Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Feb 18, 2002 To: Feb 26, 2002 Page: 5 of: 5


Nigel -:- The trouble with regression... -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:23:36 (EST)
__ janet -:- Re:regression to the mean... -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 22:57:33 (EST)
__ Jim -:- This whole thread is fantastic! -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:59:54 (EST)

JHB -:- Amaroo Regional Event announced -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 06:45:33 (EST)
__ Does Self-Knowledge mean -:- the same as 'auditioning the finger puppets' -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:23:39 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- Two Definitions -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:22:51 (EST)
__ ~)ITortItawaputtytat~) -:- Re: Amaroo Regional Event announced -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 07:06:22 (EST)
__ __ Tonette -:- Speaking of wine.......... -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:58:18 (EST)
__ __ Tonette -:- Hey, putty cat........ -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:17:55 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- I'll come on one condition -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 09:31:36 (EST)
__ __ __ CW()) -:- Re: I'll come on one condition -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:40:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Tonette -:- You guys are faggots.... -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:46:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ CW;) -:- No Not a CAMPING holiday! -:- Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 16:43:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- So are we registered? -:- Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 02:43:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ SCORPION-II -:- TROLL ALERT! -:- Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 16:51:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- OK, I'll compromise -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:21:05 (EST)

Bryn -:- I learned nothing! -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:03:23 (EST)
__ Silvia -:- Yes you learned! -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:51:27 (EST)
__ Tonette -:- Besides learning nothing -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:28:07 (EST)
__ Loaf -:- Do bad habits not count ? [nt] -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 14:29:55 (EST)

Alert the press. -:- Hide and Seek -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:28:02 (EST)
__ janet -:- then he can find jagdeo -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 23:12:34 (EST)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Stupid game -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:11:18 (EST)

Loaf -:- How to show ALL POSTS as default -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 03:19:31 (EST)
__ Jean-Michel -:- Here's the link -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:00:30 (EST)
__ jethro -:- Thanks ofr that info -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 03:35:45 (EST)

Francesca -:- Those cosmic experiences. Huh??? -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 02:18:19 (EST)
__ hamzen -:- I did and still do -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:15:27 (EST)
__ __ Francesca -:- Ah, but it sounds like ... -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:22:17 (EST)
__ __ __ Richard -:- Re: neat tattoo -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 19:59:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Postie speaks -- :) [nt] -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:05:23 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Postie -:- Re: Postie speaks -- :) -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:31:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Happy brain chemistry to you, Postie -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:01:40 (EST)
__ Joe -:- Partly mental problems -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:58:23 (EST)
__ __ Joe -:- Only 7,000 Millennium 1st day -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 13:08:46 (EST)
__ __ __ Francesca :~) -:- Does this remind me of the old days ... -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 14:41:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Joe -:- The illusion of large numbers -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:26:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ janet -:- about black premies -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 23:30:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Struck by a lightning bolt..DUH on me.. -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:18:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Exactlly Cynthia -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:03:30 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Who was the black premie in WIGMJ? -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:31:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ It Could've Been -:- Harry Payne (aka The Comb)? [nt] -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:51:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- I don't remember -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:24:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Richard -:- Joe, I don't have WIGM -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:30:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- That was ME! -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:46:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Exactly Joe... [nt] -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:04:24 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Livia -:- Re: The illusion of large numbers -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:40:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- I don't think so, Joe -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:40:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Completely Different Thing -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:36:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hardly -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:30:13 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Frankly, my dear -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:01:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:10:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't know why I keep saying 'Don' -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:26:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Well, then -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:44:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, definitely not -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:41:28 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- no way -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:49:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No way?? -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 20:02:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Richard -:- Native Americans at Millenium -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:56:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:12:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:10:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Marshall -:- L.O.T.U. -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:00:35 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Francesca :~) -:- I know about L.O.T.U. -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:11:34 (EST)
__ Serious trouble for -:- Dr. Hollowitz in the 90's -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:38:56 (EST)
__ __ Yes, serious trouble for -:- Re: Dr. Hollowitz in the 90's -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:38:46 (EST)
__ Cynthia -:- Leaving it all behind... -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:07:58 (EST)
__ __ PatD -:- Meditation and emotions -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:09:05 (EST)
__ __ __ Francesca :~) -:- I definitely gave it all a rest when I left -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:32:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ PatC -:- getting rid of the religion -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 22:51:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ PatD -:- Re: I definitely gave it all a rest when I left -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:15:59 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- The necessary tension between exes -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 13:48:26 (EST)
__ __ __ . . . a tedious argument -:- of insidious intent [nt] -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:51:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Don't be stupid -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:09:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Yeah don't be stupid -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 22:47:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What? -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 23:02:32 (EST)
__ __ __ Cynthia -:- Beyond Policical Correctness... -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:48:14 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Great post Cynthia -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:35:55 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Ditto :) [nt] -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:21:36 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- To Francesca... -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 19:02:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Something in common -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:10:11 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: Something in common -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:31:18 (EST)
__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Maybe because the experience gained -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:05:26 (EST)
__ __ __ hamzen -:- Couldn't agree more (nt) -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:27:33 (EST)
__ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: The necessary tension between exes -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:23:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:55:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:38:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- I agree with you Mike -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:46:23 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- LoL! That's funny! -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:20:07 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- I also don't care... -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:11:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet -:- think about this -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 00:40:33 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Livia -:- The David Lane excerpt -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:39:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Chuck S. -:- Thank you, Livia... -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 15:26:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Get real, Fran -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:10:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Read your own statement -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:28:51 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh, Fran, you completely busted me! -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:41:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Moley -:- Hey Fran RE not challenging ? ;) -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:36:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:16:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:38:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- and me, Mike -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 19:32:13 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:48:39 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet -:- fran's taste vs. forum taboos -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:42:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Time for a Teddy Bear Picnic, Janet? -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 13:10:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Jim, that's just not nice at all... -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 17:02:24 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Not nice but completely justified -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 17:53:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Well, Jeezum Crow... -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 20:59:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Be fair now, Cynth -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 21:29:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: Be fair now, Cynth -:- Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:42:51 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Um, er, Cynth ....... -:- Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 15:17:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: Um, er, Cynth ....... -:- Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 15:42:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Not necessarily!!!! -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:11:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Wow, Dog, I never thought of it that way -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:16:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Wow, Dog, I never thought of it that way -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:58:29 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You have no right to ruin my sarcasm -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 19:34:27 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:44:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Really? Which ones? -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:57:44 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Really? Which ones? -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:24:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ janet -:- 'mindfulness', isn't it?? -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:22:55 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Bugger tradition! What about innovation??? -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 02:49:18 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Nope, not that one. Try again? -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:45:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Yes, that one. -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 22:47:43 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- Re: Yes, that one. -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:48:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Who said Buddha knew the score:) -:- Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 23:27:54 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Re: Who said Buddha knew the score:) -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:28:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- I am that I Am, Nige...ouch :) [nt] -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:53:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Kill the Buddha -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:05:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: Kill the Buddha -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:39:16 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- I can feel another -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:26:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Lamas are Tibetan Buddhism, NOT -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:02:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Lamas are Tibetan Buddhism, NOT -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:35:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca :~) -:- I too am suspicious of dedication -:- Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 20:33:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh no, it's Fran the Watchdog! -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:08:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mike Finch -:- Re: I can feel another -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:38:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- A nail in Buddha's coffin -:- Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:54:25 (EST)


Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:23:36 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: All
Subject: The trouble with regression...
Message:
I don’t mean 'regression' in any Freudian sense, nor 'age regression' / 'hypnotic regression' / 'past life regression' or any such nonsense. I am referring to a simple manifestation of a probability principle which can distort our judgement. (On-topic relevance coming later..)

A teacher wants to try out a new reading scheme for kids who appear to be struggling. She first designs a reading test to get a 'baseline' measure of ability. She then selects the half-dozen children with the poorest reading scores and puts them on a special literacy programme for a couple of months before retesting performance. In every case an improvement is found. Is this a reasonable approach to assessing the new reading scheme?

At face value you might think so, but there are design weaknesses which render the exercise dubious. First there are some well-known contaminating factors such as the ‘placebo effect’ (any intervention which is understood by the client/patient to be beneficial may become beneficial because of that belief) and the ‘Hawthorne effect’ (any innovative way of doing things tends to elicit improved performance – but for a little while only).

A more subtle danger lies in the ‘regression to the mean’ effect.

The teacher assumes the original poor performances in the test reflected lower ability in relation to the other kids. That, of course, may be a correct assumption. On the other hand, for a variety of reasons, those children might simply have performed poorly on the day of the test, and were thus – by their own, normally higher standards – showing themselves at their worst. (Had you run the test on a different day other kids might have scored lower.) As result, on any later reading test – irrespective of the novel reading scheme – simple probability theory will predict at least some improvement among the lowest scorers.

(Suppose, for some strange reason, the teacher had instead tried to identify the best in the class and then hinder their progress with a special scheme, the same principle would apply: these high scores would be more likely to fall back towards the class average anyway, than move further away from it – again, with or without any special treatment.)

There are several types of everyday intervention whose practitioners stand to benefit from ‘regression to the mean’ effects. I am thinking especially of psychotherapists, ‘alternative’ medics, ‘spiritual’ teachers and gurus. The effect might explain how it is that their pupils, devotees or clients invest time and effort engaged in practices which fail to deliver on promised miracle transformations. It might also explain why others fail to become interested in the first place (more of which later).

Some clients/devotees sign up out of curiosity – but those who stay more likely do so out of a sense of need. Typically their lives are at low ebb. You might compare the life-stress factors which nurtured that need to those which caused the children’s poor reading performance in the example above. Obviously you could never quantify those stressors in any precise way, but, variables being variable, you could reasonably apply some ‘bucket-maths’ to describe what I am talking about. (Sorry if any of you find such terminology ‘cold’ or ‘clinical’, but I can’t think of another way of describing the process – and, anyway, I think everyone unwittingly applies a similar rough arithmetic to quantifying well-being, unless, of course, you don’t share my belief that hunger + poverty + fear + bereavement = less, rather than more all-round happiness...?)

Suppose you were to construct a happiness index on which ‘100%’ = bliss / ecstasy / unshakeable euphoria, ‘50%’ = generally Ok, and ‘0%’ = suicidal misery.

There would inevitably be any number of contributory sub-factors (pick your own), such as: job satisfaction, high self-esteem, positive social interactions, creative expression, love-life, health etc. Every one of said factors will inevitably fluctuate independently over time. Say each of these added X% to your overall bliss tally. Chance alone dictates there will be any number of curve-ball episodes in the average life where everything seems to conspire against you. An evil, coincidental conjunction of shitty subfactors multiplied is probably enough to drive anyone into a Waco fortress or, perhaps, the loving spaceship of a Marshall Applewhite. The ‘need’ we are talking about is not handed down in our genes – it is mostly the consequence of sheer bad luck coupled with maybe some regrettable life decisions.

And, of course, from this low starting point, having signed-up to our chosen road to liberation, ‘the only way is up’ - as the song goes. Subsequent random fluctuations of those slippery somatic subfactors will almost guarantee a general improvement in your psychic or physical health over time. Not forever, but long enough for you to notice and remember. You might even start telling people about the way this marvellous new cure / path / lifestyle saved you from the depths of wretchedness, when simple regression to the mean would have sufficed.

Premies will sometimes inform you (after the 'Maharaji' said it first) that ‘happiness is not a consequence’. Sorry, but that is exactly what it is – even if the source of that happiness is diffuse, deriving as it does from a complex combination of causal factors (but always expressing itself in increased endorphin flow in the brain).

But as mentioned earlier, not all premies become involved from a sense of need. For others it may be simple curiosity. And – something I noticed over and over at the time – people whose lives were ‘on a roll’ and appeared to be naturally happy without any guru-guidance would often make the fastest exits. (You might compare these to the kids from the fast reading group. Regression to the mean will reduce life-quality during those significant early cult-encounters, rather than enhance it.)

The other important point about this multifactorial perspective, is it places a cap on the amount of happiness a person may feel – or at least a limit on its duration. Knowledge was packaged as being somehow above and beyond the world of cause and effect – and for no good reason. (Could, say, the death of a child not interfere with your ability to meditate? - Don’t be silly…) If meditation enhances your sense of well-being, then so be it – but don’t pretend it isn’t just one of many happiness factors, most of which we have a somewhat limited capacity to control. The idea of an infinite path of ‘further up and further in’ is simply not borne out in the experiences or behaviour of either M or his premies. If that much isn’t clear after thirty years, then what is?

To deal with this eventual and inevitable dissonance between the promise of Knowledge as packaged, and its day-to-day reality, a premie can do one of two things. Either get the hell out, or else redefine the whole trip and lower your expectations of what K is supposed to deliver. This last option appears to be the course adopted by makers of the ‘Passages’ video. Maharaji was never God and Knowledge never the keys to eternal liberation. (Nor, apparently is it for everybody!). All of which, of course, is true enough – but to pretend such claims were never made reveals a shameless disregard for truth and personal integrity on the part of many (who were themselves responsible for propagating those claims). I can only imagine that Mr Galwey and others must be desperate, on the point of baling out - or otherwise too far gone to notice or care.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 22:57:33 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: Re:regression to the mean...
Message:
hey nige--your thesis applies to the whole history of the human race, taken over time, as well.
and being that the mean is the middle, it has a good side and a bad side [lol]...
the bad side is that human nature hasn't changed at all in a million years, despite all the empires, religions, inventions and nations that have risen and fallen.
the good side is that knowing this, one can watch the passing parade and be immune to the hype that 'this time it's really IT'.
plus ca la change....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:59:54 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: This whole thread is fantastic!
Message:
No, seriously, great post, Nige. Completely.

This false creditting of M and K with improving one's life is really too much. How about all those premies who insist they'd be dead if it weren't for M? They were junkies, this that, maybe just travelling crybabies like Joan Apter. Anyway, they get their life sorted out a bit and M gets the credit for everything after? I don't thinnnnnnnk so! I mean, say they really were a junkie and quit when they got K. That's supposed to mean that all life and happiness for ever after is attributable to M?

That's what I was thinking when I argued with Raja Ji about whether or not I was happy in the ashram. So what if I was happy -- or not? What if I'm just so disposed, one way or the other, by nature? His was a trick question intended to extract undue gratitude, appreciation, clarity, etc.

I think this problem is probably reflected as well in the credit premies would love to give M for how it's all 'matured' so much. Hell, even if, for argument's sake, there IS some extra maturity to not dominating Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park and leafletting the whole world with anti-Doomsday bullshit, we're all a lot older. Now who gets the credit for THAT? My mum?

But yours was yet another excellent Nigel post. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 06:45:33 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Amaroo Regional Event announced
Message:
From www.amaroo.org:-

Maharaji has accepted an invitation to attend a three-day event at Amaroo from Friday 19th April to Sunday 21st April 2002. This event is for people who have received the techniques of Self-Knowledge.

This is a regional event with an Australian, New Zealand and Pacific focus. International guests are warmly invited to attend.

The information pack will be available on the 22nd
February.

The pre-payment option that has been open for the
past few weeks will close on 22nd February. Thank you for the wonderful support for this initiative.

Event and accommodation registration will open for
Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Taiwan, Fiji, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Tahiti and Thailand on the 1st March.

For people from other countries registration will open on the 16th March.

Registration will close on the 31st March.

Apart from locals being able to donate (oops, register) earlier, what's the difference between this regional event and an international event?

Also, note that Knowledge is now officially called Self-Knowledge.

John

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:23:39 (EST)
From: Does Self-Knowledge mean
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: the same as 'auditioning the finger puppets'
Message:
this is what my evil mind makes me think when I hear the new cult term self-K
[ Is this the same as self-K ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:22:51 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Does Self-Knowledge mean
Subject: Two Definitions
Message:
At home we had an Concise Oxford Dictionary bought when I was about 7 (1960) and the definition of Masturbate was 'Practice self abuse'. I looked up self abuse but it wasn't listed. When I grew older I bought myself a more up to date copy where the definition had changed to the more descriptive 'Produce an orgasm by exciting one's genitals'.

But really, if there is no proof that the experiences available through meditation are experiences of our real selves, or God, then Self-K has no qualitative difference to masturbation.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 07:06:22 (EST)
From: ~)ITortItawaputtytat~)
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Amaroo Regional Event announced
Message:
Oh you should come over and find out John! Beaches ,Sun,Good Food and wine,(terrific skating and ski jumping)
Pop over and find out what makes us different ~)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:58:18 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: ~)ITortItawaputtytat~)
Subject: Speaking of wine..........
Message:
I'll bring it. It's about time you tasted the real thing, Cat.

Send in my registration, while you can still get a bit of a discount.

See you soon,
Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:17:55 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: ~)ITortItawaputtytat~)
Subject: Hey, putty cat........
Message:
John also needs travelling company, I'll volunteer to accompany him.
We can share the same tent but since I'm married, not the same bunk. We can pretend like we are back in the old ashram days.

Anyway, John ask for two tickets. Meet you at the airport in London?

You're rich right Cat? This is just a lark. We'll even meditate with you. Looking forward to meeting both of you.

Tonette, bound (is that homeward?)for Amaroo

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 09:31:36 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: ~)ITortItawaputtytat~)
Subject: I'll come on one condition
Message:
You pay! You can easily get the funds to me by making a payment through PayPal (linked in www.ex-premie.org home page). As well as flight, I would need entrance costs and spending money. I'll let you work out how much it would be in total.

John the scrounger.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:40:57 (EST)
From: CW())
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: I'll come on one condition
Message:
John!Such effort.Have to examine the books-you dont feel like hitching as far as India do you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:46:42 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: CW())
Subject: You guys are faggots....
Message:
Don't you want to invite a tentmother?

What about me? Shit, I was even going to bring a case of wine.
3 people X 3 days X 3 'discourses from the master' = 27 bottles, make that two cases.

You two have a 'thing' for each other or something?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 16:43:01 (EST)
From: CW;)
Email: None
To: Tonette
Subject: No Not a CAMPING holiday!
Message:
Not at all Tonnette. I think a nude tanked up Tent-mother sounds essential!Dont forget the Honey ,Strawberries and liquid chocolate?
John can have his own tent!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 02:43:59 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: CW;)
Subject: So are we registered?
Message:
Did you purchase our tickets yet?

Should be a lark. I don't think the strawberries will make it thru customs though.

I'll tent with you, but not how you imagine. You'll have to pay our passage to find out. I need a travelling companion, that would be John who seems game for the adventure.

Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 16:51:07 (EST)
From: SCORPION-II
Email: None
To: CW;)
Subject: TROLL ALERT!
Message:
MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 21, 2001
FROM: SCORION-II, Chief of Security, Forum 7
TO: TROLL AVOIDERS
RE: CATWEASAL

It's come to my attention that a certain troll, known as Catwesal, has interrupted this thread.

Please proceed with caution.

Sincerely,
SCORPION-II

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:21:05 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: CW())
Subject: OK, I'll compromise
Message:
I'll get to Riga by my own efforts (about 50 miles). Can you take it from there?

John who remembers something about taking one step and Maharaji taking a million.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:03:23 (EST)
From: Bryn
Email: None
To: All
Subject: I learned nothing!
Message:
Below I was aking:'I've been out now for two years. I wonder what the pwks have learned in two years that I haven't?'. I asked this question based on an assumption that while I was a premie, I was learning as time went by. I now realise that that assumption is total bollocks. It's a trick of the light, a fantasy.

You don't learn anything from K. It hangs in front of you like a huge passive mystery and tells you nothing. Maha never speaks directly of it, implying that it is the Holy of holies, and that he as the technique-meister must therfore be God incarnate.

What you do get as your spiritual learning experience is a series of quickfire gems about life, gleaned from the teacher's stage routines. These you cling to and use as if you'd thought of them yourself They serve to surprise and off-balance non-premies whenever the topic of 'Life the universe' etc is raised. M 's got a million of 'em, and they can be quite pungent and disarming, conferring status, and confirming self esteem.

Tracing back my so called learning process, I find that it consisted in nothing more than a process of assimilating, repeating and then forgetting a long sequence of the master's gems and one liners!
Very very little more than that.

That plus access to a revelation myth, and an antique culture of mystical reverence in the eastern tradition. The social dimension and the process of growing older were the instructive dimension, that's where I learned, and I suspect that learning would have happened in any millieu one way or another.

I assume, because it was all good fun and things happened to me, that my cult days were a relevent part of a lifetime. But it would be very charitable of me now to assume that there wasn't an element of opportunism and spin involved in sustaining the whole show.

PWKs awake. I think you are just part of a rich man's hobby.

Love Bryn.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:51:27 (EST)
From: Silvia
Email: None
To: Bryn
Subject: Yes you learned!
Message:
You learn to feel bad about yourself, you learned to hate your own thoughts and observations. You learned to hate the world 'cause is so ugly according to Lard. You learned to disregard your family because HIS family was your real family, not your bitrth one. You learned to hate comfort, so your master could have his. You learned that EVERYBODY in the worls needs K (juajuajuajuahahahha). You learned that if you left K your life was going to stink like rotten vegetables. You learned to identify your own breathing system with Lard, as if he was breathing for you, inside of you. You learned to be a premie, one who believes everything that the master said. You learned that kissing the feet of another human being was okay. You learned a lot. Don't tell us you didn't. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:28:07 (EST)
From: Tonette
Email: None
To: Bryn
Subject: Besides learning nothing
Message:
I not only marked time in place but I actually regressed.

Everything has it's place in time but the Knowledge/Meditation trip and the Guru influence did nothing for me as an individual. All I ever got out of practicing Knowledge was confusion and very little real joy. In fact, I missed things! And the joy would of been mine anyway!

I'll not join the thread below but why would anyone want to spend their time and energy shutting out the world in order to discover their inner selves? Go to the gym or something. We're part of this world, no need to stick your head in the sand via meditation.

But that's my take. Regardless, Maharaji is not good for your head, your heart, your spirit, your relationships, your progress, your understanding. In fact, Maharaji is not good for anything. He likes to play with people sure. Has real charisma. Has people thinking he knows something they don't. The only problem is, he doesn't play nice.

I liked your post Byrn.

Sincerely,
Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 14:29:55 (EST)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: Bryn
Subject: Do bad habits not count ? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:28:02 (EST)
From: Alert the press.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Hide and Seek
Message:
Rawat is currently touring India. See 'Around the Planet' section of ELK. Satpal and the lead magazine 'India Times' have been alerted.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 23:12:34 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Alert the press.
Subject: then he can find jagdeo
Message:
and serve him the suit himself. can't he.
Kelly, call your man in india. deepak, was it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:11:18 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Alert the press.
Subject: Stupid game
Message:
Whoever you are, you're actually doing an excellent service to Rawat and EV doing this.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 03:19:31 (EST)
From: Loaf
Email: None
To: All
Subject: How to show ALL POSTS as default
Message:
I found a way !.. change your shortcut/bookmark to :

http://66.37.7.139/plus/plus.mirage?who=gl&all=yes

and the forum will automatically come up showing All threads

Heehee

This might be old news to you boffins, but I am chuffed.

Cheers Loafie :0)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:00:30 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Here's the link
Message:
http://66.37.7.139/plus/plus.mirage?who=gl&all=yes
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 03:35:45 (EST)
From: jethro
Email: None
To: Loaf
Subject: Thanks ofr that info
Message:
It's the little things in life that count.

:>)

Jethro

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 02:18:19 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Those cosmic experiences. Huh???
Message:
Joe posted an article, Blissing Out in Houston, by Francine du Plessix Gray, on Valentine's Day, February 14th. I am still reading the article, in bits and pieces – when saved to my hard drive, you understand, it's 19 pages long, so I'm reading it in bites.

I got to thinking about this quote, because it seemed germane to discussions that have been going on, on and off this board:

7 PM: I have dinner with Bob Hollowitz, the young doctor whom I saw collapsed in tears at the airport. He is a graduate of the University of Rochester Medical School, happily married, the father of a newborn son. . . .

'I'm suffering from the paradox of sufficiency and suffering,' he says. 'You see, I just didn't want temporary states of happiness as I occasionally found with mescaline…throughout the Sixties all my doctor friends were experimenting with various ways of expanding consciousness. But I wanted infinite happiness. I knew there was some cosmic truth that would be totally satisfying forever. I had gotten so close to it with some of the other experiences….'

I comment that most traditional schools of meditation—be they Buddhist, Zen, or Vedantist—urge one to remain on the side of brevity, starting at a few minutes a day, gradually working up to an hour over a period of months or years. Since Bob is a neurologist, does he not see any danger in plunging overnight into two hours of blissing-out sessions? But like most other premies he is uninterested in the traditional East.

'That's where surrender comes in,' the doctor answers, his eyes gleaming with adoration. 'Our meditation is passive and effortless, we just let Maharaj Ji do it for us…you've had this Knowledge inside you right along without recognizing it, so what Maharaj Ji does is to fill in the picture with one fell swoop, one big package…. At the time I received Knowledge I still couldn't accept him as God but later when I felt the lasting magnificence of that peace of meditation I accepted him….

Some ex-premies and current premies speak of cosmic experiences that they had in meditation when they first received K, that, they assume, led them know that 'Knowledge' and Mararaji were the 'Truth.' For many and most, those experiences did not last, and everyday meditation was not the cosmic, life changing experience it had been in the very beginning. Some people who are trying to exit the cult, or who have long exited the cult, have expressed some degree of confusion over these experiences. They are ready to leave the cult, or have left the cult, they see that Maharaji is a fraud, they may not even be practicing 'Knowledge,' but what about those experiences? There is a struggle or puzzle as to how to 'square' them with everything else that seems to be true. There is a clinging to them as seminal experiences of a deeper reality, the signposts on the road to bliss -- a longing for something left behind, perhaps not fully explored or explained.

What I wonder is whether, neurologically speaking, we had merely thrown our brains and our systems for a temporary 'loop.' Meditation was not something that many of us were doing, or were not doing seriously and regularly. Isn't it possible then, that plunging ourselves into long sessions of focusing on the techniques of K without introducing ourselves to the experience gradually merely had some interesting results? Instead of the normal sensory input that the brain was used to processing, we had several hours a day of doing the techniques of K with our eyes closed. We weren't sleeping, we weren't awake in the usual sense. It was something different. So, wowola. Some 'cosmic' stuff happened. Eventually, the brain got used to processing a few hours a day spent like that.

And to top it off, this meditation experience was taking place along with skazillion hours of satsang, and the 'realization' that the Lord was on the planet and had come for us!

I do know that what the interviewer was saying is true. I've heard Buddhist meditation teachers, for example, suggest that a beginner only sit down for 5 minutes at a time, then 10 minutes at a time, and that it was better to have several sessions a day of concentrated, focused time than to try and sit for long stretches. Most of us just went for it, at least in the early 70s, no holds barred. We left everything behind, or just about everything. We had sudden personality changes, we did things that were out of character.

The other thing I wonder is what happens to anyone, premie or non, when they think that the 'Lord' is alive and walking on the planet and that they can see 'him' and be accepted by 'him' as a disciple. Again, what does the brain do around that possibility? Is it possible that some of those cosmic experiences we had before we ever saw Maharaji, or the first time we saw him, were the product of the brain trying to process the foregoing information, especially with all the religious propaganda all of us were exposed to by religions we were brought up in, or merely by the society we came up in? First of all, that there is this 'Lord,' second of all, that this 'Lord' is alive and walking the planet? And then to actually be in 'his presence' and to 'know him'?

Frankly, I don't think I'd trust any of the experiences that happened in anticipation of 'Knowledge' or Maharaji, or my first contacts with 'Knowledge' or Maharaji, as some turning point or 'moment of truth' in my life. When looked at from this perspective, would you?

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:15:27 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: I did and still do
Message:
Frankly, I don't think I'd trust any of the experiences that happened in anticipation of 'Knowledge' or Maharaji, or my first contacts with 'Knowledge' or Maharaji, as some turning point or 'moment of truth' in my life. When looked at from this perspective, would you?

For me it was as strong, and not just from the beginning, but the learning from the journey even more so.
As importatant for me as my first 'one love' experiences on acid, and my first deep experiences on the dancefloor experiencing 'satsang' at a level and clarity I'd never experienced before, the kind of satsang 'experience' premies would have 'died' for at gm's festivals.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:22:17 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: Ah, but it sounds like ...
Message:
... you've seen the essence or universality of something, rather than gotten stuck on the Maha. And the 'learning from the journey,' is that 'neat tattoo' Richard Rogers talked about a while ago.

I'm talking about people who can't kick the Maha because of that 'deep' experience they had in the beginning that kind of glued them to the feet (defeat).

Bests,

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 19:59:17 (EST)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: neat tattoo
Message:
Francesca,

Funny what we recall from these posts. When I mentioned the 'neat tattoo', I was referring to a lost weekend (or couple of decades in this case) where you can't recall why you went or much of what happened but you have a souvenir tattoo to remind you of the time. For some, the remaining 'tattoo' is a curiosity and part of their character formation. For others, it's a mutilation that reminds them of their foolishness.

Mine is a curiosity because I think I gained value from my time served. M proved himself to be unworthy of my dedication, but it is the very act of dedication that taught me about myself. I created some very good design work while holding open the possibility of perfection. I learned to be responsible and work impeccably, traits that I profit from in business today.

If I had followed M literally and to the letter, perhaps my 'tattoo' would feel like a mutilation, too. I think I survived because I served a higher master than even GMJ presented himself to be. I served my own best interests. I bent the rules and never got distraught over whether or not I did the techniques correctly. Probably not 'surrendered ' in the parlance of the time but I took what I needed and left the rest.

And for the record, I have experienced non-attributed mediation to be highly beneficial. After walking away from M in 1987, I used to practice a variation on the techniques and I felt relaxed and had a clear and imaginitive mind. Attributing those experiences to M is what is destructive and causes co-dependence.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:05:23 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Richard
Subject: Postie speaks -- :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:31:26 (EST)
From: Postie
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: Postie speaks -- :)
Message:
Ah, so true dear Francesca. But if Postie speaks in the woods and there is no one there to hear him, will he fall down?

Ponder this Koan for 10 years and return with your answer.

Postie aka Richard, who has been walking in the woods, talking to himself and feeling the brain chemistry put a smile on his face.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:01:40 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Postie
Subject: Happy brain chemistry to you, Postie
Message:
I don't think too many premies did exactly what Rawat wanted after the 80s for the simple reason that what he said was so open to interpretation. He and us were winging it. We for love and he for money. So we got out of it whatever we wanted. As you said, the most important thing in finding your own feet is not to attribute anything to him.

I kind of like my tattoo too. It's a bit embarassing like something done on a drunken youthful binge but not without some whimsical or sentimental value.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:58:23 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Partly mental problems
Message:
Bob Hollowitz clearly had mental problems as outlined in the Washington Post article below, so it's no wonder he 'collapsed in tears.' A few years later, he expected others to see him, not Maharaji, as God.

BTW, I think it's interesting that the article said only 7,000 showed up for the first night of Millennium. No wonder the Astrodome looked so empty.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 13:08:46 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Only 7,000 Millennium 1st day
Message:
Quoting from the article:

At one o'clock the Millennium begins. Rennie Davis had predicted that the Astrodome would be filled to capacity, with 100,000 people weeping to get in; that CBS and NBC would be carrying it live, with Walter Cronkite as anchorman; and that George Harrison and Bob Dylan would receive Knowledge that very weekend. Reality sucks. There are some 7,000 people on the first day, and the only TV coverage of the event is being done by some underground California outfit.

How does Rennie Davis feel today about the amazing stuff he said back in 1973, aliens at the Astrodome being just one of the more extreme examples? He must be mortified, and I assume this is part of the reason he pretty much has exited from any kind of public life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 14:41:58 (EST)
From: Francesca :~)
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Does this remind me of the old days ...
Message:
... or what? Maharaji will never live Millenium down unless he comes clean. Of course he never said he was God. He said that Guru Maharaji was GREATER than god. And of course, he called himself, uh, uh, Guru Maharaji.

The numbers were interesting, because I also recall that Millenium was a commercial disappointment.

Can you imagine Blue Aquarius on Stax Records? And Stax sent a new R & B artist, I think his name was Eric Mercury, to do a performance at Millenium. I think there was a full-page ad in Rolling Stone. I vaguely recall that the premies didn't pay much attention to him. Yeah, they had a lot of good talkers back in those days. Some of it hasn't changed, has it?

I remember those early days because the bliss ball made obvious inroads into the 'real world,' what with clueless mayors and city governments giving the M-ster the keys to the city in ceremonies like the one where Pat Halley pied the piper. Then there was people like Rennie Davis, with real reputations to lose, spouting the same wild stuff as the premies. And the embarassment of Bal Bhaghwan Ji's (Sat Pal today) 'science.'

My cousin's son told me (back in the mid 70s) that he saw me on a TV documentary about Millenium or about Maharaji. Just one of those quick sound bites, I'm sure. I can't imagine what I said, but it is certainly bound to be cringe material. Hopefully it is buried in some celluloid graveyard or has been trashbinned long ago. There was a reporters with a camera crew and a microphone that descended on a family reunion at a Soul Rush rally in Boston like crows on carrion. They went away when I opened a present from my mother. It was some clean, new underwear. Now-a-days, they would have shown that on TV, but back then it was like, ooops! Sorry we asked!

The quotes from Gallwey are interesting, based on what he's saying now. Was Gary Girard reviewed for Passages, and did any of his statements in that article contradict the Passages stuff?

Didn't know that the doctor that was interviewed (neurologist) wigged out. That was sad.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:26:29 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: The illusion of large numbers
Message:
The way Maharaji and the premies spoke, it tended to create this illusion that there were large numbers of premies and large numbers of 'interested people,' when there never really were either. The number of active premies in the West was always pretty small and it's probably way less than half even that number now. Even now, the numbers the cult quotes are from India and as the authors said, those numbers are impossible to verify. They steadfastly avoid talking about actual numbers in the West because they are so pitifully small.

Some of the mayors (those were pretty innocuous commendations) thought there were more followers (potential voters), and also bought into this idea that hippies into drugs and filth cleaned up their acts and cut their hair when they became premies. A few testimonials like that got some of them interested.

Was Blue Aquarius ever actually on Stax Records?

Gary Girard was not in the Passages video, but Gallwey's comments are clearly lies in comparison to what he told that reporter in 1973.

Barbara is right that Joan Apter's letter to the editor sounds like it was written (badly) by a machine. It's scary. The authors' responses were right on, though.

I also thought Gary Girard's racist comments were revealing. I guess I have my theories about why hardly any black people were ever interested in Maharaji. They are along the lines of when a group of people have been fucked over for hundreds of years, they are little better at avoiding letting it happen to them again. Something like being able to spot a con a lot better than some upper middle class white kids looking for a way to get high all the time, and not being the least offended by the fact that they were devoting to a fat little putz who had a thing for Rolls Royces, Rolexes and gold toilets.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 23:30:04 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: about black premies
Message:
I have seen a couple of posts here and there that have mentioned the impression that there were few black premies.
I just wanted to lob into the circle theexception to that notion.
During the 70's, there was a period in which there was a community in, i beleive it was cinncinnati, where the entire premie community was black. I remember a story on it, in either Divine Times, or Light Reading, and i had friends who came from that commnity to Miami and later Denver.

so let's not get some juggernaut/snowball thing rolling, here, that gathers size as it travels. There were black premies, no less blown away than we whiteys were, nor the indians, or any other skin color.
In fact, with regards to race, i clearly remember various premies and aspirants i knew saying that they liked the fact that maharaji's racial mixture was so difficult to pin down; that they liked him because he didn't seem to be any one race, but rather a balance of all the races on earth, balanced out into one Universal race.

I heard the same said of his kids, too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:18:29 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Struck by a lightning bolt..DUH on me..
Message:
Hi Joe,

I always noticed the lack of African-American premies. And have been reading the argument between you and Jim about it.

Then a huge glaring word came into my mind: MASTER

Why would a descendent of slaves be interested in a LIVING MASTER, regardless of their skin color?

Food for thought...

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:03:30 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Exactlly Cynthia
Message:
And if you came from the African American experience, why would you join a group made up primarily of rich white kids from the suburbs and how could you possibly relate to them and their worshipping of a fat Indian guy pretending to be a slick, rich American?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:31:01 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Who was the black premie in WIGMJ?
Message:
In the film, 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji' there was a black premie who said something about the need for African Americans to receive knowledge as they made up such a large proportion of the population. Anyone know who this guy was?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:51:17 (EST)
From: It Could've Been
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Harry Payne (aka The Comb)? [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:24:03 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: It Could've Been
Subject: I don't remember
Message:
A black guy in Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? Does anybody have a copy of that? Richard, don't you have video of some of that older stuff? That would be interesting to see again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:30:27 (EST)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Joe, I don't have WIGM
Message:
But, I'll email you about sending you some of the other oldy moldy forbidden videos that didn't go in the fire during the book burning era.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:46:15 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: That was ME!
Message:
Oh, sorry, you're talking about that other minority. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:04:24 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Exactly Joe... [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:40:27 (EST)
From: Livia
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Re: The illusion of large numbers
Message:
Yep, Blue Aquarius really were on Stax Records - it was the second album. Hard to believe, I know, but true.

What you said about the lack of black premies is interesting, and probably true. I remember going out 'propogating' in a park in Houston before Millenium, handing out fliers to anybody and everybody. I'm English and I remember noticing that the black people there looked much more hip and confident than the black people in England did at that time. Most of them took one look at the fliers and laughed in my face - none of them looked like they needed Maharaji, that was for sure.

With love, Livia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:40:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: I don't think so, Joe
Message:
I also thought Gary Girard's racist comments were revealing. I guess I have my theories about why hardly any black people were ever interested in Maharaji. They are along the lines of when a group of people have been fucked over for hundreds of years, they are little better at avoiding letting it happen to them again. Something like being able to spot a con a lot better than some upper middle class white kids looking for a way to get high all the time, and not being the least offended by the fact that they were devoting to a fat little putz who had a thing for Rolls Royces, Rolexes and gold toilets.

I don't think that's the case. If it were, what about Louis Farrakhan? I think the main reason is that rejecting the world and setting off on quixotic journies to the east, real or imaginary, was a white, mainstream, middle-class and upper middle-class pursuit for the most part.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:36:19 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Completely Different Thing
Message:
Louis Farrakhan was also offering a political rationale to people, which was much more attractive than any Religion, although religion was the structure.

Maharaji, of course, was completely ignorant politically and offered nothing other than those other things you mentioned, mostly of the 'feel good' 'get high' and focus on your experience bullshit, just like EST, Lifespring, etc., which also attract very few minorities.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:30:13 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Hardly
Message:
Joe,

Black people can and do get conned just as easily as whites. Farrakhan's just an example. I still say that it wasn't that blacks were less susceptible to the con as that there weren't a whole lot of black hippies, new age seekers or the like.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:01:45 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Frankly, my dear
Message:
I don't really give a damn. :) But I do think that African Americans would be more skeptical than gullible white suburban kids to the con Maharaji was offering, just based on a generally different life experience, on average.

I had some experience with this because I made some black friends when I worked at the San Antonio Zoo, and when I was being a good premie and giving propagational satsang to them. They mostly just thought it was weird and couldn't relate, especially to Maharaji, who they thought was into it for the money. I think I've told the story about Padarthand and how racist he was towards African Americans. That was to the one co-worker who actually made it to satsang, but that was short lived.

A lot of white people thought the same thing, but some of the younger whites were attracted for the very reason that Maharaji looked "successful." The black younger people didn't feel that way.

Girard's racist comments were pretty enlightening, though, about what was right below the surface of all that luuuve.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:10:07 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Don
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:26:17 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Don't know why I keep saying 'Don'
Message:
It's like a bad knock-knock joke.

The fact is that it wasn't just blacks who rarely became premies. All sorts of minorities sat this one out, minorities that didn't have any particular history of oppression. Clearly, M's greatest catch was in the Gulf of Hippies and other related 'counter culture' waters. Naturally, when those first premies started spreading the disease they did so with their closest contacts, their old friends and family members, classmates, colleagues, people more generally like them demographically, than not.

That would explain as well why there was a disproportionately large number of jewish premies. Jews jumped into that counter culture stuff pretty heavily.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:44:08 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well, then
Message:
Jews were a minority to which your generalization does not apply. American Jews, like American Irish and to an extent Asian Americans, have been economically very successful, although they were all three discriminated against in the USA in their histories.

I think the key isn't 'minority' it's a disadvantaged, marginalized minority, like blacks and native Americans, for example. It makes people more skeptical, and more likely to be unable to relate. In the case of cult con-men like Maharaji, that turned out to be a good thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:41:28 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: No, definitely not
Message:
I think the key isn't 'minority' it's a disadvantaged, marginalized minority, like blacks and native Americans, for example. It makes people more skeptical, and more likely to be unable to relate. In the case of cult con-men like Maharaji, that turned out to be a good thing.

I think you're wrong suggesting that disadvantaged, marginialized minorities are inherently more skeptical than the rest of us. A key factor has to be education. As many such minorities have minimal education they're often sitting ducks for cons that would never work on more educated people. No, to me it's very obvious that identification with and interest in the early 70's 'Counter Culture' was what made so many of us white kids suckers for this cult. It wasn't that we were more gullible so much as we already had an appetite for the bullshit supposedly serving. Funny thing is, we should have had the educational armour to save us from this trap. However, we squandered much common sense in that anti-rational era. We abandoned reasonableness as boring and thus were completely susceptible to silly fads like teenage messiahs, the sillier the better. After all, what better way to prove one's possession of that most highly respected faculty back then, an 'opne mind'.

By the way, in your post before, you said you thought some of the younger white premies were attracted to M because he looked successful. That doesn't make any sense at all. We were attracted to him because he was the Lord, supposedly, and however he wanted to look was his business. I never met a single person who indicated, let alone said, that they wanted to get K because of M's expensive suits, etc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:49:12 (EST)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: no way
Message:
I completely disagree with your education theory and think it had little to do with it. And do you have one shred of proof that African Americans are more susceptible to 'cons' than whites are? No, I think there really is a much higher level of skepticism among minorities with a history of discrimination than among white kids from the suburbs who lead relatively privileged lives. I think that's just common sense. Even after the hippie-era, the recruits to M's cult have been mostly whites, although admittedly very few of those, partly, I think, because everyone is more skeptical now than they were 25 years ago.

My comment about material 'success' was that some people were attracted because he seemed to go against the 'rules' about materialism. That was a common theme, partly a rejection of the theory that you couldn't be both material and spriritual, as long as you weren't attached. I heard lots of people say that, and in a way it appealed to me as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 20:02:29 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: No way??
Message:
I completely disagree with your education theory and think it had little to do with it.

Are you serious? Are you saying that you don't accept as a general principle that the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be conned? There are exceptions and exceptions and exceptions. There are cons that only work if the subject's educated as they rely on and factor in that person's knowledge into the scam. I know that. But still, at the end of the day, it seems too true to even talk about that education innoculates people against deception. I can't believe you'd argue that point.

And do you have one shred of proof that African Americans are more susceptible to 'cons' than whites are?

No, of course I don't and that's probably why I never said any such thing. You, on the other hand, were arguing the blacks are less susceptible to being conned than whites. Remember? I take it you've got lots of evidence for that proposition. Do you?

No, I think there really is a much higher level of skepticism among minorities with a history of discrimination than among white kids from the suburbs who lead relatively privileged lives. I think that's just common sense.

It's sure not my common sense. I mean, Joe, it completely depends on what you're talking about being skeptical about. Street smarts? Sure. Religion and spirituality? No, not at all. I don't think there's anything particularly relevant in minorities' historical discrimination that would engender that skepticism. Think 'Jonestown'. Anyway, where's your evidence?

Even after the hippie-era, the recruits to M's cult have been mostly whites, although admittedly very few of those, partly, I think, because everyone is more skeptical now than they were 25 years ago.

It doesn't take a genius to understand how, once the cult established itself as a white kid's 'Journey to the East' without having to go anywhere, all recruitment was going to spread from that center. It's interesting but I get the impression that the new cult on the block, Falun Gong, does recruit largely within the North American asian community as well as within this latest generation of new agey white folk. Just depends on where the itch is and who's offering to scratch it. In M's case, we only learned about him because other white kids like us went out and found him for us.

My comment about material 'success' was that some people were attracted because he seemed to go against the 'rules' about materialism. That was a common theme, partly a rejection of the theory that you couldn't be both material and spriritual, as long as you weren't attached. I heard lots of people say that, and in a way it appealed to me as well.

I know there were all sorts of ways, conscious and maybe not so conscious, that we enjoyed M's image as the Rolls Royce guru. But that was once we were already in. I never heard of anyone being attracted to M for that reason and that was your original point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:56:17 (EST)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Native Americans at Millenium
Message:
This conversation on minorities has jogged my memory. My service at Millenium in Houston 1973 was to Meet and Greet the guests at the airport. I recall Bob Mishler arriving with a mob of Indian mahatmas, bais and others. They truly were amazing with their belongings rolled up in bedding.

But what prompted this post was a Native American man I met - the leader of his tribe. I was assigned to pick him up at the airport and one look told me this guy had more dignity and sincerity than a jumbo jet full of mahatmas. Being full of myself, I asked knowingly why he had come to Houston. You know, the old 'I know why your really here but want to hear it from you to confirm my own beliefs that this is truly the most significant event in human history', as it was being pitched.

His answer floored me because of its humility. He said something like 'They tell me the great one has returned to mother earth and I've come on behalf of my people to see if it is true.' Well, that blew my mind because I suddenly realized the heaviosity of this event. It wasn't a game anymore. Either GMJ was or was not all that he said. Our zealotry and $thousands in PR had attracted sincere people like this gentleman. It was a huge drip to my old Black-Elk-Speaks-reading hippy self because, down deep, I knew GMJ couldn't fill the shoes this man hoped he would. All the rest was side show at it's most pathetic and insincere.
Since that meeting, I have used his sincerity as a benchmark for how to judge (yes the J word) M. The sideshow was amusing at times but M has never lived up to that man's level or even his own pronouncements.

Richard runs with thoughts

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:12:34 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Don
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:10:07 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Don
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:00:35 (EST)
From: Marshall
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: L.O.T.U.
Message:
Francesca,
I'm surprised that you are unaware of the movie Lord of the Universe LOTU for short. A few people here own it and it has been kind of chain-mailed around, I saw it and sent it along. Anyway it's very funny, along with dark and disturbing. Interesting that you are one of the participants in LOTU. It certainly isn't 'buried in some celluloid graveyard or has been trashbinned long ago'
Definitely a 'must see'.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:11:34 (EST)
From: Francesca :~)
Email: None
To: Marshall
Subject: I know about L.O.T.U.
Message:
But I haven't seen it yet. So many of my friends have, that I doubt that I was in that one. Probably luckily for me, some East Coast TV station thought it was of interested around the time of the Millenium 'buzz,' made a documentary, and then archived it or tossed it. I know that before Soul Rush and Millenium, the premies were on TV shows in the Boston area several times. But usually all they had me do was sing a song, or our Soul Rush theater troup do something or other, and not do the talking.

Bests,

==f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:38:56 (EST)
From: Serious trouble for
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Dr. Hollowitz in the 90's
Message:
I think he is the one I saw on TV news for using his position as doctor to seduce his female patients. His involvement w/ M was also briefly mentioned in the report. I think it was in the D.C. area if this is the same cult member.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:38:46 (EST)
From: Yes, serious trouble for
Email: None
To: Serious trouble for
Subject: Re: Dr. Hollowitz in the 90's
Message:
Here is a Washington Post story on that Dr. Hollowitz. The guy clearly has mental problems, including thinking he was God, so his fainting, and having delusional experiences at Millennium shouldn't be surprising in retrospect and the least of his problems. Note the reference to "a kind of cultism":

7 Physician's License Suspended [Gaithersburg, MD]

Gaithersburg, MD, family physician Robert A. Hollowitz, 48,
has been suspended by the state medical licensing board in April
following allegations that he had sex and used illegal drugs
with several patients and portrayed himself as the 'embodiment
of God' on a mission to bring 'light and love into the world'
by fathering children. One former patient of Hollowitz, who
specializes in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome, said
he instructed her to find a motel room on pain of being 'cast
into darkness' with the devil, and that he smoked marijuana
during his midday liaisons with the woman, who attempted suicide
twice after she ended the relationship in 1990. The director
of the state Board for Physician Quality Assurance said, 'this
is definitely one of the most bizarre cases that has ever come
before the board. It deals with sex, drugs, and a kind of cultism.'
(From 'Doctor's License Is Suspended,' by Amy Goldstein, The
Washington Post, 5/1/93, D3)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 07:07:58 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Leaving it all behind...
Message:
Hi Fran,

What I wonder is whether, neurologically speaking, we had merely thrown our brains and our systems for a temporary 'loop.' Meditation was not something that many of us were doing, or were not doing seriously and regularly. Isn't it possible then, that plunging ourselves into long sessions of focusing on the techniques of K without introducing ourselves to the experience gradually merely had some interesting results? Instead of the normal sensory input that the
brain was used to processing, we had several hours a day of doing the
techniques of K with our eyes closed. We weren't sleeping, we weren't awake in the usual sense. It was something different. So, wowola. Some 'cosmic' stuff happened. Eventually, the brain got used to processing a few hours a day spent like that.

I wouldn't characterize what happened to our brains as 'cosmic,' because I haven't a clue what that means. But that's just one word. I'd call it being in a dissociate trance-state. We did what we were taught to do in the cult and obedience was mandatory.

This matter has been of great concern to me since so many new exes have been coming here for exiting advice and support. I do think it's important to discuss it and I've been looking for information about the affects any meditation has on the brain, but in particular meditations taught in a cult environment. TM has been found to be detrimental to followers and exiters both emotionally and physically. We were subject to commonly used cult-programming techniques. The meditation part was used to deprive us of our mind/thinking processes, not temporarily but for extended periods of our lives--years, and decades for some.

Mind control using ''knowledge meditation'' has obviously been quite injurious and dangerous based upon what so many exes have said here, as well as the reports I've read of other similar ex-cult members. The marathon meditations, satsangs, darshan, and work in a cult can cause dissociative states of varying degrees, exacerbated by exhaustion, and the brain/mind's struggle to find it's way out. This dissociation, depersonalization, or floating is also described By Margaret Singer as a state of control over a cult member during and after cult leaving. On some of the ex-cult sites I've read that cult exiters who have been in meditation cults should not meditate at all. Period. It's simply unhealthy to continue to use the techniques taught for purposes of mind control. Fact is, it may be very possible that all the elements of the cult have caused damage to our brains (in what particular way, is what I'm looking for).

Upon leaving a cult, it's been recommended by several experts that people not listen to new agey music especially to help one fall asleep. One recommendation is to put a talk radio station on to stimulate the brain (but not Rush Limbaugh):) Everything I've read so far about meditation/personality cults describes similar mind control routines. I don't think it's only our cult's brand of meditation because I've read that the Krishna cult members place themselves into trances during frenzied dancing and chanting. It's the same with the fundamentalist Christian cults which teach new believers how to speak in tongues in healing ceremonies. All enter a trance state and feel what we call bliss. Odd, that we all use that bliss word and claim to be saved. It's all learned behavior as part of the programming process. Because the brain/mind/emotions are placed on hold for extended periods of time, who knows what the brain is doing in a cult member's head. I remember having severe migraine headaches after I joined the cult and started in on the techniques. These were distinctly different from the types of dissociative/splitting headaches I used to experience because of my MPD.

In our cult, as with many others of this type, meditation, repetitive listening to discourses, receiving special attention as aspirants, and the total focus upon the master/messiah figure, as well as mandatory service all contribute to the state which is referred to as ''blissing out.'' I do believe that neurologically something horrible to our brains may have happened because of the overload of all of the cultic practices.

I'm seriously concerned about recent discussions here, with the usual varying opinions,:) of keeping knowledge and leaving maharaji. I'm concerned because those particular meditation practices are not only designed to place premies in a position of subserviant mind control, vis a vis, being tranced out, but have caused dissociation which ex-cultists have to learn through conscious practice not to do. I'm an expert on dissociation. Believe me, it took me daily practice for years to learn how not to dissociate. Then a point is reached when there is a natural control over the dissociative process in the brain/mind and emotional response. Post traumatic stress disorder is also a major factor because of flashbacks which may occur if the techniques are continued. I think it's very unhelpful to practice any meditation, even for relaxation, until that dissociation or floating is under control. If I had been a Krishna devotee and left that cult why would I continue to do my daily dancing and mantra chanting? It's all about mind control which I know has an affect on the central nervous system because I have personally experienced it, and I also have read similar accounts from other ex-premies and ex-followers of other cults.

We walk a fine line here, trying to give support to newly exiting premies (and ourselves) by saying ''it's a matter of choice'' to continue to practice knowledge by merely saying ''don't call it knowledge anymore.'' Frankly I think that's absurd. Either a person is leaving the cult and all of it's trappings or not. It dosen't make any sense to me to retain any aspect of the cult. I think it prolongs the exiting process. It's not only about the association of the knowledge techniques with Maharaji per se, or the length of time practiced as taught by maharaji. Maharaji's knowledge/meditation is a huge part of the whole package that was sold to us and aided
him in keeping us in his control by demonizing the mind.

I've been thinking about this a lot because there are some very fragile people who have come here and I won't partipate in making recommendations that could be dangerous to anyone's mental health. For new exes, I would recommend a few things: A. stop meditation immediately; B. cut off all personal contact with premies and the cult (unless it's a spouse or other unavoidable contact); C. take all photos of m, videos, audio tapes, and other trappings, including t-shirts, mugs, and other Visions crap, put it in a box, bury it in a closet and don't look at them until some emotional physical strength has been regained; D. Get off of all mailing lists related to the cult; and E. Start to reintegrate into the real world at one's own pace, i.e., go to movies, read, invite non-premie friends to visit or visit them. There are more, but I've been up all night and can't think of them right now.

The other thing I wonder is what happens to anyone, premie or non, when they think that the 'Lord' is alive and walking on the planet and that they can see 'him' and be accepted by 'him' as a disciple. Again, what does the brain do around that possibility? Is it possible that some of those cosmic experiences we had before we ever saw Maharaji, or the first time we saw him, were the product of the brain trying to process the foregoing information, especially with all the religious propaganda all of us were exposed to by religions we were brought up in, or merely by the society we came up in? First of all, that there is this 'Lord,' second of all, that this 'Lord' is alive and walking the planet? And then to actually be in 'his presence' and to 'know him'?

Again, I don't believe anything comic happened. I have to admit I have an aversion to that word, but Fran, don't stop using it because of me. The experiences we had were a result of intensive cult brainwashing. Period. Nothing cosmic about it. We were sold a bill of goods and ate it whole. My opinion is that all of the aspects of cult indoctrination caused something to happen in the brain/thinking circuitry (and I'm still looking for some scientific verification on this), which is connected to our perceptions that caused us to adapt and adopt distorted thinking patterns. This also caused us to be emotionally dysfunctional and develop dissociative reactions.

I gave up my free will and my freedom of thought and action to maharaji and the cult. Hallucinations, mass hysteria happen in cults every day. Why did people believe Jim Jones was God? Same thing, different bill of goods.

Fran, I know you meditate and I believe you are a strong woman and if it gives you something I don't fault you for it. I am not criticizing your personal choices. But here, where people are leaving a meditation/personality cult, I would never recommend meditation.

Best
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:09:05 (EST)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Meditation and emotions
Message:
Great posts Francesca & Cynthia. Two sides of the same coin IMO.

I've always been curious about how meditation works in the physical sense, & came to the conclusion a long time ago that in some way, at some times,& for some people it brings one close to death. Or at least mimics death. I have no objective proof for this supposition.

Why this should be so I have no idea,& if the supposition is wrong then obviously even less than none. I do think that taking an ideological stand on whether or not there is a god based on these sort of speculations is irrelevant.

After the cult loosened up in the '80's my meditation practice became irregular. I didn't feel guilty anymore if I missed a session & so missed many. At the time I thought what a great master the Bollix was for having untightened the thumbscrews.

When I hadn't meditated for a while though,I used to feel uneasy or something,fragile,on the edge,something like that,& had to go back to it. Those periods of not meditating were never longer than a couple of months.

Now I haven't meditated for the 16 months since I found EPO & found out the truth about GMJ. I haven't felt any need to at all,which makes me conclude that the only reason I felt the need in the past was because of how it was all mixed up with the belief system around Rawat.

This is a very complicated subject & I have to say that I agree with you both. Some people do get benefit from doing it & for others it can be dangerous. I certainly agree with you Cynthia that anyone leaving Rawatworld through reading these pages should give it a rest for a bit & see what happens.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:32:27 (EST)
From: Francesca :~)
Email: None
To: PatD
Subject: I definitely gave it all a rest when I left
Message:
It seemed that my 'practice' of K dwindled down to almost nothing. Five to 10 minutes of the breath stuff, without much of a thought of doing anything but starting my workday in a calm manner. It may be a necessary part of the process for many of us, and for some of us, of course, a good idea to just quit -- at least K -- for good. Then when I did get interested in doing some form of meditation again, it was without the premie-ji you are spacing out twinges and the Maha baggage. I was overall more interested in techniques that put me in my body and in touch with everything around me, and helped me to chill out, rather than techniques that spaced me out and got me into disassociation.

Since there are so many different types of people that have ended up so many different types of ways based on personal, societal and environmental influence, and there are so many different types of meditation techniques, some not connected with with 'mind control' or cults, it's impossible to make an absolute statement as to the goods and bads of it.

That's why I think M is now trying to lump his K-lite version into self-knowledge. Then it's more like an innocuous self-help sort of thing. But it will never work, because he needs planes, boats, accountants and lawyers. And sycophants to treat with disdain, it seems.

Bests,

F

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 22:51:42 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: getting rid of the religion
Message:
Back in the cult I used to feel lousy if I did not meditate every morning religiously. When I quit practicing it as the religion of Maharajism, I did what and when I wanted and felt none of the religious guilt which is what made me feel lousy - like grabbing a hamburger after satsang at the ashram back in the days when only Rawat was allowed to eat meat or sneaking a smoke during breaks at festivals.

To me the most important thing is to rebel against the religion whether that means quitting meditating or doing another one or even doing more as I did when I first got out. I did that in rebellion because the current cult attitude toward meditaing, the new phony K-lite, is just so much like plastic mall music I felt like a nice loud symphony.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:15:59 (EST)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Francesca :~)
Subject: Re: I definitely gave it all a rest when I left
Message:
That's why I think M is now trying to lump his K-lite version into self-knowledge. Then it's more like an innocuous self-help sort of thing. But it will never work, because he needs planes, boats, accountants and lawyers. And sycophants to treat with disdain, it seems.

Can't disagree with that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 13:48:26 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: The necessary tension between exes
Message:
Great post, Cynth. There's a necessary tension between exes who think that Knowledge is legit or at least somehow beneficial or, failing that, innocuous at worst and those of us who think it's bunk and unhealthy and disorienting. What disturbs me so much is how a climate of sorts has developed in which it's not politically correct here for people to argue about this. It's as if everyone thinks there's this safe general point on which we all can agree -- 'M bad' as in Pat W's recent post 'Knowledge good / M bad' -- and any further debate on the actual meditation is almost bad form. I'm sorry, leaving M DOES open a whole can of worms. It SHOULD cause people to re-examine all of their related practises and beliefs. It's most unfortunate the way that kind of scrutiny is frowned upon here as brow beating. Most unfortunate indeed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:51:47 (EST)
From: . . . a tedious argument
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: of insidious intent [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:09:14 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: . . . a tedious argument
Subject: Don't be stupid
Message:
Coward!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 22:47:36 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Yeah don't be stupid
Message:
Coward!


---

Haven't I explained why I choose not to use my real name here? And haven't I explained this about five times?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 23:02:32 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: What?
Message:
You posted your insult to me without even your usual cartoon character name. So how the hell am I supposed to know it was you? Are you retarded or something? You know the rules, Dog, and you broke them. Why? Because you wanted to take an anonymous pot shot.

By the way, your reason for not using your real name is worthless. So what if you're married to a premie? Big deal. What's that got to do with anything? You have absolutely no security issues that I'm aware of. You're just a coward. You don't want to have other premies who really know you in your town hear what you have to say here.

Anyway, don't do it again. If you want to post without your chosen name -- don't.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:48:14 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Beyond Policical Correctness...
Message:
Jim,

There's a necessary tension between exes who think that Knowledge is legit or at least somehow beneficial or, failing that, innocuous at worst and those of us who think it's bunk and unhealthy and disorienting. What disturbs me so much is how a climate of sorts has developed in which it's not politically correct here for people to argue about this. It's as if everyone thinks there's this safe general point on which we all can agree -- 'M bad' as in Pat W's recent post 'Knowledge good / M bad' -- and any further debate on the actual meditation is almost bad form. I'm sorry, leaving M DOES open a whole can of worms. It SHOULD cause people to re-examine all of their related practises and beliefs. It's most unfortunate the way that kind of scrutiny is frowned upon here as brow beating. Most unfortunate indeed.

My concern is not about there being a taboo about discussing meditation here, quite the contrary. I think it must be discussed. I re-read the 'Knowledge Good/Gurus Bad' thead and it struck me in a different way than when the arguments took place. Btw, I don't like the term 'argue' per se because I am not good at it, not in a scholarly way, anyway. Good, healthy discussion would be my preference, but everyone has their own approach.

I am not out to debunk the benefits of some meditation practices, either. I am also not out to argue the existence of a higher power or universal life force, either. I know you are an aethist, but Jim, you ain't gonnna convince everyone about your beliefs.

My serious concerns are that this forum and EPO have become places where exiting premies, ex-cult-members, are coming to look for relief and advice and support for their own existing process. We cannot ignore that and must be responsible and informed about helping these folks out. I question those who claim that Maharaji's meditation is okay. Maharaj's capital K Knowledge played one of the most important roles as part of the cult programming processes because it placed premies in a state of submission because of the length of time we meditated, the devotion and connection to Maharaji, and the fact that prolonged meditation places premies in a beta state, rather than an alpha state, i.e., know as being ''flat.''

I particularly question the ex-premies who were trained instructors (and to those of you who were, this is not meant to offend you) making statements that K is good, because they received a much heavier dose of cult progamming and need to reassess what took place there. I don't look to them as the experts here and I find it dangerous for anyone, especially the ex-instructors here, to say that 'Knowledge is good and okay to practice.'

My post may have painted a dark picture on meditation as John stated below. That was my intention. I see no distinctions between Maharaji and the Knowledge meditation techniques. IMO both are bad. Knowledge was the hook or tool used along with other programming techniques to recruit new cult members. It caused damage, the proportionsof which we need to explore, seriously and in a stable manner, perhaps with the help of some experts who do cult exit counseling. I'm looking into that, also.

I wish I counted the number of times I have heard new exes, some who are very fragile emotionally and physically, express that they are ''floating.'' This is a symptom or after affect of leaving what I have come to consider a dangerous mind control cult--Maharajism and his Knowledge meditation.

So I want my issue here to be clear. Knowledge and Maharaji are inseparable. To suggest that's it's safe to continue practicing the techniques is irresonsible, IMO. What Barbara said below stated my feelings exactly. She said that she was in a state of confusion and when her friend suggested she stop meditation, she snapped out of it. Very telling, don't you think?

And as I said in my post here: If I was in the Krishna cult, why on earth would I continue to chant and perform frenzied dancing at home, when that's what I am trying to escape?

Again, I am not up for big arguments here but informed and responsible conversation. I am concerned about ex-premies being able to get information about what is the healthiest way to leave the cult. We cannot just say that this is a public forum and anything goes. Those of us involved with this forum and EPO have responsibilites by virtue of our presence here on F7.

I'm open to discuss this. And I'm not upset. Just very concerned.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:35:55 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Great post Cynthia
Message:
It really clarifies your views, and I think what you are saying is reasonable!

Bests,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:21:36 (EST)
From: Deborah
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Ditto :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 19:02:59 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: To Francesca...
Message:
Thanks Fran,

My first post was in no way intended to disparage your beliefs and life practices.

When that first thread 'K yes, M no' was going on I intentionally avoided it because I don't like to argue. Of course, with exceptions. ;)

I enjoy good stimulating conversations and learning from others' points of view then coming to my own conclusions. I suspect you are the same.

I also feel a responsibility as someone who has been away from the cult from some time, to help others work through their difficulties. That's just how I am. I like to help others, especially those who come here for help.

Again, thanks,
Be well,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:10:11 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Something in common
Message:
Cynthia,

I was not diagnosed with a disassociate disorder, but I did suffer from extreme disassociation as a teenager, and then got in trouble after a while because I could no longer turn it on and off. It started when my folks would sit me in a chair and yell at me as a teenager. I found a way to escape and 'not be there,' rather than listen to them. (Yes, they were extreme and I was stubborn.) Eventually it spaced me out because I could not control that ability. Due to dealing with some other mental traumas at about age 18, I finally got that back under control.

I can be so spacey that, for me, focusing and concentration in meditation has the effect of making me less spacey. But of course, it depends upon exactly WHAT one is focusing on!

Love,

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:31:18 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: Something in common
Message:
Francesca,

I never knew that about you, thanks for telling me. I always feel honored when someone tells about difficulties in life with parents. In my case, I had to seek help because I was like a revolving door with the dissociation which brought me to a point I couldn't function in the world.

I like your sentence: ''I can be so spacey that, for me, focusing and concentration in meditation has the effect of making me less spacey. But of course, it depends upon exactly WHAT one is focusing on!''

Especially...''depends upon exactly WHAT one is focusing on!''

Thanks, Fran,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:05:26 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Maybe because the experience gained
Message:
from the practice enhanced their sense of 'spiritual' reality, or maybe it enhasnces their sense of god's presence.

re your comments re kriashnas who've left.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:27:33 (EST)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Couldn't agree more (nt)
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:23:03 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: The necessary tension between exes
Message:
What disturbs me so much is how a climate of sorts has developed in which it's not politically correct here for people to argue about this

I agree with John below that I thought there was a good debate from time to time on this, and I do not detect that it is politically incorrect. I thought you and Francesca had a great debate going a few days ago - I enjoyed it thoroughly.

I think it is important to clarify terms here. For example, I find even your phrase

'Knowledge good / M bad' -- and any further debate on the actual meditation...

confusing. In my opinion we have 3 terms:

1) 'Knowledge' meaning just the 4 techniques that M teaches;

2) 'Knowledge' meaning the 4 techniques plus all the devotion, surrender and grace and the whole belief system that a premie has to swallow in order for them to be 'practising Knowledge'.

3) 'Meditation' which is a huge term to signify practically anything that is a repeatable attempt to fix one's attention on some part of the mental world.

So when you say:

There's a necessary tension between exes who think that Knowledge is legit or at least somehow beneficial...

which version of Knowledge are you meaning ?

For me, Knowledge meaning the 4 techniques only, I think is innocuous, but also pretty empty. Knowledge in the 2nd meaning, being to give over your life to Maharaji in many ways, of which the Knowledge techniques are one, I unequivocally reject.

But to go from this position to assert that everything that can legitimately be called 'meditation' is ' bunk and unhealthy and disorienting' is a far stretch.

For me personally (and I think for Francesa, although I am not speaking for her) I have found a form of mental activity, which is one particular type of 'meditation' that I find rewarding and valuable. It is a million miles from Knowledge in either of the two senses I define above.

To argue that 'Knowledge is a waste of time, therefore all meditation is a waste of time' is a logical non-sequitur that is pointed out in the first lesson of any logic course -- the fallacy of arguing from one particular instance to universality.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 15:55:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad
Message:
I think that, at a minimum, the word 'Knowledge' means a special kind of knowing that surpasses all others. That's why it gets to be called 'Knowledge' with a capital 'k'. It's like 'Truth' with a capital 't'. The very notion suggests that all other variants are inferior.

But how could that be? Well, the way the story goes, there is indeed a greater reality inside. 'Knowledge' lets you experience it and it does so by allowing you to get past your mind. Your mind, therefore, becomes the enemy if for no other reason than the fact that it's in the way. That's a hefty assumption and one, I believe, that's wrong and unhealthy.

Now, I guess it's possible, theoretically, for someone to use the word 'Knowledge', capital 'k' and all, to mean nothing more no less than four meditation techniques. But, even then, the techniques are still understood as the vehicles to get you past your mind. It's still in the way any way you look at it.

Now, the reality is, that this 'Knowledge' idea comes laden with much more baggage than that. This was, after all, the supposed revelation of our true selves which we expected to somehow take us over as it cast of our worldly personalities like molting snake skin. It was Maharaji himself within each one of us. It was the most precious gift of all gifts, the very thing that Milarepa had to build and tear down those three stone houses for. It was the only life saver we had in a drowning world of death and illusion. It was the sole property of the one and only Lord incarnate. That is, beyond question, a lot of baggage and I, for one, don't think that people who still do the meditation, even if they reject Maharaji, have truly jettisoned all those concepts. Do you?

Anyway, as for Fran and my discussion the other day, you might have enjoyed it thoroughly but this was her final say on the subject:

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.

which just proves my point.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:38:59 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad
Message:
I, for one, don't think that people who still do the meditation, even if they reject Maharaji, have truly jettisoned all those concepts. Do you?

No, clearly they haven't - but you are using the phrase the meditation -- so presumably you are referring to Knowledge here. I agree with you: If you reject Maharaji, and yet still practise Knowledge, as premies mean the term with all the baggage, then that seems to me a pretty glaring contradiction.

My point is the fact that you in other posts you come close to arguing: If you reject Maharaji, you must reject Knowledge (I agree); if you reject Knowledge, then it makes sense to reject everything that can conceivably be called 'meditation' (I don't agree).

That is all. As far as Fran is concerned, I am not speaking for her, and I apologise to both of you for coming to close to that in my previous post. When you quote some of Fran's last post, and then say it 'proves my point' I am afraid I am not sure exactly what the point is.

I think we agree that Maharaji and Knowledge are so inextricably entwined that you must reject both or neither. I am more interested in the much, much bigger topic of 'meditation' in general - in particular, I find the argument I practised Maharaji's meditation, but I now reject Maharaji, so I reject all meditation as being disappointing and as I said, a non-sequitur. Of course, people may feel this, and that is fine. My point is simply that it is possible to reject Maharaji and Knowledge, and yet find another meditation in a totally different tradition beneficial and worthwhile - that is all !!

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 18:46:23 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: I agree with you Mike
Message:
And don't worry about 'speaking for me.' Trying to understand someone else is not anything to feel sorry for.

The fact that I chose not to continue a debate with Jim is not grounds for Jim to say that he can't debate with others on this Forum. It's not like there was anyone agreeing with the POV I expressed in that post, for cripe's sake. For the record, no one jumped into that part of the thread and expressed an opinion either way (unless I missed something that was posted in the past little while or something). In fact, other people (like you) have been telling Jim (in other threads) that they welcome debate or at least don't mind it.

For the record, I don't mind a little of it -- I just don't want a full cavity search by the Skeptics Society. I do not bend spoons! Honest!!!

Bests,

F

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:20:07 (EST)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: LoL! That's funny!
Message:
'...full cavity search by the Skeptics Society'

... attention all Skeptic Security forces - suspect found to be carrying 2.5 grams of belief in the left ventricle ... security procedures are in operation ... this must not be allowed to occur again ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:11:05 (EST)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: I also don't care...
Message:
... to spend time 'debating' the merits of meditation. What the heck for? If you like it, good for you. If you don't, fine. I couldn't care less.

When I first started posting here, some folks really were bothered that I still meditate, and kept urging me to stop it. I felt it was really none of their business, but I did listen to their reasons. Some of them were very good reasons, good reasons for THEM, considering their experiences. It might be a good option for many people, but I think that is for each individual to decide for his or her self. I left the cult, so that I COULD decide for myself.

There have been comments on the forum from time to time, about people who meditate being 'breath-watchers' or 'navel-gazers', somehow mentally deficiant, which I find rude and insulting. It almost made me stop posting on the forum altogether.

But then I realized that the forum was just like the real world; people can be rude and insulting about things they strongly dislike. And as one of the meditation haters himself told me, this forum is not a cult, nobody here has to agree with anyone about anything. That was one of the best pieces of advice I was given here, and I hope any new people reading or posting here will take it to heart, because it is exactly opposite of what the cult did or tried to do to us. You are free to think anything you wish, just as anyone is free to argue with you about it.

It also helped me realize that 'meditation' really is such a subjective thing anyway, I couldn't even 'defend' it if I wanted to. Besides, does it even NEED defending? People who hate it are certainly entitled to that opinion. I could waste my time arguing about why I meditate, but WHY? I don't NEED anyone to agree with me about it being a good or bad thing, anymore than I need anyone to agree with me that Opera is better than Baseball. I can think of lots more enjoyable things to do with my time than argue about meditation.

Many people who have stayed in the cult for many years may have done so partially because they percieved some benefit from meditation. Like me, many may be shocked to find that the so-called special, secret techniques were really the most common garden-variety yoga techiniques, freely available from many sources. Maharaji claimed he was stripping away religion and making it all very simple, but actually, he took something very simple, and made it complicated. Religion often does this. In India yoga is often mixed with religion, and he simply modified some of that Indian religion to make it more palitable to westerners.

He dropped some of the Indian trappings, claiming to make it all simpler, but it was still the same old bhakti ju-ju old-time religon, aimed at a western audience.

I think David Lane's description on EPO, of when David revealed the techniques to his high-school and college students, and his observations of their reactions, showed how simple yoga without religion can be. No Aspirant Process or Guru necessary to have an 'experience'. Just being alive is enough.

So if premies really do reject Maharaji and his "Knowledge", but want to explore other forms of meditation, because they did like sitting quietly sometimes, they can. They don't need anyones permission or approval. After leaving a cult, that is the LAST thing anyone wants to feel.

P.S. There is also a great irony here, that I think is lost on some of the old timers who left the cult many years ago. All this fuss about meditation! And all those things you were told about KNOWLEGE so many years ago...

In the last few years, before I left the cult last year, it seemed like Maharaji talked more and more about himself, and the importance of The Master, and less and less about 'Knowledge'. In fact, it seems that in recent years, he has spent more time talking about what Knowlege can't/won't/doesn't do, than what it DOES do for you. There were many times when he would be going on about what it won't do for you, and I would think, ''Geez, he only ever talks about what it DOESN'T do. Why would anyone even want THAT?''.

What Knowedge ''IS'' and or "does" has been deliberately kept nebulous. The techiniques are only a part of M's Special K package, and Maharaji has even said at times that Knowledge isn't really even meditation (I agree. How about 'Bhakti'?). He has been claiming less and less for 'Knowledge' and what it does, lest it should compete in importance with 'The Master'. 'Knowledge' doesn't really do anything, The Master does it all. At least Maharaji would have you think so. Many thoroughly modern PWK's will tell you that the meditation techiniqes are really quite incidental, which is why they have been religated to DVD. MAHARAJI is what it's all about.

Joy once said to me that Maharaji just used the yoga techiniques as a lure to get people interested in him. She was exactly right.

Maharaji isn't the first crook to take something simple like some yoga techniques, mix it with a lot of crap and lies and get rich from it. He won't be the last either. But meditation is a broad catagory in itself. I see no reason why it can't be separated from those who have mixed it up with religion and used it to enrich themselves.

Those who think meditation is a bunch of crap are certainly welcomed to think so. It's not a big deal. But if anyone wants to talk about people who meditate as being navel-gazing, breath-watching morons, they will just have to excuse me if this breath watcher doesn't say ''Thanks for sharing''. I don't see that being vehemently against meditation in any and all forms and circumstances is particularly helpful to anyone.

Just because The Goober used meditation as a lure, doesn't mean every form of meditation is a danger to be feared and loathed. That's too much like believing in ju-ju.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 00:40:33 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: think about this
Message:
. i was going to start a fresh thread at the top, but this actually illuminates more by being put right here.

this is a joke that came in my mail yesterday. it is couched putting Enron at the the center of the joke, but it suddenly dawned on me that Maharaji is working the same game, and this is why we are so irrelevant to him::


a self employed entrepreneur moves to a new territory, looking for someplace to set up shop.
he meets a neighbor who has a farm, a ranch, really, and asks the man if he would sell him a work animal he can use to start some projects. the neighbor says sure, I've got a donkey I can sell you for $25.
the new guy peels off 25 bucks, hands it to him, shakes his hand and says 'fine. bring it over, first thing in the morning.
next day, the neighbor appears at the guy's door, all regrets, and informs him that during the night, unexpectedly, the donkey died.
the new man asks if he can have his money back, and the neighbor shakes his head, and tells him he's already spent it and has no more.

not to be phased, the new man debates a minute with himself, then turns to the neighbor and says 'don't worry about it. bring the donkey over this afternoon'.
the neighbor isn't sure he heard right and asks if that's what they guy is sure he wants: a dead donkey. the guy affirms that it is, since he bought and paid for it, and he owns it now.

The next day the neighbor drives his truck over and delivers the dead donkey. He asks the new guy what on earth is he gonna do with it? Grinning, the new guy says 'you'll see'.
a month goes by and the neighbor stops back by to find out what the new guy ended up doing with his unfortunate DOA purchase. He still feels badly for not having been able to give the guy a viable animal, nor get him his money back.
The new guy hears this out, then guffaws freely and takes out a roll of hundred dollar bills and regales him with this story:
'after you went home that day, I took out an ad in all the papers, the tv, the radio stations. I announced I was holding a raffle for this donkey, and the winner of the raffle at the end of a month would get to take home this fine animal for their own'.
'I sold my tickets at 2 dollars apiece, and do you know, I took in a thousand dollars ?'
'on the day of the raffle, I drew a name out of the barrel and contacted the fella who'd bought the winning ticket.'
'Well, ya know, he drove over here to claim his prize, and when he saw that his donkey was dead, he made a big fuss and demanded that i give him his money back'
' so did. I gave him his 2 dollars back, shook his hand, and told him how I was sorry to disappoint him, and saw him to the gate as he drove off, and then I came back here, to find you a'waitin to chat with me. I figure, between the $25 I lost to you, and the $2 I gave him back, I made $973 out of the deal'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:39:48 (EST)
From: Livia
Email: None
To: Chuck S.
Subject: The David Lane excerpt
Message:
This is the passage by David lane that Chuck mentions above, in case anyone has trouble finding it:
THE KIRPAL STATISTIC
Using Inner Visions to Your Social Advantage
The Indian Background Index
Excerpt from:
Author: David Christopher Lane

'It turns out that almost everybody has the inherent ability to see inner light and hear inner sound. Moreover, almost everybody has the capacity to have an out-of-body experience and behold wondrous inner visions. You don't need to go to an Indian guru to have such experiences indeed, you don't need to go anywhere at all.

But that's not what Kirpal Singh and his successors told their vast following. Instead, unsuspecting seekers(who number in the thousands) were taught to believe that it was the guru himself, not the disciple, who was orchestrating the elevation of the soul into higher regions. But Kirpal and crew were not being completely forthcoming about the mechanism which governs access to such amazing sights and sounds. That mechanism is the brain and that three pounds of glorious tissue is the lot of all humans.

In the early 1980s when I was teaching religious studies at a Catholic high school, I tried several meditation experiments with my students which convinced me that Kirpal Singh and other gurus like him were taking undue credit for their disciples' inner experiences. In my trial mediation sessions, I informed my students beforehand about the possibility of seeing inner lights and hearing inner sounds.

Naturally, given the boring routine of secondary education, my students were intrigued. I informed them that I knew of an ancient yoga technique that would facilitate their inner voyages. I turned the lights off, instructed them briefly about closing their eyes gently and looking for sparks of light at the proverbial third eye. I told them that I would touch some students on the forehead lightly with my fingers. They meditated for some five minutes. I then proceeded to ask them about their experiences.

[Kirpal Singh invariably did such a process directly after his initiation ceremonies; he also kept a running tally of how many saw stars and so on-something which I have called the 'Kirpal Statistic'.]

To my amazement, since I felt that Kirpal Singh and others were actually transmitting spiritual power, the majority of my students reported seeing light. A few students even claimed to have visions of personages in the middle of the light. Others reported hearing subtle sounds and the like.

I repeated the experiment on four other classes that day. I have also in the past ten years conducted the same experiment on my college students (both undergraduate and graduate). The result, though differing in terms of absolute numbers, is remarkably the same. The majority see and hear something. It doesn't take a neuropsychologist or a sociologist trained in statistics to realize that Kirpal Singh and others were simply tapping into an already built reservoir of meditational possibilities.

What was unique about Kirpal's approach, at least in comparison with other Radhasoami gurus, was that he claimed to be the responsible agent, the medium through which such inner experiences can be transmitted. Kirpal's disciples generally did not question his grandiose claims, since many of them did indeed see and hear something during their meditation. What they, of course, did not fully appreciate was that almost anybody could have induced them to have inner experiences.

[I don't mean to suggest, though, that Kirpal Singh was not a good catalyst, but only that he was not unique and that his success at providing thousands with access to inner lights and sounds was not necessarily connected to his mastership.]

Religious devotees seem overly eager to give up responsibility for their own neurological happenings, believing instead that it takes a 'Master' to draw their attention 'within.' This may or may not be the case (and I am not implying that gurus don't have anything good to offer), but one thing is certain: Kirpal's claims, and others like his, cannot be divorced (as they often are in Sant Mat related groups ) from an initiates own cultural and psychological field of interplay.

It is that interplay, that acceptance as fact of a guru's method and the disciple's own inherent capacity-neurological or mystical-for inner experiences, which fuels the claims of would-be masters.

It seems wise to me, in light of Near-Death Experiences and the plethora of other meditation accounts, to inspect how we see and hear during our inner voyages of light and sound. Then we may be able to understand why such experiences can occur to almost anybody, anywhere, anytime. It may also help us contextualize and appraise the claims of gurus like Kirpal Singh, who insist on taking credit for their disciples' wondrous visions.

If, as I have suggested, that anybody can act as a conduit for such other-worldly experiences, then Kirpal and gurus like him should be judged on some other criteria, since their claims for uniqueness and exclusiveness are anything but unique and exclusive.

The 'Kirpal Statistic' is exactly that: the probable outcome that the majority of meditators, provided the necessary instructions in Shabd or Nad yoga practice, will see and hear something.'

Very interesting, n'est ce pas? A lot of food for thought there, and no mistake.

With love to all, Livia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 15:26:29 (EST)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: Livia
Subject: Thank you, Livia...
Message:
... for digging up that reference and posting it. I was too lazy to do it when I made my initial post, late at night.

Revelations like David Lane's confirmed for me what I had suspected for years; nothing that anyone experiences in meditation has anything to do with any guru. However, believing that it DOES, can make it seem so. That is what most gurus do.

Another link on EPO that helped me a lot with this was the website of Baba Faqir Chand, who was known as 'The Most Honest' of all gurus. He spoke at great length about how many gurus manipulate people into worshiping them, to gain money and power, which he believed was very wrong. And apparently, all to common.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:10:53 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Get real, Fran
Message:
Re-read your post again:

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.

You're hardly just talking about yourself, now are you? In fact, you're trying to get me to just back off, shut up and leave you and anyone else I might want to harass about meditation or spirituality well enough alone. This all in the context of me questioning the basis for any purported teacher of meditation's expertise. By the way, I did get an email from Brian who told me that I really shook him up that day and how grateful he was that you said something. Yeah right! :| Fact is, Brian did contact me only to say he enjoyed the discussion. You, on the other hand, wanted to shut me up. That's exactly the attitude I was talking about.

You asked me to guess what you guys talk about on RE. Hm, that's a hard one. :_

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:28:51 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Read your own statement
Message:
What disturbs me so much is how a climate of sorts has developed in which it's not politically correct here for people to argue about this.

What else could you be possibly be referring to but my statement, which you so object to? One person's opinion doth not a climate make. Touchy, touchy. :)

And never fear, there are atheists on RE also. I just don't like to argue with you because IMO you don't know when to quit. Sometimes people disagree. There's no need to belabor the point. It becomes a mountain out of a molehill. And I'm sorry in advance if this offends you, but I've got to be honest.

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:41:49 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Oh, Fran, you completely busted me!
Message:
NOT!

Take a look at the little discussion I had with Steve Meuller for instance. Here's yet another premie -- oh, sorry, ex-premie -- crying 'foul' over having his new-agey beliefs questioned. You're far from the only one who bitches about this, Fran. You were just the latest example.

Anyway, what's the spin now? That I'm over-sensitive or something? Good comeback, Fran. Completely shifts the focus, doesn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:36:39 (EST)
From: Moley
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey Fran RE not challenging ? ;)
Message:
Watch out or everyone will think we are a bunch of woozoes over there :) Hey, but seriously, I agree with what Pat C says somewhere - Jim may be exhausting :) but, if so, that's only because it IS sometimes exhausting to have to really think about what you are doing and believing.

You said to Jim:

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!

Chilling effect? Blimey, that's strong stuff. As you know ;) I don't agree with your perception of Jim's supposed 'role' here. I don't get the 'role' thing at all. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone controls the tone of this place (with the poss exception of Gerry who has to). Anyways, you can't be controlled by words on a forum. But if you're still looking for authority figures you'll get paranoid and start seeing them anywhere and everywhere. Which leads me to a whole cesspit of snakes about meditation teachers, probs best not dived into now.

And you said:

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.)

Well I reckon it would be a healthy move (I don't mean for you in particular :), just anyone) to discuss RE-like things here. Secrecy makes for paranoia. Some really interesting stuff gets discussed over there. Good on you for bringing some of it here. These guys are missing out...

Best
Moley

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:16:00 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad
Message:
Hi Mike,

I am more interested in the much, much bigger topic of 'meditation' in general - in particular, I find the argument I practised Maharaji's meditation, but I now reject Maharaji, so I reject all meditation as being disappointing and as I said, a non-sequitur. Of course, people may feel this, and that is fine. My point is simply that it is possible to reject Maharaji and Knowledge, and yet find another meditation in a totally different tradition beneficial and worthwhile - that is all !!

I agree with you what you said, except that I do think that during the fragile beginning of leaving M and K, it's not good advice to tell people it's ok to explore other meditations (there are so many!) until they've had the chance to regain themselves.

The length of time it takes to rid oneself of the cultic aspects of meditation is individual. I think we all need to take resonsibility and take care in giving any advice that may hurt people.

I'm not against meditation at all. I'm concerned about the dissociative states caused by the Knowledge meditation and other after affects. Turning to another meditation could be harmful to new exes. I want to help and talking about this here is important.

Best,
Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:38:27 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad
Message:
I'm not against meditation at all. I'm concerned about the dissociative states caused by the Knowledge meditation and other after affects. Turning to another meditation could be harmful to new exes. I want to help and talking about this here is important.

I agree with you Cynthia, but I think different people have different needs.

I, for one, was the opposite of what you describe, in that my biggest fear in stopping practising K was of not doing a meditation !! I realise now that this is unbalanced, but in that initial fragile state of a premie exiting, there are some who want, even need, to discuss what's next, or what will replace K.

I accept however that such people may well be in a minority, and that for the majority turning to another meditation could be harmful as you say.

...not good advice to tell people it's ok to explore other meditations (there are so many!) until they've had the chance to regain themselves...

I am certainly not offering that advice - in fact, I did not even think that we were discussing how best to advise people exiting. My only point (I think) is there are some ex-premies for whom other meditations are an important issue - it may well be that this group is a minority (even a minority of one - me; or perhaps a minority of two - Fran and me !!).

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 19:32:13 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: and me, Mike
Message:
and quite a few others too.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 16:48:39 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad
Message:
Mike,

The kind of meditation that concerns me, whether you call it 'Knowledge' or not, is the kind that's based on the premise that the mind is depriving us from a treasure within or is somehow harmful. Hell, there might even BE some truth in that last notion (I fully reject the first), but, yeah, I'm concerned about it.

My point in quoting Fran was just that you were using our exchange, hers and mine, as an example of the good debates we have on the subject here. But that was in response to my initial point that there's something of a taboo against really pushing the subject here and I thought Fran's post ironically exemplified that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:42:29 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: fran's taste vs. forum taboos
Message:
Jim, it is one thing for fran to say that she, personally, gets tired of trying to answer you and your relentless probing, and quite another for you to say that certain topics are taboo to be discussed here, by'tone'.
there very definitely is a 'culture', a 'flavor' to the discussion that has been going on here, over time. I myself found early on that i was expected to put on a kind of macho face, to speak in certian strident tones, and that holding to any vestiges of my softer side, my intuitive, my emotional, my 'female', my compassionate aspects, were hooted and booed out of the room.
And i was one of the ones who was barred entry into Recent Ex's, on the grounds that when i was totally honest with them about m mental health history, they demurred and backed away and said they couldnt take the risk of me thinking they were a substitute for professional help. So once again, I got shafted by the people who stipulate that they're there to help.
I need to be able to say what I honestly think. I am bigger than the prescribed, 'allowed' 'accepted view' that dominates the forum by its more agressive voices.
You need to examine yourself for your real motives in wanting to argue everything until you convince another to see it as you see it. That puts you dangerously close to the same level of self delusion as any Guru, in needing to sway the masses to acknowledge his view of existence as the one and only way that is true.
If a thing is true for you, Jim, isn't that enough? What's so urgent about getting the next person to see it the way you do? We live in free lands. We are supposed to distill our own unique ways of taking life. If a person can't trust their own opinions, can't be left unmolested for arriving it their own way, then what do we have? The Thought Police?
Jim, you're perfectly free to reason out what ever you like and perfectly free to tell us what you see, but each of us is likewise occupied with reasoning out and assessing life the way we do, too. Try as i might, I fail to understand what it is that drives you to not be content to arrive at your own views and beliefs, but to have this compulsion to cross into other people's private processes--unasked, uninvited,BTW, and attempt to turn them to conform with yours!
What's up wit dat? Son't you have enough to do, just with thinking for yourself? Do you feel you have to think for others, too?
Do you think you have a duty to? a right to? a mandate to? an invitation to??

not trying to be offensive. just positing the query. It deserves your contemplation, doesnt it?what makes you feel you have to get anyone else to see it except yourself?
there's a huge difference between sharing your views with another, without attachment, and crossing over into an obsessive need to convince, change, persuade, to make the other person become like yourself, in other words, to feel in every encounter as if you 'won'.

nobody's views are 'invalid'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 13:10:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: janet
Subject: Time for a Teddy Bear Picnic, Janet?
Message:
Janet,

I tihnk it's time you got out your favorite stuffed animals and had a little tea party. You can do all the pontificating:

Now, Rusty, before I give you another cup and a piece of toast with jam on it, you need to look at yourself. You need to examine why you care about what little Muffin thinks. You know what, Rusty? I think it's time for you to see someone die. Muffin, come here. Muffin! MUFFIN! ....

Now look what you did, Rusty! Well, perhaps Mr. Beasley won't run away so fast.

Mr. Beasley, did you like your toast? What's that? I can barely hear you. Come closer, my little bear. Grab him, Rusty!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 17:02:24 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, that's just not nice at all...
Message:
Jim,

Janet asked you a specific question and you decided not to answer it by demeaning her. That's offensive to me.

I also have that question: why can't you allow yourself your own beliefs and allow others to have theirs without arguing to the point of tedium?

I find your post to Janet very offensive. She's not an idiot. You don't have to like everyone here.

Answer her question! It was legitimate.

Cynthia, hugging my stuffed bunny

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 17:53:40 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Not nice but completely justified
Message:
Read her post again, Cynthia. It's completely offensive. It's that grandiose side of Janet that I don't have any time for. We argue here and we do it for all sorts of reasons. Impulse, fun, because we're trying to help someone, because we think we CAN help someone, because we want to defend our statements and opinions. Hell, we either agree or argue, it's one or the other, and we all do it. Each in their own way, as well, as far as I can see. Janet thinks the basic premise that blacks weren't common in the cult that both Joe and I accept and argue about is false and she says it. If someone would argue the point with her, she'd respond and there you go. Janet thinks Mike Finch and I have it wrong on the nature of buddhist meditation and she's in there. We're all like that.

But what's so unsettling for some here, Janet included apparently, is that I really tend to argue through spiritual issues as they arise here. Just my nature and I make no apologies. I can, at times, 'agree to disagree' and sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. Whatever.

Janet, on the other hand, has advised us without qualification that she's had some very stupendous spiritual experiences, with the Knowledge and without. I can't remember them all and maybe I'm wrong but I think she's told us about various visitations of one spiritual entity or another, some times in meditation, sometimes not. Were there some aliens in there too? I can't remember. She has asserted these experiences as true and non-negotiable. What's that tell you? It tells me a lot.

So, in this one post, Janet is now going to tell me that I 'need' to examine this or that ... why? Because it makes her uneasy? Forget it. I'm no more compelled to argue something here than any of us are compelled to keep posting period. As I said before, there's a natural tension here. We all left the guru but some of us travelled much further away than others and this is the one place -- beside the safe, protected waters of RE -- where people debrief, discuss and hash it all out. Too bad for Janet that she didn't get into RE but that sure isn't my business, now is it? Maybe it's because she's prone to outlandish statements such as this in the post you're referring to:

I am bigger than the prescribed, 'allowed' 'accepted view' that dominates the forum by its more agressive voices.
You need to examine yourself for your real motives in wanting to argue everything until you convince another to see it as you see it. That puts you dangerously close to the same level of self delusion as any Guru, in needing to sway the masses to acknowledge his view of existence as the one and only way that is true.

Starts off on a grandiose martyr trip and ends up slagging me in the best way she can think of -- bizarrely equating me to some sort of ... well, I can't even say it, it's so stupid. What's her real beef? To me, Janet carries a smouldering grudge against me for, first, challenging some of her new age nonsense and second, giving her a very hard time when she porposed, not once but a few times, a hoax the substance of which I won't repeat it was that bad.

As for the joke about one teddy bear killing the other, that was just a response to the OTHER offensive post Janet gave me today where she suggested that it's time for me to watch someone die. Who the hell does she think she is? That's a rhetorical question; believe me, I don't really want to know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 20:59:01 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well, Jeezum Crow...
Message:
Jim,

All ya had to say was, 'this is the way I am, I like myself, and take me or leave me.' Because that's the way I feel here, Jim.

Believe me, I've got a pretty good picture of this forum. I think our purposes in being here are different, but we're both here.

We look at things from different angles. All of us. We'd still be premies if we didn't. I still wonder though, about your ability to sustain an argument when others (not everyone) but some others just give up and say, 'that's Jim.'

Maybe you're too complex for me to understand. That's not a criticism of either of us, just a comment. I read your post about the Teddy Bear Picnic and it sounded really mean. I wondered why.

Is there a point when you give up on an argument just because it's not worth the time and energy? I'm very curious.

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 21:29:44 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Be fair now, Cynth
Message:
Hi Cynth,

I'm surprised you still think my post 'mean' or unfitting given the incredibly insulting post I was responding to. When was the last time you were accused of 'molesting' people, of being 'dangerously close to the same level of self-delusion as any guru', of having a 'compulsion to cross into other peoples' private processes, unasked, uninvited', of being 'obsessive'? Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, the good ol' 'Thought Police'.

And you call me mean. OkayyyyyyYYYYYYYyyyyyyyy......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:42:51 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Be fair now, Cynth
Message:
Jim,

I didn't call you mean. I thought what you wrote to Janet sounded mean. You told me it was justified. There's a bit of a difference. I don't think you're mean.

I don't consider you the thought police or any of the other things you listed, either. You did forget one though--a defender of pedophiles. Not the first time you've been accused of that and it's one that particularly angers me about accusations toward you.

I just wonder where you get the energy to argue your points of view. That's all. Is there a point when you just say, ''okay, I give up, this isn't worth the energy?''

I simply wondering how you do it? Then I offended you. Well, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you, Jim. I am trying to understand you better.

OKay?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 15:17:59 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: Um, er, Cynth .......
Message:
Let's not split hairs, shall we? God, now you're making me quote your words back to you. You did, in fact, tell me that I was being 'just not nice at all', that I was 'demeaning' Janet which you found 'offensive', that, in fact, you found my post 'very offensive'. You say there's a 'bit of difference' between all that and calling me mean .....

Anyway, anyway, your main question -- why do I keep arguing about stuff when, I take it, you'd expect me to stop, well, I dunno. Is even this just another example? Cynth, I honestly can't tell you why I'm the way I am. I don't think I'm very unusual, really. No, I don't think I'm 'obsessive' although, as we all know, obsessiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Some people would say that being a regular here at all is a mark of obsession. Perhaps, by some standards, they'd be right. This internet thing should has made a number of part cyber people.

That's, to me, a much more interesting issue than why I argue things through. What is going to happen to us, to this, to all this? Are we going to be plugged into this cyber thing with each other for the enxt twenty or even thirty years?

Cynth, forget about me personally, there's the question. Let me rephrase it a bit:

Oh my god! Are we going to be plugged into this cyber thing with each other for the enxt twenty or even thirty years???

I'm scared!

Mr. Wizard!!!!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 21, 2002 at 15:42:59 (EST)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Um, er, Cynth .......
Message:
Jim,

What's with the typos? :)

To answer your question, I'll be here as long as it takes. What you do is up to you. I'm getting a bit giddy...please excuse. I've been getting emails from people asking for help and I can't stop myself from trying to assist.

You are unusual--that's good. I might even call you an enigma wrapped in a parodox but I don't want to go there with you. Admit it, you're unique. I envy your brain-power. That's why I asked.

Besides, my hairs are split enough for now.

Love,
Cynth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:11:26 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Not necessarily!!!!
Message:
Jim, I know I promised to scram, but I can't just let this one go by.

We live in a society that demands that we use the mind. One can't live in this culture without being capable in that area. There are not that many jobs for shepherds anymore. Many people though are beginning to feel quite stressed though, because their minds are out of control. Even doctors recognize this and prescribe medication.

We need our minds but not all the time. How about an hour break or so each day using meditation, the meditation of your choice, or even yoga or t'ai chi? As Ram Dass said, 'The mind is a good servant but a lousy master.' IMO the mind needs to be put in its place, i.e. after the cart.

There are some who say that we are a spirit, controlling a body, using a mind. I agree with this. If you buy this premise why not pay attention to all three. For most people the mind is like Arnold Swartzennager (sp), and the spirit and body are 90 pound weaklings.

I'm sure you often come into contact with clients that could use a little mellowing out.

Just because we discover spirit, we should then put all our eggs in that basket and throw mind out. We need both. It's like riding a bicycle. We need a balance. I know I'm setting myself up for a joke here, but I'm sure you've heard people referred to as 'well balanced.'

Throwing the mind out when you discover spirit is being just as half-assed the other way. We need all of ourselves.

Okay, start ripping. Just had to put in my two cents worth and will scram once again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:16:32 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Wow, Dog, I never thought of it that way
Message:
I guess I haven't been keeping up on my Ram Dass like I said I would. So he said that, did he? That's pretty damn interesting. Thanks for the tip. I'll give it all the consideration it deserves. I promise.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 18:58:29 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog =)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Wow, Dog, I never thought of it that way
Message:
Wow Jim I’ve finally broken through your stuffy intellectual 1950s point of view. Welcome to the 21st century!

See it’s like this:
- the electricity that runs your computer is the spirit,
- the software you use in your computer is the mind, and
- the hardware (i.e. the keyboard, CPU and monitor) is the body.

Get it! And it’s not just Ram Dass that says this, it’s Alan Watts, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Krishnamurti, a whole lot of Jewish rabbis, maybe even the Pope himself! And it’s not new age stuff either some of these concepts are thousands of years old. And you are beginning to understand this stuff.

Gee Jim, I’m so delirious with joy I can’t even think of a quote.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 19:34:27 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog =)
Subject: You have no right to ruin my sarcasm
Message:
Dog,

All of your so-called authorities are meaningless to me. They're all just recirculating the same tired, pre-scientific garbage. Hey, did you see the news about the Pope? He's done three -- count 'em, three -- exorcisms since becoming the Holy See in '82. Anyway, you're lost in a cerain level of superficiality you think's profound. Oh well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 17:44:00 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'Knowledge' necessarily makes the mind look bad
Message:
The kind of meditation that concerns me, whether you call it 'Knowledge' or not, is the kind that's based on the premise that the mind is depriving us from a treasure within or is somehow harmful.

Hooray !! We agree - there is no doubt in my mind that any meditational activity that is based on this premise is twisted and undesirable.

However, there are some meditations that are based on the premise that the mind is a wonderful treasure-house, which the average human has hardly begun to explore.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 20:57:44 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Really? Which ones?
Message:
However, there are some meditations that are based on the premise that the mind is a wonderful treasure-house, which the average human has hardly begun to explore.

That's news to me. Every meditation I ever heard of always seemed to scapegoat the mind one way or another. So which ones don't do that? Which ones actually celebrate the mind as you describe?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:24:34 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Really? Which ones?
Message:
Every meditation I ever heard of always seemed to scapegoat the mind one way or another. So which ones don't do that? Which ones actually celebrate the mind as you describe?

The Buddhist meditations of South East Asia, called generally Vipassana meditation.

In even a casual read of any of the literature, it is clear that there are no divisions of soul, spirit, heart, this mind, that mind - but just 'mind' meaning consciousness in the widest sense of the word, from the minutiae of the most humdrum everyday task to the most ecstatic experience - no divisions at all, and very refreshing.

Theologians often define 'religion' to mean a belief in God. I define religion to mean a belief system which divides a human being's inner life into a duality such as you describe - good/bad, mind/heart, ego/spirit. Maybe this is what a belief in God entails - if you postulate a God, then there must be us worms of human beings.

But the Buddhist tradition I mention (sometimes called Theravada) has none of it - no religion, no God, no soul, no lower or higher - just consciousness or mind, and nothing else. As I say, refreshing and guilt-free !!

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:22:55 (EST)
From: janet
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: 'mindfulness', isn't it??
Message:
a full embracing of 'all that is'. acceptance and integral awareness of everything, the way it comes. wasn't it Buddha, who, when asked if he was a man or a god, replied 'I am awake'?

Jim, refer to my comment under Nigel's post about regression to the mean.

Human nature has not changed at all, in thousands of years. Neither empire, nor technology, nor Religion, nor science, nor policy, nor revelation, has made a change in the human race's always reverting to the mean.

It holds for individuals over the course of a lifetime, It holds for the race, over the course of a history.

anytime you get pitched a bill of goods that is purporting to convince you that 'this is IT', you therefore can be sure that it too will have its day of being raised high and worshipped, and just as surely, dumped in the future for some other panacea of the moment.

You can spend your minutes, days, hours, decades, trying to get some thing, or another, to happen, and whether you achieve it, or you don't, in the end, because of the regression to the mean, it isn't going to matter, at all.

I used to be a pessimistic defeatist. I heard the understanding wrong.
I wasn't catching the point, the aspect to value.
Which is being in it, being here, being sentient to it all.
Nothing 'needs' to be done. It is we, who feel we 'need' to do something. In truth, existence goes on with or without us.

Ever watched anybody die, yet, Jim?
The astonishing thing is that the world goes right on happening. It takes no notice.
This planet doesn't 'need' us. But we need it. The rest of life doesn't 'need' us. But we need it. The ocean, the rocks, the dirt, the wind--they don't 'need' us. There is not a single thing we have to offer, or do for them.

That's a sobering realization. In the immediate and in the long term, all we do, and get obsessed with, and think is so urgent to accomplish, is actually nothing at all to the vast reach of existence.

But we are present, here.We do live.
Negating the mind is as pointless as worshipping it. Neither is the real scope of the extent of what we can see/know/feel/ experience/think/understand.

If you're stuck on chasing one aspect of existence, you're trapped in a dream. When you wake up, you aren't chasing after anything anymore. You see no need. It's right with you, it's everywhere, and in the words of one ancient observer, 'the superior man, doing nothing, leaves nothing undone'.

Yes, it is possible to practice a meditation that encompasses all of the mind and enjoys it as it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 02:49:18 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Bugger tradition! What about innovation???
Message:
The west has taken stuff from the east before and turned it into something new and often better - like kidgeree which is a humble rice and lentil dish from the south of India and which the Brits of the Raj enjoyed as a breakfast dish - only they added expensive imported smoked haddock from Scotland.

They combined a traditional British breakfast favorite, haddock poached with butter, and added it to the Tamil breakfast of curried lentils and rice. Needless to say, the Brits soon dropped the lentils as it gave the ladies gas which was excruciating under those corsets.

I'm convinced that I can play around and experiment with what I have learned from the east for my own amusement and education and perhaps come up with a very different kettle of fish than Rawat or any socalled eastern guru or yogi can.

I got out of my 30 years of meditation exactly what I put into it. Unfortunately Rawat had a bit too much input at one time luckily mostly in the first few years and after that I think most premies kind of winged it just as he was doing. And you got out of it whatever you discovered while winging it.

Rawat's enthusiasm in the early years was infectious but it gradually became obvious that HE was not really learning anything. A socalled teacher who never learns anything new themselves soon becomes obsolete and is doomed to repeat the same old stale lessons and to become corrupt and dishonest as well because of the deceit and pretense.

There are no rules for what you want to do in the privacy of your own mind unless it results in anti-social behavior. The problem with Maharajism is the religious rules and regulations based on the fact that the master is not be criticized. It's a stale old feudalistic Hindu peasant trip and stinks like ladus made from camel dung.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 21:45:25 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Nope, not that one. Try again?
Message:
Sorry, Mike, but Vipassana, at least as it's explained on the Vipassana website does indeed scapegoat the mind as the scoundrel that plagues us. Watch the video on that site, where they talk about trying to tame the wily, wild and uncontrolled mind. Once it starts to calm down, they say, the pratictioner begins to see how the mind was just wearing us out with all sorts of desires, attachments and passions we don't really want or need. No, when they talk about 'purifying' you know that the 'impurity' they're referring to is Mr. You-Know-Who.

So that one's out. Got any others?
[ What is Vipassana? ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 22:47:43 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yes, that one.
Message:
By evil chance, the Vipassana website you chose is Goenka's site, who is a mini guru - or probably not so mini in fact - and who is generally regarded as having hijacked the name 'Vipassana' and is giving it his own spin. Since he is setting himself up as a guru, then probably yes, he has to see things in terms of a scapegoat mind so he can save you from it.

So let me get real specific - the tradition of Vipassana that I now practice, and which is everything that my previous post said, is at this center - http://world.std.com/~cimc/ - an example from that site:

Insight Meditation--known as Vipassana in the Buddhist tradition...seeing life as a constantly changing process, one begins to accept pleasure and pain, fear and joy, and all aspects of life with increasing balance and equanimity. This balanced awareness, grounded in the present moment, leads to stillness and a growing understanding of the nature of life. Out of this seeing emerges wisdom and compassion.

An affiliate is this site: http://www.dharma.org/ims.htm and another affiliate of the same Vipassana tradition is http://www.maui.net/~metta/about_metta.html.

Since hundreds, if not thousands, are teaching various meditations that they call 'Vipassana' you can of course easily find examples to support your thesis that all meditations separate a human into a good part and a bad part, including Vipassana - if that is your thesis, which I don't know but I suspect it might be.

However, the Vipassana tradition that I now practice, and which is taught here in Massachusetts at Cambridge and Barre, and is sometimes called the 'Thai Forest tradition' is to see the mind, and everything that comes up in it, without judgement and without classification.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:48:15 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Re: Yes, that one.
Message:
In other words, you are just sitting still and watching everything pass you by. Sounds pretty sad and lonely to me. But, I forget - there's no you to watch it all pass by either, so it's not such a big deal, right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 23:27:54 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: Who said Buddha knew the score:)
Message:
?...If the geezer actually existed as he's portrayed:)

He's got something going for him ....he was around 2500 years ago....that impresses some people!! Plus he taught some unverifiable stuff and people were impressed and created a religious tradition out of it.

Seriously.....that site, Mike, is full of 'as we BECOMES' and as 'as we grow more in practise' .....always striving for that SOMETHING...even if it is classed as NOTHING.....or just unjudgemental awareness.

Religions with or without God always want us to 'learn' how to change from this to that. From the 'uncultivated' 'untrained mind' (which according to the intro of the site, ole Buddha says = MISERY, to the 'trained' 'cultivated' mind = .....then put in whatever you want....bliss, nirvana, more openess, more this more that.

Even if Buddha or whoever lived 50, 000 years ago or 100, 000 years ago ....big deal.

I wonder why I feel better without any dedicated practise of this, that or the other? I know I was born, I know I'm alive and I know I'll die. I also know I'm tired of 'experts' telling me how ,if I only changed from this to that then true insight would be revealed :)

Isn't being a totally insignificant, finite animal, on a backwater planet in a universe vast beyond comprehension, enough for people?...sheesh :)

All above, PARTIALLY tongue in cheek!!!!!

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:28:00 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Who said Buddha knew the score:)
Message:
Agree with every word, Dermot. As I often say about self-help books: the day we stop trying to be somebody else is the day we become who we are.

(Hmm, a bit of a paradox there..?)
Cheers,
Nige

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:53:25 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: I am that I Am, Nige...ouch :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:05:17 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Kill the Buddha
Message:
PARTIALLY tongue in cheek, Dermot? A very good cheek I would say. All of this stuff is just religion - meaning following some dead geezer. Even if I'm as dumb as a post, I prefer thinking for myself and, if I must resort to spiritual jargon, I'll say I don't want anyone laying out a path for me, thanks.

I'll machete my way out of the jungle on my own - except I don't see much of a jumgle. Are all these paths and religions simply based on superstitious fear of the unknown? I wish I did not have a conscience. You can make a good living soothing peoples' fears of the unknown with fairy tales.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:39:16 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: PatC
Subject: Re: Kill the Buddha
Message:
Excuse me Dermot and Pat, but I think are just having a knee-jerk reaction to all this.

For the record, I am not following a dead geezer . I think for myself, I do not want anyone laying out a path for me either, and I am most definitely not a Buddhist.

Nor, Dermot, am I going to defend what some Website said whose content I have no control over.

By saying I meditate in such-and-such tradition, means I find some of what such-and-such says helpful - no more.

I was actually responding to a very specific question of Jim's. I agree with both your posts 100% - your comments as directed to me are out of context.

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:26:34 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: I can feel another
Message:
'OK MIKE' coming up .....:)

I looked at the site and my knee just started going out of control :)

Funnily enough, I recently watched a documentary on Buddhism...I'm certain it was the same V tradition....a stand-up comedian who also happened to be agnostic went along to the largest Buddhist centre in the West (somewhere in Scotland).The head Lama was a very nice, sweet man. The monks and nuns were sincere in their beliefs and helpful. It was all ok but it just struck me as so .....oh I don't know......based on beliefs masquerading as 'the TRUTH'....the one and only variety.

I'm not a morose, overly cynical, bitchy sort of guy (really !!)but I guess I've become averse to the whole religious take on things.I note that you eschew such takes too.

It may appear that I'm picking on you but really I'm not.I must confess to a certain curiosity though.If you're not following a religion (and I believe you when you say you aren't)....and if you're not striving for some elusive SOMETHING(and I believe you when you say you aren't)then, once again, I'm flummoxed re: the purpose, motivation, or what have you, of the practise, other than it being an enjoyable relaxation. I concede, it's not really any of my business or anything but as you've mentioned it....:)

I keep returning to the point I made in a thread down below....other than some kind of relaxation technique, what is it? You've already stated that it is something more than that (therefore more profound?)but I'll be damned if I can see what!! If no belief is attached and no striving is involved, then what? As I've said, it's nice to do the corpse posture, it's nice to sit still and just relax etc etc ......but you're not satisfied with that 'limited' definition.

You are obviously under no obligation to respond and really, if you or anyone else wants to formally meditate till the cows come home, then good luck.I hope you enjoy it.As I say, I'm curious that's all.I'm intrigued with the paradoxical nature of your stance.A belief-free, purpose-less activity (but something more than enjoyable relaxation) demanding serious, continual dedication !!

Cheers

Dermot

PS or are we just going round in cicles....and it's pointless discussing it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:02:12 (EST)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Lamas are Tibetan Buddhism, NOT
Message:
... Vipassana. Sounds like Samye Ling, a Tibetan Buddhist center in Scotland. Although vipassana is one of the meditation techniques taught by the Tibetan Buddhists, it is not the same form of vipassana, nor the same type of Buddhism. Tibetan is generally Vajrayana, Mahayana or Bonpo, and Mike is talking about Theravada. And as Mike said, there are different Therevadan teachers teaching different forms of vipassana.

The Tibetans have lots of devotion and dedication and their teachers are gurus. In fact, that's what 'Lama' means, or loosely translates to.

There are so many permutations of Buddhism, and teachings derived from whatever it is Buddha was doing (who knows, really), and forms of meditation derived from the same, that you won't be able to pin Mike, or anyone down on this stuff unless they've signed on, hook, line and sinker to some teacher or trip.

Otherwise, it's just meditation techniques. And it's whatever floats your boat, like you said.

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 16:35:05 (EST)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Re: Lamas are Tibetan Buddhism, NOT
Message:
You're probably right because there was definitely a Lama there. However,I'm pretty sure they were using V Med.

It's not a matter of 'pinning' if that was meant in a derogatory way ....he posted the site and until he clarified himself later, he 'pinned ' himself.

I'm certainly not attacking him for his interest .....just curious and slightly perplexed why so much dedication is neccesary ....but that's my take. As always, each to their own.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 20:33:25 (EST)
From: Francesca :~)
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: I too am suspicious of dedication
Message:
And positively allergic to devotion.

More than once bitten, more than twice shy.

--f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 17:08:17 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Oh no, it's Fran the Watchdog!
Message:
Careful Dermot! :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 14:38:49 (EST)
From: Mike Finch
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: I can feel another
Message:
I'm intrigued with the paradoxical nature of your stance.A belief-free, purpose-less activity (but something more than enjoyable relaxation) demanding serious, continual dedication !!

I am intrigued by my stance too, and have been challenged to substantiate it. I believe I can, but it will take some serious thought, and is for another time.

belief-free - certainly - demanding serious, continual dedication - yes, it is for me - paradoxical - possibly - but purpose-less I am not sure about that.

Next installment sometime - don't know when.

Take care

-- Mike

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 19, 2002 at 13:54:25 (EST)
From: PatC
Email: None
To: Mike Finch
Subject: A nail in Buddha's coffin
Message:
Actually, Mike, my answer to you was the one about not bothering with tradition. I felt that you were on shaky ground using tradition to give meditation credibility. I have not yet found one tradition that stands up to scrutiny as it is all pre-scientific.

The response to Dermot was simply my way of putting another nail in the Buddha's coffin.




Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements


All Rights Reserved

Return to Index -:- Top of Index