Shifting Allegiances
Post Reply   Forum
Posted by: PatW
02/04/2003, 01:46:41

Are premies and doubting Thomases doomed to antagonising one another for eternity as long as they both occupy the same space? Look at these forums and the mutual distrust and venom that the friction of our 'coming-togethers' generates.

It certainly seems I have upset quite a number of premies over the last few years just within my own circle of personal friends - I can see that I have alienated them by expressing my doubts, and that they are frustrated at not being able to 'help' me with my feelings. These friends now want out.

Arguably who needs friends who don't share your views to the point where they object passionately? They are not on my side and I am not on theirs it would seem. As friends we might have things in common but actually both now have an agenda that gets in the way. We polarise each other to the point of repulsion.

I have been on the receiving end of heightened objection from several premie friends to the point where it's become clear that we can't talk at least at present. It's quite an emotional shock for us all I think. I can now see more clearly than ever how impossible it is for premies to get on with 'vocal' apostates if they are friends or even family members. The only way relationships can work is if both sides avoid the subject - which is almost impossible since both parties dearly want to express their views and to be understood.
(Apostates are allowed to 'move on' but not to nurse their wounds tiresomely). It's as hard for my premie friends to respect me as it is for me to respect them.

One thing that came up at the weekend with one of my old friends was this accusation that I'd betrayed his trust and word. I had mentioned his name on this forum (I since deleted it) as the organiser of the meeting in Brighton where old, bald, fat premies were not welcome. He since said he doesn't want anything to do with me and my word and words are worth zip - for ages he has just been going along with our friendship for old times sake and also he thought he might want to 'use me' for something sometime (God knows what- I took that as a bit of an insult). In short the proverbial line has been crossed and our friendshipship had become a sham anyway according to him.

I had indeed told him I wouldn't speak for him on the forum but basically I felt so pissed off at his trashing my life and motives last time we met (sort of to confront me into doing the Landmark Forum course I guess) that, in an impulse, I thought I'd invite him to explain for himself here, where the matter was being discussed, why his 'no old culty premies' meeting was such an 'innocuous joke'. I judged that he was actually quite happy to see how offensive it might be to older ex-premies who feel that Rawat was largely responsible for creating the generation of embarrassing culties he sought to protect the new flock from. I thought it a nasty gesture. So I broke my 'word' and he felt finally very righteously indignant and justified in saying:

thus ends our communication and it had nothing to do with GMJ but was caused by you
I got an email from ....tonight
seems like we have all had enough
to me your word and words are worthless.

This other friend from whom he'd got the email and who also agrees that I have gone too far wrote me:

You see, it's been five years,my friend!!!! Five years of listening, couselling, understanding, agreeing, confronting, being confronted. etc. In some ways enlightening and freeing. But, I must say, repetitive.And finally we invite you to a lovely dinner, talk hind legs off donkeys, and we all conclude (and you appear to collude!) that hanging into the past is the culprit...i.e. time to move on. To live NOW. But I hadn't been in your house for two minutes the other day before you started off again. I honestly felt 'what's the point?' I just didn't want to hear it anymore.
And yes, I think the Forum sucks. Nothing new. For years it has, in some guise or other, made people aggressively and patronisingly and superciliously righteous.

I guess I have been a bit of a whiner about the past and I can understand his POV that the Maharaji conversation is getting boring in the extreme . But that's because there's not much mutual understanding coming from it - if anything the opposite. His frustration is that I was not 'dropping it' despite his patient listening. I think we've kind of respectfully agreed to stop talking about it now.

Note how in order to get on with premies you must DROP THE PAST. So when does Maharaji/Rawat get to take his responsibility for the things he did and said in the past that upset and confused so many people and that helped produce a generation of fat, balding old 'culties ' ??

The way I deal with personal storms like this, is usually to wait and let time do a bit of healing -take some time out. Also I find that there is nothing better to clear the head than a long jog on the hills nearby where I live.

So as I was jogging my way over the hills yesterday (I can at least do something about the 'fat' bit) I was struck with the thought that trust is a very one way demand with some people.

Take for example the solemn promise we make to NEVER divulge the meditation (and the dire consequences to anticipate should you do so) - what did dear Mr Rawat have to solemnly promise us in return? Nothing - he just gave us a some 'very secret' techniques.

Then my friend doing his program for young'uns only - he judged that I would not mention it, or him, on the web and felt betrayed when I did - and yet for a long time he has expressed a deep distrust of my motives to the point of loathing and insult. What promises do I ask of him, or expectations do I have? None. As a matter of fact I did regret mentioning him by name but that's done. I apologised - but I can't do more.

I mean Rawat's world is rife with these 'secrets' protected by trusts - from the once blatant ritual 'x-rating' of PAM's so that they promise not to divulge what they see and hear around him, to the 'nudge-nudge wink-wink' conspiracy of silence that allows premies to brush ethical inconsistencies under the carpet with hardly an eyebrow raised amongst them.

Mike Dettmer's said, when confronted about why he would break a solemn vow (his pledge of silence), something to the effect that he felt M had effectively broken his side of the deal...except surely Mike didn't make Maharaji promise anything to him did he? It was a one way deal to protect M not him. Was it effectively a one way deal to protect scams? Maybe. Scammers! That word fits a lot of premies I know. There's honour amongst thieves. Often bullies like to think the people they abuse can be 'trusted' not to bust them.

I suppose I've been trying to work out what I feel about what I owe people in terms of trust - should I break it if I feel it's protecting something wrong? I think yes - but I should be upfront about it. I am learning.

All the latest hubub in my relationships with my premie friends is symptomatic of my allegiances shifting. Premies and ex-premies seem doomed to an antagonistic relationship. Time to move on again and be clear about what I believe - and the same goes for them.

It seems that allegiances in life are a very tough issue - a problem that is being born out on the world stage right now with potentially huge consequences of course. A friend of mine commented that there seems to be an almost psychic turbulence in the world right now where ideals seem to be conflicting with each other on every level. Blame the stars -that's the easy explanation!

Modified by PatW at Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 02:03:55

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message

This site was whacked using the TRIAL version of WebWhacker. This message does not appear on a licensed copy of WebWhacker.