it with others, but cannot bear to refer people to a Guru and organisation that is not only an insidious and dangerous personality cult that hurt me in the past, but also that tells me that if I don't keep it secret and let Maharaji be the teacher I will reap some disaster. This was superstitious scare-mongering that has allowed Maharaji to retain his monopoly and which subjucated us to being servile and harbouring many fears.

He is a man not a God - he lies, smokes, drinks, gets angry , makes mistakes, is unfair, misguided and worse believes he is the Perfect Master. And he has tried to coverup a lot of his private less perfect behaviour. Why should we be the servant to this man? If Maharaji has any hope of proceeding as a teacher of Knowledge then I think he has to include and trust others as equals , be open to criticism and dialogue in a way that we have not yet seen. We are all in some respects able to be servants of humanity but to do so we need to accept each other as equals first. That does not occur in situations where a man exalts himself and encourages others to exalt him in the way Maharaji does. It has to be said that Maharaji's way of exalting himself includes the habit of putting others down.
Maharaji clearly finds it very hard to trust people around him - his inner court is tainted with suspicion and fear. These are all symptoms that should not be ignored. What does this tell us? We should not just ignore these things. If we do we are the fools.

After all's said and done the experience does indeed 'stand out' but can we please be clear that the teacher does not own the experience, should not be confused as being the only source and should not be considered beyond criticism or deserving of praise for passing on information to us which is rightly ours in the first place.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:13:23 (EST)
From: OTS
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: John*****BEST OF BORING*******[NT]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:10:43 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Re: I think-Knowledge good/Gurus bad
Message:
I may as well chime in with my salutations (of the non-lotus variety) to you Patrick for cohesively stating what has previously been expressed only as fractured sentiments here. For the record, I'm a muddy tater too. However, like PatC below, I now have a low tolerance for superstitious, pre-scientific, eastern mystic clap-trap masquerading as Truth surrounding the practice. Lords, Gurus, avatars, saviours and the Speaker? see tooth fairy. Bhakti? send it bhack. Yeah and anything smacking of new-age hucksterism can take a hike too. Definition of new age hucksterism: superstitious, pre-scientific, eastern mystic clap-trap mixed with a dollop of pop psychology and sold to medulla-oblongata-challenged western consumers.

It's kind of amusing to watch the Captain's ship listing severely in the storm. Cap'n Rat perched petulantly at the stern, casting about for whom to blame. Squawking new directions still to an ever-dwindling crew. The not-so-good ship GMJ sinking under the weight of his own uncaring, irresponsible, accumulated history. The pampered and bloated captain will eventually head for the lifeboat leaving his crew to go down with the ship. Strap on the life jackets. What a weird voyage this has been.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:25:06 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Patrick, Jim and PatC and others
Message:
Hi Patrick

Thanks for your post, and the ones below. My two cents worth is this:

I agree with much of what Jim writes below, in that I no longer buy all the baggage that went with Knowledge, such as belief in God and in one's mind as being bad and something to transcend - Jim's 'dark force'. So if you mean by 'Knowledge' the meditation techniques plus all the philosophical underpinning that went with it, then I now reject it.

If however you mean just the 4 techniques themselves, then I see Knowledge now as one of many meditation techniques in the Radha Soami tradition, which people may or may not find valuable. By the way, I also find the techniques explained in a much more interesting and valuable way by other teachers in that tradition.

Where I think I differ with Jim is that I do not reject the idea of meditation as something either worthless, or at best a relaxation technique.

I think it a valuable exercise to meditate, which I define (this is my own definition here !) as being aware of your own awareness. If the 4 techniques of Knowledge help a person do this, then fine; for me personally, as they are now simply one of many meditations, I am free to look for other and better ways.

I now do the Buddhist Insight meditation, which to me has no belief system attached to it at all, other than the belief that looking at your own awareness is a valuable and worthwhile thing to do. I have read Jim somewhere saying that he does not even buy this, but that is a topic for another thread.

As a general point, for the ex-premies who were premies primarily for the experience Knowledge was supposed to bring, this is a vital issue: What do you do now ? Do you give up meditation altogether, or not ? And if not, what meditation do you do ? Pat Conlon has questioned below whether this is a valid topic for this Forum, and I think it is not only a valid topic, but an important one. It is certainly the issue that I find most relevant, and I know from people I have spoken to that I am not alone.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:25:59 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Hold on a second, Mike.
Message:
I detect a contradiction in your two posts in this thread and also sniff a bit of spiritual elitism. As for the elitism, I'm almost certainly mistaken and just mis-reading what you've written. Nevertheless, it's how it comes across to me.

In your first post you say:As a general point, for the ex-premies who were premies primarily for the experience Knowledge was supposed to bring, this is a vital issue: What do you do now ? Do you give up meditation altogether, or not ? And if not, what meditation do you do ? Pat Conlon has questioned below whether this is a valid topic for this Forum, and I think it is not only a valid topic, but an important one. It is certainly the issue that I find most relevant, and I know from people I have spoken to that I am not alone.

To begin with ,I would think almost ALL ex-premies were premies primararily for the experience knowledge was supposed to bring.Or at least for some good and heightened experience. Maybe not all but the vast majority.The trouble is the guru mixed up the 'supposed' experience with devotion to him,leading a surrendered and disciplined life, attaining liberation through experienceing the ultimate reality (God, creator or what have you) via meditation but NOT just the meditation. Maybe your system of classifying the PRIMARY reason for being a premie is satisfactory to you but, like I said in your 'classification' thread, I, for one am not so sure. It's a very, very general pointer nothing more.Very few premies, especially yourself actually(with all your intimate darshan revelations and resulting devotion and surrender to Maharaji based on those)were these super sussed 'meditation only' beings, no matter how much the meditation meant or still means.Without wholesale acceptance of the fairy tale ie devotion and surrender to Maharaji the K meditation meant Jack Shit in its Maharaji context.To imply otherwise is mis-leading IMO.So the PRIMARY thing in all of this was accepting Maharji and in the early days even making oaths on receiving 'HIS' knowledge.The fairy tale came first before the tool of meditaion (and the other tools.....service, satsang)slotted into place.Only a few people received K without accepting M.A few but some, nevertheless.

With that in mind, I'd say your questions quoted above are pretty much directed to all ex-premies not just some primarily classified meditation freaks who were seeking 'what knowledge was supposed to bring' (presumably as oppossed to those who weren't !!!) .Sometimes Maharaji himself wasn't totally clear about what the 'the experience of knowledge was supposed to bring'. He has always contradicted himself. I could drag out quotes of his where he emphasises meditation above all else and I could also drag out quotes where it's almost belittled when compared to devotion, surrender or whatever. So what I'm saying is if YOU know what knowledge was supposed to bring then you know more than me and, ironically, more than Maharaji himself.To be clearer, I'd say knowledge was supposed to bring whatever mish-mash Maharaji wanted to promote at any given time.PRIMARILY Premies went along with that, on the whole. Yourself included I'd suspect. In the very early days he may have stressed meditation, at Kissimee he stressed total devotion to him and he chopped and changed whenever it was convenient.In Mike Dettmers opinion, devotion to Maharaji was the way Maharaji saw K, not the meditation. Although, as I've just said, Maharaji chops and changes but I'd reckon, ultimately, Mike D's view is probably right.

So on a public forum a post like yours is not only addressed to all ex-premies IMO but also openly invites a mixed response.

In a second post you state:
The problem with most threads on this topic is that they are mix of a discussion between people who either meditate or want to, and between those who don't see it as valuable and want to project that belief into the thread.

Why on earth you see that as a problem, I'm not exactly sure and it reads like those of us who don't value meditation as much and are, nowadays, more sceptical, want to 'project our beliefs into the thread' (oh, dear musn't do that!!).I'd guess those who DO value meditation also want to project their beliefs into the thread and good luck to them, I say. Isn't that partly what threads are for!!

Mike, on a public forum, EXPECT a mix.You can discuss it in public as you've done....and I agree with you enthusiasts....it's valid if you want to discuss it.Just expect some disagreement. Of course you're always free to discuss it in public and also go deeper into it with like-minded enthusiasts via email, or whatever is suitable and convenient.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:02:33 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Hold on a second, Mike.
Message:
Hi Dermot

I think you are squinting too earnestly down the microscope here !! Some brief responses to your main points:

I detect a contradiction in your two posts...

Well, if you detect it, you detect it, but I cannot see any contradiction myself.

also sniff a bit of spiritual elitism. As for the elitism, I'm almost certainly mistaken..

I hope so, because I am not conscious of feeling any spiritual elitism. In fact, I don't feel 'spiritual' anything !!

I would think almost ALL ex-premies were premies primararily for the experience knowledge was supposed to bring.

I think many premies were in it primarily for other reasons - like M's love, to bring peace etc. My point of my 'Categories' post some weeks ago, was that you can only really tell EITHER when a person was joining, OR what mainly concerns them when they leave. I agree that as premies it was all mixed up, but I still think the distinction is valid.

Maybe your system of classifying the PRIMARY reason for being a premie is satisfactory to you but, like I said in your 'classification' thread, I, for one am not so sure. It's a very, very general pointer nothing more...

Ok, let's agree to differ. But I will say it one more time: as PREMIES I agree you had to accept the whole thing M, devotion to him, K everything. But on BECOMING a premie, I believe one thing was important or primary, and the same on leaving. Therefore my claiming to address that subset of ex-premies to whom meditation was important is not elitist at all.

Mike, on a public forum, EXPECT a mix...

Yes of course - the point you are referring to was specifically addressed to PatC, who was saying that no one had read his post, and was saying that he would like to discuss meditation but thought that no one was really interested. He and I have exchanged lengthy emails on this, and my response to his post was assuming that as context.

For the record, I would like to see both areas discussed:

1) The need, or perceived need, to practice meditation; I find reading those who claim to reject all pre-scientific thinking and mystical juju very interesting. I agree with most everything they say, and to find a position in myself where my current meditational practice sits comfortably with no mystical, religious or illogical assumptions or thinking is both challenging and rewarding.

2) Having accepted (1), then further discussing what type of meditation to do is also a topic I am interested in.

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:01:04 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: Hold on a second, Mike.
Message:

I think you are squinting too earnestly down the microscope here !! Some brief responses to your main points:

I detect a contradiction in your two posts...

Well, if you detect it, you detect it, but I cannot see any contradiction myself.

Possibly I am squinting too earnestly down the microscope!However, the contradiction I referred to related to first the questions directed to ex-premies who were primarliy seeking what knowledge was supposed to bring (as I've stated, IMO, practically, we all were)and then your seeming slight resentment that meditation enthusiasts weren't the only ones to respond to you.The first is an open invitation for all to respond while the second contradicts that. Of course this all depends on your definition of 'knowledge' and then on your definition of 'what it was supposed to bring'.Further down though you point out that you were speaking specifically to Pat and in the context of that, so fair enough.

also sniff a bit of spiritual elitism. As for the elitism, I'm almost certainly mistaken..

I hope so, because I am not conscious of feeling any spiritual elitism. In fact, I don't feel 'spiritual' anything !!

As I thought really, hence my stating I'm almost certainly wrong.Why it came across was due to the 'definition' problem mentioned above.

I would think almost ALL ex-premies were premies primararily for the experience knowledge was supposed to bring.

I think many premies were in it primarily for other reasons - like M's love, to bring peace etc. My point of my 'Categories' post some weeks ago, was that you can only really tell EITHER when a person was joining, OR what mainly concerns them when they leave. I agree that as premies it was all mixed up, but I still think the distinction is valid.

You completely miss my point.Again it goes back to the drfinition of 'knowledge'.All the reasons (not just meditation) such as you've mentioned above ie 'M's love', 'bringing peace' etc etc, were what 'knowledge was supposed to bring'. According to the 'giver' of the knowledge anyway.I also tried to convey to you that the concept of what it was supposed to bring was (probably deliberately) muddied by Maharaji himself.I cannot see how you can say 'what it was supposed to bring' with any clarity or certainty. You can refer to your own opinion on this but it's too mishy-mashy to refer to definitively.You seem to think it was some kind of austere, detached focus on meditation designed to lead to some kind of liberating truth.It was partly but not wholly. That's my point.

Maybe your system of classifying the PRIMARY reason for being a premie is satisfactory to you but, like I said in your 'classification' thread, I, for one am not so sure. It's a very, very general pointer nothing more...

Ok, let's agree to differ. But I will say it one more time: as PREMIES I agree you had to accept the whole thing M, devotion to him, K everything. But on BECOMING a premie, I believe one thing was important or primary, and the same on leaving. Therefore my claiming to address that subset of ex-premies to whom meditation was important is not elitist at all.

Yep, i'll agree to disagree here.I just cannot see how, if someones PRIMARY purpose was the liberating meditation above and beyond anything else,they wouldn't choose countless other meditation techniques, groups or even go it independently. Anything with a 'Buddhist' orientation would have been well up on the list.Maharajis mish mash of mainly Hindu bhakti (with tinges of Sikhism) is far too overladen with all sorts of other stuff apart from meditation.In the early days especially most must have bought into this, deeply and primarliy, no matter how enticing, appealing and satisfying the meditation. Otherwise, like I say, countless other paths would have been chosen apart from some weird devotional thingy.
Seems we'll still disagree on this though so fair enough!!

Mike, on a public forum, EXPECT a mix...

Yes of course - the point you are referring to was specifically addressed to PatC, who was saying that no one had read his post, and was saying that he would like to discuss meditation but thought that no one was really interested. He and I have exchanged lengthy emails on this, and my response to his post was assuming that as context.

Ok

For the record, I would like to see both areas discussed:

1) The need, or perceived need, to practice meditation; I find reading those who claim to reject all pre-scientific thinking and mystical juju very interesting. I agree with most everything they say, and to find a position in myself where my current meditational practice sits comfortably with no mystical, religious or illogical assumptions or thinking is both challenging and rewarding.

2) Having accepted (1), then further discussing what type of meditation to do is also a topic I am interested in.

Personally , all power to your elbow.I'm not in any way trying to stifle or discourage you or anyone else from discussing whatever you want to!!

cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 13:09:51 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Hold on a second, Mike.
Message:
I just cannot see how, if someones PRIMARY purpose was the liberating meditation above and beyond anything else,they wouldn't choose countless other meditation techniques, groups or even go it independently.

OK - I think the difference between us is that you define Knowledge as the whole shooting match - the meditation techniques, M's grace, the fact that it had to be given by him or with his authority, and all the cult activity to support it. And I think you are right - certainly M means by 'Knowledge' this.

On the other hand, I was meaning by Knowledge just the meditation per se. I accept that this is misleading, and should have made the distinction clear.

If you accept the above, most of our differences vanish. I agree with you that 'Knowledge' should be the wider definition, and I will be more aware of the distinction in future posts.

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:21:34 (EST)
From: Jim the ONLY forum watchdog
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Nice try, Dermot
Message:
I'm sorry, Dermot, but this kind of aggressive argument where you actually scrutinize the other person's posts is NOT what people became ex-premies for. Anyway, whether you understand this or not (I sure don't), please remember, there's only one

Jim
The Forum Watchdog

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:13:32 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim the ONLY forum watchdog
Subject: Re: Nice try, Dermot
Message:
this kind of aggressive argument where you actually scrutinize the other person's posts is NOT what people became ex-premies for.

Jim, I don't know if this is a general comment, or specific to Dermot's answering my post with quotes, or a tongue-in-cheek comment.

But as far as I am concerned, I welcome scrutiny of whatever I say, and I welcome being challenged (I may not like it, but I welcome it) since it sharpens my own thoughts about things, and encourages me to be more rigorous and precise in my own beliefs and feelings.

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:45:31 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Tongue-in-cheek
Message:
Hi Mike,

No, I was just kidding. In fact, I thought Dermot actually made some excellent points. I think the close scrutiny of our words and opinions in this fuzziest of areas is important as it's the only way we have of tracing our steps into, and, if we want, walking back out from, these spiritual forests we've all inhabited one way or another.

The joke about me being the watchdog was just because Fran had given me shit for parsing out posts too closely. Hell, I like to fool around. Shoot me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:52:13 (EST)
From: Ddermot
Email: None
To: Jim the ONLY forum watchdog
Subject: It's ok Jim
Message:
Hardly anyone reads my posts and as for replying to them ....!!

Don't worry Jim, you're still top dog.....I just aint got the ambition to make a challenge :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:08:29 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Ddermot
Subject: Nonsense, Dermot
Message:
I always read your posts. I was tempted to respond to that but felt that it really was addressed to Mike F.

Oh, okay so I did not answer your post in Chit-chatroom. But it was about politics and you're such a commie pommy that I don't stand a chance arguing with you. I'm only really here to talk about the cult stuff anyway.

But I'll talk Queer as Folk with you in the Chit-chatroom any day. I rented the videos of the first US season and was glued to the box for two days - well, I have a good excuse, a cold.

If you can rent the videos there, please treat yourself. It was actually made in Canada and probably could not have been made here. The bible-thumpers would have had heart attacks in Congress. Believe me, it was a lot bolder than the Brit version.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:30:04 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: I'm glad
Message:
you didn't write your political post Pat....I'm in a 'Apolitical' (is there such a word?...probably not)mode at the moment.I think I'll leave world affairs to those incapable of making a good job of it....Bush et al :)

Yep, I'll keep an eye out for the US version vid...sounds good.

You often get colds....I can't remember the last time I had a cold or other ailment.....Damn, I'll probably go down with one now after saying that!!

Cheers Pat

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:37:43 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: I'm glad - to Dermot OT
Message:
That's more like it, Dermot. Leave politics to the politicians. Obviously I'm kidding but I haven't gotten into settling world affairs seriously in 30 years or so. Usually too theoretical for my tastes. I do my bit on the local level - like voting against all bonds - not good for business.

I've had more colds in the past year than since I lived in UK. Working with the public exposes me more and there have been some real nasty colds out there lately.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:44:50 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Knowledge and meditation
Message:
I've said some of this here before as well as in email to you and a few others and you know what I think about meditation. I have still not explained meditation to myself satisfactorily enough to foist it on others. In email you can be a little less nitpicky about words than you can here.

I do agree that it is a valid topic especially for the exes who have meditated for many years as I and many of the longtermers who are now exiting have but, every time I hear someone else try to talk about it, I realise that there are problems in communicating something as subjective as meditation.

Back in the days when we called it Knowledge and thought that we were all experiencing the same thing, we could use buzz words: ''that feeling,'' ''getting high,'' ''satchitanand,'' ''clarity'' etc. those days are over for me. Some people have moved on to other schools of meditation which also have their jargon but I have become totally allergic to all eastern mysticism and cannot comfortably use any of the mystical jargon.

It was so simple 30 years ago. Well, it was for me. LSD showed me bliss which sure beat the hell out the misery I had come from - living in apartheid South Africa, being gay when we were still called ''filthy queers.'' guilt-inducing catholicism, an alcoholic and dysfunctional family, the Cold War and Viet Nam - all man-made horrors which, after taking acid, seemed simply to be the product of a lack of love and no peace of mind.

I knew the solution but did not have the means to implement it. I knew that putting acid in the water supply would not work. I turned to yoga meditation but during the next two years that I did meditation (and none of my friends were interested) I despaired of ever making people see that happiness, peace and love were the solution to the world's problems

That's when Rawat arrived. All my fiends became premies and seemed to be so sure that this was the natural evolution of the hippie peace and love thing. I felt wonderful feelings in satsang. Then I got K and saw that they were the tried and trusted yoga techs that I had already been using and that Rawat had the means and existing organization to implement the spreading of the techs. I put aside my misgivings about him and his organization and joined the cult.

In the early days it seemed as if we all knew and agreed on exactly what K was. It was a way to become quiet and feel the peace and love within us so that we could then go out and share that peace and love with others. Of course there was also a lot of fuzzy thinking going such as K is love, love is god, therefore K is god etc. It was all about feeling and no one really minded how others described K as long as it was obvious that they were feeling great and wanted to share that feeling. No one nitpicked and analysed.

The interesting thing about those early years is that I was not really listening to Rawat. I was there for the vibe. I heard from him what I wanted to hear. Most of the time I actually fell asleep during his satsang. I told myself that I could not understand him because I was not as enlightened as he was. Living with the Indian premies in South Africa in the 70s made it clear to me that K was the solution to apartheid and racism. Their understanding of M and K was so simple and it jived completely with mine. K was love and M was the one who brought us together in one happy family.

Then I came to the US in 78 and saw that there really was not much unity among the premies and that there seemed to be a lot of confusion about what M and K was all about. Over the next few years I began to listen to what Rawat was saying and started to wonder if it was his ramblings that was causing the confusion. I wrote him a letter telling him that he really needed to clarify K and stop yakking about planes and other stuff. I accused him of chit-chat when premies were desperate for guidance. No, he did not answer. :C)

When he first stopped premies giving satsang I was happy because it had become painful and boring to sit and listen to them going on about their existential angst or other stuff that seemed to me to be psychological nonsense. Now of course, with hindsight, I think that that is where Rawat completely lost the plot. He silenced us just when we needed to begin discussing things more deeply and in western terms. He took over and imposed his bhakti guru-worship religion on us.

I drifted away from premiedom but continued to enjoy K and went to see Rawat about once a year. I still fell asleep during most of his satsangs but it seemed as if he was trying to westernize K and I gave him kudos for that. Then came a period of ten years, 85 to 95, when I stopped going to see him, had nothing to do with premies and just meditated on my own. During that time I also became sick and began to study Science of Mind, positive thinking and healing because the medical profession could not cure me.

Unbeknown to me, during that time I had formed my own understanding of K and I did not realize how far it was from Rawat's official version until Andy wanted to get K six years ago and I bought some Rawat videos and took Andy to see Rawat. At first it seemed that I agreed with Rawat. He had shed most of the Hinduism but was still promoting K as a means to happiness. I finally became inspired enough to go back into premiedom and help propagate ''this beautiful gift of K.''

Seeing premies again after many years abscence was a shock. So many of them were confused, unhappy and often mentally disturbed. Till then I had only watched videos of Rawat's one hour discourses. The premies however preferred the swans and waterfall videos and so I began to watch them. The more I saw the more I realized that Rawat's teaching was not only empty and idiotic but dangerously irresponsible. He did not teach positive thinking and mental health and the premies were going nuts listening to his insane philosophy.

Then I began to read on EPO what Rawat was really like behind the public persona. I saw that he was indeed nuts and here I am. I still enjoy meditating as a way of relaxing and feeling peace and love but I don't demonize the mind. Instead I practice mental health and clear thinking. I don't call it Knowledge anymore because K is Rawat's religion of guru-worship and the techs are used by him to enslave premies not to free them.

I used to talk about meditation in flambuoyant terms (Andy hated what he called my ''fireworks'' satsang) but now I really prefer to use understatements. Whatever altered states of consciousness I have really are unexplainable to others. To me the most important part is that I enjoy the subjective experiences which make me feel peace and love and then share my joy with others. I can never describe the subjective experiences that have caused me to feel the peace and love.

So, I understate my experience of meditation and simply call it relaxation or brain yoga. Just as I do physical yoga to keep my body limber so I use the meditation techs to keep my brain fresh and strong. It is simply a mental health exercise regime for me. I can no longer agree with Rawat that it is immortality or the god within or any of that other religious stuff. This world is all I need and meditation is my way of slowing down enough to smell the roses and to enjoy it as much as I possibly can.

Like Patrick W, I also still use the word Knowledge sometimes, usually when talking to premies. It's shorthand for a nice feeling, the feeling that brought us to M but, in the end, I think we just got out of M and K whatever we expected and put into it and it is certainly not some universal truth or even a uniform experience. Like Mike F, I appreciate Jim's skepticism and prefer it to what he calls New Age rubber talk anyday.

This was not a well-thought-out essay but a bit of a ramble. I've got a cold and am woolly-headed. I hope it makes some sense. I have got quite a bit of this stuff sorted out in my head finally after a year of struggling to discard cult-think.

I am no longer too reluctant to talk about it even if I have not yet begun to put it into words. So, if anyone wants to discuss this in more detail, I'm up for it but give me a few days to get over this lousy cold.

PatC, the old flower-child gardener who likes to stop and smell roses and enjoys the blossoming of my breath but no longer likes lotus feet or marigold malas.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 15:45:41 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Pat, your rundown was FAB! :)
Message:
For someone with a wooly head (don't I know all about that) you've put it quite nicely. I remember when you were still 'hot' on bringing the techs to the world, which is why you hitched your wagon back up to Rawat's star for a short period there. So I knowwww what Andy was talking about there. Fireworks satsang! Hahaha.

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 15:23:46 (EST)
From: A Friend
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: Knowledge and meditation
Message:
I agree with you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 16:22:27 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: pdconlon@hotmail.com
To: A Friend
Subject: Hi, Friend, I was reading your posts...
Message:
...and wondering what your POV was. You seem to have as little patience or respect for all the discussions of guru lineages as I have. I'm also wondering of course if you agree with me completely or partially especially since I am critical of Rev Rawat.

If you want you can always email me to continue this discussion if you want as no one else seems to have read my post or is interested in discussing it on the forum. The topic of meditation is boring to most people here.

But, welcome to the forum anyway.

Patrick Conlon,
San Francisco.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 17:14:19 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: Hi, Friend, I was reading your posts...
Message:
no one else seems to have read my post or is interested in discussing it on the forum

Ahhh Patrick - I read your post, several times in fact !!

And as you know, I do think it a topic worth discussing (if people are interested, as you say).

The thing is not to 'prove' meditation is a valuable activity - I don't want to do that, and I don't believe it is possible anyway. My point is that for those who already believe that some form of meditation is a worthwhile activity, and believe this enough to want to practice as a regular thing, for those people (of which I am one) discussion is a good thing.

The problem with most threads on this topic is that they are mix of a discussion between people who either meditate or want to, and between those who don't see it as valuable and want to project that belief into the thread.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 15:48:19 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Thanks, Mike! (nt) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 17:28:55 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Thanks, Mike
Message:
Yes, I don't believe that meditation is for those who are not interested which is why I have hesitated to talk about it here much but the funny thing is I have benefitted more from the feedback of those who think it's hooey (like Jim) than those who think it's great, like our resident New Agers like Deputy Dog to whom I said below:

I used to enjoy all that spiritual stuff like your Alan Watts quote but I no longer listen to anything anybody has to say about meditation especially if they have studied some sort of eastern mysticism. That's because too many pre-scientific ideas are involved and because huge assumptions are made based on the belief that eastern mysticism is valid.

The more I get rid of eastern spiritual concepts the more I see that everything I ever needed to know about my consciousness was shown to me during the years I took acid. At the time I was overwhelmed by the information and did not have the words to understand what I had seen. Very little had been written about LSD and what little was written was hopelessly tainted with eastern mumbo-jumbo. Hence I was ripe for the plucking by a Hindu guru.

Some of the things that I learned from psychedelics which I have only just begun to think and write about are:

As Brian said, we only use part of our brain. Psychedelics stimulate parts which we normally don't use.

Those parts of the brain can be stimulated without drugs. After taking acid I often had flash-backs not induced by drugs. I also had similar experiences during sex or when in a creative state. Later, when I began to do yoga meditation before getting K, the same states were recreated.

Those parts of the brain seem to be associated with feelings, creativity and imagination and are associated with an effortless and exhilirated alertness.

Because they are tied up with the imagination all sorts of errors of discernment can take place such as hallucinations which one thinks are real. (I have a hunch that most religions and pre-scientific cosmologies were the result of psychedelic experiences.)

It is for this reason that I distrust any eastern mysticism or anybody else's explanation other than my own. The imagination has not been sufficiently studied by anyone to give me a satisfactory explanation.

From psychedelics I also learned that, once the drug wore off, that I could be left feeling vigorously healthy and alert or that I could be caught up in endless loops of thought which ultimately left me feeling groggy and depressed. That taught me that I was the creator of my own states of mind, mood and attitude.

Yes, about this word MIND. To me my entire consciousness is my mind. Thoughts are just a small part of my mind. My mind observes my thoughts and feelings as well as all sensual phenomena. I don't want to be nitpicky but I do feel that Rawat used the word incorrectly. He used MIND to mean thoughts and, as I've said before, because his thoughts were so inane and maybe insane, he demonized the mind.

I'm game to talk about this stuff but I want to talk about it with people who are also willing to struggle to explain it in their own words without resorting to any sort of mysticism or religion whether of east or west.

I definitely agree with you to let the good times roll. We are the masters of our own happiness. I choose to be happy and to share that with anyone else who wants it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:49:01 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: Thanks, Mike
Message:
I have benefitted more from the feedback of those who think it's hooey (like Jim) than those who think it's great..

Me too - I have just said something like that above

I'm game to talk about this stuff but I want to talk about it with people who are also willing to struggle to explain it in their own words without resorting to any sort of mysticism or religion whether of east or west.

Someone else has challenged me to do this in a recent email, so I will give it a shot in the next few days.

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:15:55 (EST)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: Patrick, Jim and PatC and others
Message:
Where I think I differ with Jim is that I do not reject the idea of meditation as something either worthless, or at best a relaxation technique.

I wouldn't reject the idea either. What I do reject is the notion that meditation has any real connection with spirituality,other than possibly putting one in a frame of mind where the big picture can be thought about without too many distractions.

By the big picture I don't mean whether there is or isn't a God,that resides in the realm of faith not rationality,but in how life can be lived with the minimum hassle to oneself but with the maximum benefit to one's fellow man.

Needless to say after 28 yrs of being discouraged from thinking about these things I'm a bit rusty,but I certainly won't be looking to points east for the foreseeable future in search of an answer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:14:11 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: Patrick, Jim and PatC and others
Message:
Mike, part of your post read

Where I think I differ with Jim is that I do not reject the idea of meditation as something either worthless, or at best a relaxation technique.

I think it a valuable exercise to meditate, which I define (this is my own definition here !) as being aware of your own awareness. If the 4 techniques of Knowledge help a person do this, then fine; for me personally, as they are now simply one of many meditations, I am free to look for other and better ways.

I now do the Buddhist Insight meditation, which to me has no belief system attached to it at all, other than the belief that looking at your own awareness is a valuable and worthwhile thing to do. I have read Jim somewhere saying that he does not even buy this, but that is a topic for another thread.

As a general point, for the ex-premies who were premies primarily for the experience Knowledge was supposed to bring, this is a vital issue: What do you do now ? Do you give up meditation altogether, or not ? And if not, what meditation do you do ? Pat Conlon has questioned below whether this is a valid topic for this Forum, and I think it is not only a valid topic, but an important one. It is certainly the issue that I find most relevant, and I know from people I have spoken to that I am not alone.

I don't necessarily translate the term 'relaxation technique' as a put down or something inferior, just that I think anything more is just a 'hype'. Relaxation is something virtually everyone can relate to. Those loaded with decades of 'spiritual' concepts, 'personal growth' concepts or those who aren't. Greater relaxation doesn't rule out an enhanced awareness or a quieter, finer state of mind. However, even the descriptive words I've just used there are debatable.All our descriptions and interpretations are really,it seems to me, just purely subjective.I think we'd have to have to a full (or fuller) understanding of the brain to really know what's going on when a person relaxes or meditates or whatever. Not even brain specialist have that understanding yet. Seems more sensible to me to just accept the relaxtion technique or meditation technique as something to be appreciated and enjoyed, plain and simple.In much the same way that people appreciate nature, books, films,music or whatever.Insights and enhancements can come from these things too but whether they take us out of a 'subjective',well I think not. So what?

The 'being aware of your own awareness ' which you speak of is fine by me.Whatever turns you on so to speak.I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you also look upon this as a 'purposeless' activity.I wonder though.Hours spent in formal meditation for no purpose? To be aware that you are aware? We ARE aware beings anyway.Surely being alive is being aware.Unless the process of 'being aware of our awareness' is carried out with some other motive,I can't see its relevance as a regular FORMAL practise.This is probably just a matter of personal taste though . These days I prefer things that happen spontaneously. For instance, just out walking looking at a beautiful multi-coloured sky, feeling a an exquisite breeze across my face.....just for a few moments a (excuse the subjectivity here) trancendental feeling may come upon me or a vague notion of something more, an expansive feeling, a feeling that beauty is there......all this stuff just comes but I haven't got a clue actually if it's 'REAL' or 'TRUTH' or an intimation of 'GOD' but I just like the feeling. Then it goes away and I continue to like other stuff. Trying to do my work, noticing what's going on in the world, hobbies or whatever.

Why would I even want to label it or later on have faith in it? Like everything in our lives things come and go.All those heavily loaded things like “God” or “following a path” or “spiritual practise” or whatever just seem to be a clutching at straws.We can’t accept that we’ll never fully understand so we choose something to have faith in or adore or whatever.Any experience which seems to be above and beyond our “normal” experiences we use as validation of this greater something. These days I prefer to take a down to earth, take it as it comes, approach.

You ask 'what do you do now'? 'Do you give up on meditation altogether?' Personally. pretty much so.Not entirely. If I actually feel like sitting down to 'meditate' then I do so.Probably just the 'breath' and 'light' technique. However, I don't want or even see the need for it to be a regular disciplined activity nor do I see it as leading to anything or answering anything concerning my temporary existence here on this planet. It’s relaxing enough, it feels ok and that’s it.

Personally, I much prefer the “corpse” relaxation posture after doing some yoga asanas. I love the feeling of just letting go, sinking into the floor, relaxing as best as I can the whole of my body while breathing deeply but naturally and regularly. 10 to 20 minutes of that (without any hype!) after some exercise is very refreshing, invigorating and seems to do just what formal meditation did for me. Of course I like to wonder and ponder, think and read ….whatever….giving up a formal “spiritual” or “meditational” practise doesn’t mean you lose the simple joy, appreciation and inquisitiveness of life.In my experience life is better actually.I also like to smoke some quality weed every so often too. Not regularly because it just becomes jaded but every now and then it’s cool to have something to “shift” the awareness, so to speak.

Cheers

Dermot.

<

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:17:41 (EST)
From: Bryn
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Onward ever onward!
Message:
It seems to me that the next step to meditating, is developing an understanding of exactly what 'this experience' is. To do that you are going to have to bring into movement a dynamic process called 'thinking'. Thinking is characterised by (among other things) the fact that if you don't do it it won't happen:if you dont do thinking, you have no thoughts to evaluate, and so no evaluation of 'that experience'.

Feeling 'the experience' is all very well,(no sneer implied) but even so thinking has already taken place. Coherent feeling implies that subject and object have already been established-how else would you know that 'it' was a feeling?, and that the one who is feeling it is 'me'? Thinking already exists in feeling. Epilepsy and psychic fits of all kinds are thought free feeling.

Going back to the 'if you don't do it it won't exist' idea. Another way of looking at this is to put the ideas the other way around and say: 'where ever thinking is, I can expect to find evidence of me.'
At this point however I like to differentiate between 'thinking' as a dynamic phenomenon, focused loosely around a potential 'Me, and 'thoughts' which are the product of this activity of participating in thinking. Thoughts are fixed condensations that result from my doing thinking.I have something to perceive in thoughts.

It appears to me that the experiences in meditation are further fixed representations from the dynamical realm of thinking. Fixed they are,(light forms, colours sounds sensations of bliss etc) but more dynamic still than thoughts.

The journey (if the metaphor works) is into thinking, where (where?) I can reasonably expect to find more of ME. I think behind the experiences of thought, and meditation lies Being. Being is like me.

Love Bryn, with time to spare in an IT room.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:58:08 (EST)
From: Francesca :~)
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Showing someone, or ...
Message:
... having someone else show someone 4 techniques is not exactly much in the way of teaching. I'd consider him a motivational speaker for those that he motivates, but in no way does what he talks about at programs have anything to do with further instruction on practicing the 4 techniques.

He started conducting K reviews himself in about 1984 or 1985, but I heard the content of the 1st one through a friend who went, and there was no real instruction other than to go over the same old thing. I think they were told to stop using baragons. That's when I really lost it with the whole thing. I thought, what is the use of leaving my arms up in the air for 30 minutes! I've never heard anyone who went to any of the others talk about him imparting any real substance about the practice itself -- just the usual rambling motivational talk.

He rambles on about his own philosophies of life and death and breath, and rambles on about gratitude etc. After I received K I never learned one thing more about the meditation experience itself.

I started practicing many other techniques starting in 1985 and have found many that I like, and teachers (and their students) that meditate themselves and are way more competent to talk about the meditation process.

How can M be considered a 'master' of anything if he just passes on 4 techniques and gives motivational talks. More like Hindi-inspired new age fluff, with some real techniques to back it up that are taught in may other places.

Big whoop. That's one of the reasons I left. Prem Pal Singh Rawat is neither a master nor a teacher. He's just a gabber.

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:01:03 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: Other teachers
Message:
I know that some exes don't care about meditation, but I've often said that I studied with 'other teachers,' so I only thought it fair to name some of them.

Here are the names of some other teachers that I have studied with after M. M doesn't hold a candle to any of them, IMO, because these people actually meditate, and at least can talk about it in a way that is helpful to those who wish to meditate.

Of course, if you don't like meditation, you'll probably think that some of these people are full of it, but I've gained something of value from all of them. Of course, in the final analysis, I have to think for myself.

Francesca

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
--
Teachers

Jack Kornfield (Spirit Rock, Marin, CA)
John Travis (Spirit Rock, Nevada City, CA)
Gil Fronsdal (Spirit Rock, Bay Area, CA)
U Sillananda (Daly City, CA)
The Dalai Lama [Tenzin Gyatso] (Tibet, India)
The Tai Situ (Tibet, India)
Lama Lodru Rinpoche (Tibet, India, San Francisco, CA)
Bokar Rinpoche (Tibet, India, France)
Khenpo Donyo (Tibet, India, France)
Ponlop Rinpoche (Tibet, India, USA)
Thrangu Rinpoche (Tibet, India)
Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche (Tibet, India)
Sogyal Rinpoche (Tibet, India, USA)
Jetsun Chimey Luding (Tibet, India, Canada)
Lama Tashi Namgyal (Seattle, WA)
Lama Jyinpa (Tucson, AZ)
Lama Kunga (Sebastopol, CA [deceased])
Thich Nhat Hahn (Vietnam, France, USA)
Sister Chan Khong (Vietnam, France, USA)
John Kabat-Zinn (Univ. of Massachusetts)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:23:03 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: At least it wasn't plastic surgery
Message:
That's a whole lot of teachers you got there, Fran. Why do you think any of them would know anything particularly? Honestly, I have to tell you, for such an obviously intelligent and outspoken person as yourself, someone so apparently proud and idependent (all good, no tongue-in-cheek here), I don't quite get how easily you submit yourself as a humble student to these guys. Are you a sucker for long asian words? Mandalas? Gongs? What?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:14:10 (EST)
From: Francesca :~)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: As I told in my story many times
Message:
Probably because you are assuming that I 'submit' myself as a 'humble student.' Since I left in 1985, I have listened to many teachers -- some I've studied with intensively, some it has just been one seminar or talk. The reason I offered the list is because I've been exposed to many teachers since M, and in comparison, M is not much of a teacher of meditation -- which is about the only thing he could purport to be a 'master' of. Otherwise, he's just a 'toastmaster,' i.e. a good speaker. (Which of course, he's not, he's more like "the squeaker.") I figured I should at least say WHO I mean when I say 'other teachers.'

But then, yes, there is the question of teachers, and how far I want that to go.

I was leaving Tibetan Buddhism right around the time that Pat and Chuck and Andy were leaving the cult. This Forum helped me immensely to get out from 'under' teachers and it was fun to be exiting at the same time as Pat, Chuck and Andy. My father's death greatly accelerated the process several months later. I am no longer a 'humble student,' although I'm not an arrogant one either. I am not closely connected with any teacher's group at this point, but since I still practice meditation, I find some of the teachings and obervations to be of value. At the very least, it gives me some food for thought. At the moment, I'm allergic to the Tibetan variety, although there were many Tibetan teachers on that list. It is funny that I had the same experience many recent exes have when I was leaving the group I was a part of (and had actually been the facilitator of for 5 years). People ignore me. Do not respond to e-mails. For about 90 percent (or more) of the people I knew, it is as if I dropped off the face of the earth. Because if I'm not supporting their trip, they are afraid of hearing the little old doubtmaker, me!

There are teachers that know more than I do about meditation, that don't ask me to become 'their' student, that don't ask me to join groups, that don't ask anything of me, really. The thing I've learned is to see them like you'd see a college professor. Just because the subject is meditation instead of art history doesn't put them up on a pedestal, or make all their ideas correct because they are accomplished meditators.

If a teacher wanted me to submit to them, I'd be outta there.

But I'm puzzled as to why you'd think that the teachers' input would be totally valueless. For example, why would I think anyone on this bulletin board would know anything particularly, or had anything to offer me? Interaction as well as learning situations stimulate growth for me -- the teacher or the person I interact with is a catalyst. And sometimes I disagree totally with what the teacher presents, just like I do with people I interact with.

I know you think meditation and sprituality is a lot of hooey, but that's not the same for all exes. Presenting an alternate view on this board often ends up in debates, of course. But I don't think I'm going to convince anyone else of anything they aren't -- deep down -- already convinced of.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 21:57:07 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: I like what you have to say
Message:
I think you expressed yourself very clearly. Teachers of any discipline can be great catalysts. And sure, with the right attitude could be a godsend. ;)

A guru (not M, obviously) said that the disciple gives the guru his guruness or something like that. I remembered that and applied it to my journey in academia. I often encourage students to look at the responsibility of the student being good, for they can make a teacher good. You know students will often have the attitude that they should just go to class and let the teacher do all the work.

I definitely do my part in class to bring out the best in the teacher's abilities. My theatre teacher last summer told us that a good actor is one who makes the other actors look good.

It's a symbiotic relationship when it works. I wouldn't want to study on my own. I also love and strive in the classroom environment. And most fascinating things that I have learned, I never sought.

Thanks for reposting your story, you told it to me once, but I appreciate it more today, for some reason.

cheers,

deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:09:15 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: How do you know they know ANYthing?
Message:
There are teachers that know more than I do about meditation, that don't ask me to become 'their' student, that don't ask me to join groups, that don't ask anything of me, really. The thing I've learned is to see them like you'd see a college professor. Just because the subject is meditation instead of art history doesn't put them up on a pedestal, or make all their ideas correct because they are accomplished meditators.

Fran,

The problem with your analogy is that art history is a significant discipline with definite substance we can all understand. It makes perfect sense how someone could study it for years, learning something new with every book, lecture, conversation or field trip. It's obviously a real body of knowledge and is the kind of thing people can share with one another.

Meditation might be anything from trivial mental relaxation to profound mental relaxation to communion with God to transcendance into God. I just don't see where anyone gets off claiming some sort of great qualification as a 'teacher' though. I used to, back when I thought there were plains upon plains, worlds upon worlds to explore and that guys like Maharaji's mahatmas were truly advanced in that respect. Now, though, it really does seem funny to concede any 'expertise' to any of these guys.

I guess I also don't buy the idea that any of them are truly adept at controlling their minds as they'd like to have you believe. Judging from my own experience and my perceptions of others' as they related them over my many years as a premie, I think that's all bullshit too. That is, I don't think that people develop some sort of mind control mastery. The mind's far too nimble and subtle for that.

But then maybe I'm wrong. That's just how it all strikes me now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:00:15 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I'm not sure mastery is the word
Message:
It's more akin to if meditation were the Australian bush, and someone had spent years of time exploring in there. Hearing the different birds, knowing the seasons, walking the trails.

If I wanted to spend some time in the bush, I'd at least find what those people say to be of interest. That's what I mean. Pretty practical. Not lofty high-guy/gal stuff. And always with a good degree of skepticism.

And there have been some scientific studies of the mind, at least in terms of modern western science, such as the neuroscience stuff. Kabat-Zinn, for example, has a stress and pain control clinic at the University of Massachusetts hospital where meditation is part of the therapy, stripped of the relgious aspects. There are others that have taken some of this stuff into a more clinic environment, stripped of juju.

I've bought the book 'Snapping,' at the recommendation of several folks here, and I'll be reading it at some time in the future. I believe there are even harmful forms of meditation, or at least harmful ways to do meditation, just as there are harmful forms of exercise. Some people use alcohol and meds (perscription or non) in an attempt to loosen up or stay on an even keel. It all can be abused and misused.

And there are some people who -- because of serious study of meditation and its effects on people -- actually teach it in a University setting. When he was exiled from Vietnam during the Vietnam war, Thich Nhat Hahn taught at various universities on the east coast. Eknath Eashwaran (now deceased) taught at the University of California, Berkeley. Robert Thurman and Ponlop Rinpoche have taught at Columbia in New York. There's a University in Seattle (I think U Wash.) that has Buddhist teachers in its religious studies program.

In the academic setting, they definitely differentiate between a flim flam man/woman and someone who at least is making a serious study of it.

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 16:45:21 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: But ARE there really any trails?
Message:
It's more akin to if meditation were the Australian bush, and someone had spent years of time exploring in there. Hearing the different birds, knowing the seasons, walking the trails.

If I wanted to spend some time in the bush, I'd at least find what those people say to be of interest. That's what I mean. Pretty practical. Not lofty high-guy/gal stuff. And always with a good degree of skepticism.

But, surely, whether or not there are any trails to begin with is an open issue. My difficulty with all this is that, while I am certainly no expert on the Australian bush, I can, I think, go there and see it for myself. I can fly over it and poke around it on foot. I can see photos and review other kinds of evidence that it exists.

The spiritual 'bush', if you will, isn't like that at all. It might be no more than the figment of peoples' imagination. And it's not much comfort, to me at least, that the only proof of its existence is that the supposed guides have seen it, know their way around it, etc. Why, even if we accepted their accounts at face value, half of them contradict themselves internally and those that don't contradict each other. Plus, there's no physical or scientific explanation for such an internal landscape anyway. Hardly the case with the Australian outback. Good intentions or not, sincere, modest teachers or not, the whole cosmology surrounding this stuff could be entirely wrong. Of course it would have to be untestable save but by subjective experience which is undoubtedly undependable and worthless, given all the ways we can and do trick ourselves.

And there have been some scientific studies of the mind, at least in terms of modern western science, such as the neuroscience stuff. Kabat-Zinn, for example, has a stress and pain control clinic at the University of Massachusetts hospital where meditation is part of the therapy, stripped of the relgious aspects. There are others that have taken some of this stuff into a more clinic environment, stripped of juju.

Now THIS I would find interesting. I would imagine, though, that there isn't too much we actually know about meditation or that we can say about it now if it really is stripped of all the religious and spiritual packaging.

I've bought the book 'Snapping,' at the recommendation of several folks here, and I'll be reading it at some time in the future. I believe there are even harmful forms of meditation, or at least harmful ways to do meditation, just as there are harmful forms of exercise. Some people use alcohol and meds (perscription or non) in an attempt to loosen up or stay on an even keel. It all can be abused and misused.

Haven't read the book but yes, that's got to be true. I know that some of the times we tried to go all out and really supress Mr. Mind once and for all were pretty destabalizing for sure. I don't doubt for a moment that some people suffered permanently, not to mention, of course, those that went so far as to hurt themselves or others in the effort.

And there are some people who -- because of serious study of meditation and its effects on people -- actually teach it in a University setting. When he was exiled from Vietnam during the Vietnam war, Thich Nhat Hahn taught at various universities on the east coast. Eknath Eashwaran (now deceased) taught at the University of California, Berkeley. Robert Thurman and Ponlop Rinpoche have taught at Columbia in New York. There's a University in Seattle (I think U Wash.) that has Buddhist teachers in its religious studies program.

Yeah but what are they teaching? Is it religious or not? If it is, it matters little that they're teaching it at a university. What's the difference in terms of whether or not they actually know anything (besides the religious trappings, that is)?

In the academic setting, they definitely differentiate between a flim flam man/woman and someone who at least is making a serious study of it.

Yes, I'm sure that there are all sorts of sincere students of these traditions. I'm just saying that, when it comes right down to it, the teachings are based on cosmologies that are, in all likelihood, false. Thus the teachings may have all sorts of artistic or other kinds of cultural value but, in terms of truth value, aren't worth anything.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 01:43:30 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yes there are trails
Message:
A person can meditate themselves, and see for themselves, just like they can walk the trails themselves, and find new ones as well. Plus meditation, for some, is more about being fully here than about going anywhere. Maharaji's style was to go somewhere, at least that's what it seemed like to me. Advertised as find some place of peace that isn't here, in this awful world. The 'Beam me up Scotty' thing.

Without the religious trappings and the hype, things are simpler and stripped down. But with meditation you are also talking about the nature of the mind, and that does tie in with science and psychology.

As far as figments of imagination -- it would be interesting to see just how much of the content of anyone's mind is self-created. I don't think you need to assume meditation is the culprit, if there is indeed anything wrong with imagination, and if indeed it is a bad thing. I would bet, not always, but sometimes, just like everything else.

==f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 13:18:12 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Hm, that's not quite what I meant
Message:
A person can meditate themselves, and see for themselves, just like they can walk the trails themselves, and find new ones as well.

But, Fran, that's the whole issue, isn't it? Are there really 'trails' there or just their imagination? How could anyone know without subscribing to one spiritual concept or another? There's nothing objective about it. Indeed, it's like the perfect petri dish for fertile imaginings -- just you, your mind and whatever expectations you plugged in, all set to brew in the dark with your eyes closed.

Plus meditation, for some, is more about being fully here than about going anywhere.

Yes, I understand that but what's to teach? Personally, from all my experiences before during and after K, people pretending to have som mastery at 'being here now' were just posturing. Hell, I did it myself! When I first got into 'Be Here Now' and spent a summer in the mountains in Jasper, I tried all the stuff in the 'cookbook' section in that book and returned to Toronto earnest to show people that, in my newfound silence, I had become 'high' or something. Really, it's ridiculous and laughing-out-loud embarassing. There I was sitting around with my old friends trying desparately for them to get the 'Those-who-know-don't-speak' trip. Some of them 'got it' and nothing satsified me more than the few times I overheard someone say 'Did you notice how Jim's changed? He's so spiritual now'. What a crock! Anyway, I think taht game continues at much subtler, more grown-up levels, throughout the meditation world. In fact, I think anyone who sets themselves out as knowing anything special about what goes on when you turn out the lights, from either their own meditation or readings and trainings, is, at minimum, exaggerating.

Maharaji's style was to go somewhere, at least that's what it seemed like to me. Advertised as find some place of peace that isn't here, in this awful world. The 'Beam me up Scotty' thing.

Of course it was.

Without the religious trappings and the hype, things are simpler and stripped down.

Yeah, but if you really strip away those things is there anything left but the dark, your mind and whatever you put into it?

But with meditation you are also talking about the nature of the mind, and that does tie in with science and psychology.

Oh sure, but that's science, not any meditation tradition.

As far as figments of imagination -- it would be interesting to see just how much of the content of anyone's mind is self-created. I don't think you need to assume meditation is the culprit, if there is indeed anything wrong with imagination, and if indeed it is a bad thing. I would bet, not always, but sometimes, just like everything else.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:46:28 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hope this is the last on this
Message:
A person can meditate themselves, and see for themselves, just like they can walk the trails themselves, and find new ones as well.

But, Fran, that's the whole issue, isn't it? Are there really 'trails' there or just their imagination? How could anyone know without subscribing to one spiritual concept or another? There's nothing objective about it. Indeed, it's like the perfect petri dish for fertile imaginings -- just you, your mind and whatever expectations you plugged in, all set to brew in the dark with your eyes closed.

No, Jim, it's not the whole issue. Why does one have to subscribe to a spiritual concept in order to practice meditation? It almost sounds like you think meditation practice is some mind-control technique for someone who wants to sell you a line of spiritual hooey and have you meditate on that, rather than simply meditate. It is true that it can be USED as a mind-control technique if there is a tie-in with spiritual concepts (like the Maha-juju), but it doesn't have to be that way. And unfortunately, it sometimes is that way. People love to make a big deal out of something that works for them, and they can make a living at proselytizing, and the gurus depend upon church ladies and hype-helpers. But, for example, someone can sit with their eyes closed and 'look' at light or more accurately for some, 'look' in the area of their 'third eye' (or follow the movement of their breath, or listen to the 'internal' sounds of their body when they have their fingers in their ears), rather than following their thoughts around. And if a thought comes up, they just note what's going on and put their concentration back on the chosen object. Or maybe another technique is to relax and let the mind float free, and just observe where it goes, like following a kid around in a candy store. Where's the spiritual concepts there? And the person observes what they observe. These types of techniques are relaxing for some of us. I can understand that some others would not want to bother. But to put it down as if it is the worst thing around is puzzling. I'm sure people kill way more brain cells with alcohol, pot, and legal psych. meds than they do with a little meditation! And waste just as much time (probably more) on TV and empty-calorie movies!

Plus meditation, for some, is more about being fully here than about going anywhere.

Yes, I understand that but what's to teach? Personally, from all my experiences before during and after K, people pretending to have some mastery at 'being here now' were just posturing. Hell, I did it myself! When I first got into 'Be Here Now' and spent a summer in the mountains in Jasper, I tried all the stuff in the 'cookbook' section in that book and returned to Toronto earnest to show people that, in my newfound silence, I had become 'high' or something. Really, it's ridiculous and laughing-out-loud embarrassing. There I was sitting around with my old friends trying desperately for them to get the 'Those-who-know-don't-speak' trip. Some of them 'got it' and nothing satisfied me more than the few times I overheard someone say 'Did you notice how Jim's changed? He's so spiritual now'. What a crock! Anyway, I think that game continues at much subtler, more grown-up levels, throughout the meditation world. In fact, I think anyone who sets themselves out as knowing anything special about what goes on when you turn out the lights, from either their own meditation or readings and trainings, is, at minimum, exaggerating.

Jim, I agree there is more posturing and fluff than substance to some of it. But for a person for whom the meditation approach would be beneficial, they need to learn somewhere, and/or often want follow-up support and interaction with others. Why are we here, for example, interacting with others? Birds of a feather and all that. There is also something to discuss. For people who are practicing meditation as a tool (such as for peace of mind, unwinding, stress reduction, pain control, etc.), there are shared experiences to discuss (discussion groups often happen in workshops or on retreats, for example). Someone who has been working with various techniques and applying them to themselves and in various situations for a number or years, or is compiling the experiences of people who have, has some interesting experience to impart for those who are so inclined. I just don't agree with what you've said that anyone who has anything special to say about meditation is exaggerating, and that ANYTHING to do with teaching in this area is posturing and bunk. Now as I said earlier in this thread, the Maha offers no such support. He merely keeps feeding and drilling in dependence upon him, never doubting and all that. I'm sure there are other situations where the 'support' or continuing instruction is equally disingenuous or 'vaporware,' as they say in the IT industry.

Maharaji's style was to go somewhere, at least that's what it seemed like to me. Advertised as find some place of peace that isn't here, in this awful world. The 'Beam me up Scotty' thing.

Of course it was.

And there are people who come to meditation for that sort of thing, an escape of sorts. That's certainly where I was at in 1973. Sometimes after someone slows down, they go at it as just one of many things in their bag of coping skills, if there isn't any harmful juju attached to it that takes them in another direction. Because of the juju, I had to strip off a lot of nonsense, and certainly don't practice M's techniques any more because it is way easier not to. So even going to it as an escape, based on the person's level of angst, desperation or temporary trauma, is not reprehensible in and of itself.

Without the religious trappings and the hype, things are simpler and stripped down.

Yeah, but if you really strip away those things is there anything left but the dark, your mind and whatever you put into it?

There's the key, 'whatever you put in it.' What if you don't put anything in? What if you just observe, or let it be what it is naturally? Again, some people enjoy quiet reflection. Some don't. For some people to sit in meditation is absolutely aggravating. That's why the one size fits all solution, or the 'you need this' approach, is not only hype, it is potentially harmful to people for whom this approach doesn't work. If it's tied in with a religion, for example, a vulnerable person thinks there is something wrong with them and, carried out to an extreme, that they may as well go kill themselves. But if it's not tied in with religion they just say, 'none for me, thanks,' as one of my friends whose wife is a meditator has done. He can't STAND sitting. But to assert that it's bad or useless for all is an extreme, and I believe unwarranted, view.

But with meditation you are also talking about the nature of the mind, and that does tie in with science and psychology.

Oh sure, but that's science, not any meditation tradition.

But there ARE people in meditation traditions that do talk about the science of it, and there has been scientific studies done of the effects of it. This is important work, because it will be taken out of the 'faith' realm and into the practical realm. In the practical realm, either it is worth your time, or it isn't, pure and simple.

As far as figments of imagination -- it would be interesting to see just how much of the content of anyone's mind is self-created. I don't think you need to assume meditation is the culprit, if there is indeed anything wrong with imagination, and if indeed it is a bad thing. I would bet, not always, but sometimes, just like everything else.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

This ties in with you assuming that anything that happens in meditation is a figment of one's imagination. For the observation type of meditation I spoke of above, there's nothing to imagine – just let it be. But there are visualization techniques where a person does just that, actually conjures up a visualization, but it can go beyond mere imagination. Some of what a person 'visions' can be something very peaceful and loving and healing, or can end up telling them a lot about themselves, or a lot about how they relate to others, or the world around them. And sometimes, it's just a relaxation tool, such as visualizing a favorite place. (I hear that that's how Paul McCartney's wife made her exit, visioning riding her horse in a favorite place.) None of this stuff is bad in and of itself. I think that's why I champion it on the Forum – because there is a tendency for many exes to stridently say that it is all bunk. (Run, screaming!!! Run, run for your lives!!! The tingler is loose in the theater, right now!!!!) And it is true that when one is first exiting, one may need to give EVERYTHING related to meditation the big 'heave ho' and sort it all out. But this is not everyone's approach. Again, there is no 'one size fits all.'

Meditation is fine. It's just not the big deal that gets made out of it. A big deal also gets made about saying it's all bunk, at least on this Forum!

Postscript
So, Jim, I hope this is the end of this thread and no more back-and-forth needed. I'm not trying to change your views on any of this, but you keep asking questions and part of me thinks you deserve a response. But these long replies take too much time! Your tendency to let no comment go unchallenged that is favorable to meditation or any sort of internal experiences that border on the spiritual, has a chilling effect. I think you may well know this, and seem to be watchdogging the Forum in order to keep it free of such content, and to control its tone. I cringed at making the post that started this whole thread, thinking that this would happen – and it did! I believe this is what you want – to either debate us to death until our POV is clarified and acceptable to you, or scare such comments off the Forum entirely. I noticed that you are going at it below with Brian Smith, as well. In having to exhaustively explain myself and have every such comment be challenged by you is not conducive to a free and open discussion. It makes me not want to bother to deal with the challenge, debate and hair splitting, and thus I avoid making certain statements on this Forum. (Maybe this can give you a clue as to some of the subjects I discuss on RE.) I question why you cannot accept other people's views in this regard at face value, but invariably challenge every such post.

Best wishes,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:23:46 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Well said, Fran, but I'm green;) with envy
Message:
You said that Jim may be ''watchdogging the Forum in order to keep it free of such content, and to control its tone. I cringed at making the post that started this whole thread, thinking that this would happen – and it did! I believe this is what you want – to either debate us to death until our POV is clarified and acceptable to you, or scare such comments off the Forum entirely.''

Jim may be exhausting but the fact that he demands that we make ourselves understandable to him is invaluable. Well, it is for me and I wish he would pick on me more often.

As soon as I divorced Rev Rawat, I found that my mind began to clutch at straws. I even flirted with christianity. I already detested all eastern and New Age stuff so I turned to western culture and found that I came full circle back to the day when I first dissected a frog in pharmacy school and realized that science was civilized man's true religion.

But I also invested a lot of effort in meditation and got a lot out of it. Being a businessman I don't like to throw away investments. So yes, I admit that, when it comes to talking about meditation, I start with the fact that I enjoy and then work forward from there to make sense of it.

I'm glad that the skeptics and atheists here make me think twice about what I write. I don't want to live in the fuzzy world of New Age relativism. I want to be able to communicate respectfully and intelligently with those skeptics because skepticism and inquisitiveness are the basis for science and logic.

I think your writing on meditation etc has definitely become less esoteric and more down to earth and I think so has mine. I hope.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:23:14 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Who's the watchdog??????
Message:
Fran,

For all your intelligence, good will, etc. etc. it's you, my friend, not me who presents like a watchdog. I want to discuss things and you bristle. As far as I'm concerned, no, you neither got nor responded to what I was saying but I'll be damned if I continue. I'll just say this, your post has what I think are several logical flaws in it. Now if only I had a secret UN-recent ex site to talk about it with others!

Anyway, feel free to ignore the question marks in my subject line. They were rhetorical as I wouldn't dream of burdening you with this conversation any further.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:52:05 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I won't be taking this thread elsewhere
Message:
That's not what I meant at all -- I'm not taking this particular thread somewhere where you can't be in on it. I've just said my piece, that's all.

I wouldn't dream of taking a discussion you were in to somewhere where you couldn't continue it, if I were into continuing it. No, I'd continue it right here -- you've given me no reason not to, other than this sort of thing does not interest me.

But Pat's ready for 'ya :)

Maybe it's a "guy" thing?

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:18:13 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: No, you miss the point
Message:
I wasn't suggesting that you'd take this thread anywhere. I was just playing off the fact that you said that RE's good for not having to watch what you say all that carefully.

Here's what you said:

In having to exhaustively explain myself and have every such comment be challenged by you is not conducive to a free and open discussion. It makes me not want to bother to deal with the challenge, debate and hair splitting, and thus I avoid making certain statements on this Forum. (Maybe this can give you a clue as to some of the subjects I discuss on RE.) I question why you cannot accept other people's views in this regard at face value, but invariably challenge every such post.

I'm sorry you feel this way, actually. See, I think that the strain you feel isn't my fault at all but rather a function of the vagueness and often untenable-in-broad-daylight quality of so much stuff associated with meditation and spirituality. As I said to Mike above, I think the close scrutiny process is actually quite important as it was words, just words, that got us where are today in terms of our beliefs and practises.

Face it, Fran, you bristle at this process. You can call me all the names you want, call it a 'guy thing' or a 'Jim thing', a 'lawyer thing' or whatever, but the fact is, some of us,at least, believe there's not a thing wrong with the closest possible examination of our words in this area. Others do and that, I take it, is one reason you guys enjoy RE. Well, you can bristle all you want but I resent your characterizing me as offensively as you do. I'm proud of being interested in looking closely at this stuff. The closer the better. You don't need to be watching out for my 'victims' thank you very much. I'm sure they can well take care of themselves.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:07:02 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: Just great, Francesca
Message:
Being a self-taught person is essential but there's no doubt about it that having a teacher can make learning more interesting and less predictable. I even learned from my bad teachers. I certainly learned from Rawat never to accept any oriental mumbo-jumbo ever again.

I'll just have to experiment with meditation on my own because I can no longer respect any pre-scientific ideas no matter how many exotic syllables they have or how remarkable they may seem.

If I can't explain it right away, I'll wait until I have figured out how to say it in plain English. No more spiritual concepts for me no matter how much I enjoy meditation.

Yep, separated at birth. :C)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:14:49 (EST)
From: Francesca :~)
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: company of truth or sangha
Message:
Yeah, Pat, definitely.

I consider my 'company of truth' or 'sangha' (community) to be everything I come in contact with. No accept. No reject.

What it IS.

:~) f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 22:34:49 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: What is IS!
Message:
What is IS! Sounds very vipassana-ish to me Francesca. Insight or vipassana is the meditation I'm into most these days.

Those who might want to investigate this non-devotional meditation can check out the Vipassana.com Newsletter which is published approximately three times each year and is sent only on request.

You can subscribe instantly at:

http://www.vipassana.com/cgi-bin/nl.cgi

For those who don't know, the meditation technique called Vipassana (insight) was introduced by the Buddha about twenty-five centuries ago and is a set of mental activities specifically aimed at experiencing a state of uninterrupted Mindfulness. The Landmark Forum, which I mentioned earlier, IMHO is a kick-ass crash course in vipassana. The Forum is what got me in to Buddhism.

I highly recommend both to exes who want to accelerate their personal growth toward self determinism and independence. Thanks for the two quotes earlier.

=) DD

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 14:23:26 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: notinherent@yahoo.com
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Thanks for the link
Message:
I'll check up on the Vipassana link, since I've studied Vipassana some with the Spirit Rock folks about 10 years ago.

Landmark I will steer clear of. I've had enough people try to recruit me into their methods over the years (including someone who took the EST training while she lived in the ashram in 1981) that I will steer clear of it. Almost everyone who has ever taken it has tried to strongarm-hype me into thinking that I needed to take it. Glad to know that it was helpful for you, however.

I used to work at the Peace Press in LA with a bunch of atheists, premies and EST folks in 1978-80. The EST person who was a higher up in the organization was worse than the premies. She made fun of premies and Maharaji in clear earshot (although she would have never done it to our faces) and had a really superior attitude. The funny thing is that we were both in cults.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 19:06:48 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: Yep,neatly sums up M/K Francesca [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:30:01 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: No way
Message:
Before you can talk about the efficacy of Knowledge, you have to define it. M defined it as the means to transcend your false, bad ego and merge with God. The definition, then, assumes that the mind is a dark, illusory force. It also assumes that there is such a thing as God whom we can and ought to merge with. You have to accept all those premises to make any sense of Knowledge. Otherwise, it's just another way to avoid or relax from the world around us.

Personally, I don't accept any of those premises. That is, I don't believe in God. Certainly not one who's trying to get us to 'merge' with him. That's absurd -- and yet it's the foundation of Knowledge. And I don't believe that the mind is this dark force that clouds our spirit like a parasite. So there's no way that Knowledge can ever 'work' in any meaningful way. I mean a broken fax machine will still 'work' as a door jamb but so what? Sure, these meditation techniques, like any others, will let you concentrate as you shut out the outside world. Big deal. But do they 'show you God face-to-face'? Etc.? No.

Furthermore, the idea of giving either Rawat any credit for teaching anything is a farce as the lies and falsehoods they perpetrated -- i.e. that Knowledge IS a vehicle past the evil mind that's taken us hostage and that Maharaji's its pilot -- so far outweigh what ever little value the meditation retains as a relaxation tool, that he gets no credit for nothing. Never can, never will.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:09:33 (EST)
From: Patrick W
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: No way
Message:
Jim wrote:

Before you can talk about the efficacy of Knowledge, you have to define it.

M defined it as the means to transcend your false, bad ego and merge with God. The definition, then, assumes that the mind is a dark, illusory force. It also assumes that there is such a thing as God whom we can and ought to merge with. You have to accept all those premises to make any sense of Knowledge. Otherwise, it's just another way to avoid or relax from the world around us.

Personally, I don't accept any of those premises. That is, I don't believe in God. Certainly not one who's trying to get us to 'merge' with him. That's absurd -- and yet it's the foundation of Knowledge. And I don't believe that the mind is this dark force that clouds our spirit like a parasite. So there's no way that Knowledge can ever 'work' in any meaningful way. I mean a broken fax machine will still 'work' as a door jamb but so what? Sure, these meditation techniques, like any others, will let you concentrate as you shut out the outside world. Big deal. But do they 'show you God face-to-face'? Etc.? No.

Furthermore, the idea of giving either Rawat any credit for teaching anything is a farce as the lies and falsehoods they perpetrated -- i.e. that Knowledge IS a vehicle past the evil mind that's taken us hostage and that Maharaji's its pilot -- so far outweigh what ever little value the meditation retains as a relaxation tool, that he gets no credit for nothing. Never can, never will.

Isn't it clear from my post that my definition of Knowledge varies rather drastically from that of Maharaji ?

Firstly I don't think I said anything about Knowledge being about God. I don't make any claims to undestanding God or even believing in such a thing. I don't suggest that the meditation brings you face to face with God but , in my experience it can be quite an exploration into ones own psyche. Maybe this is just because of the way I'm doing it! I don't know...I think one's attitude counts. what you put in affects what you get out.

The whole idea of the evil mind is also something I don't buy. I do say that through meditation I have felt my thoughts 'quieten down' to an extent where I start having some kinds of the sensory experiences that we associate with the techniques. It's that simple. I think those experiences can be quite pleasant and rewarding- make that very pleasant and rewarding.
I am impressed enough with meditation to feel it a worthwhile practice. I like the idea of the mind being like a lake with ripples on (thoughts) . When the surface becomes calm the lake reflects the moon more accurately. Me with a calm mind is able to function better mentally. I happen to find the techniques calming. to be honest I haven't tried any others. I'm sure others work well too.

Although I am critical of Maharaji and his methods, (as you well know) and do disagree with his past and possibly current definitions of Knowledge, I don't feel the need to deny the fact that it was historically he who somehow imported this information over from India, along with a bunch of other crap that I could do without , and that I appreciate some aspects of this information.

I take your point about crediting Maharaji being somewhat farcical considering the enormous amount of abuse that went with the whole trip. However there WAS a carrot that had appeal -the bliss -the inner peace- and Maharaji did deliver on that quite important ingredient albeit with disingenuous strings attached. To deny that is probably to revise your own past isn't it? After all I bet you used to get all high from meditation. I just happen to have kept up the practice but cut the strings and ignored the original definition.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:14:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Re: No way
Message:
Isn't it clear from my post that my definition of Knowledge varies rather drastically from that of Maharaji ?

No. To the contrary, you seem to be saying that Knowledge might well be everything it's classically packaged and sold as, only without Maharaji as the exclusive distributor he claims to be. For example:

Firstly, there are many people who have wonderful meditational experiences of what we called Light, Music, Holy Name and Nectar from other Gurus. A prime example of this is Maharaji's brothers followers in India. They offer the same thing in a different cultural context with diiferent numbers of adherents etc. (and other religious concepts involved)

Firstly I don't think I said anything about Knowledge being about God. I don't make any claims to undestanding God or even believing in such a thing. I don't suggest that the meditation brings you face to face with God but , in my experience it can be quite an exploration into ones own psyche. Maybe this is just because of the way I'm doing it! I don't know...I think one's attitude counts. what you put in affects what you get out.

If you're not associating Knowledge with experiencing God, indeed, if you're not sure you even believe in him, how can you say:

Secondly, I can sit down and meditate just as I have always done and feel the same bliss and devotion to God that I always felt ...

The whole idea of the evil mind is also something I don't buy. I do say that through meditation I have felt my thoughts 'quieten down' to an extent where I start having some kinds of the sensory experiences that we associate with the techniques. It's that simple. I think those experiences can be quite pleasant and rewarding- make that very pleasant and rewarding.
I am impressed enough with meditation to feel it a worthwhile practice. I like the idea of the mind being like a lake with ripples on (thoughts) . When the surface becomes calm the lake reflects the moon more accurately. Me with a calm mind is able to function better mentally. I happen to find the techniques calming. to be honest I haven't tried any others. I'm sure others work well too.

Yes, well there's always this 'positive' way to look at the mind problem, that it's just a little pesky turbulence on the surface of the water, kind of thing. The problem, as I see it, though, is that the whole myth of Knowledge implies that there is indeed a well of happiness awaiting us on the other side of that mind. You might not want to call it evil but the dichotomy's unavoidable once you accept that myth which, as I say, is inherent in the practise of Knowledge. Otherwise, do what you want with it, just don't read any Hans Yog Prakash, etc.

Although I am critical of Maharaji and his methods, (as you well know) and do disagree with his past and possibly current definitions of Knowledge, I don't feel the need to deny the fact that it was historically he who somehow imported this information over from India, along with a bunch of other crap that I could do without , and that I appreciate some aspects of this information.

God, Patrick, you're using 'information' like a full-on new-ager! You know, the way they'll talk about some channelled this or that and tip toe around the 'But is it TRUE?' question by calling it 'information'. Is it Knowledge of God? Raj Yoga? Or is it no more cosmically significant than Ty Bo? What do YOU think?

I take your point about crediting Maharaji being somewhat farcical considering the enormous amount of abuse that went with the whole trip. However there WAS a carrot that had appeal -the bliss -the inner peace- and Maharaji did deliver on that quite important ingredient albeit with disingenuous strings attached. To deny that is probably to revise your own past isn't it? After all I bet you used to get all high from meditation. I just happen to have kept up the practice but cut the strings and ignored the original definition.

Right, got that. So NOW what's your definition?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 07:01:52 (EST)
From: Patrick W
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: No way
Message:
You wrote:
If you're not associating Knowledge with experiencing God, indeed, if you're not sure you even believe in him, how can you say:
'Secondly, I can sit down and meditate just as I have always done and feel the same bliss and devotion to God that I always felt ...'

Let me try to explain what I feel. Firstly I should explain that I am not one of those people who has convictions abut God..for me the jury is out as it were. I maybe have hopes.. I don't know all the answers - but I am still very interested in feeling good and getting high in ways that are not to damaging to my health. I also am interested in texploring he emotional feelings I have had since childhood (sometimes suppressed) towards knowing my creator - something that is a feeling akin to religious devotion I suppose. It may be in vain but I don't care- I find that it enhances my life to explore this.

When I meditate I sometimes put my aspirations towards God in there- much like I did as a child praying to Jesus. You see for me I felt very good doing that as a kid and I don't judge that innocent attitude as being altogther merely childish. I don't interpret the experience of meditation as being definitively of God although seeing an inner light that makes me feel good comes pretty close to satisfying me on that particular count. I can only describe it as almost a womb-like experience. .or what i would imagine a womblike experience to feel. I think it has something to do with being flooded with a good sensory impression. I think we are wired in a way that we can get very high by focussing our emotional energy in these ways. maybe it's a form of brain feedback. I don't know.

Praying to God (maybe for a revelation of what 'it/He' really is...in desperation in one moment... is not the same as having a regular firm belief in God or an elaborate concept about what God is or feels like. Most people have desperate moments occasionally in their lives when they reach out to God- maybe they are scared or dying or at the end of their tether.

I felt a feeling of gratitude and bliss towards a higher power.. the Universe... whatever you want to call the great unknown...even before hearing about Maharaji etc. I associate Knowledge with God, not in the sense that I think the experience is 'of God' . what I was saying was that during my particular way of meditating - throughout my time as a premie - meditation time, as it were, also meant a certain amount of 'prayer time' . I found that it was natural for me to use that time when I was quietening down my everyday thoughts- to focus on a feeling of humility towards Life itself. I could call it God. I enjoy my devotion/ application/ interest in finding out the truth about life- whether it be scientific investigation, or some sort of ethical growth of awareness - it feels good to me.

You wrote:

Yes, well there's always this 'positive' way to look at the mind problem, that it's just a little pesky turbulence on the surface of the water, kind of thing. The problem, as I see it, though, is that the whole myth of Knowledge implies that there is indeed a well of happiness awaiting us on the other side of that mind. You might not want to call it evil but the dichotomy's unavoidable once you accept that myth which, as I say, is inherent in the practise of Knowledge. Otherwise, do what you want with it, just don't read any Hans Yog Prakash, etc.

I think there is a well of happiness - sort of - that comes from being still. Just as sleep rejuvenates a busy mind in ways we barely understand - I think that conscious meditation also can be very rejuvenating. As I said, I think that it can also be very dangerous when combined with a lot of hocus-pocus religious belief.

I wrote: Although I am critical of Maharaji and his methods, (as you well know) and do disagree with his past and possibly current definitions of Knowledge, I don't feel the need to deny the fact that it was historically he who somehow imported this information over from India, along with a bunch of other crap that I could do without , and that I appreciate some aspects of this information.

You replied God, Patrick, you're using 'information' like a full-on new-ager! You know, the way they'll talk about some channelled this or that and tip toe around the 'But is it TRUE?' question by calling it 'information'. Is it Knowledge of God? Raj Yoga? Or is it no more cosmically significant than Ty Bo? What do YOU think?

I am NOT putting any 'cosmic' spin on my use of the word 'information' - you are. Let me be clear that by 'this information' I specifically mean the techniques of meditation.

I wrote: I take your point about crediting Maharaji being somewhat farcical considering the enormous amount of abuse that went with the whole trip. However there WAS a carrot that had appeal -the bliss -the inner peace- and Maharaji did deliver on that quite important ingredient albeit with disingenuous strings attached. To deny that is probably to revise your own past isn't it? After all I bet you used to get all high from meditation. I just happen to have kept up the practice but cut the strings and ignored the original definition.

You replied: Right, got that. So NOW what's your definition?

My definition of Knowledge (or should I say ' my habitual use of the word Knowledge with silly capital 'K' etc.) is just the meditation using the four techniques - more or less as it was told me by Krishnasuchanand in 1974 . If Maharaji has changed those techniques drastically since then maybe we are talking about different Knowledge. As I said I don't think Maharaji's definition is much use to me wjhat with the satsang, darshan of the PM and service bit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 17:35:21 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: A few things
Message:
Let me try to explain what I feel. Firstly I should explain that I am not one of those people who has convictions abut God..for me the jury is out as it were. I maybe have hopes.. I don't know all the answers - but I am still very interested in feeling good and getting high in ways that are not to damaging to my health. I also am interested in texploring he emotional feelings I have had since childhood (sometimes suppressed) towards knowing my creator - something that is a feeling akin to religious devotion I suppose. It may be in vain but I don't care- I find that it enhances my life to explore this.

When I meditate I sometimes put my aspirations towards God in there- much like I did as a child praying to Jesus. You see for me I felt very good doing that as a kid and I don't judge that innocent attitude as being altogther merely childish. I don't interpret the experience of meditation as being definitively of God although seeing an inner light that makes me feel good comes pretty close to satisfying me on that particular count. I can only describe it as almost a womb-like experience. .or what i would imagine a womblike experience to feel. I think it has something to do with being flooded with a good sensory impression. I think we are wired in a way that we can get very high by focussing our emotional energy in these ways. maybe it's a form of brain feedback. I don't know.

Praying to God (maybe for a revelation of what 'it/He' really is...in desperation in one moment... is not the same as having a regular firm belief in God or an elaborate concept about what God is or feels like. Most people have desperate moments occasionally in their lives when they reach out to God- maybe they are scared or dying or at the end of their tether.

I felt a feeling of gratitude and bliss towards a higher power.. the Universe... whatever you want to call the great unknown...even before hearing about Maharaji etc. I associate Knowledge with God, not in the sense that I think the experience is 'of God' . what I was saying was that during my particular way of meditating - throughout my time as a premie - meditation time, as it were, also meant a certain amount of 'prayer time' . I found that it was natural for me to use that time when I was quietening down my everyday thoughts- to focus on a feeling of humility towards Life itself. I could call it God. I enjoy my devotion/ application/ interest in finding out the truth about life- whether it be scientific investigation, or some sort of ethical growth of awareness - it feels good to me.

This one's a hard one for me. I, too, could conjur up my favorite sense of God and pray to it. However, seeing as I don't think there's really anyone there listening, I feel it'd be weak and dishonest for me to do that. It'd be a game, really, and one at my own expense. Maybe, some years from now, I'll feel differently. Maybe with no more reason to believe or disbelieve in God than I have now, I'll still decide to tip the balance back towards faith. I hope not, though. I hope that if I honestly continue to believe God's a myth that I stay the course and enjoy my God-less universe where no one listens to my prayers but at least I'm smart enough to know that beforehand.

think there is a well of happiness - sort of - that comes from being still. Just as sleep rejuvenates a busy mind in ways we barely understand - I think that conscious meditation also can be very rejuvenating. As I said, I think that it can also be very dangerous when combined with a lot of hocus-pocus religious belief.

This is a key question, in my opinion. If you honestly do believe that there is such a well then of course you'd find meditation promising. I don't think that there IS such a reserve of any kind of emotion inside, good or bad. I think emotions are manufactured as we need them, kind of like in a Japanese factory. I mean, if you think YOUR way don't you then have to deal with why we aren't enjoying all that happiness that's already in there? And isn't that then a perfect lead-in to the 'evil mind' theory?

My definition of Knowledge (or should I say ' my habitual use of the word Knowledge with silly capital 'K' etc.) is just the meditation using the four techniques - more or less as it was told me by Krishnasuchanand in 1974 . If Maharaji has changed those techniques drastically since then maybe we are talking about different Knowledge. As I said I don't think Maharaji's definition is much use to me wjhat with the satsang, darshan of the PM and service bit.

I'm not sure that's really much of a definition, although I'm well aware that this is the best the cult itself currently offers. I like the older definitions, the one's that talked about the real purpose and meaning of these four techniques. Now that's Knowledge! And that's the ghost definition that's always floating over any discussion of same, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 19:45:58 (EST)
From: Patrick W
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: A few things
Message:
This is a key question, in my opinion. If you honestly do believe that there is such a well then of course you'd find meditation promising. I don't think that there IS such a reserve of any kind of emotion inside, good or bad. I think emotions are manufactured as we need them, kind of like in a Japanese factory. I mean, if you think YOUR way don't you then have to deal with why we aren't enjoying all that happiness that's already in there? And isn't that then a perfect lead-in to the 'evil mind' theory?

It might be construed perversely by some that because our thoughts distact us occasionally from having peace of mind that the mind is inherently 'Evil'. I don't believe in or understand 'Evil' so that is not a theory that appeals to me.

I'm not sure that's really much of a definition, although I'm well aware that this is the best the cult itself currently offers. I like the older definitions, the one's that talked about the real purpose and meaning of these four techniques. Now that's Knowledge! And that's the ghost definition that's always floating over any discussion of same, don't you think?

Yes the older definition is the ghost definition that floats o'er us here - but I don't like the older definitions. neither do you if your honest - it sucks.

I will be away tomorrow so I may have delay the continuation of this rather time-consuming but delightful foray on the forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 20:41:47 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Re: A few things
Message:
It might be construed perversely by some that because our thoughts distact us occasionally from having peace of mind that the mind is inherently 'Evil'. I don't believe in or understand 'Evil' so that is not a theory that appeals to me.

Patrick, don't the dots connect like this? If there is, as you believe possible, a well of happiness awaiting us inside, wouldn't whatever cuts us off from it be very, very bad, at least (if you don't like the word 'evil')? I mean, people kill themselves. They kill others. There is so much unhappiness. It's only logical, is it not, that something that cut us off from our deep reserve of happiness is necessarily bad? Doesn't matter if you call it 'evil' necessarily. However, just the aversion one would develop for such a nasty force would be just as strong.

Yes the older definition is the ghost definition that floats o'er us here - but I don't like the older definitions. neither do you if your honest - it sucks.

No, I DO like the older definition because it's much more honest. Bullshit for sure but honest. What is Knowledge? Knowledge is a set of four meditation techniques given by the living Satguru to his devotess which, when practised diligently, can, over time and with the guru's grace, lead to god realization. Now that's Knowledge! Isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:54:24 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Agreed Jim
Message:
....a way to relax from or avoid the world, nothing more and nothing less.

Just a matter of choice if a person wants to use it or any other of myriad relaxation techniques.Radha Saomi and the offshoots (including Shri Hans/Maharaji/Bal Bhagwan Ji)have just loaded a whole load of crap on simple yogic techniques.

If people derive enjoyment or satisfaction from the techniques, all well and good but I don't think they have any deeper 'meaning', especially 'God' related.God is just a figment of imagination.

ALL ABOVE IMO ONLY ;)

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 14:52:27 (EST)
From: Occasional Poster
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Thanks Patrick ...
Message:
Your 'thesis' is well found and clearly spoken. As I mentioned to you previously I always enjoy reading your fine words which so much reflects the similar path of mine. I look forward to reading more of your words soon - but what about that lunch we spoke about! :-)

OP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 13:29:27 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Thanks, Patrick
Message:
Your essay was a lot like a letter that I sent out to premies last year before I exited the cult. Since then I have realized that M is no teacher at all and that he has in fact done much harm with his incompetence and irresponsibility and his inability to learn from westerners.

I got out of K exactly what I put into it and expected from it and I think other people can get exactly what they want out of whatever they use to relax and be peaceful.

The premies who stuck around for many years did so either because they got something out of either M or K. I think the former will stick with Rawat and the latter will eventually exit the cult and some will turn up here.

This conversation is not over yet. In fact it is the elephant sitting on the sofa in the living room and eventually we will have to talk about it with those who still enjoy what we used to know as K. Thank you for your contribution.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 14:51:28 (EST)
From: Patrick W
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: We need to break the spell.
Message:
Thanks for the responses -
Livia wrote:

I think you have a very valid point. From the standpoint of the practice of this meditation as being a good thing, what holds us back from showing other people how to do it?

The problem is, though, that it could never be done to any meaningful extent in an organised way by exes, because a lot of exes doubt even that the practice of K is a good thing in itself. There was a thread a few days ago that made some very good points about K possibly dulling people's emotions and actually preventing one from living life fully and intensely. For myself, the jury is out. I just DON'T know. It's so long for me - 30 years - that I can't remember really how I felt before.
Also, as I have gone from youth to the other side of middle age during those years, it's really hard to know whether one's altered feelings are the partly the product of aging and maturing.
Also, (worryingly?) the practice of 'Holy Name' or whatever it's called these days has become such a deeply ingrained habit that I catch myself doing it at odd times of the day - it seems virtually impossible to stop it. I wonder if anyone else here finds themselves doing this? I wish I COULD stop it because then it would be possible to examine how life really is without it, and then decide which is better.

and Joy added:

I was not able to separate doing the techniques from Maharaji, and all the Hindu nonsense that went along with them, the pranaming, prayers, bholay-shri's, photographs, altars, etc. Therefore I gave up the whole kit and kaboodle, baby, bathwater and all, and have not missed K in the slightest.
There are lots of other spiritual practices in the world, and I have dabbled in one or two since leaving K, it's not an exclusive road to peace or an inner experience (and not much of one at all, in my experience). But if you and others value continuing to do the techniques on a regular basis, fine, but disassociating them from M and his Perfect Master/Lord guise is not that easy (as Livia states), and a break from them, as well as from him, is necessary, I think, to be able to get a clearer perspective.

It seems that there are quite a number of people who feel that despite whatever peaceful feelings they get from meditation, their distasteful association of M with this particular practice is at least for the while, totally off-putting.

Then there are those who , like Jerry, think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the meditation has really no value whatsoever and is even a dangerous practice -like a drug - addictive and likely to lure one into a deluded state of 'contentment' which amounts to being anaesthetised to reality and prone to believing in all kinds of cult interpretations of what one is experiencing.

Strangely I can see all sides of this. I have felt exhalted and 'blissed-out' recently from meditation -I could even describe the feelings as being of being in touch with a deeper part of myself. I really don't associate this with Maharaji's grace or any such notion. For all I know it may merely be a physical reaction in my brain producing pleasant sensations. In fact this seems by far the most plausible scenario. But I allow myself to enjoy it very subjectively anyway.
Like Livia, the habit of feeling my breath going up and down 'like a swing' or whatever (and the sort of intoxication I seem to get from it -is it hyperventilation ? - I don't think so) is something now so deeply engrained that I could hardly ignore it if I tried. To be honest I find myself doing the nectar, light technique and the music now again almost totally automically. I'm sure if I had done Yoga or some other spiritual practice (like the ones Joy eludes to) for years on end I would be into doing that just as much. I am not saying that this one is the best or making a value judgement like that.

I have also experienced that deep meditation can be really disorienting and dangerous, in that it can leave one in a sort of mental vacuum that can then be filled with all sorts of anxieties, self-destructive thoughts, feelings of lack of confidence and worse, the need to turn to the Guru as a sort of trusted icon or idol who can step in and save you from yourself. I hate the way that the value of rationality and thinking has been demonised as being the workings of an evil, doubting mechasnism called 'The Mind'. I can now plainly see how the promotion of this concept effectively undermined our confidence in ourselves at a root level making us believe that the only recourse was to think and act only on the instructions of the Master who was supposed to be able to in return give us 'peace and bliss and harmony'. All that ego-demolishment trip which we once subjected ourselves to from him is now clear to see as the abusive situataion it was. For me that is.

It has to be said that I have had the benefit of probably 6 years of consciously rejecting all those formerly precious beliefs and associations I had with Maharaji. The last time I saw him was in Amaroo in 1995 I think. I have since been quite actively trying to do a reality check and that has meant an awful lot of soul-searching, writing and discussing. Also I have virtually nothing to do with premies, mainly because since I became outspoken in my criticism they literally cross to the other side of the street to avoid me! This has happened to me in Brighton (where I do still indeed live Livia.)

It occurred to me recently that what is wrong about this whole thing really isn't the simple calming down process of meditation, or the aspiration towards leading a more meaningful life that many of us once cherished and hoped would somehow be achieved through Knowledge. What was wrong was indeed, as Joy said, all the Hindu nonsense that went along with it and the fact that the meditation, satsang, service and devotion to Maharaji did truly become an anaesthetic which made us lose touch with vitally important parts of ourselves. A situation of woeful imbalance that we are at great pains to redress.

It would, hyperthetically be quite healing if there were some attempt from exes to redeem the good parts, and teach it ourselves - without all the hocus pocus. I think that in itself would actually be quite satisfying and of course, possible of some concern to or confronting for Maharaji and premies. After all... he and premies really do think that he has a monopoly on this stuff! It suits him for us to say it's all bullshit because that's exactly what premies think exes think (if you see what I mean) . What makes premies far more uncomfortable actually, is the situation where someone (like me!) comes along and says: 'Look, I like the meditation but I'm not going to let that stop me criticising M where I see faults - and I am not going to be intimidated into letting him be the only person who is 'allowed' to enthuse about it or to show others how they can do it if they want.'

Maharaji would like anyone who is critical of his methods to basically disappear - get lost - get out of his way - Walk! (as he would see it) - he doesn't mind criticism as long as it is not from within the ranks as it were of those people who are inspired by their meditation. They should basically just be grateful and take a back seat.

This is so demeaning - you only have value as a mute admirer and if you fail to admire his mistakes, arrogance or insensitivities then tough. No wonder there are so many premies who are deeply confused about how to express their feelings. This is his show! sit back and be entertained and if you think you could do as well or better then get the hell out of here!

No matter how inspired or sensible you may be you are not allowed to talk aloud about it - only Daddy can. You will just confuse people.

Practically speaking - I can see that to set up an alternate, bullshit-free school of meditation based around similar 'Knowledge techniques' would indeed be a tough assignment. - It would be very hard to offer people the kind of sense of community and 'relegation of responsibility for their life' that people find so comforting in Maharaji's promises - 'I will be with you always' etc.

What is comforting and reassuring about these internet forums is that it is very evident that one is far from alone in wanting to take the good and leave the bad with regard to the Knowledge experience.

I have heard time and time again from premie friends who express that they love to meditate - would like to recommend knowledge to a friend or loved one, but cannot bring themselves to introduce someone to a programme that, although it may be able to instruct them in the meditation , is likely to put them through considerable unnecessary cultic programming / introduce them into a personality cult etc.

It is so relevant to question oneself - why am I so unnaturally reluctant to show people myself? The answer has to be that we were told not to - 'asked' not to - however you slice it -this is supposed to be a secret and there is a fear that surrounds that and entraps/ enslaves you. I think that this is a fundamental fear to overcome. It is easy if you have no appreciation of the experience then it is of no consequence to talk about it openly. If however you value it as most premies (exiting or otherwise) do, then it is very hard to trust ones own experience above the warnings, orders or requests of the person who seems to somehow have got you into the whole thing and you have developed some trust for. That has to be confronted which is very tough.

It's a bit like being given a mirror by an Evil Witch and it being a revelation to you how beautiful you are. The natural urge is to give others the mirror but you were sworn by the the Witch to secrecy - the spell would be broken if you shared it. The condition is that you have to send others to the Witch who will then own their souls too or something...Anyway the Witch ends up having power over all these souls. What it takes is for some sincere person to break the spell. I say sincere because if someone just goes around saying this mirror is bullshit -'look it doesn't work' - it doesn't. They can't break the spell. Maharaji's trick is to focus your sincerity and use that to enslave you. Someone from within the ranks of the enslaved who has seen the beauty but dared to question the Witch has to break the spell.

People who have never invested their heart and soul in Maharaji can really never effect premies. That is why people who write here who maybe were never premies can never really impress with their words. They can rant about M all they like - be as rude as ever - but it sets no one free because people are trapped by their sincerity and it takes someone who has experienced that vulnerability and yet dared to break the spell and speak out, to wake up the sleeping prisoners.

One 'Mike' on this forum is worth a thousand Barrys ! (No offence meant there Barry dear boy)

I just went to see Harry Potter with my kids - all these films have the same theme -the pure of heart get to ovecome evil. Likewise the prisoners of Maharaji can only be set free by people who attack Maharaji with absolutely pure motives and who have themselves faced the fearmonger at their most vulnerable and childlike and survived.

Maybe it is best just to try to make available a resource where the other side of the story can be told - where there is no judgement about meditation being either 'bullshit' or ' spiritually important' but where the facts are laid out and people can come to their own conclusions. Obviously that is what EPO is pretty much committed to doing and I think that is extremely important role.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:23:51 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: BEST OF FORUM - raising important questions
Message:
some snippets from your post, Patrick, which rang loud and clear for me:

'I have heard time and time again from premie friends who express that they love to meditate -
would like to recommend knowledge to a friend or loved one, but cannot bring themselves to
introduce someone to a programme that, although it may be able to instruct them in the
meditation , is likely to put them through considerable unnecessary cultic programming /
introduce them into a personality cult etc'.

If the Maha really were an altruist with humanity's best interests at heart, WHY OH WHY would he prevent people (like those friends and loved ones you mention above) from experiencing the benefits of meditation, simply because he has a vested interest in being the sole focus of the gratitude that arises in people for whom meditation produces positive results?

Answer - he ISN'T the altruist he pretends to be.

When he says (as he did in Nottingham a couple of years ago):

'Do good deeds ... and many people get in to this, y'know ... do good deeds.

There is no deed greater than to impart 'Knowledge' to a person who is
ready for this gift of Knowledge.

If there is a charity, then this is the greatest charity there is. Because it is
a gift that is given - unattached.

Unattached. With no expectation of anything in return.

Because the master knows - nothing can be given in return'.

when he says that, is he saying that PWKS should now share the 'knowledge' with other people - those who might benefit from learning this meditation?

Is he saying that?

If so, he MIGHT deserve to be called an altruist/benefactor. But his record over the past 30 years doesn't bode too well for that. He still wants what he can get out of it (and how!).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:27:43 (EST)
From: ChrisP
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Breaking out of an invisible mould
Message:
Hi Patrick, many thanks for these wonderful posts. I really like what you've written here, and as another recent ex, I'm also feeling my way through the moulds that have become quite ‘mouldy'.

For me also, meditation's inner experience is the one shred of truth amidst a labyrinth of lies that I'm ‘walking' away with. I know M's not the exlusive owner of these techniques; many other teachers reveal them and they're hardly a secret anymore. Others have discredited meditation altogether, however I can't deny having felt so many good things in it myself. I recently visited a Buddhist centre and equally enjoyed one of their meditation sessions as well. As well, I've been alerted to and recognize the pitfalls of too much meditation.

For me the thing is (and always was): I don't need more nice reminders to visit the purity inside (the premie mantra). Upon exiting I actually stopped meditating regularly to sort through my feelings about the whole thing. Since then, there've been some serendipitous moments where I find myself naturally feeling my breath; or while lying down I hear music and will listen to it for a bit. Another time I felt the urge o the light technique. I ceased these moments and just went with it and enjoyed it for a few minutes. These times showed me I don't need to continue as a premie to experience anything; it will indeed be with me the rest of my life sans MJ & grace (whatever that's supposed to be), and will always be there for me to enjoy whenever the urge hits me. Indeed, this actually confirmed that the whole premie belief system (BS!) along with its devotion and MJ-isms, are actually, in comparison, detrimental, restricting and oppressive to my true benefit of them; they wrongfully claimed ownership and control of something that's all MINE to enjoy.

Upon exiting, I feel more empowered and freer than ever in many ways. I'm also glad F7 is here as a chance to come out and say exactly what you think without fear (no matter who agrees or disagrees) and to go ahead and look at all the questions that ‘never quite sat right'. It's very healthy, given that for decades inside premiedom this was unthinkable and simply never done. Instead, it's been repressed right to the bone.

Thanks again, Patrick - looking forward to more of your posts

ChrisP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 19:28:46 (EST)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Interesting thoughts PW
Message:
Hi Patrick

You are definitely someone whose talents were taken advantage of by a self serving,trained up for the job, megalomaniac.

Hindsight......wonderful stuff.

I agree with a great deal of what you say,but also with what everyone else has said,including Jerry,Joy & Jim.This is because I am someone who sometimes believes in God & sometimes doesn't.

I never went along with the mind is evil theory,which as you can imagine caused immense conflicts at the time. Conflicts I juggled with by trying not think about them,& by keeping my distance from too close an involvement,whilst still wanting to be where the action was.

I was very fucked up in my '20's as a consequence,although there were amazing experiences from the med. from time to time.

I now suspect,although on zero evidence I must admit,these being uncharted waters,that the meditation can put one close to the edge,has got something to do with inducing a near death experience in susceptible people. I know there is a great deal of controversy about those too,but there you go.

As to what that means I have no idea. I wouldn't go any further than saying that I believe the Universe is essentially benign,& by extention if there is a 1st cause,then that is benign too.

As Livia says the habit of a lifetime is impossible to break,& indeed why try is my point of view.I don't do the light,music,nectar teks anymore,but the holy name....soothing.I find it sharpens my thought processes as long as I don't try to stay 'on'it all day,which obviously now I don't. Doing that isn't even obligatory in Bollixshwar's world these days.

On spirituality I've gone back to my Catholic roots:

Prudence
Justice
Fortitude
Temperance
Faith
Hope
Charity

I can't really handle those either,as my preferred spirit comes out of a bottle,but never again will I listen to anyone at all who mumbo jumbo's physical manipulations & calls it getting closer to God.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:11:21 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: pdconlon@hotmail.com
To: Patrick W
Subject: Re: We need to break the spell.
Message:
Yes, Patrick, we do. I'm just having a quick coffee break at work so I can't answer at length and do your post any justice. However I will re-read it later and answer although I agree with just about everything you said.

If meditation is off topic here (where the main focus seems to be demystifying M and writing the real history of the cult) we could always take it to the Sat Chit-chatroom or discuss this topic by email.

I would personally like to hear from anyone else who agrees with Patrick and me to see how much of a need there is for this discussion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 03:32:43 (EST)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Meditation OT ??
Message:
Hmmm .. OK I know that there isnt a lot of juicy gossip regarding meditation.. not like Personality Cult-Busting - especially as we have been brought up to think that we shared our love of maharaji, but Knowledge was something private, seperate and secretive.

I agree with Patrick that the reclaiming of the techniques is a significant step psychologically - but in the cold light of day the only power the those techniques have comes from the light of the context.

This may be not be as true of other Mantra based meditations, but Knowledge is quite subtle - and its subtlety lends it as a blank canvas to 'prop up' or support and justify the philosophically thin relationship with maharaji.

I think that the allure of the techniques - and even now I can think myself into a warm glow about them... comes from a number of associations which we were encouraged to make with them.

1. There is a 'within'
2/ That which you are looking for is within you
3. The notion of timeless/permenant/ real
4. that the Lord in Human form is here
5. maharaji validates the techniques by his existance
6. The ordinary world is an illusion
7. The God notion
8. The aspirant process making K a big deal
9. the mind and personality as irrelevant or enemies
10. social peer pressure
11. Frustration at not being able to please maharaji makes meditating a blessed release
12. The notion that we have a better option than whatever is going on around us.
13. The 'I just want to feel happy' syndrome
etc etc

For me it was quite a complicated bundle.. can we seperate the techniques from the context which 'set them up' for us ?? I mean.. on the face of it, the elbows are a problem...and I (Thanks to pat) have been practicing them in physically ascending order .. 3, 4, 1,2 cos i like the idea.

I have shown the techniques to a friend in the mid 90s.. and I became hugely aware that the focus of the 'aspirant' without the Guru, or the context is not satisfactory.

My aspirant therefore has been forced to do service to me for the past 11 years... i will let you know when they are grateful enough to receive this most precious gift from myself.

Cheers and Blessing

Would be Guru Loafanand

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:15:19 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Re: Meditation OT ??
Message:
You've only got one aspirant? What sort of perfect master are you anyway? Great post again, Loafie.

It's too late for me to contribute anything useful to this whole thread which I find really interesting. Can I take a rain check?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 05:04:24 (EST)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: A had another aspirant.. but he passed away
Message:
he waited for me to give him knowledge just a little too long I think.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:42:55 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: That's better than mislaying an aspirant [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 04:15:16 (EST)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: thats why aspirants need co-ordinating
Message:
i have a fully synchronised staff of 4 people co-ordinating my aspirant... 24/7.

Confusion can strike at any moment... we must be vigilant.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 10:59:30 (EST)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: EX-cellent dissertation, Patrick
Message:
You have been awarded a Doctorate in Cult Studies from EPO University. Your dissertation is flawless and should be preserved for every ex, fencesitter, premie and aspirant to gain insight from.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:39:00 (EST)
From: Marshall
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Absolutely Fabulous
Message:
I agree, 100%.
Patrick W. is a friggin' genius.
Compared to Patricks brilliant insights,
Maharaji's rambling,arrogant, monologues seem as if they come from another planet.
I say we depose the whole Rawat clan and install Patrick W. as the new perfect Master. I certainly respect what he has to say about a trillion times more than the current 'perfect Master'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:36:38 (EST)
From: Livia
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Re: I think-Knowledge good/Gurus bad
Message:
Thanks, Patrick, for that brilliant and thought-provoking post. (Are you Patrick Wilson formerly of Brighton, England? Obviously you don't have to say if you want to remain anonynous..)

It's a total minefield for premies, this inability to separate K from M and as I am still in the middle of exing, and struggling with it every day, a lot of my confusion is around this area. I find it very hard to separate the two in my mind, and feel more and more that it is down to guilt and fear.

Just before I received K, someone revealed to me the techniques. I was still questioning the 'purity of the master' (!) at that point, so had no real reason not to try them out. So I said down and did them all at once. (I didn't know you were supposed to do them separately.) To my amazement I was virtually blasted off into outer space - it was almost frightening. I certainly felt as if I was leaving my body, and stayed with the experience until I felt so spooked I had to stop. Then afterwards I felt slight feelings of guilt, so I must have been beginning to entertain (unconscious) feelings that M might be the Lord. I didn't do the techniques in that way again.

A few weeks later I received K and to be honest I didn't experience much in the session. Certainly not as much as that first time. (I always wondered about that....)

A few weeks later, however, a definite experience began to grow, which was certainly helped along by the constant exposure to satsang and the absorbtion of a sanctioned premie lifestyle that involved daily bouts of sitting down to meditate. I also felt that without M I would have felt too 'rudderless' - I felt as if one needed a teacher for all sorts of reasons, not least to prevent a 'spiritual ego' from growing. (However, that couldn't have worked, because when I first told my partner what I thought K and M were, he thought I was one of the most spiritually arrogant people he had ever met!)

I think you have a very valid point. From the standpoint of the practice of this meditation as being a good thing, what holds us back from showing other people how to do it?

The problem is, though, that it could never be done to any meaningful extent in an organised way by exes, because a lot of exes doubt even that the practice of K is a good thing in itself. There was a thread a few days ago that made some very good points about K possibly dulling people's emotions and actually preventing one from living life fully and intensely. For myself, the jury is out. I just DON'T know. It's so long for me - 30 years - that I can't remember really how I felt before. Also, as I have gone from youth to the other side of middle age during those years, it's really hard to know whether one's altered feelings are the partly the product of aging and maturing. Also, (worryingly?) the practice of 'Holy Name' or whatever it's called these days has become such a deeply ingrained habit that I catch myself doing it at odd times of the day - it seems virtually impossible to stop it. I wonder if anyone else here finds themselves doing this? I wish I COULD stop it because then it would be possible to examine how life really is without it, and then decide which is better.

So Patrick, I don't think it would work - not enough exes keen enough on the techniques to be keen enough to spread 'em!

But I could be wrong.

With love, Livia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:16:25 (EST)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: I think Knowledge bullshit/Gurus too(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:34:43 (EST)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I agree w/Jerry--but great post anyway, Patrick
Message:
I was not able to separate doing the techniques from Maharaji, and all the Hindu nonsense that went along with them, the pranaming, prayers, bholay-shri's, photographs, altars, etc. Therefore I gave up the whole kit and kaboodle, baby, bathwater and all, and have not missed K in the slightest.

There are lots of other spiritual practices in the world, and I have dabbled in one or two since leaving K, it's not an exclusive road to peace or an inner experience (and not much of one at all, in my experience). But if you and others value continuing to do the techniques on a regular basis, fine, but disassociating them from M and his Perfect Master/Lord guise is not that easy (as Livia states), and a break from them, as well as from him, is necessary, I think, to be able to get a clearer perspective.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:52:31 (EST)
From: Steve Mueller
Email: mistyqm@mn.mediaone.net
To: All
Subject: Nurturing Each Other, Not Nitpicking
Message:
Further down I posted a 'Nope ... Jesus' post and I realized that I needed to use more prudence about
referencing such potentially hot-button words as: 'Jesus'. Many people of many religious faiths received K. Many of them never subscribed to any of the Christian varieties. So, for them, one who is considered to be the founder or spiritual leader of a faith or religion other than the one they grew up with likely means nothing special to them. One of the principles I'm trying to incorporate in my posts is to try to use language that will avoid upsetting such people, those raised under a religious heritage different than my own. So, for those who may have felt offended, I apologize if they felt I insulted their own strongly-held religious beliefs. I certainly did not mean to. And I most DEFINITELY am NOT pushing any kind of religion.

I thought I had clarified things by saying that my only purpose in quoting or referencing 'that man' was that some of that things 'that man' said resonated with my own experiences of truth. That's all I was trying to say. Nothing more.

You know, I don't play favorites. If another supposedly spiritual teacher said something of
value that also mirrored my own experience of truth, I certainly would have or will quote them
also.

Also, you know, I wasn't around 2000 years ago. I wasn't there when 'that man' walked the earth so I don't know anything more about 'that man' than anyone else does. All I do know about 'that man' is what I have read in certain books. But, I have experienced life and I (think I) have learned a thing or two about its deeper truths. One of the most important and fundamental lessons worth learning about life is that real, true, unconditional, impartial love is the most powerful thing that there is. It is so powerful that it has the capacity of overcoming all barriers and healing all divisions separating peoples. I have realized this totally. You can believe what you
want to but nothing you can say will ever make me change that statement. There are other things I have learned, but this is by far the most important thing I have ever learned.

So, I hope you will understand the gist of what I'm saying here. Also, keep in mind that we are dealing with concepts here. Concepts are limited. Even if two people say they agree on the words used to express a concept, even so, there will likely be subtle differences of what that concept means to each of them that will differ from what it means to the other one.

One thing I try to do when reading posts is to listen with my heart as well as my head. I find that helps me to understand the gist or basic feeling of what the person is trying to say. It helps to stop me from going out on a tangent to take a person to task for something relatively minor or from applying an overly narrow interpretation to their post. It also supports their healing. Often I don't agree with everything someone says but I recognize that, as long as it is not a big deal, just the action of my hearing them out WITHOUT overly nitpicking them is
performing the service of facilitating their healing, of helping them recover from M. Understand that M has really really hurt a bunch of people in a very bad way. Most of us are in far greater need of supportive nurturing by each other than we are of being excessively corrected.

There are two very very beautiful lady exes who used to post here recently but who have been absent for awhile. I strongly suspect that they just could not handle the unnecessary slings and arrows on F7 and probably said to themselves, to hell with F7 and exes.

Let's help each other. Let's try not to imitate or emulate M's contempt and hatred.

The Beatles said it best: 'All you need is Love, Love; Love is all you need.'

Peace, everybody and I wish you all continued happy exing.

Love,

Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:37:04 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: Hello, it's easy to get hurt feelings here
Message:
But unavoidable. Nature of the beast, the beast being the form of communication that takes place here, ie, non-verbal. Oh well.

And most posters are very assertive, not aggressive mind you, in what they write and how they write it. Not too many passive people here I observe. I guess if they were passive they would mainly be just readers. And the issues are passionate and emotive due to the very nature of the subject this forum is addressing.

I missed your Jesus post, praise the lord.(that's a joke) I would like to know where I can find 'real, true, unconditional, impartial, love.'
I wasn't under the impression that it exists. Are you referring to the love a mother has for her child? The love a child has for their mother or father? The kind of love Jesus supposedly had for his disciples or mankind for that matter? Surely not the kind of love The Master has for his student. What are you talking about?

I don't mean to nitpick you, I really don't. But part of rejoining the human race after your time in the cult may involve throwing out some belief systems which perhaps served you up to this point in time but will not be able to be incorporated into your life outside of the cult. That is unless you don't want to be free and think for yourself.

And just the very fact that people have taken the time to post to you, genuinely, is nuturing in and of itself. How many warm fuzzies do you want?

I appreciate it is hard. And like I said this forum, since it only exists in a non verbal venue, is a fertile ground for misunderstanding and 'taking something the wrong way.' But do not try and tell people how they should respond to posts, how our words need to be more sugared. And about the 'two beautiful' ladies who are not currently posting due to the 'unnecessary slings and arrows,' that statement, sir, is very arrogant on your part.

And my existance needs alot more than just love, if you want my take on it. I need air, food, water, shelter to name a few. After I am totally satisfied in the areas of learning, there are no more books to read, no more orgasms to have, no more food to taste, wine to sample, flowers to grow, sunsets to watch, ect, then maybe, then all I will need is love.

Sincerely,
Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:37:24 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Dear sensible Tonette
Message:
This is after all only a forum. It can never be a warm fuzzy community not really or not for very long. It's really only just a medium of ideas. Sure feelings can be expressed but it can never be like real life and emotions are often trampled. You and I and many others have found that out sooner or later.

You said it honestly but not cruelly. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:12:18 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: And this forum is primative
Message:
I bet 5 years from now we will all laugh and wonder at how we were ever able to communicate at all! Break out the web cams! Damn the torpedoes!

Seriously, I'm glad my post did not appear cruel, at least to you Pat. The last thing I want to do is hurt someone. I know what that's like.
I get the sinking feeling from Steve's words that what he wrote is a goodbye to the forum and a statement of how he is taking all this in, the forum and exiting. That would be a loss. I've enjoyed reading his posts, I really have. Steve has alot to offer here and I think some things to work out, to understand.
I remember when I first found this place. Wow! And posting, interpreting replys, is an acquired skill to some degree.
Lots of people make the world go round. But I know that Steve was welcomed here warmly. I can only hope that he won't walk away feeling burned by the forum as well as by Maharaji.

Pat, take care,
Warmly,
Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 20:55:03 (EST)
From: Steve Mueller
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Can't get rid of Steve that easily
Message:
That ol' Minnesota bear Steve was just hibernatin for a few days. He's still around. He remembered that he didn't learn much when he was doing all the talking so he decided to just shut up for awhile and listen to what others had to say. He's glad he did because by not responding to every post, others got a chance to say their peace and he is fascinated and grateful for all the good points that have been made on this thread. Steve says a special thanks to the Light of Cabin John, Tonette.

Switching gears a bit, I'd like to pass on some remarkable facts about how expensive it is to follow M around, in particular, to Amoral (sp?) Australia. A premie friend left me some messages on my voice mail on Sat night. In the course of trying to defend her experience in Amaroo last spring (May, 2001), the premie proudly said that she paid $800 for the privilege of staying on the grounds at Amoral for a little over a week. Full course meals cost $150(US) per meal and simpler lunch type meals cost $50 per meal. She said that while some premies skipped some meals, quite a few others had several meals a day. It did not bother her in the least that seeing M in Amoral had shamefully become the exclusive privilege of only very wealthy premies. In fact, amazingly, she was proud of the fact that money was not an issue as far as she was concerned and that she was overjoyed to be able to help support M's 'propagation' (yeah, right) efforts in a big way. I wonder if she'll feel the same way in twenty years when she will be reduced to stretching her meager social security dollars far.

Later, folks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 22:07:54 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: Re: Can't get rid of Steve that easily
Message:
Hi Steve,

I like your post above. It is rather timely for me.

What I don't understand is how premies can justify helping M do prachar. How do you help M do prachar with current premies waning and a dearth of new people every year. How does that figure?

I know it must sound like a trivial question, because there are so many questions strangely justify. But this one is just glaringly obvious. Thoughts?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:40:19 (EST)
From: Steve Mueller
Email: None
To: Deborah
Subject: Same as what I told mystery woman Z
Message:
Z broke up with her (now former) premie boyfriend. To put it rather mildly: IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES! She asked me what I thought would happen to him under a number of scenarios. I said that from the premies' point of view, the worst possible thing that could happen to M would be an accidental death (such as his jet crashing into ocean, killing all on board). I said if that happened, the hardest core premies would not quit culting but would continue to meet with each other to watch old videos and possibly have satsang with (psychologically and emotionally support) each other, just like back in the 70's and early 80's. I said that most of those who have not exed by now are so completely and thoroughly brainwashed (due to the fact that for most of them, M-culting is the only thing they have known for virtually all of their adult lives) that they will never ever make it out of the cult. They will continue for the rest of their lives. They are the first generation of Maharajans (followers of the new world religion Maharajism). This is exactly how religions start. Someone who is at least perceived to be some kind of great spiritual leader eventually passes on and leaves behind a following of hard core true believers. Those people just keep passing down stories and other lore of that deceased leader (the Cow story from 1973). If you think about it, hard core premies are much like prisoner lifers. When the state tries to let them out, most are so incapable of handling the responsibilities of freedom that they deliberately choose to go back to prison. Same thing with hard core premies. They are absolutely petrified of real freedom because the mental and spiritual equipment needed to exercise freedom has been so thoroughly dismantled by M that they are as helpless as babies. Truly very very sad and tragic. And we and they have basically one person to thank for it: M.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:13:40 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: Did you read MD post up top
Message:
Steve,

Michael D. very accurately pointed out what the premies had/have to lose. I posted the exerpt in a post to Jethro, I think.

May I suggest that you email Z that post.

cheers,

deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:31:43 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Re: And this forum is primative
Message:
You hit the nail on the head again, Tonette. It took me six months to learn my way around here. These typed words really are inadequate most of the time. Like you, I hope Steve sticks around long enough to learn all the nuances that can't be put into typed words. Getting to know the folks behind the words helps a lot and that takes time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:09:10 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: And some don't post here because it's so 'nice'
Message:
it's pukey.

Personally think this fear of argument, confrontation etc is just a relic of our 'spiritual' routes, but then I'm not a recent ex who's really sensitive, so it doesn't really matter what I think, just giving another flavour.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:25:30 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: it's so 'nice'
Message:
Except sometimes it's nasty - like the troll, ****, who just spammed us and whom I deleted and blocked. I hope the block works.

Yes, ham, it has been a bit twee lately no thanks to you. Where the hell have you been?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:38 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: Nitpicking?
Message:
Steve,

I'm not sure what you mean by nitpicking and I don't know if you are refering to your comments about your view that you imagine being atheist a bleak existence. I know you apologised about it when I challenged you, but I wonder whether you've actually addressed the reason you have that view. At the time I described as being very similar to the view many premies have when they imagine life without Maharaji. Of course we know that premies are incorrect in this view, but I wonder whether you still hold this view regarding being atheist? I think it's part of the way we deal with our fear of the unknown - we paint it in a bad light so we don't have to face our fears.

Can you imagine a world where 'real, true, unconditional, impartial love' is not the most powerful thing that there is? Love certainly is a strong motivational factor for humans, and I think we instinctively recognise its value for the survival of the species. Also, the feeling of 'transcendent' love is certainly a big high, and we like to get high. But you are making a bigger claim for love than this, and I wonder if you have thought about why you are doing this? What is the difference between your belief in Jesus, God, Love, and your recent belief in Maharaji? You have taken a huge step in challenging your belief in Maharaji, and I have no interest in making you an atheist or an agnostic or a 'don't know', but I think you owe it to yourself if you want to believe in God to do it for the right reasons, and not out of fear of the alternative.

Regarding this forum, we do this sort of thing here:-)

Love,

John the don't know

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:19:13 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: The Beatles were more popular
Message:
Than Jesus, at least that is what John Lennon said and I concur, at least with me anyway. That might not have been the popular conscenus at the time and John was put up to a halfhearted politically correct apology by his management at that time. I have read that he fought the decision but caved in to the wishes of the record executives etc.

But for me, aside from the great entertainment factor the Beatles provided over the years, I have gotten more words of wisdom and inspiration from the Beatles than I have from that man who walked the earth 2000 years ago.

We can work it Out, J. Lennon

'We can work it out, life is very short and theres no time
for fussing and fighting my friend'

Within you without you, G. Harrison

'We were talking about the space between us all and the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion, never glimpse the truth, then it's far too late, when they pass away.
We were love with our love, try to realize it's all within yourself, life flows on within you without you.

Another ex premie pearl from George called think for yourself,

'I've got a word or two to say about the things that you do
you're telling all those lies about the good things that we can have if we close our eyes. Do what you want to do, and go where you're going to, think for yourself cause I won't be there with you'

Nowhere man

'He's as blind as he can be , just sees what he wants to see, nowhere man can you see me at all
J. Lennon

I'm looking through you

I'm looking through you, where did you go, I thought I knew you what did I know, You don't look different but you have changed, I'm looking through you you're not the same. You were above me but not today, the only difference is you're down there ... I'm looking through you and you're nowhere'

Lennon McCartney

Of course the great lyrics to Imagine which I don't even have to recite here, I'll bet most of you know them.

The list goes on,Fool on the hill, across the Universe comes to mind, very heady stuff the Beatles produced, moreso now in hindsight.

Brian a Beatles fan but no religious fanatic

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:05:12 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Re: The Beatles were more popular
Message:
Yes, at least the Beatles spoke about their own lives. The folks who wrote about Jesus were not even around at the time he was alive. The New Testament was written too long after Jesus kicked the bucket (sorry Hyacinth, I meant bouquet) to be anything but myth.

Jesus may have been an actual person but his story was intertwined with two existing myths - Dionysus and Osiris also both born of virgins and both rising from the dead after three days. Those ancient gods were in turn reincarnations of even older fertility gods. Paul of Tarsus pretty much invented Jesus with a little help from his friends, notably Timothy.

Sorry - can't resist this - ''I thay, Timothy, would you pick up the thoap, pleathe? Praithe Jethuth!''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:23:58 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: Um, er, well, uh, um, hm...........
Message:
Steve,

If my expressing my opinion that Jesus was just a man, a deluded one at that, bothers you, I don't know what to say. On the one hand, many of us who've posted for a while here realize that there's little exes safely agree on other than that we were had. Thus, we try to stay away from contentious and unrelated topics here. If we don't all hell breaks loose.

On the other hand, for someone like me who's walked away from all spirituality and not just the stuff that M's trip is nested in, I feel like challenging all beliefs in masters, avatars or assorted holy men and women. My guess is that Jesus' followers were duped every bit as much as M's. Indeed, I thought I was being generous to Jesus by giving him the benefit of doubt in terms of his sincerity.

But here's the impasse. You want to talk freely about the strong power of universal love, listening with one's heart and other ideas that, to some, might be so universal and uncontroversial you can't imagine anyone questioning them. Truth is, however, that, to me at least, these are just another layer of concepts that are indeed questionable. In fact, I like to question them.

So what to do? One answer, a route some more spiritually-inclined exes have taken, is to decamp from here and take shelter on the Recent Exes forum. That forum, I understand, is very spiritual-friendly. Plus, it carries the added bonus of discouraging argument. No one's going to challenge your ideas there or, if they do, they'll just do it a little. (That's what I'm told anyway.)

Another answer, however, might be to enjoy the discussion wherever it goes. That means hanging in there, staying cool and leaving up for examination all kinds of closely-held, or even cherished, beliefs. Not everyone's ready for that. Especially after spending years, even decades, in a mind-numbing new age cult. But what can you do? We're out here, talking freely. We're not going to adjust downward, this is hard-won freedom. 'Freedom at last', and all that. The only option, I can see, is for new posters, or new exes, to think very carefully about exactly what they're reacting to when that's what's going on. Not everyone gets it but those who do grow to appreciate the robust nature of the exchanges. Not always, but often.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:15:38 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well said, Jim. (nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:43:43 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oh Puleeze, the recent exes?
Message:
Jim,

So what to do? One answer, a route some more spiritually-inclined exes have taken, is to decamp from here and take shelter on the Recent Exes forum. That forum, I understand, is very spiritual-friendly. Plus, it carries the added bonus of discouraging argument. No one's going to challenge your ideas there or, if they do, they'll just do it a little. (That's what I'm told anyway.)

I was involved in the recent exes forum for a short while. Believe me, at that point, it was quite boring and had nothing to do with spirituality, mostly about personal real life problems. I've no idea what it's like now.

But, Steve can speak for himself. I didn't read the same thing you did in his post; I think he deserves a bit of slack being a pretty recent ex. I think Steve just doesn't want to see anybody hurt, either here nor there.

By the way, Jim, thank your for the HyaCynth name. I loved it. Just noticed it a while ago.

Cynth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:27:43 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: But you HAVE to hurt people ....
Message:
I think Steve just doesn't want to see anybody hurt, either here nor there.

Cynth,

How are you going to get any truth out of people if you don't break them first? I mean, you pretty well HAVE to hurt people if you want to get anywhere, don't you think? Sheesh!

No, of course, no hurting allowed.

By the way, here's a most interesting link I found. It's got several of the leading lights in evolution and related sciences and philosophy describing their interests and positions and then being commented upon by some of their peers.
[ The Third Culture ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:44:23 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: But you HAVE to hurt people ....
Message:
Yeah, maybe we can get out those birch switches just in case they don't get in the first round:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:47:27 (EST)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks for the excellent link! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:36:32 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The truth hurts
Message:
especially when someone who is so invested in what they percieve to be reality is confronted with a whole new set of facts and information. It is painful to acknowledge what they have held near and dear for so long just doesn't stack up anymore.

Therein lies the hurt, not in finding or knowing the truth, but in finally breaking down to admitting and owning up to the issue of having been duped. Most people stuck in deeply imbedded beliefs need a hammering to break through, some people don't but those types are the exception to the rule.

It is not totally bad or wrong when people sometimes get righteously pissed off and angry. Anger can provide the impetus for improvement, Anger can be useful in provoking the energy to make the initial move towards change of position and viewpoint.

It's a messy and often difficult emotionally heartwrenching process this exiting business. Anger and hurt are bound to be encountered, in fact they are necessary steps along the way if one ever wants to restore themselves to a normal existence free from the cult and m.

To deny these basic emotions and feelings is to remove important steps along the way, steps that one will ultimately revisit sooner or later at some point or another, and that is being painfully honest.

I got my toes stepped on when I first showed up here as a cult apologist, I was hurt by what others said to me initially. All I wanted to do was find someone here who would agree with me that my cozy little picture of M & K was just fine so that I could continue on and go back to my illusion.

Now where would I be today if that in fact had happened? Thats right, still stuck in the cult, emotionally enslaved to M. I can't tell you how grateful I am that did not occur.

I see now that the pain and hurt that I experienced was a necessary part of the process, I do not begrudge those who challenged my wrongly held concepts of what was really going on with m & the cult.

I do not begrudge or hold anyothers responsible for any hurt or suffering induced by the factual inquiry I engaged in which eventually turned into restoration of my own free will.

Today I celebrate all of it, and I acknowledge the committment of those who hammered me with the real truth because I could not have done it myself. I needed someone else to shake me awake, jostle me out of my stupor.

I have benefited beyond measure for it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:24:24 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't!
Message:
Brian,

I mentioned Leonard Cohen's latest CD Ten New Songs in a post below. In the first song In My Secret Life he writes, 'Can't seem to loosen my grip on the past.' Do you suppose that that's where the hurt comes from? The not letting go? The resistance? Can we be really be free living in a story, i.e. living in the past?

IMO in order to be happy we have to make a distinction between the truth and Truth. IMO there is a huge difference between the concept of truth and Truth with a capital 'T'. Mixing up the concept of truth and the experience of truth is like mixing up the steering wheel and the rear view mirror.

IMHO Truth (with a capital T) is nothingness, i.e. empty space with no concepts. We used to call it 'Holy Name.' Truth is that which was, is, and will be. It doesn't change. Concepts do change. Truth with a capital T doesn't hurt.

So my point is, do you suppose that your concepts, your story about what happened is the source of your suffering? Just a thought! Maybe JHB was right when he said 'I don't know' is the way to go.

Are you your mind, or do you have a mind? I say you are not your mind. You have a mind which is available for observation when you are willing to be conscious, and we can experience release from the oppression of the mind by witnessing it. It's known as 'insight' or vipassana meditation. Cut the puppet strings!

Okay, the sermon is over. Start ripping!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 00:52:21 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: No offense, but you sound like
Message:
that California cult-leader-wanna-be-Gangaji! She gets off on that 'the big Truth is nothingness' rap. Have you been watching her on TV or something?

And Dog, why go searching, chasing your tail, if you will, for 'The Truth', which you maintain exists, if nothingness is all it has to offer you? Nothing, nothingness. That will come all too soon for all of us. Why be alive in the first place?

Gee, I guess stroke victims and anacephalic babies have one over on us concept ridden, conscious, thinking, suffering, masses. They have the real insight.

Man Dog, you sound messed up or perhaps you're just a bit juvenile. I dunno.

Take care,
Good Luck in your pursuit of nothing,

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:43:29 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Re: No offense, but you sound like
Message:
that California cult-leader-wanna-be-Gangaji! She gets off on that 'the big Truth is nothingness' rap. Have you been watching her on TV or something?

And Dog, why go searching, chasing your tail, if you will, for 'The Truth', which you maintain exists, if nothingness is all it has to offer you? Nothing, nothingness. That will come all too soon for all of us. Why be alive in the first place?

Gee, I guess stroke victims and anacephalic babies have one over on us concept ridden, conscious, thinking, suffering, masses. They have the real insight.

Man Dog, you sound messed up or perhaps you're just a bit juvenile. I dunno.

Take care,
Good Luck in your pursuit of nothing,

Tonette


---

Tonette,

Tail chasing happens in small 't' truth. Nothingness is just a sense of clarity, that uncluttered feeling that makes life (for me anyway) more enjoyable. I can't give my best unless I have room to move.

IMO nothing is really something. For me it's being present, being here and now, it's a place of clarity, refuge and peace. A place to transcend my conditioning. It is like wiping the slate clean, doing a laundry, cleaning up. The mind is an excellent servant and a lousy master.

I'm sorry you confuse the sense of relaxation and relief, we can get from meditation, with having a lobotomy or stroke.

Do you have a past or does your past have you? Never mind, I think I know the answer.

Good luck in your pursuit of more stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:12:23 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: So which is it?
Message:
You wrote:

I'm sorry you confuse the sense of relaxation and relief, we can get from meditation, with having a lobotomy or stroke.

Okay, is it relaxation and relief or is meditation the experience of the big Truth? Dog, you're retracting your earlier statements!

And can you clarify for me, you're in touch with clarity and lots of it, judging by what you posted earlier:

'Do you have a past or does your past have you? Never mind, I think I know the answer.'

Of course I have a past! What in the hell kind of question is that? In fact, that's about the only thing we have in common, getting dubed by the same fraud who likes to talk in parables just like you are doing. 'Or does the past have me?' Well, that's easy, in a word no. In fact I am here now, with my clarity, in the moment, typing to you.

Get a grip Dog. Quit alienating yourself with this spiritual bullshit. Dump it. Aren't you tired of marking time?

And about the stuff mention, my only guess is you are wanting for what you can think of to say to me. I have all the 'things' and more, than I could ever want. I have so much, I give 'stuff' away! I don't pursue 'stuff'. But if you want to meet the Master of an individual who's so far devoted his whole life to pursue and obtain stuff, well, just look at your most recent role model.

If you're referring to 'stuff' in the vehicle of concepts, suffering and conditioning, that's just a very juvenile outlook. I know you didn't mean that since you have such clarity and know where the Truth lies.

Speaking of that knowing, that nothingness, if it's so great, the real answer, the big Truth, can you tell me why it is you like to post here, among us concept ridden, suffering, ignorant people? Why don't you just spend the time you waste here, in pursuit of 'that place'?

I am well aware of that which you refer to, why it still makes sense to you is beyond me.

Good luck,
Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:43:54 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Re: So which is it?
Message:
Okay, is it relaxation and relief or is meditation the experience of the big Truth? Dog, you're retracting your earlier statements!

So which is it? I don't give a damn. I don't have a vested interest in either definition. Whatever turns you on. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:40:04 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: Brilliant, Tonette. You're on a roll! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:39:43 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Why can't you see this obvious fact?
Message:
IMHO Truth (with a capital T) is nothingness, i.e. empty space with no concepts. We used to call it 'Holy Name.' Truth is that which was, is, and will be. It doesn't change. Concepts do change. Truth with a capital T doesn't hurt.

If you were to tell all that to someone NOT familiar with your new age spiritual beliefs and jargon, you'd have to explain the whole fairy tale, wouldn't you? First, you'd have to tell them that there's this notion of truth that isn't really the truth. Rather, it's this special meaning, one that -- and here you'd go -- one that was spoken of in songs, prayers and whispers from God, in all the worlds' sciptures. They all talk about this big, ultimate something. Let's assume such a big, ultimate something exists (after all, don't forget all those scriptures!); let's call it 'truth'.

Indeed, let's call it 'Truth'. Why? Because one of the things we know about this truth is that it's far more real than the world around us. In fact, if you actually read those scriptures, they all suggest that this world is a mere illusion and that everything in it is transitory and ultimately worthless and ephemeral. That's why, in case you haven't noticed, there's no real satisfaction in the world. (You HAVE noticed that, I hope!). So, yeah ...'Truth' -- the only real show in town.

Now, what can we tell you about this 'Truth'? Well, for one thing, all the ancient mystics knew that it was really one and the same with God himself. That's why they called it 'The Name of God' too. (You DID know that they called it that, didn't you?) And, because God's universal and timeless, full of love and mercy, peace and wisdom, infinitely so, in fact, well, guess what? That means that this 'Truth' is too!

Yes, this 'Truth' is a lot of things. But mainly, if you think about it, it's actually -- get this -- NOTHING AT ALL! Know what I mean? Pure, infinite nothingness. Everything AND nothing and all at the same time. Cool, eh? What's that? You DON'T get it? Well, don't worry. There's nothing really to get. You see -- and here's this other really special quality to this 'Truth', you can't have any CONCEPTS about it. It's concept-free, if you know what I mean. (What's that now? You DON'T know what I mean? What's your problem anyway? Haen't you read any Ram Dass or anything? We're talking actual paradox here, fella. This is the real thing. Or not. See?)

So, yeah, no concepts. None.

Okay, I guess that about covers it. Oh yeah, I forgot something: this 'Truth', the one with a capital 'T' never hurts. No, that's not a concept. That's just the truth. Get it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:34:45 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't!
Message:
Dog,
I agree with you about Truth with a Capital T and your explanation of it. Nothing can occupy that space, that is why it is called nothingness. The pain comes when we try to make something out of nothing, and take it all so seriously, like insert a concept, a religion or a guru in there.

Whatever suffering happens as a result of all of this depends on the level of investment one has in holding on to the little t while staring in the face of the big T.

No rip, and a big right on Dog!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:44 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Really?
Message:
Since when does the unknown get to be called 'Truth'?

Talk about Orwellian!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:06:48 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Really!
Message:
Jim,

Have you ever meditated and experienced silence? You know, no words, no pictures, no internal dialogue, just clarity, nothingness, spaciousness. Nothing to do, nowhere to go. That's the place of which I speak.

Our 'story' is always commenting and judging and planning. It blocks the light of our natural wisdom. It limits our seeing who we really are. It makes a lot of noise and attracts our attention to a fraction of the reality in which we exist. Our Buddha Nature is like the sun, always shining, always present, though often obscured.

Usually we try to avoid unhappiness by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. But pleasure doesn't make us happy. Pleasure is pleasure, a temporary satisfaction of desire. Happiness is a deeper satisfaction. Happiness is the feeling of wholeness, of non-neediness. Happiness is the spaciousness of non-wanting, 'the always so.' What was, what is, and what will be. That's the place I'm referring to. That's Truth with a capital 'T'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:18:26 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Spare me the gobbledygook, please!
Message:
Look, Dog, I was just making the simple, but rich (if I don't say so myself) point that it's a wonderful perversion of the word 'truth' to assign it to that which can't be known. I wasn't asking for more of your cookie-cutter spiritual mumbo jumbo. Thanks anyway.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:24:12 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What ??????????
Message:
I was just making the simple, but rich (if I don't say so myself) point that it's a wonderful perversion of the word 'truth' to assign it to that which can't be known.

Who has perverted the assignment of truth by relegating it the ranks of the unknown? Not me, I don't agree with that assignment at all.

I say that it is possible to know truth both with a capital T and truth with a small t. Dog has just given an superb description of the capital T truth that can be revealed in the moment when one discovers that which is known after he has cleared his mind and consciousness of concepts and expectations.

Are you saying that it is not possible to know an experience such as this? Or are you saying that you personally haven't known it?

I know what Dog is talking about, I know it well

To me it is simply being present with and knowing the freedom found in the unadulterated nowness where we arrive at the place of union with time and space and just be.

Just grateful acceptance of what is, no interference. Just taking it in, soaking it up, letting it wash over you, knowing the beauty of it, period.

Dog sounds like he is on to it, I am getting it as well but it's only since I dumped m that I woke up to it and found out that I have the right and free will intact to know capital T Truth in and of itself by my own self efforts.

It is something that I want to know, it is my choice, what I do, where I look for it. I have found I need look no further than myself for all the truth and experience that I want to know.

Call it mumbo jumbo if you like, but it exists Jim, and it doesn't have squat to do with spiritualism, gurus, concepts, religion or whether or not anyone believes in it. Obstacles to be overcome, all of the above mentioned roadblocks to acceptance of self truth.

It is my own personal journey of self discovery, one that I found myself by trusting my own instincts to find my own way along the path of self awareness.

When my heart and mind was finally cleared of the garbage of the cult and m it brought me to who I am today and to what I now know.

Which for me is a stillness, clarity, a true peace of mind and sense of purpose and truth that I KNOW to be the most real and most precious experience of my lifetime.

I just happened to catch a glimpse of infinity along the way, one that has awakened a truth that I now know with a capital K and one that has transformed me forever.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:58:53 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Brian, did you read my response to Dog below?
Message:
I would be interested in your comments. It's clear to me that 'knowing' is a function of the brain. We feel good when we know or understand something. It therefore seems perfectly plausible that that part of the brain could be stimulated in some way where all we feel is the feeling of knowing or understanding without the ususal subject matter.

Also, the assessment of size, and the identification of the boundaries of objects, our bodies, and our selves are also functions of the brain. Again, if that part of the brain is affected in some way, we could feel we are without limits.

As I said in my post to Dog, I need further evidence that something transcendent is going on when we have those experiences.

Apart from your own feelings, do you have any evidence?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:22:28 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Brian, did you read my response to Dog below?
Message:
I would be interested in your comments. It's clear to me that 'knowing' is a function of the brain. We feel good when we know or understand something. It therefore seems perfectly plausible that that part of the brain could be stimulated in some way where all we feel is the feeling of knowing or understanding without the usual subject matter.

Also, the assessment of size, and the identification of the boundaries of objects, our bodies, and our selves are also functions of the brain. Again, if that part of the brain is affected in some way, we could feel we are without limits.

As I said in my post to Dog, I need further evidence that something transcendent is going on when we have those experiences.

John,

Why do we have to trancend ourselves to know ourselves?

Where it not for thoughts in our brains nothing would be known or exist for us. The brain is one of our most important organs, the one that produces thought, It just occurred to me recently that whenever the subject of enlightenment is discussed there is always this big issue with the mind. It is the enemy, it is bad, and it is the ultimate obstacle, a dark force to be reckoned with.

I cannot recall anyone ever saying that a brain is a bad thing to have, quite to the contrary in fact. Maybe therein lies the key, It is quite plausable then that it is the brain that triggers those phenomena attributed to paranormal experiences.

In following this train of thought transcending the brain (or body)is like sawing off the limb one sits on.

It may well be though that there is plenty more going on within the brain that we have not tapped into.

What is it they say we use only 10% of our brain function anyway. Maybe if I find an additional 1% to work with, not much, but still a 10% increase over what I previously used. And that still leaves 89% left, a lot of room for extraordary realizations.

I am really being serious JHB, I agree that it is quite plausible that the brain does play a major function in all of this brouhaha attributed to those so called spiritual experiences.

I have found no evidence of transcendence either JHB, I am still working with my original issue and having quite an extraordinary time of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 12:56:22 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Sorry, shouldn't have said 'transcendent', but...
Message:
Brian,

I was careless in my use of the word transcendent, but I don't think you've asnwered my point. You use the word 'knowing' but I'm not clear what is it you know. I thought you were talking about the kind of experience where you 'know' the 'Truth'. I was speculating that when we have such an experience, we don't actually know anything, except a different way of getting high, and use of the word 'Truth' is completely inappropriate, as what is happening inside the brain of a mammal hardly deserves the title 'Truth', regardless of how cosmic it feels.

So, Brian, apart from a wonderful way to get high, what value is there in this experience? Of course, most of us value getting high pretty highly:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:11:05 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: No way to get high here
Message:
Brian,

I was careless in my use of the word transcendent, but I don't think you've asnwered my point. You use the word 'knowing' but I'm not clear what is it you know. I thought you were talking about the kind of experience where you 'know' the 'Truth'. I was speculating that when we have such an experience, we don't actually know anything, except a different way of getting high, and use of the word 'Truth' is completely inappropriate, as what is happening inside the brain of a mammal hardly deserves the title 'Truth', regardless of how cosmic it feels.

So, Brian, apart from a wonderful way to get high, what value is there in this experience? Of course, most of us value getting high pretty highly:-)

John.


---

I am talking about peace of mind, something that I have come to know deeply since exiting moreso now than ever before in my life.

And that has immense value to me particularly on how I approach life with all it's rewards and all of the inherent problems that go with it. This conversation somehow digressed into a way of getting high which is a form of escapism and that is not at all what I am committed to. The only way I ever got high was through drugs and booze and I gave those up 19 years ago.

Leaving the cult has restored a certain integrity to my life. Acting on that integrity has produced a profound clarity of my thoughts and purpose that pertain to me alone today. This is something which is has an altogether different benefit and effect than from just getting high.

This is a self recovery process one that I approach quite seriously. There were many times when I wished that I could have gone out and gotten high to avoid facing the issues of looking at 29 years of deluded reasoning. But I didn't.

What I did instead was honestly and truthfully look at the facts and information that was presented to me and mustered the strength and courage to reclaim my freedom from the cult and m.

This is the only truth at risk here, that of my entangled beliefs and emotions related to M and the cult. I never expected to discover how clear that I would feel and the ensuing peace of mind that I now know from having put those matters to rest. That was a big bonus personal truth for me, one that I thought would be appropriate to share as another example of what happens sans M & K. As opposed to his rotting vegetable claim.

I do not intend to just have it end there either, I will continue to remain committed to supporting the cause and to helping others in recovering their lives from the cult.

Interpretation is a big issue, particulary concerning words from the heart, so be it, that is the risk one takes when talking about the deeper and most personal aspects of ones self.

The less said the better, words seldom meet the challenge of communicating the most personal of things anyway, and one invaribly looks ridiculous in trying.

I can do as good a job of looking ridiculous as anyone I know, at least I am not afraid to do so if it clears the air even just a little.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:50:32 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Brian, another scrupulous man
Message:
Yes, the peace of mind one has from getting out of Rawat's corrupt world is not something to be under-estimated. It does not suit scrupulous people to be involved with the Fudgemeister.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:17:28 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: What kind of 'knowing' is that then?
Message:
To me it is simply being present with and knowing the freedom found in the unadulterated nowness where we arrive at the place of union with time and space and just be.

I think it's a bit of a perversion to call it 'knowing' as, the fact is, you don't know what the hell it is. It could, for example, be nothing more nor less than the feeling one has when one's lost sight of the normal parameters of personal consciousness, i.e. one's body. Just like in that Newsweek article where they did MRI's and PET scans on all these 'serious' meditators and monitored their brain activity when they were in what they thought were 'transcendental' states. Now what kind of 'knowing' is that if they were simply fooling themselves thinking they'd transcended anything? It's not. It's self-deception in the extreme. Some kind of 'Truth' with a capital 't' that is!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:30:05 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then?????
Message:
I think it's a bit of a perversion to call it 'knowing' as, the fact is you don't know what the hell it is. It could, for example, be nothing more nor less than the feeling one has when one's lost sight of the normal parameters of personal consciousness, i.e. one's body. Just like in that Newsweek article where they did MRI's and PET scans on all these 'serious' meditators and monitored their brain activity when they were in what they thought were 'transcendental' states. Now what kind of 'knowing' is that if they were simply fooling themselves thinking they'd transcended anything? It's not. It's self-deception in the extreme. Some kind of 'Truth' with a capital 't' that is!

It is like the knowing one experiences when one has removed the lid from the trappings of the cult and M and steps outside of that. Never in the course of many decades did I believe let alone 'know' that it was possible to stand without the Cult & M and now I know that it is.

The experience of knowing is not mystical or complex nonsense. The reality is that each of us have different perspectives and every person believes that they know some truth about life and the truth that they know is always the more valid. Otherwise we would not argue point, counterpoint. We do this to bring in an attempt to bring thought and perception to bear some mutual meaning. The problem is it is not always possible to find common ground. For instance sharing what I KNOW now as an ex-premie with a “die hard” premie is going to be met with a formidable amount of resistance. They can't know what I know until they do it for themselves.

The fact is Jim, we are probably not going to agree about what it is I know, as opposed to what you know, or what you think I don’t know etc.

I believe you brought the word transcended into this conversation Jim, I myself do not believe that I don't think that I am transcending anything outside of myself when I describe my experience. I am not launching into the great beyond when I say that I know the freedom that I find outside of my former limitations.

To some people it sounds that way, to me it is not that huge of a puzzle. I am more inclined to think that I am working within the parameters of how my brain functions between the scope of my experience and what I know. The MRI scan on those subjects you mentioned showed some brain activity which indicated an occurrence of some sort.

Maybe those subjects attributed it to a state of transcendence. Who cares Let’em have it, I do not necessarily see it that way myself. In any case an experience did occur and was recorded, and with no other available way of otherwise expressing its observation in relation to the experiment they may very well categorize it as such.

Not so in my case, I harbor no such notion of transcendence.

I say that what I know it is a result of my brain producing the sensations of my own experience. I am not deluded into thinking it comes from a higher source, I have already dispensed that illusion. What was then left was mine, unless you say the illusion is that I am now able to produce many enjoyable benefits for myself from it, plus a rich and rewarding sense of deep personal satisfaction for having discovered my own dynamic. All from within this little old grey matter, nothing outside of it.

This self discovery of my own volition in itself debunks the many myths associated with the need for a guru, or a secret knowledge or religious beliefs. The exit process unfolds in many different ways, life beyond the guru has opened up many options for me, I just happen to enjoy this one that I stumbled upon of stimulating my own personal brain potential.

Besides that, it REALLY doesn’t matter to anyone besides me. Even if it is just my brain it is still a remarkable experience, and to think I am only using 10% of it

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 13:47:07 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Talking a little further on this
Message:
It is like the knowing one experiences when one has removed the lid from the trappings of the cult and M and steps outside of that. Never in the course of many decades did I believe let alone 'know' that it was possible to stand without the Cult & M and now I know that it is.

Well, Brian, that's a pretty prosaic form of knowing, I think, despite the emotional heft it carries. So you finally get a fuller picture and realize that M's fake for this reason or that. There's nothing esoteric about this knowledge. For example, one doesn't have to have been a premie to share it. All one needs is the facts and a bit of common sense. So I don't see how you're going to get to 'Truth' that way. Just like we can't get there by knowing that Scientology's bullshit.

The experience of knowing is not mystical or complex nonsense. The reality is that each of us have different perspectives and every person believes that they know some truth about life and the truth that they know is always the more valid. Otherwise we would not argue point, counterpoint. We do this to bring in an attempt to bring thought and perception to bear some mutual meaning. The problem is it is not always possible to find common ground. For instance sharing what I KNOW now as an ex-premie with a “die hard” premie is going to be met with a formidable amount of resistance. They can't know what I know until they do it for themselves.

Sorry, Brian, but I think this last bit is terribly muddled. First, I don't buy the terminology in your first sentence. Why are you talking about the 'experience of knowing'? That's premie talk, quite frankly. You're not the first ex who, in my opinion, relies unduly on this 'experience' word as some sort of step up from opinions and belief. But, Brian, 'knowing' is all about opinions and belief. Surely you've heard Socrates' definition of knowledge? It's the only bit of classical anything I know:

knowledge = justified true belief

It's not an 'experience'.

But yes, we do all have different perceptions of what reality and yes, we argue them out and yes, it's impossible to do that, or do it well, with a die-hard premie. So? What's your point? This is all about ideas and beliefs about truth, about experiences.

The fact is Jim, we are probably not going to agree about what it is I know, as opposed to what you know, or what you think I don’t know etc.

Funny, that's just what I'd expect the die-hard premie to say. :) No, sorry, just a joke. But, well, I don't know. Maybe we could agree a lot more on these issues. Who's to say?

I believe you brought the word transcended into this conversation Jim, I myself do not believe that I don't think that I am transcending anything outside of myself when I describe my experience. I am not launching into the great beyond when I say that I know the freedom that I find outside of my former limitations.

To some people it sounds that way, to me it is not that huge of a puzzle.

Okay, so why do you think it 'sounds that way' to some people? If it's not what you mean, surely you'd want to amend your description to correct any misconceptions people may have. But how?

I am more inclined to think that I am working within the parameters of how my brain functions between the scope of my experience and what I know. The MRI scan on those subjects you mentioned showed some brain activity which indicated an occurrence of some sort.

Maybe those subjects attributed it to a state of transcendence. Who cares Let’em have it, I do not necessarily see it that way myself. In any case an experience did occur and was recorded, and with no other available way of otherwise expressing its observation in relation to the experiment they may very well categorize it as such.

Not so in my case, I harbor no such notion of transcendence.

Okay, but then wouldn't you agree that it's a bit of a farce for anyone being so mistaken as to consider something happening just in his brain as actually being something much greater to wave the banner of 'Truth' around? If someone doesn't even know on the most fundamental level if they're plugging into the cosmos or just their own brain circuitry (spiced up, I'm sure, with a bit of imagination), it seems extraordinarily perverse to call that 'Truth'. Perhaps what it really should be called is 'Confusion'.

I say that what I know it is a result of my brain producing the sensations of my own experience. I am not deluded into thinking it comes from a higher source, I have already dispensed that illusion.

Tell that to Dog!

What was then left was mine, unless you say the illusion is that I am now able to produce many enjoyable benefits for myself from it, plus a rich and rewarding sense of deep personal satisfaction for having discovered my own dynamic. All from within this little old grey matter, nothing outside of it.

Now it sounds like all you're saying is that you get a nice effect from meditating. Maybe 'nice' is too small a word; let's say you get an extremely nice effect. Fine. But where in the world is there any cause to call that 'Truth'?

This self discovery of my own volition in itself debunks the many myths associated with the need for a guru, or a secret knowledge or religious beliefs. The exit process unfolds in many different ways, life beyond the guru has opened up many options for me, I just happen to enjoy this one that I stumbled upon of stimulating my own personal brain potential.

No problem there.

Besides that, it REALLY doesn’t matter to anyone besides me.

If we're talking, we're talking. That's all.

Even if it is just my brain it is still a remarkable experience, and to think I am only using 10% of it

Sorry, Brian, but that ten percent thing is a fully-exploded myth. We use it all apparently. Indeed, it would be astoundingly inefficient (and thus unlikely) for evolution to have loaded us up with extra brain power that we had to feed and protect.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:39:43 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Adding a little more
Message:
Well, Brian, that's a pretty prosaic form of knowing, I think, despite the emotional heft it carries. So you finally get a fuller picture and realize that M's fake for this reason or that. There's nothing esoteric about this knowledge. For example, one doesn't have to have been a premie to share it. All one needs is the facts and a bit of common sense. So I don't see how you're going to get to 'Truth' that way. Just like we can't get there by knowing that Scientology's bullshit.

Prosaic and poetic as it is it is still a form of knowing, but we are talking here from the standpoint of having once been premies, the difference is we have gathered together sufficient information and common sense to see the foible in it after the fact. Finding that out of that gave us the impetus to get beyond the M&K myth but that does not mean that we have found capital T truth. It simply means that we are free of the cult and the guru. From that position we can inform others both to avoid getting in or assist others who want to in getting out.

Sorry, Brian, but I think this last bit is terribly muddled. First, I don't buy the terminology in your first sentence. Why are you talking about the 'experience of knowing'? That's premie talk, quite frankly. You're not the first ex who, in my opinion, relies unduly on this 'experience' word as some sort of step up from opinions and belief. But, Brian, 'knowing' is all about opinions and belief. Surely you've heard Socrates' definition of knowledge? It's the only bit of classical anything I know

Experiencing and knowing are involved in ones beliefs, what is so hard to discern about that, two people witness an event, I think that it would be true to say they experienced the same situation. Question them both and they will tell likely different stories of what they believe happened. No, problem Jim, what one knows is dependent on opinions, beliefs and the affect of them stimulates how one defines experience as well. And just because ‘experience” is a former premie buzzword does not mean that I exclude it from my vocabulary entirely.

Okay, but then wouldn't you agree that it's a bit of a farce for anyone being so mistaken as to consider something happening just in his brain as actually being something much greater to wave the banner of 'Truth' around? If someone doesn't even know on the most fundamental level if they're plugging into the cosmos or just their own brain circuitry (spiced up, I'm sure, with a bit of imagination), it seems extraordinarily perverse to call that 'Truth'. Perhaps what it really should be called is 'Confusion'.

I agree it is perverse to go around waving the banner of “TRUTH” if capital T truth is infinite how can anyone say they really know what it is anyway. I say a lot of what people pawn off as the ultimate T is just a matter of conditioning and yes beliefs and opinions. Sometimes confused, sometimes clearly thought out and communicated, but not necessarily TRUTH the big one.

Now it sounds like all you're saying is that you get a nice effect from meditating. Maybe 'nice' is too small a word; let's say you get an extremely nice effect. Fine. But where in the world is there any cause to call that 'Truth'?

Where in the post you are referring to did I mention meditation? You brought the word into this particular conversation here. Maybe it sounds like meditation but
I am talking about my own personal thoughts and realizations. Ideas that have occurred to me spontaneously after I left the cult. Actually, I have not formally sat down in meditation for months and I know more about my self now than I ever did back when I was a devoted practitioner.

Tell that to the Dog
I am sure Dog will read the post, at some point or another

If you are interested in what I am committed to here Jim, it is simply sharing my thoughts and ideas and yes, experiences about personally having left the cult. This will involve dialogue that references past and present realizations of where I came from and what I am now working through and finding out. Don’t take it personally, I am not foisting my ideas and opinions off on anyone as the big Truth, I am just sharing my story.

Sorry, Brian, but that ten percent thing is a fully exploded myth. We use it all apparently. Indeed, it would be astoundingly inefficient (and thus unlikely) for evolution to have loaded us up with extra brainpower that we had to feed and protect.

Ten percent was the latest figure that I heard on the brain usage thing. If you have other data to support your premise I would be interested in seeing it so please pass it on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:12:25 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth
Message:
Brian,

I guess the real issue I've got with you about this is your continued assumption that there even is anything akin to a big Truth. For example, when you say to Dog:

I agree with you about Truth with a Capital T and your explanation of it. Nothing can occupy that space, that is why it is called nothingness.

I'm left thinking that that word 'truth' got hijacked. Don't forget, there's a reason that the mystics or spiritualists or whoever chose that particular word. Isn't it to dwarf and trivialize all other forms of human knowledge? Sure seems like it to me. So there's alreay a bit of an attack in play but it's on reason and our lives in the world, not the other way around. You know, someone like Dog would say, if you asked him, that a non-spiritual person like me can learn all he wants about little ol' nothing truth but, when push comes to shove, all that matters is the big 't' stuff and he's got it and I don't. As far as I know, that's what that jargon's designed for. Okay, like I said I think it's perverse, kind of like saying one knows the unknowable. Spirituality thrives in that kind of paradox. I don't.

I don't have any further argument with you on the word 'experience'.

And as for the ten percent myth, here's one link. There are others. Here's an excerpt of an article in the Skeptical Inquirer:

Evidence Against the Ten-Percent Myth

The argument that psychic powers come from the unused majority of the brain is based on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. In this fallacy, lack of proof for a position (or simply lack of information) is used to try to support a particular claim. Even if it were true that the vast majority of the human mind is unused (which it clearly is not), that fact in no way implies that any extra capacity could somehow give people paranormal powers. This fallacy pops up all the time in paranormal claims, and is especially prevalent among UFO proponents. For example: Two people see a strange light in the sky. The first, a UFO believer, says, 'See there! Can you explain that?' The skeptic replies that no, he can't. The UFO believer is gleeful. 'Ha! You don't know what it is, so it must be aliens!' he says, arguing from ignorance.
What follows are two of the reasons that the Ten-Percent story is suspect. (For a much more thorough and detailed analysis of the subject, see Barry Beyerstein's chapter in the new book Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries of the Mind [1999].)

1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading Skeptical Inquirer, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

2) The myth presupposes an extreme localization of functions in the brain. If the 'used' or 'necessary' parts of the brain were scattered all around the organ, that would imply that much of the brain is in fact necessary. But the myth implies that the 'used' part of the brain is a discrete area, and the 'unused' part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary. But if all those parts of the brain are unused, removal or damage to the 'unused' part of the brain should be minor or unnoticed. Yet people who have suffered head trauma, a stroke, or other brain injury are frequently severely impaired. Have you ever heard a doctor say, '. . . But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use'? Of course not.
[ Skeptical Inquirer article of Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:51:03 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks for the link
Message:
and for the brainstorming session Jim. I needed the excersise to stenghten my old grey matter.

As for the assumption that there is a big T, then nothingingness should satisfy both camps.

You are an agnostic, an atheist aren't you? Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't an atheist believe there is no God no afterlife nothing beyond this life, nothing, finis. Isn't that in itself a belief of nothing?

Now guys like Dog and me to some extent who think that nothing or nothingness is akin to the big truth, so what?

When confronted with the final moment of facing the ultimate reality of it all everyone ends up with the same thing, nothing.

I see no harm in this and a lot less in the difference that it makes in the final outcome. Just a difference of opinion here and now, thats all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:41:00 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Oh yeah, there's harm alright
Message:
and for the brainstorming session Jim. I needed the excersise to stenghten my old grey matter.

As for the assumption that there is a big T, then nothingingness should satisfy both camps.

You are an agnostic, an atheist aren't you? Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't an atheist believe there is no God no afterlife nothing beyond this life, nothing, finis. Isn't that in itself a belief of nothing?

Now guys like Dog and me to some extent who think that nothing or nothingness is akin to the big truth, so what?

When confronted with the final moment of facing the ultimate reality of it all everyone ends up with the same thing, nothing.

I see no harm in this and a lot less in the difference that it makes in the final outcome. Just a difference of opinion here and now, thats all.


---

Brian,

There's a big diff between 'nothingness' and 'Truth' (not just 'truth' mind you, but 'Truth'). As I mentioned elsewhere, 'Truth', for one thing, is an abomination of the word. The word has a perfectly good and important meaning. It doesn't even need a capital 't' to mean that which actually is, plain and simple. That's truth as far as I'm concerned. Now, having said that, I recognize that the word was hijacked by the church and other spiritualists years and years ago. I'm pretty sure it was the church that came up with the capital 't' version, meaning, some sort of transcendent spiritual reality, but I think that's bogus. It minimizes all the other real 'truth' we can learn about. Plus, it turns the regular meaning of the word on its head. I think that's extremely harmful, myself. See, if you think that the big 'truth', the one that really matters, isn't knowable in classic sense of the word (oh no, are we going to play games with 'knowing' too? Afraid so, it's part of the new age and spiritual vernacular), then what's the point of getting hung up in all these 'lesser' forms of truth? That's the problem. Now, I don't get that from you but I sure get it from Dog. For example, Dog refuses to read any modern science. Nothing about the brain, consciousness, evolution. Why? Well, he's said it before here -- why bother going after the truth when you can simply seek out the 'Truth'. Yeah, that's the problem alright.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 13:33:58 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: You can have the last word on this
Message:
I am satisfied that I have taken this about as far as I need to.

What Dog thinks is not all that important to me. His difference of perception, opinion, etc does not present a problem to me.

Having said that I still support his right as much as I do that of anyone else here to discuss his views pertinent to the topic of this forum. Whether I agree with him or not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:42:14 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth
Message:
The ten percent brain usage, I always thought, was based on the fact that the major part of brain activity takes place in the small part associated with the senses. If the brain had lights to show what part was being used and was observed during a 24 hour period it would look like this:

6am Wake up. The part of the brain associated with the senses lights up AND REMAINS lit up until it falls asleep 16 hours later.

Certain thoughts will light up certain other areas of the brain. Emotions others. Booze or drugs will stimulate other parts. Sex and music others. Fear and pain others. But all those other parts excluding the part we call the ''mind'' (the bit attached to the senses) only light up intermittently. It's not so much that 90 percent of the brain is NEVER used but that it is only intermittently used compared with the constant usage of the bit we call the mind.

Perhaps meditation is giving the over-used ten percent a break and perhaps it also is exploring the other 90 percent. I honestly don't know about that but I think brain scientists are becoming curious about it and we will have some answers soon or at least will begin to ask the right questions. I'm keeping an open mind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:12:58 (EST)
From: Jim the Forum Watchdog
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Why try to salvage something here?
Message:
Pat,

As Forum Watchdog, I must say that you seem to be trying to somehow grandfather in part of this myth. Like who ever said that there was any 'over-used ten percent' to begin with? Here's another link about the myth which seems to have no redeeming value whatsoever. You can see by this article that it's truly a matter of use it or lose it. :)
[ The Brain: Use it or Lose it ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:38:38 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Jim the Forum Watchdog
Subject: Jim, Grandfathering vs Revisionism
Message:
Jim, I think you know me well enough by now to know that I'm a fairly scrupulous person. When you accused me of grandfathering in the ten percent myth, I did not at first completely understand you. Then I began to think about the misgivings I've had about several of the posts I've made about meditation.

For the record I really want to say this: what I now write about meditation is not a lot like what I felt about it while in the cult. I had glimpses of the insights I now have about it but most of the time I was ''practicing Knowledge'' not meditating. That means that I was worrying about ''having an experience, ''striving for perfection,'' ''trying to merge with god,'' etc. In other words I thought about it like Rawat does.

It was often a very disconcerting and confusing (and probably dangerous for susceptible people) experience because, on the one hand I was enjoying a lot of it and on the other I was made uneasy with religious guilt and fear. Now it all seems so simple and harmless but I don't want to grandfather in stuff that was not there during my days in the cult.

That's too much like the revisionism that cult apologists engage in. I know that people like Erica are basically sincere and have simply grandfathered in most of the changes which Rawat has made. Perhaps there are cynical spin-control spiders at the top of the cult pecking order who invent the ''grandfathered revisionism'' but I think most premies, yes even I, saw it as evolution not revisionism because of the gradualness of the changes.

I'll be talking about meditation because I find it an interesting subject but I spent 27 years practicing it under the spell of Rawat. Of course I will take the good bits out of those 27 years and fit it seamlessly into my new Rawat-free world but neither do I want to do that at the expense of telling the truth and conveniently grandfathering in stuff which I now know to be nonsense.

For instance I have tried writing my Journey but have given up several times because it is always written with 20/20 hindsight e.g. - I knew that I did not like Rawat from the gitgo but that was not what was in the fore-front of my mind at the time. In the fore-front was that he was the messiah and beyond my comprehension and I felt guilty for not liking him. That concept subtly changed as Rawat gave new cues so that, just before I got out, I could have written the same apologist garbage (maybe even a bit better) as Geaves, Gallwey et al - and worse - believed it.

But, as I said, I'm fairly scrupulous and, when I see that I have in fact grandfathered in the ten percent myth, my only excuse is that I am trying to explain meditation in pseudo-scientific terms. As I said to Fran above, I enjoy it first and attempt to explain it second.

Maybe, one day, I will be able to. Who knows? Maybe the only answer I'll come up with is that it is like brain masturbation. I admit to being a pleasure-seeker so, if that's all there is to it, I won't be ashamed to admit that just as long as I don't then expect everyone else to enjoy my particular kink.

What creeps me out is that some cultweasel is copying this and it will be discussed at the next PR meeting. That has been the biggest cause of my reluctance to talk about certain things here - that the cult takes what is said on the forum to do some more ''grandfathering.''

Rawat had never in 30 years used the word bhakti till a few months after it was used a lot here by me when I first began to post. Next thing he'll be selling K as mental health techiques and he's the personal trainer who reminds you to do your reps. Yuk!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:15:41 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim the Forum Watchdog
Subject: Oops! Wrong article!
Message:
Oh yeah, it's the MYTH which lacks redeeming value, not the link. Anyway, here's the right one.
[ More boring stuff about the brain ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:22:52 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Oops! Wrong brain!
Message:
Thanks for posting a link for kids. That's about the level of my knowledge about the brain and I'm serious. Every time I talk to a teenager (a sensible one) nowadays I came away feeling ignorant.

I'm not sticking up for the myth. Okay, so we use all of the brain but do we use all of it all of the time. I don't mean the ''redundancy factor'' where several visual pathways exist or when other parts of the brain can somehowe take up the job of other parts lost in a stroke. I mean aren't some smart guys, like Einstein or Mozart, using more of their brain than say Bart Simpson? Aren't some parts of the brain sitting fairly dormant in most humans?

Okay so I need to read more. I still think the ancient Greeks may have been right: the brain is an air-conditioning and cooling system and most of us think with our stomachs.

More seriously, I have read that we may also sometimes ''think'' with our DNA but that's very theoretical still.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:06:42 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then?
Message:
Jim:

Just like in that Newsweek article where they did MRI's and PET scans on all these 'serious' meditators and monitored their brain activity when they were in what they thought were 'transcendental' states. Now what kind of 'knowing' is that if they were simply fooling themselves thinking they'd transcended anything? It's not. It's self-deception in the extreme. Some kind of 'Truth' with a capital 't' that is!

Now, who would argue that someone *else's* experience is the absolute Truth? I mean, unless you were just trying to mislead. Sort of like telling a girl who has a crush on me that, actually, *your're* a better lover.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:34:22 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry, I left out the best part
Message:
I forgot to mention the best part. Scientists can apparently stimulate that same part of the brain so as to give the subject the impression that he's having the same 'transcendent' experience of God he thinks he gets through meditation (and by God's will, of course).

That, to me, suggests that all bets are off in the 'Truth' arena.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:27:18 (EST)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: That's certainly true ...
Message:
... and I'd put it more strongly Scientists can stimulate that same part of the brain so as to give the subject the same 'transcendent' experience of God he gets through meditation (and by God's will, of course).

But so nothing. Awareness -- experience -- is surely mediated by the brain. It can imagine anything it can experience. All it takes is the right stimulation or input.

What matters is whether anything in external reality corresponds to the natural occurence of these brain activities.

JHB's question is a good one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:54:12 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The best part.
Message:
Jim:

Well, assuming that this particular experience is the one that's arguably supposed to be 'The Truth' then you'd be stuck with an argument that someone installed a button. Sort of odd, when you consider that the button couldn't be reliably activated until the rise of modern medicine. But it might be useful for terminally ill patients, mightn't it? Better than drugs, anyway.

But what criteria would you have to use, to discern one absolute truth from another? One could also argue that no one really has access to the Truth, any more than a clam can read Shakespeare. It's just beyond our capabilities as humans.

Of course, that's not a very useful argument for a religionist (or anyone else) because it's not falsifiable. In a relative sense though, there seem TRUTHS that are beyond us, for the time being at least. I mean, what the hell is 'dark energy?' There's a case of something that apparently accounts for as much as 90% of the universe, and no human has ever experienced it or can even conceive of it descriptively. Whoever installed the button apparently short-changed us.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:50:10 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Re: What ?
Message:
I was just making the simple, but rich (if I don't say so myself) point that it's a wonderful perversion of the word 'truth' to assign it to that which can't be known.

Who has perverted the assignment of truth by relegating it the ranks of the unknown? Not me, I don't agree with that assignment at all.

I say that it is possible to know truth both with a capital T and truth with a small t. Dog has just given an superb description of the capital T truth that can be revealed in the moment when one discovers that which is known after he has cleared his mind and consciousness of concepts and expectations.

Are you saying that it is not possible to know an experience such as this? Or are you saying that you personally haven't known it?

I know what Dog is talking about, I know it well

To me it is simply being present with and knowing the freedom found in the unadulterated nowness where we arrive at the place of union with time and space and just be.

Just grateful acceptance of what is, no interference. Just taking it in, soaking it up, letting it wash over you, knowing the beauty of it, period.

Dog sounds like he is on to it, I am getting it as well but it's only since I dumped m that I woke up to it and found out that I have the right and free will intact to know capital T Truth in and of itself by my own self efforts.

It is something that I want to know, it is my choice, what I do, where I look for it. I have found I need look no further than myself for all the truth and experience that I want to know.

Call it mumbo jumbo if you like, but it exists Jim, and it doesn't have squat to do with spiritualism, gurus, concepts, religion or whether or not anyone believes in it. Obstacles to be overcome, all of the above mentioned roadblocks to acceptance of self truth.

It is my own personal journey of self discovery, one that I found myself by trusting my own instincts to find my own way along the path of self awareness.

When my heart and mind was finally cleared of the garbage of the cult and m it brought me to who I am today and to what I now know.

Which for me is a stillness, clarity, a true peace of mind and sense of purpose and truth that I KNOW to be the most real and most precious experience of my lifetime.

I just happened to catch a glimpse of infinity along the way, one that has awakened a truth that I now know with a capital K and one that has transformed me forever.


---

Brian,

Thanks again for you posts. If you can afford it, I strongly suggest you take the Landmark Forum. Here is the URL.

http://www.landmarkforum.com/default.htm

Then get into some Buddhist vipassana meditation. Both will allow you to come to wholeness, your natural completeness.

Godspeed brother!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:31:58 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Been there done that
Message:
Thanks again for you posts. If you can afford it, I strongly suggest you take the Landmark Forum. Then get into some Buddhist vipassana meditation. Both will allow you to come to wholeness, your natural completeness

Thanks Dog,
I appreciate your sincere concern, but no thanks, I went through the forum and a few of it's related workshops 17 years ago.

And as far as what meditation allows, I am whole, I am complete in and of myself and this time I alone will allow myself to own my own experience of it.

Best regards,
Brian

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 18:18:31 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog=)
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Re: Been there done that
Message:
More power to you Brian.

I did the est/Forum training in 1977 at the height of the foot kissing/arti/LOTU period when I was having trouble encorporating all the stuff surrounding K into my life. It was definitely worth it. I re-did the Forum this past summer, 24 years later, and found it even more powerful and effective.

My question to you Brian is this...do you think exes who are hurting could benefit from the Forum? That is, do you think The Forum could help them to own their victim story and get on with their lives?

(Hold it exes!!!! Before you rip me, I realize that venting can be cathartic, but venting IMO, if carried on too long, is just a waste of time.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:22:56 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog=)
Subject: Possibly
Message:
But I think it best to stick to the subject matter here and just share your own story.

If you benefited from the forum, tell us how you benefited, that will help immeasurably more than telling someone else what they should do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:33:11 (EST)
From: Jim the Watchdog
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Christ, Brian, you can't be serious!
Message:
But I think it best to stick to the subject matter here and just share your own story.

If you benefited from the forum, tell us how you benefited, that will help immeasurably more than telling someone else what they should do.


---

This is Dog's question you said 'possibly' to:

My question to you Brian is this...do you think exes who are hurting could benefit from the Forum? That is, do you think The Forum could help them to own their victim story and get on with their lives?

Are you serious? Now, I have to be careful here because Fran's already on my case for talking with you. But, really, Brian ... do you actually hold any truck in Dog's insulting dismissal of our discussions here as hurting 'victim stories' that are preventing us from getting on with our lives? And, if you do, do you really think that a superficial sales job like the Forum, arguably a cult in its own right, could even possibly be the answer?

Jim
The Watchdog

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:39:09 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim the Watchdog
Subject: What Now ?
Message:
Jim I was bodily removed from the forum, escorted out of the room and not allowed back, which I came back in anyway and was once again removed.

My issue with them was this, I stated that I had been to a number of sales meetings and that I recognized a sales pitch when I saw it, so where was the commission structure, how much would I be paid for each sale I made?

This of course turned into a alturistic speel by the trainer, and I stood on the issue if money was being exchanged and I was a responsible party in the equation then I should be compensated. I felt that this held up with the atruistic vision of their concern for my welfare and well being by sharing the wealth.

When it became apparent that I was making and scoring good points with the rest of the group, two guys came up along side of me and pulled me out of the room but not without me getting in some choice parting shots at the top of my lungs this time going to the scam and bullshit that they were running.

I made it back in as far as the backrow, with a few more choice shots and the same thing ensued. It was quite fun really.

Now believe it or not I learned a lot from that encounter about standing up for what I believe in. So when I said to Dog it is possible to extract some benefit from these twisted systems it is because I did. That is just my story.

And I am tired of talking about Dog, Like I said think he should stick to 'his' specific story and leave the advice out of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:05:00 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Funny, they kicked me out too
Message:
Hi Brian,

I hear you. In the mid eighties, this one friend of mine was getting heavily into yet another est off-shoot, Evergreen. I think it was headed up by a former jazz musician or something. Anyway, Jerome insisted I go, wouldn't shut up about it so I finally went to one of their meetings down in a shopping centre somewhere Marina del Ray, I remember. I asked one too many questions and they kicked me out. Yippee!

I have some cousins who rose very high in the Landmark Forum hierarchy. In fact, when their real estate empire started to crumble in a bad market in the early 90's, they started a very expensive consulting business where my cousin gets paid unimagineable money to teach other organizations how to raise money effectively. We're talking giant corporate and non-profit clients. We're talking money. And where do you think she got her ideas? From the Landmark Forum findraising strategies! Perhaps if EV really does go under, they'll hire Yoram Weiss.

I had a long talk with one of these cousins when I was in Seattle last month. It's funny, all of their employees in this consulting company have been through the 'training'. They just insist on that as a prerequisite because, in their experience, people who've been through the training don't bullshit as much. They get the job done, so to speak. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening at all. I think the training gives a whole new set of psychological tools to use on underlings to, yes, get the job done -- but that that's not necessarily a good thing. I know one thing, my cousin was not able in any way to articulate anything unique or profound in the teachings. To me, that just cries out that there isn't really anything special, that it's just a matter of the mood and atmosphere of the sessions. In other words, just hype and manipulation. Since returning to Victoria I've looked at a number of Landmark Forum sites and anti-sites and I now have no doubt that that's the case.

But some people don't care about the integrity of their minds that much, I guess. Whatever it takes to motivate them, if it works, it works. They can plug into the Landmark Forum training and allow it to make them feel like they're approaching life anew. Or, for that matter, they can do it with Maharaji. Same difference, really. Either you want to know if there's really any 'there' there or you don't.

The reason I keep tossing in little Dog lines is because you seem to embrace some of his terminology and sentiment. The big difference between you though, in that respect, is that you are amenable, indeed committed, to frank and honest rational discussion. He sure isn't. Give me a break! So your aligning with him on anything, you must see, presents an kind of interesting dynamic.

Anyway, going back to your experience with Landmark Forum, I'd hardly say that your experience with them spoke well in any way about that group itself. So for you to agree with Dog that the training might 'possibly' help all these hurt and bitter exes who aren't able to 'move on' is a bit bizarre. And I just hate to see the guy find encouragement where it really doesn't exist. Know what I mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 14:47:15 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hilarious & Bizzare
Message:
As I reflect back on that incident that I had of being ejected from the forum, I recall charging back in and using the fact that they were throwing me out as a clear example of their lack of integrity.

I yelled out, Look at how they react to someone who stands up for themselves, after preaching all along that standing up for oneself or ones principles is what one needs to get out of this.

I mean when I brought up the issue of the money and the trainer said that if they paid me it would corrupt the intention of the forum and people would not have the correct motivation for SHARING the opportunity.

My reply back was then if money is the corruptor why don't you do just this for free then really keep it pure? I did the head count of about 200 @ the then price of 450.00 per (roughly 90 G) minus a generous 15% operating expense for 2 week ends. I remarked that this is a lot of profit and since money IS involved and a profit WAS being made the only corrupt thing about it was that the sales force was being bilked out of their commissions. I don't remember the complete exchange verbatim but I had it going and the crowd too.

Bizzare that it was, I did get some good things out of it. I was the first one out of my chair and was a major contributor throughout and I approached the session with an zest for self examination and internal inquiry. A lot of what I got out of it had to do with what I put into it, I admit I dived in headfirst and hellbent. I learned a lot about myself, gained some good insights to improve important relationships in my life. Many people approached me over the course and said that they gained a lot from me taking it head on and dissecting issues.

I think that my higher profile of participation created quite the upheaval and increased the impact when I stood up for the commission issue on factual and reasonable grounds and their ultimate solution was to eliminate me.

The bizzare and hilarious thing is that they could only justify thier position by reacting in such a closeminded manner. Contary to what the gist of the whole business which was to empower people to take control of their lives and stop being a victim.

Evidently that principle applys to everything else except where the EST cult is concerned and you cannot stand up or speak out against being victimized by them.

Hilarious I say, bizzare as well that anything good came out of it for me

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:52:21 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Jim the Watchdog
Subject: Dog's erroneous assumption
Message:
Well I'm observing ''Be Kind to Dogs Week'' so I haven't been too argumentative but yes, I also thought the suggestion that that Landmark thingy would be good for ''suffering exes'' was a bit patronising to say the least.

However I think Poochie may be seeing only what he wants to see or is slow on the uptake. For all the time he has been observing this forum it has been, until very recently, from the POV of a premie and we all know that only premies have the Truth and don't suffer.

I've heard such a change in Dog's tone of voice (bolder, lighter and more cheerful) that I bet you he'll emerge from this a wiser man once he has seen that not only are most exes NOT suffering but that most exes are much happier than premies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:11:30 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: Dog's erroneous assumption
Message:
PatC,

A friend of mine recently left K and M after reading the Dettmers material. He went through hell. I phoned him up and chatted with him several times and helped him get over it. At least I like to think I did. After 26 or so years of investment into K and M he thought his live was a complete waste and was really down.

I suggested he take a trip, get into exercise, and take the Landmark Forum. Why? Because it helped me enormously. He got into exercise and took a trip. Two out of three ain't bad.

You know what Pat, the Tao is the Tao, I don't give a fuck how people get to it. I don't have a vested interest in Elan Vital and Maharaji has never invited me abord his yacht for a sail. Zen TM, Subud, NLP, kung fu, t'ai chi, yoga, whatever turns you on to the energy within...but get turned on!. IMO that's where the happiness is.

That's my philosophy anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:28:02 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Re: Dog's erroneous assumption
Message:
I'm glad you were able to help your pal. Yes, it can be unsettling for some premies to exit. Was he more of a conventional premie than you? The ones who really toed the cult line seem to suffer more than those like you who dabbled in other spiritual stuff.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:50:46 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim the Watchdog
Subject: Landmark forum not forum7, I think? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 19:03:30 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog=)
Subject: The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter
Message:
You're too much, Dog. On the one hand, you're freaking out because you don't understand what it means -- on the game's own stupid terms -- to have a guru. Never did, never will. So when M starts tightening the screws in '77 you do what? You turn to another exploitative scam -- est -- for assistance. Now, years later, you still don't have a clue whether you're coming or going.

And look at you! You can't even speak as your own person but have to hide out here anonymously, gingerly hoping that someone will share your weird version of reality. Where's it going, Dog? Will you ever be able to stand up like a man for your beliefs or will you continue to take these anonymous pot shots at us forever?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:25:56 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter
Message:
The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter.

Jim there are people who post here who are angry, sad, guilty etc....you name it. Not you of course, you are above all that. My comment about hurting was directed to those who are hurting. You must admit, there are people on this site who are going through some heavy stuff.

You're too much, Dog. On the one hand, you're freaking out because you don't understand what it means -- on the game's own stupid terms -- to have a guru. Never did, never will. So when M starts tightening the screws in '77 you do what? You turn to another exploitative scam -- est -- for assistance. Now, years later, you still don't have a clue whether you're coming or going.

I've been practicing K and going to programs for 24 years, and I don't understand what it means? Aren't you the guy I had to explain what Truth with a capital 'T' means? Truth with a capital 'T' means that which was, that which is, and that which will be. It's unchangeable. Truth with a small 't' means that which wasn't, that which is, and that which will not be. It's subject to change.

This is Satsang 101 for Christ sake, and you think I'm clueless?

And look at you! You can't even speak as your own person but have to hide out here anonymously, gingerly hoping that someone will share your weird version of reality. Where's it going, Dog? Will you ever be able to stand up like a man for your beliefs or will you continue to take these anonymous pot shots at us forever?

I choose to post anonymously to protect my family who have ties to the community and my weird version of reality is shared by about 700 million Hindus. And it wasn't a pot shot! I actually care about premies and exes alike. My posting here is an attempt to help exes and I think I'm about 70% effective in furthering the conversation on this site.

If you want to spend the rest of your life saying 'Hey, Won't You Play, Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song,' go right ahead. I'm here to help those who want to change the tune.

Steve Mueller's initial post of this thread was entitled 'Nurturing Each Other, Not Nitpicking.' You still don't get it do you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:56:32 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: If you want to help, scram!
Message:
Dog,

It's true that people are hurt, sad, angry and confused after realizing they'd been had. But your 'solution' is the cult leader's, isn't it: Move on, have fun and basically leave Maharaji alone?

You know how insulted exes get hearing that yet you persist in saying it, again and again and again. If anyone's exacerbating the problem, Dog, it's cult apologists like you.

As for your weenie excuse about protecting your family, give me a break. No one's going to say boo to your family and you know it. You just like the bullshit convenience of anonymity.

No, Dog, if you really want to 'ease the pain' get lost. As you know, the thing exes find most upsetting here is having their experiences dismissed by new age whitewash. You've got nothing else to offer here, apparently, so, if you really are sincere about how caring you are about all this pain you perceive, get lost.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:20:20 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: What what ?
Message:
But how do you know it's THE Truth, as opposed to just being an extraordinary state of consciousness, for intance? Reliability ought to be part of the consideration, oughtn't it? I mean, it's fortunate that every time you count your toes you always arrive at '10.' If you were to start suddently coming up with '11,' and then later '12,' you'd be in a bit of a pickle. So, 'THE TRUTH' would have to hold for every single sitution... and given that you haven't experienced every situation, and probably can't, it's unlikely that you'd ever be able to demonstrate that reliability. Then there's the issue of 'validity' which is simply whether or not your experience of the thing has a one to one correspondence with what it actually 'IS.' You're in even deeper trouble on that one, since you probably can't even describe it accurately or meaningfully.

So what you're left with is your personal conviction, and that's about it. Now, I've experienced extraordinary states, but the only certainty I gained from them is the conviction that appearances can deceive.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:50:23 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: What It Is
Message:
Careful Brian, out of the frying pan into the fire . . . The Landmark Forum is run by Werner Erhard (the discredited guy who ran est) or at least by his brother, Jack Rosenberg (nudge, wink). Anyways here are a few links to do a bit of research. Dep Dog is a bit of a new age junkie, so be warned.

Isn't This

Just Another

Cult?
[ Landmark Forum Kult ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:59:57 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Thank's Brian! [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:43:21 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Truth or truth
Message:
So my point is, do you suppose that your concepts, your story about what happened is the source of your suffering?

It might be worth pointing out to you that no where in Brian's post does he say he is suffering because of concepts once held regarding the Kult. In fact, the gist of his post was how grateful he is for the jousting he received here on the Forum and how these challenges awakened him from bondage to his false concepts. In other words, just the opposite of what you are stating. Ironic?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:48:03 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Pullaver
Subject: Re: Truth or truth indeed!
Message:
Palaver,

You obviously feel that changing one set of facts and information with another set of facts and information will bring freedom from bondage. I don’t! IMO we are duped only when we live in concepts, small 'r' reality. To awaken from bondage is to awaken from concepts to Holy Name, to Tao, to the Buddha Nature, the Christ, to Truth with a capital T etc.

Deeply imbedded beliefs, no matter what they are, are unsatisfying. The mind state itself is intrinsically unsatisfying. Cozy little pictures, no matter how nice they are, have nothing to do with Truth and awakening. Concepts are concepts. There is a difference between the concept of and the experience of. As I said in my above post, concepts are not truth with a capital 'T'.

Emotional enslavement to M or anyone else is bondage and has nothing to do with freedom or knowing God. Concepts about Knowledge are no better than concepts about anything else. Concepts are concepts, and true freedom is freedom from concepts, i.e. when we go from concept to nothingness, the emptiness, the void, you know, what they talk about in Buddhism.

So, IMO to be jostled out of the stupor is to go from the mind-state into the nothingness, into clarity, holy name, not another mind state. To be jostled out of the stupor is to come up to present time, into the here and now. To be jostled out of the stupor is to move from the truth to Truth. To be jostled out of the stupor is to be shocked from your story about it, to the space of life, clarity, the always so.

To quote Ram Dass,

'The illusion keeps pulling you back into forgetting. Lost in your melodrama: my love life, my child, my livelihood, my gratification etc. Just more and more stuff. You keep forgetting into it. Within the perfection of the Divine Plan is included the freedom of an individual to choose to be harmonious with, or to go against the law.

The way that was depicted in the Bible was Adam and Eve’s choice to eat the apple. God we can say, is the word that describes, which symbolically represents, that Divine Law that says, 'Live here in the perfection of the flow, but refrain from eating the apple.' But the choice whether or not to eat the apple exists in the Garden of Eden as well as everywhere else. The apple represents the separation of the individual from the flow in his own mind. The subject-object, self-consciousness reality. That is knowing it, rather than being it. Chomp! The eating of the apple. Separation.

Going into God is going into that which is beyond form. Because the concept of God is not God, of course.'

IMO, getting that your story is not where it’s at, is heartwrenching. Ironic? Writ large!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:29:20 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Hear and Now
Message:
You obviously feel that changing one set of facts and information with another set of facts and information will bring freedom from bondage. I don’t! IMO we are duped only when we live in concepts, small 'r' reality. To awaken from bondage is to awaken from concepts to Holy Name, to Tao, to the Buddha Nature, the Christ, to Truth with a capital T etc.

Thrice ye have risen from the dead with the epiphany that ye can be re-born by dealing with issues related to the Kult and it's Keeper here on the Forum. And thrice ye have announced to all with an ear to hear how you have no business criticizing those who come hear to drinketh and purgeth. Yea, thrice ye have retreated tail between thy legs, promising to droppeth no more turds.

And yet here you go again. Your spiritual cookie-cutter (thanks Jim) response chock-full of zen wisdom that nobody here has ever heard before, laying bare the fallacious and hopelessly misguided mission to expose cheat, deceit and belief in all things that we do not know by empirical evidence to be true, here on the Forum. Even if I were to agree with 'the spirit' of what you are saying how does your comment really jibe with reality here on the Forum? What do your comments really have to do with either Steve's or Brian's comments? Steve was making a plea for brotherly love and understanding on the Forum and Brian was thankful that he had his tree of concepts shaken otherwise he'd still be in the Kult.

Your comments taken to their logical conclusion implies that there is no point to the Forum because we are merely replacing one set of concepts with another. As if the purpose of this Forum is provide the zen-consciousness that you describe. This is simply ridiculous. It is understood that the discussion here provides an interactive process whereby former Kultists can de-compress about all things regarding Wally World and engage in some stimulating and informative discussion.

What you are saying is not really being helpful as you have previously suggested is your motivation for posting here. But if you insist on continuing to use this space as your soapbox may I suggest that you get off your little trip of thinking that you have the wisdom that we all are missing; listen to what is actually being said; and know that at the end of the day words mean nothing because in your nothingness all is well, nothing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:45:05 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Pullaver
Subject: Re: Now and Zen
Message:
Dear Mr. Palaver,

Yes, there is a point to this Forum and it's also a Forum open to all. If I want to provide 'cookie-cutter' Zen wisdom to those hurting here, I should be able to. Buddhism has helped me a great deal, and for those exes who are interested and in need of solace, I think it can help them too. Buddhism as you may know promotes non-devotional meditation.

I've always felt that it was more useful to light a candle than curse the darkness, and that's what I like to think I'm doing here, being positive and lighting a candle. And you know what, many exes here find my contributions stimulating and informative, Brian Smith for one. Remember him? He's the guy I originally responded to in this thread. My above response was to him and he seemed to like it.

So, you don't feel that what I'm saying here is helpful, well no biggie. I got that! Understood. Message received!!!! And what can you do about it? Well, I suggest you don't read my posts. You have said among other things that my posts are 'drivel' and 'turds'. So once again, my question to you is, why are you reading them? Just don't read em, unless of course your real intent here is to harass me.

Palaver, there are many others posting here with valuable contributions that might be better suited to what you are looking for. You say you come here to 'de-compress about things regarding Wally World,' fine, I suggest you stick to posts that will help you do that.

You do your thing and I'll do mine. Goodbye.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 16:54:50 (EST)
From: Pullaver
Email: pullaver@yahoo.ca
To: Dupity Dog
Subject: Zen Again, darlink
Message:
Yes, there is a point to this Forum and it's also a Forum open to all. If I want to provide 'cookie-cutter' Zen wisdom to those hurting here, I should be able to. Buddhism has helped me a great deal, and for those exes who are interested and in need of solace, I think it can help them too. Buddhism as you may know promotes non-devotional meditation.

Yes of course you are entitled to your opinions but because it is a public forum you will encounter disagreement and challenges to what you say. This is harassment only if in your zen wisdom you perceive it as such. To a student of zen this kind of sparring should be useful in strengthening understanding or revealing sublime lessons of some sort.

Your buddhist philosophy and small t truth and big T truth and small r reality and big R reality are repeated verbatim from your Landmark Forum training, correct?: If these are not just platitudes that you are re-spouting, then please, inform us precisely how buddhism has helped you if you really want to light a candle here amongst the tired and huddled ex's. And while you are at it could you let me know how the whole enchilada comes together for you. You practice the K tech's, you are a 'buddhist', and you swear by the Landmark Forum (put together by an alleged wife-beating, daughter-diddling, income-tax evading fraud of a second-hand car salesman who abandoned his first wife and three daughters). I think if you are sincere in your desire to help people here you should explain how your whole spiritual smorgasborg works. Otherwise, what do you have but a bunch of nice sounding new-agey concepts that you have simply regurgitated in a delusional effort to help (impress?)? BTW, just where do you stand regarding the Gipper? Are you still attending his broadcasts? Are his talks still a source of inspiration to you? Please do not ignore these questions in your response to me.

We have known each other for twenty years. Like I said in an earlier post, you have spent all of your adult life consuming one new age trip after another and parroting other peoples' concepts to all who would listen in an attempt to illuminate. However, you cannot shed light when your wick is covered in other people's wax. In my humble subjective opinion if you are a Landmark Forumized, Knowledge Meditating, Buddhist with an inside track on enlightenment or even some shlub with a cursory self-help awareness, you have me fooled. You know how some people post positive affirmations around their house in an attempt to re-program their thinking into some idealized concept of being? Well that's how you strike me - full of quotes, a veritable walking/talking billboard of new age platitudes but without your own genuine experience of 'liberated' life to speak of.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:56:53 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: The mind, Poochie?
Message:
Pooch, doesn't it bother you that the sanskrit words for mind have been misunderstood in the west? I have no idea where Rev Rawat got his translation but he sure got it wrong. For 30 years he has demonized something which, in him, may be something which he finds detestable maybe because he's insane. Drinking oneself into a stupor, as it has been witbnessed in Rawat, is often the sign of a troubled mind.

Isn't it strange that the sanskrit word for mind - meditation and conscience are all the same - gyana? Isn't it possible that that wonderful peace that you talk about is simply a product of a healthy mind and a clean conscience - in other words the product of telling the truth with a small t. No esoteric big T truth. Just simply - be honest and you will be happy. Or the real translation of satchitanand - a clean conscience is happiness?

Or how about the Buddhists use of the word ''mindfulness'' meaning alertness? Or that buddhi means mind in Pali, the language in which Buddhist scriptures were written, and it also means knowledge, understanding and enlightenment.

Or, how about the Buddhist notion that all of the body is in the mind but not all of the mind is in the body?

Just thought I'd slip a little koan in there for your amusement. :C)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:57:45 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: The mind, PatC!
Message:
PatC,

There is a difference between you and your mind. IMO you have a mind and you are not your mind. If feel that we have to make a distinction between the concept of and the presence of, between the menu and the meal, the sacred and the profane.

Alan Watts describes what happened in his The Book On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are. According to Watts, God got bored hanging out with himself so he decided to play hide and seek. Watts believes that,

'Because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. That is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks and all the stars. In this way he can have strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear.

Now when God plays hide, and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun if it--just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly because that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself.

But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self--the God who is all there is and who lives for ever and ever.

It's the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, nd the one who does it best is thewinner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world.'

The 'Ultimate Ground of Being' is paul Tillich's decontaminated term for 'God' and would also do for 'the Self of the world.' The secret is that the Ultimate Ground of Being is you. Not of course, the everyday you, which the Ground is assuming or 'pretending' to be, but the inmost Self which escapes inspection because it's always the inspector. This then is the taboo of all taboos: You're IT!'

To make sure that a person doesn't find out who he is, convince him that he can't really make anything disappear. All that's left then is to resist, solve fix, help or change things. That's trying to make something out of something. Life is game in which what isn't is more important than what is. As Francesca said in an above post 'What is, IS.' That's where vipassana comes in.

Let the good time roll.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 14:58:56 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Poochie, I'm just an old acid-head
Message:
I used to enjoy all that spiritual stuff like your Alan Watts quote but I no longer listen to anything anybody has to say about meditation especially if they have studied some sort of eastern mysticism. That's because too many pre-scientific ideas are involved and because huge assumptions are made based on the belief that eastern mysticism is valid.

The more I get rid of eastern spiritual concepts the more I see that everything I ever needed to know about my consciousness was shown to me during the years I took acid. At the time I was overwhelmed by the information and did not have the words to understand what I had seen. Very little had been written about LSD and what little was written was hopelessly tainted with eastern mumbo-jumbo. Hence I was ripe for the plucking by a Hindu guru.

Some of the things that I learned from psychedelics which I have only just begun to think and write about are:

As Brian said, we only use part of our brain. Psychedelics stimulate parts which we normally don't use.

Those parts of the brain can be stimulated without drugs. After taking acid I often had flash-backs not induced by drugs. I also had similar experiences during sex or when in a creative state. Later, when I began to do yoga meditation before getting K, the same states were recreated.

Those parts of the brain seem to be associated with feelings, creativity and imagination and are associated with an effortless and exhilirated alertness.

Because they are tied up with the imagination all sorts of errors of discernment can take place such as hallucinations which one thinks are real. (I have a hunch that most religions and pre-scientific cosmologies were the result of psychedelic experiences.)

It is for this reason that I distrust any eastern mysticism or anybody else's explanation other than my own. The imagination has not been sufficiently studied by anyone to give me a satisfactory explanation.

From psychedelics I also learned that, once the drug wore off, that I could be left feeling vigorously healthy and alert or that I could be caught up in endless loops of thought which ultimately left me feeling groggy and depressed. That taught me that I was the creator of my own states of mind, mood and attitude.

Yes, about this word MIND. To me my entire consciousness is my mind. Thoughts are just a small part of my mind. My mind observes my thoughts and feelings as well as all sensual phenomena. I don't want to be nitpicky but I do feel that Rawat used the word incorrectly. He used MIND to mean thoughts and, as I've said before, because his thoughts were so inane and maybe insane, he demonized the mind.

I'm game to talk about this stuff but I want to talk about it with people who are also willing to struggle to explain it in their own words without resorting to any sort of mysticism or religion whether of east or west.

I definitely agree with you to let the good times roll. We are the masters of our own happiness. I choose to be happy and to share that with anyone else who wants it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:06:13 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: Dog, what evidence do you have??
Message:
Dog,

You're making some pretty serious claims here for something that as far as I can tell is just a meditation experience. I know that when you have this experience it feels as if you know the truth, but apart from that feeling what evidence do you have that it is some sort of absolute truth? maybe it's just that the part of the brain that deals with the feeling of knowing gets stimulated in some special way and all you have is the feeling of knowing without the usual mundane subject matter normally associated with knowing, like knowing the time of your train to work in the morning. I would be better inclined to believe what we experience is some absolute thing if it also included the mundane. For instance, as well as knowing the absolute, infinite, nothingness of Truth, you also had access to the akashic records and could tell me what sex the foal my horse is carrying is. Otherwise, I choose to believe the simple explanation that what you feel is confined to your brain.

So Dog, apart from feeling cosmic, where is your evidence that it is anything special?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:35:53 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Brian Smith
Subject: Brutal Honesty Hurts...
Message:
I once said to a friend in a tone of pride ''I'm brutally honest.''

She said to me: ''Honesty is great, but why do you need to be brutal?''

It got me to thinking.

There are many tender hearts who enter these screens looking for answers, seeking hope, rejecting maharaji and the whole basket of shit that came with him, trying to let go of something that isn't true, never was true and never will be true. There is great pain involved in that step, those steps that many of us made a while ago. Let us not forget what it was like when we entered this room, decided to reject Maharajism, afraid, vulnerable, not used to this type of communication and the turmoil of wrecked lives because of a dangerous and mean cult leader.

Is it fair to make a joke without the benefit of vocal intonation?
I know I've had my share of brutal in this life. I don't expect it here.

Confrontation? I welcome it. Learning? I welcome that too.

Plain brutal truth? How about truth and leave out the brutal.

Leave the brutal part for the those with iron skulls and brains that cannot function without the cult.

I think you missed the point. But, then again, I most certainly could be wrong.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:12 (EST)
From: Brian Smith
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Point well taken..
Message:
I got what I needed, from those who I needed to hear it from, and I cannot recall brutality ever entering into the equation.

Brutal honesty, kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

Honesty is such a rare commodity amongst the mealy mouthed people pleasing masses anyway. I find honesty to be a scarce and beautiful thing so I am always surprised wherever I find it. I prefer to waste as little time as possible in getting the story straight and I like it when people cut to the chase, no dancing around the issues.

Now rudeness on the other hand is something altogether different and is something that I do not abide. I think lack of tactfulness has more to do with what divides so many when it comes to the hurtful side of honest communication.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:59:03 (EST)
From: Steve Mueller
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Saying you have to hurt people
Message:
How are you going to get any truth out of people if you don't break them first? I mean, you pretty well HAVE to hurt people if you want to get anywhere, don't you think? Sheesh!


---

is just more glaring evidence of M's legacy of cruelty and hatred that has not yet been shed, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:33:03 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: Re: Saying you have to hurt people
Message:
Steve, please talk to Jim by phone. He's sort of but not quite but really sort of like you know pulling your leg if you know what I mean.

I guess what I mean is that to some of us nothing is sacred not even a PC sense of humor. Words like ''nurturing'' and ''healing'' and unconditional love'' bring out the worst in us. They are like finger nails on the blackboard of our inner platitude detectors.

Whenever you have to explain words because they have arcane meanings you will know that you are flirting with nonsense. For instance - nurturing is what one does for helpless infants and plants. Healing is what doctors and nurses do to you in hospital when you're sick. Unconditional love is so esoteric that it is impossible to even begin to comprehend what it means in relation to human intercourse.

BTW - There are some excellent articles in the link that Jim posted. I've already bookmarked it for later perusal. I'm hoping that you will learn as much here as you will teach and have as much fun as I am.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:17:14 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: Re: Saying you have to hurt people
Message:
Steve,

Jim's sense of humour can be a little subtle, but there was no cruelty and hatred in his posts in this thread.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:58 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Steve Mueller
Subject: God, Steve, it was just a joke!
Message:
Sheesh!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:22:32 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But what if someone doesn't know it's a joke?
Message:
Then it may be hurtful, that's my point.

Jim, I've never heard your voice. I don't think you understand how subtle your humour is when someone hasn't ever heard the intonations of your voice.

That, my friend, is the difference.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:51:39 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: It can be a problem
Message:
Cynthia,

When we had the first Latvian night at the Latvian club in London, I announced it here and Jim made a joke about Latvian gangs terrorising his neighbourhood, only I didn't realise it was a joke, and a short conflict occurred. I have also been guilty of making jokes that have been taken seriously, so I understand the problem from both sides. I am now used to Jim, so I usually recognise his humour, but I also appreciate that others sometimes don't. I'm sure Jim is aware of this aspect of his character, and does try to avoid misunderstanding.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 13:35:42 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: It can be a problem
Message:
But half the fun of having a dry sense of humor is that not everyone WILL get your joke and explaining it takes the punch right out of it. Wait until the forum is done with webcams and then you'll see that Jim's in tears most of the time with the cruel things we say to him. Do I have to use an emotikon? Oh all right - :C)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 15:18:04 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: It can be a problem
Message:
Big crocodile tears I bet
Return to Index -:- Top of Index