Way -:- Maharaji's real message -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 15:03:52 (GMT)

__ Katie H -:- Great post, Way: **BEST OF FORUM** nomination -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 16:15:57 (GMT)

__ suchabanana -:- cult of master: from free humans to prempuppets -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 18:03:55 (GMT)

__ Jerry -:- Excellent post, Way -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 22:47:18 (GMT)

__ Francesca -:- Maharaji's real message -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 18:36:22 (GMT)

__ __ British Bulldog -:- Blimey, just burnt meself on the flamin' filament -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 18:55:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ Richard -:- Filament or gas? You make the call. /nt -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 00:20:05 (GMT)

__ Been There -:- To Way--Maharaji's real message -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 17:44:47 (GMT)

__ __ Steve M -:- To Way--Maharaji's real message -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 06:36:46 (GMT)

__ __ Chuck Sprague -:- Contradictions and the 'Excusemaker''... -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 19:02:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jerry -:- Another excellent post! -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 23:14:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ Been There -:- You don't feed steak to a baby -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:02:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Bryn -:- Adult individuals are not babies. Crap analogy. nt -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 07:32:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- You are so full of shit -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 23:21:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Been There -:- The steak comment was offered by Chuck. -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:21:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- The steak comment was offered by Chuck. -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 12:27:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Done That -:- Chuck Roast of course..... (nt) -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:34:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Bob -:- You don't feed steak to a baby -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 22:21:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Deceptive and false advertising -- grasshopper! -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:57:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Chuck Sprague -:- You don't lie to people in order to sell them... -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:29:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Nigel -:- So what is the difference between lessons... -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:21:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Been There -:- I'm too far removed Nige -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:38:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Funny, you weren't five minutes ago... -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 23:13:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Been There (BT) -:- To Nige... Funny, you weren't ... -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:16:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Oops! I thought you were a premie, BT... -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 16:09:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Keeping quiet is part of the trap. -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 17:15:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gary E. -:- And after all of that only a few in hundreds -:- Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 03:45:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- Keeping quiet is part of the trap. -:- Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:18:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- 'clean slate' -:- Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:48:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- 'clean slate' -:- Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 21:18:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Thanks, the I-I trip -:- Tues, Jun 12, 2001 at 03:38:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Martin Buber -:- Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:46:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- That was a great post, G. So well said... -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 21:01:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Other experiments. -:- Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 02:30:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Steve M -:- Nice to have you here BT -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 06:46:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ BT -:- Thanks. Trying again -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:29:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie H -:- to Been There - working it out in public. -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 17:15:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- You're fading in and out, Been There -:- Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 08:23:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- You're not that far removed. -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:50:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Gregg (been there too) -:- You don't feed prasad to an ignorant heathen -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:57:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Way -:- And you don't feed false milk to a baby either -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:34:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Been There -:- And you don't feed false milk -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 22:29:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ The Deli Lama -:- You can feed dung to a cow but you won't drink -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:16:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Then how do you explain this bullshit? -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 23:04:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Been There -:- Don't know how -:- Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:11:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- That's absurd. Complete nonsense -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:21:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ G -:- and also contradictory -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:48:27 (GMT)

__ Gregg -:- The Master of All (well, at least all premies) -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 16:49:35 (GMT)

__ __ Will -:- Worshipping a Degenerate -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 18:24:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ Bin Liner -:- You're right nobody in Rawatworld gives a fuck nt -:- Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:36:45 (GMT)

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 15:03:52 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Maharaji's real message Message:

I am starting a new thread which proceeds from the thread below started by Joe in response to Dr. Edd. I maintained that Dr. Edd and the others at IAS are giving a false impression of Knowledge and Maharaji by leaving out the devoted, life-long allegiance to himself that Maharaji demands. As Been There points out, the public image is that of teacher and student, the student gives Knowledge a fair chance for awhile and if they don't like it, they just leave, no problem. The heaviness of the old days, supposedly, is long gone. But that ain't so. The 'heaviness' is still there. Rawat still demands total commitment, to the practice of Knowledge, and to himself as the Master. There is no experience of Knowledge without him, and the journey never ends until we reach infinity. Rawat still uses scare tactics about that dangers of approaching the Infinite without the guidance of the Master. Rawat still says that the Master is absolutely necessary, the whole way home. Knowledge is not given freely, there are indeed strings attached, strings of loving Maharaji above all else, and supporting his life and work. This is not old stuff, this is the 21st century. I quote Mr. Rawat, (all quotes are very recent): We're talking about the ultimate reality. And once you have the balancing rod of Knowledge, you have to listen - both to this heart and to the Master. You must cross this in this lifetime. Don't waste your time. Some people say, 'You don't need a Master.' The consequences have not hit home yet, have they? Of course, anybody in that person's position isn't going anywhere, it's just fantasy and imagination. -Oct., 2000 The Master's advice is never free. Because if you follow his advice, it will take everything you've got. It will require you to take every moment that you have and put it to use in that enjoyment, in that perfection. Not just bits and pieces of this lifetime, but this whole lifetime. Let the Master show you the shortcuts, so that that which was destined for time can become timeless. That's what Knowledge is all about. You want to be fulfilled? Without the Master, you cannot be fulfilled. Why am I saying 'Master' instead of 'Knowledge'? Because without the Master, you can't have Knowledge. Without the Master, Knowledge makes no sense whatsoever. -Oct 17, 2000 Knowledge is simply a way to go inside. It has to be a gift from one being to another being. I am the filament...without that filament, there is no light. I can't make you feel thirsty. You feel the thirst, and when you are ready to drink, I'll supply the water. I can do that, I can do that very well. -June, 1998 Let this heart be full. Now I know where to go, so I will. And if this life is a river, then my captain is my Master. -Mar.,2001 There are many, many more quotes. If we took the time to listen to all of what Rawat is saying these days, we would find hundreds of quotes. This trip is not a 'teacher/student relationship'. I maintain that such a statement is an outright lie, designed to tone-down Rawat's message for public consumption. But nobody should make the mistake about what Rawat's real message is, and has always been.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 16:15:57 (GMT) From: Katie H Email: None To: Way Subject: Great post, Way: **BEST OF FORUM** nomination Message:

Good collection of quotes. The one I hate is 'if you don't like it, just walk' (paraphrase). It ain't as easy as that (as witness the posts on this site by recent exes), and definitely gives a false impression. Thanks, Way - Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 18:03:55 (GMT) From: suchabanana Email: None To: Way Subject: cult of master: from free humans to prempuppets Message:

cutting the strings of puppet master: the process reverses -- from prempuppets to free human beings. simple meditation techniques of knowledge were packaged with a con - personality cult strings and magical guru mojo concepts, that bind and reduce a human being to subservient docile status within the cult pyramid and cosmology - with the apex being the throne of the all-powerful god-master cult kingpin, who the cult is materially serving luxuriously and empowering above others. Lurking premies: take the techs with you, if you please, for any connection is within -- and with one's own inner self [or higher power] - not via a greedy intermediary master-idol of idle minds. cutting the strings of puppet bondage and attachment to prem submission/servitude, cult ideology, and personality cult idolatry, one becomes clear of mind and free in spirit! Peace and lentils,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 22:47:18 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Way Subject: Excellent post, Way Message:

It is an art of self deception that premies indulge in, isn't it? When I was a premie, Maharaji was everything. In fact, if it wasn't the faith and confidence I had in Maharaji I would have given up on Knowledge years before I actually did. Thanks for all those quotes. They really say it all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 18:36:22 (GMT) From: Francesca Email: None To: Way Subject: Maharaji's real message Message:

Might be good to compile these. Maybe on EPO there's a spot already made for this stuff, or where a link could be added. It would be a good category. Recent statements by Maharaji about the necessity of a Master, i.e. him, the flaming filament! love, f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 18:55:55 (GMT) From: British Bulldog Email: None To: Francesca Subject: Blimey, just burnt meself on the flamin' filament Message:

woof woof

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 00:20:05 (GMT) From: Richard Email: None To: British Bulldog Subject: Filament or gas? You make the call. /nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 17:44:47 (GMT) From: Been There Email: None To: Way Subject: To Way--Maharaji's real message Message:

Way, your points are well taken. Interesting, M. spent quite a bit of time in the Portland program explaining 'bhakti', saying that the English translation as 'devotion' is limited and inaccurate, that bhakti can't be accurately translated into English. He explained flat out that this is a path of bhakti / devotion. I thought that was a great...calling it like it is. It was a frank discussion. And then, guess what, the EV editors EDITED OUT the discussion of bhakti out of the satellite broadcast!!! Now, they're advertising the 'uncut' broadcast as available. Portland is the program where he joked about what he should be called, and concluded with 'You Know Who', which in Harry Potter is the one that is so evil that his name can't be spoken. M. laughed and laughed about it, and commented, 'I wonder how they're going to edit this?' They edited out the joke about You Know Who for some reason too. I think M. anticipated they might edit out the You Know Who part (partly because the joke was so culturally specific), but I doubt he anticipated they would edit out what seemed to me to be the crux of the program (which was very interesting), the discussion of bhakti. Given what he said in Portland, and the quotes you offered, it doesn't appear to me that M. is being deceptive. It appears that there's a lot of confusion amongst his followers about how to present him and Knowledge.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 06:36:46 (GMT) From: Steve M Email: None To: Been There Subject: To Way--Maharaji's real message Message:

Hi there Been There, It sounds as though you still are there. What amazed me about your post is the part where you imply that there is some premie doing service in the productions dept who would dare to edit a portion of Maha's satsang without permission and off his own bat ???!!!!??????? You haven't been taken in by this latest spin that there are rogue premies in Elan Vital who do such things unbidden have you?? Say it ain't so ! Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 19:02:21 (GMT) From: Chuck Sprague Email: bctanda@hotmail.com To: Been There Subject: Contradictions and the 'Excusemaker''... Message:

In the 20 years I've been listening to M's satsang, he has never used the word ''bhakti'' until recently at the one Portland event. And it certianly has never been used with the aspriants. Last year I helped setup and maintain the video library at local video events. There are a whole series of videos produced especially for aspirants and people interested in ''Learning more''. In these videos M. is always presented as a teacher. Yet in regular videos for Premies, M. has said many times that he is NOT a teacher or a mere inspirational teacher, that he hates those titles, that he is an essential element that none of us can do without. He often quotes scripture, and talks about ''The Master'' in the third person, as a manifistation of the divine. This is not presented to asprirants, and therefore is deceptive. Most of the aspirants I know of freak when they hear him refered to as the Master. If they survive that one, when they hear The Perfect Master, that usually does them in. Of those who do hang in for the whole thing, they usually drop out after receiving K. At our commitee meetings, there was a great deal of discussion about what videos new people should be allowed to see. I found it upsetting, because it felt like we were trying to brainwash people. The whole idea of propagating Knowledge is mostly a ruse for collecting money. Once the money goes into the pipeline, it disappears from scrutiny. The financial records are completely secret, and for good reason. If he were spending the money on what it was collected for, he would be proud to share that information with us, not running away from the press and hiding behind smart cards. If this were all just a misunderstanding, M. could clear it up quickly, but he won't, because he knows what he's done and is doing won't hold up to scrutiny. Gregg is right in his post below, that there has always been a double approach to talking about M and K, one version for public consumption, and another version for Premies. As the Moonies like to say, ''You don't feed steak to a baby''. M. often contadicts himself. This is because he is trying to have it both ways. And that only works when he can get the premies not to not think critically, and not question his authority. Hence his instruction: ''NEVER DOUBT the purity of the Master''. The premies have been trained not to listen to ''the Doubtmaker'', but have become experts at listening to their ''Excusemaker''. M's trip only ''works'' if it's not scrutinized. There are better ways to be happy, without having to do mental backflips in the excuse-making department.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 23:14:36 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Chuck Sprague Subject: Another excellent post! Message:

That's two home runs in the same thread! Bravo, gentlemen, bravo!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:02:46 (GMT) From: Been There Email: None To: Chuck Subject: You don't feed steak to a baby Message:

Chuck, I've never heard him talk about 'bhakti' before either. That's why it was so interesting . As for who sees what videos when, it's interesting that you perceived it as brainwashing, when in almost every arena of endeavor learning is incremental (for instance, learning a language)...you don't go from A to E without passing through B, C and D. If one understands learning about Knowledge (and practicing it) to be a learning PROCESS involving growth and unfolding, it makes sense to introduce it incrementally. It is true actually: you DON'T feed steak to a baby. I believe the intent of selecting the right videos for the right stage is to be respectful of the person's level and capacity, i.e. to let the petals open up naturally rather than forcing a bloom. I don't think the intent is to brainwash. The Master/student relationship is difficult thing for Westerners to understand. We've been taught, especially Americans, to honor rugged individualism. In Asia the Master concept is culturally embedded. It's normal. So I think in introducing the Master idea later rather than earlier in the learning process (at least in the West) the assumption is that a feeling or experience for that a feeling/recognition for M. may have developed, so the Master concept is not so unrelatable, i.e. is not coming 'out of left field'. I believe that's the thinking for the incremental introduction. It makes sense to me. Whether one accepts the concepts about the Master and the role of the Master as presented my M. (and the Indian belief system) as true,is up to the individual. This is when one must exercise discimination, discernment and plumb one's heart. You can choose to reject that belief system and throw out baby with the bathwater kit & kaboodle (sp?), choose to keep the baby and throw out the bathwater, or keep both the baby and the bathwater. I think what many of us did for far too many years was to keep both the baby and the bathwater. We didn't excercise our own powers of discernment. (By not doing so I hurt myself and my family, and I take responsibility.) I'm curious why you perceived it as brainwashing? Did you think people were being encouraged not to exercise their own powers of discernment and discrimination? Lots to think about here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 07:32:40 (GMT) From: Bryn Email: None To: Been There Subject: Adult individuals are not babies. Crap analogy. nt Message:

ghh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 23:21:12 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Been There Subject: You are so full of shit Message:

It's coming out of you ears! This ain't steak, BT. This is a personality cult with 4 meditation techniques blown way out of proportion. Fuck you with this bullshit about being 'respectful of a person's level and capacity'. If you really believe that, you are a moron.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:21:53 (GMT) From: Been There Email: None To: Jerry Subject: The steak comment was offered by Chuck. Message:

as a Moonie saying: 'You don't feed steak to a baby' example. I didn't know its full context which someone explained below. So forget about the steak example. All I was trying to do was explain what I think is the rationale behind the way Knowledge is presented. I'm not defending a position.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 12:27:41 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Been There Subject: The steak comment was offered by Chuck. Message:

Sorry, BT, maybe I reacted a little more strongly than I should have, but I think you put a spin on the aspirant program that would rival the race for the presidency of the USA in this past election. Beyond that, in fact, Maharaji couldn't have spun it better. This is the kind of twisted logic that draws people into the cult, and leaves them with no rhyme or reason for why they're in it. It leaves them with a way of thinking that is indefensible, because in order to justify their existence in the cult, it's this exact way of thinking that they have to adopt. They have to abandon a direct and honest appraisal of what Knowledge is in favor of all kinds of rationalizations and justifications that have no bearing on reality at all. The end result is they lose themselves in Knowledge, other than what their (now) fucked up little minds are telling them, that they've found themselves.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:34:17 (GMT) From: Done That Email: None To: Been There Subject: Chuck Roast of course..... (nt) Message:

how many chickens must roost before the cock crows?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 22:21:32 (GMT) From: Bob Email: None To: Been There Subject: You don't feed steak to a baby Message:

In any field of learning, exept in hazardous situations, like medical or military training, knowledge is not kept from 'lower levels' although it might be boring or incomprehensible. Doing so takes individual responsability away. It is disrespectful and insulting. The western culture has problems with the concept of a master because we are more individual and have grown BEYOND that! To make people accept this concept they have to be eased into it. Not by giving more information but by slowly narrowing the field of vision: Brainwashing in name of 'the champion of independent thinking'. BTW that is the best joke Ive heard since long

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:57:17 (GMT) From: Francesca Email: None To: Been There Subject: Deceptive and false advertising -- grasshopper! Message:

I smelled a rat in the whole organization in the early to mid 80s, when the pictures with the malas and krishna crowns were verboten and there was a definite fear around any 'regular premie' speaking his or her mind. The introductory programs were formulaic and boring, the videos pathetic, sterile and contrived. DLM/EV/Maharaji shut down the news reporters in the mid-70s, because any unbiased reporting on the beliefs and the cult made it look like ... a cult. After I was no longer involved, premies told me I should throw out those old pictures, and that people were asked to discard old videos and tapes. Luckily some people didn't do that. I only threw them out because I wasn't interested, but luckily I saved a little printed material with the kind of quotes he doesn't want shown to people until they've been around for a year (LOLs). There is a calculated on-ramp to this miserable organization because most sane people would not come back after a while, if told that M was the 'master' etc. I remember that I was always trying to find ways to present what I was doing to 'normal' people when I was involved, because the whole thing sounded so wierd. People are being schnookered, plain and simple. Investing their time so that they are relucant to throw in the towel once the truth is told to them. If M was in the business of teaching people to meditate he'd get on with it. It's a con job, tricking people into a master/student relationship. The Tibetan Buddhists, for example, are up front about it, and there are a lot of meditations that can be taught to people who are not going to do the master-guru/student path. M has very little to offer people who do not wish to see him as 'the superior power in person.' EV has a church exemption with the IRS, and yet they always state that they are not a religion, and there is no belief system. A group must have commonly held beliefs in order to get a church exemption with the IRS. I would be interested to see what DLM/EV told the IRS about their members' beliefs! They also claim to have no members, and I don't think you can have a 'church' without members. Maybe now that they've sold enough smartcards, they're legal on that one. Who knows. Sorry, but it ounds like you're rationalizing. peace, f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:29:37 (GMT) From: Chuck Sprague Email: bctanda@hotmail.com To: Been There Subject: You don't lie to people in order to sell them... Message:

... a belief system. I've got to keep this short, got work to do. So briefly: You said: ''I'm curious why you perceived it as brainwashing? Did you think people were being encouraged not to exercise their own powers of discernment and discrimination? Lots to think about here.'' When I came to Knowledge, it was through the hippy gay community in SF. It was warm, interactive, unsupervised an unscripted. The videos were uncatagorized. There was live satsang, premies were free to talk about their experiance. It was satsang that brought me knowledge, satsang from many people. I also recieved ''Knowledge Lite'' in the early 1980's. There were no heavy demands made on me, and I was not coerced to believe anything. It was more like ''try it, you'll like it.'' My experience in recent times was exactly the opposite. It was cold, no spontinaity, very controled, sterile and dead. None of this, none of that. The Knowledge was just a lure to get people interested in M. The only thing we were propagating was an interest in M. We were to keep OURSELVES out of it, it was all about M, period. As most modern PWKs will tell you, the techiniques are incidental. The videos were about introducing new people to a belief system, carefully crafted to ''sell'' the concept of The Master. To me, satsang was about feeling good, not about selling any concepts. I'm not trying to change your mind. Believe what you like. Have a Master if you want. I don't doubt that you've had good experiences with M. I still practice the techinques, but as Yoga, in a more traditional way. But even if I still wanted a guru, I wouldn't want to be associated with the lies, secrecy and deception that M. propagates. Have you ever compaired M. with other gurus? I found the writings of Faqir Chand very interesting.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:21:54 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Been There Subject: So what is the difference between lessons... Message:

..One and two? The need for devotion and donations, perhaps? Unless you can clarify this, your analogy with orthodox teaching processes is worthless. As I recall, even 'advanced' satsangs (ie. premies only) said nothing about K itself but still pitched everything essentially at aspirant level, dealing only with the value of K and the beauty of life - with maybe an extra stress on the importance of the Master. An importance hammered home but never explained. At no time is any information imparted. Inspiration, maybe, but nothing that I would recognise as a 'teaching'. So can you please clarify the learning stages as you understand them, BT. This is a serious request. Nige (the hopefully not worthless teacher).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:38:47 (GMT) From: Been There Email: None To: Nigel Subject: I'm too far removed Nige Message:

to answer your question. I'm not involved with the aspirant process, and don't even know any aspirants. So I can't define the 'stages' for you. I think it is more about reaching levels of understanding, acceptance and inspiration than about absorbing and mastering quantities of information (as in learning a language, algebra, or developing a skill such as expository writing). How stages of development are gaged, i.e. what are the criteria to know what stage someone is at, I don't know. Sorry I can't be of more help. I think it was Way up above who gave the example of Chapter 15 contradicting Chapter 1. I agree with his example. If Chapter 15 contradicts Chapter 1, then misrepresentation is taking place. If Chapter 15 is consistent with Chapter 1, then no misrepresentation is taking place.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 23:13:24 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Been There Subject: Funny, you weren't five minutes ago... Message:

..it was all about feeding steaks to babies. It seemed you were presuming to know something about all this. So now you are saying 'deeper understanding' - not more advanced instruction - is what the learning process is about. Like you can have one without the other. Go figure! So next question: how do they decide when a baby is ready for proper steak? (Another serious question about to remain unanswered) Thanks for trying, but why bother? ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:16:13 (GMT) From: Been There (BT) Email: None To: Nigel Subject: To Nige... Funny, you weren't ... Message:

Nigel, I was speaking from past experience, i.e. the way it used to be when I was in the middle of it (10-15 years ago). That's the way the thinking was then. I'm presuming that's the way it still is, with modifications. There are always modifications. I think the approach is still to enable the aspirants to learn in increments. To get your questions answered accurately, though, you could talk to someone who's involved now. Probably any instructor could tell you how the system works, or any aspirant coordinator, or someone involved with propagation. I am none of those. I'm sure if you ask respectfully you'll get a respectful answer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 16:09:13 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: None To: Been There (BT) Subject: Oops! I thought you were a premie, BT... Message:

Not having read many (any?) of your previous posts, that's the impression I got. Sorry. But you still seem to be giving undue credence to this idea of incremental understanding. Whether or not we were formally involved in the aspirant process, we all have end-user memories from our aspirant days. And I don't see much difference between the early years when 'You need more satsang' was the standard reply to the unfortunate wretch grovelling at a Mahatma's feet begging for K, and the present requirement of watching x number of videos, or whatever. The essential technique is/was incredibly vague, not to mention manipulative. I had first-hand experience of three Knowledge selections. Saw plenty of aspirants chosen and rejected. In not a single instance was the reasoning behind the decision ever given, ie. what it might be that the rejected aspirant had failed to understand, or how the initiator had deduced this supposed unreadiness. One thing was certain though: if you expressed the slightest uncertainty about M's status as a teacher/leader/godhead (whether after lesson 1 or 15) you would NOT be offered the keys to the kingdom. I don't believe 'understanding' had anything to do with it, beyond understanding that if you had doubts you had better bloody well keep quiet about them...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 17:15:30 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Keeping quiet is part of the trap. Message:

'I don't believe 'understanding' had anything to do with it, beyond understanding that if you had doubts you had better bloody well keep quiet about them...' Keeping quiet about doubts is part of the trap. It might seem innocuous but often it leads to 'surrender' (now called 'synchronization') to the guru. It is an act of submission, of subserviance. When people act a certain way for long enough they start to believe it. Part of the reason for the long wait to 'receive Knowledge' is so people start to believe the way they are acting. You smile long enough, you believe it, frown long enough, you believe it. Supress doubts long enough and you start thinking that they should be suppressed because they are 'no good', not just as a way to 'get Knowledge'. 'Getting your questions answered' really means 'Don't question anymore'. 'Resolve your doubts' really means 'Stifle your doubts'. 'Still your mind' means 'Keep in chains, ignore, any thoughts or feelings that oppose being a slave of the 'Master' irrespective of logic or reason'. Rawat just a year ago even blabbed about the 'logic of the mind' as being a 'bad' thing. So much for his getting rid of the religion that he said he would do, he was just making it more covert. I remember a premie couching an aspirant on how to act in order to 'receive Knowledge'. I don't remember if I was the aspirant. Basically you don't express any doubts, even if you have them, and you grovel, you beg. When I was at Amaroo in the '90s the same thing was happening. People have to get into the character of being a premie sufficiently to 'receive k'. 'Being ready' is simply whether Rawat likes the way a person did their submission ritual. He rejects people but doesn't say 'I didn't like the way you begged.' which is obviously what is going on. There was a psychological experiment (Nigel, I'm sure you know about it) years ago in which people acted like guards and inmates in a prison. The 'guards' started abusing the 'inmates' and the 'inmates' didn't leave even though they could have at any time. The people running the experiement had to stop it because things got out of hand. This is similar to what happens in Rawat's cult. I had a dream while still in the cult in which I was in a prison without a door. I (and the other inmates) could have left at any time but I didn't because I didn't sufficiently realize I could.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 03:45:35 (GMT) From: Gary E. Email: None To: G Subject: And after all of that only a few in hundreds Message:

stick around for the long haul anyway. So, more power to your insightful observations. There is also a psychology to the whole trip of asking to receive the great gift, and the fact that you can be rejected. During the indoctrination process there is intrigue, positive re-inforcement, lots of wishful thinking involved, but even though m has 35 years of experience in this process of revealing it, the attrition rate is still phenomenal and at least in the west, the numbers of interested converts has fortunately dried up to a dribble.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:18:19 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: G Subject: Keeping quiet is part of the trap. Message:

Good post, G. I think that Been There's idea about readying people for knowledge according to their understanding is idealizing the whole process and thus giving credence to it. He or she is legitimizing the whole thing as if we really were children not developmentally ready for some truth that we could not handle without preparation (like explaining sex or death to children). It's a very idealistic way of looking at knowledge and K! But in fact, it *is* a brainwashing process and a conditioning process. You are so right on when you say that the aspirant process was all about putting on a sufficiently humble, no-nothing face. As in 'I don't know nuffin, Mr. Master, all the concepts I once held so dear are but dust in the wind. Please fill me up with your knowledge.' I really resented that whole process of pretending to know nothing, when I knew darn well that I knew a thing or two. It pissed me off. I wanted the darn knowledge more than I wanted my self-respect I guess. Contrast this with real human love, the kind where one friend accepts another for exactly who they are and respects what they know. The I-Thou relationship, as Buber said, did not exist in M's world. Maharaji said 'It's I-I and you make yourself empty for me. There's no you in this relationship!'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:48:42 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Helen Subject: 'clean slate' Message:

'As in 'I don't know nuffin, Mr. Master, all the concepts I once held so dear are but dust in the wind. Please fill me up with your knowledge.'' Even know, as quoted at www.elanvital.org, Rawat talks about having to have a 'clean slate'. Your wording describes what he means by 'clean slate', but he doesn't explain what he means, that would be too straight forward. 'The I-Thou relationship, as Buber said, did not exist in M's world. Maharaji said 'It's I-I and you make yourself empty for me. There's no you in this relationship!'' Who is Buber? I agree that is what Rawat says in so many words, but did Rawat really say those exact words? That's sounds like something that 'Bubba Free John' (aka Adi Da etc.) would say.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 21:18:59 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: G Subject: 'clean slate' Message:

No Rawat never said those exact words, I was paraphrasing. Maharaji implied this alot, however, and this is what his actions said again and again. As for Buber, the link JohnT supplied will be helpful as will reading one of his books. I think you would like him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Jun 12, 2001 at 03:38:21 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Helen and JohnT Subject: Thanks, the I-I trip Message:

Helen and JohnT, Thanks for the quotes and the link, Re 'Bubba Free John' vis-à-vis Rawt, besides the I-I trip and 'you are nothing' trip they are in, there are a lot of other eerie similarities between these weirdos. Compare these wordings: From http://names.adidam.org/daavadhoota.htm: 'The Title 'Avadhoota' traditionally refers to a God-Realized being, who, by virtue of his or her Realization, has shaken off the bondage of ordinary social expectations and may thus act freely, spontaneously, and sometimes unconventionally.' [sounds so much like Maharajism-speak] From http://www.elanvital.org/behind_the_message.htm: 'In private he comes across as a shy person though with an outrageous sense of humor. Speak to people who know him well you find that he is at best a one-of-a-kind visionary, at worst unfathomable.' ... ... Maharaji is the child guru who didn't burn out or fade away and that, combined with a total dedication to his students and a total disregard for ever doing what is expected, is the main reason why the 'world' may never fully accept or reject him.' Oh those wild and wacky guys, eh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:46:54 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: G Subject: Martin Buber Message:

From the 'Overview' at http://www.buber.de/en/ Buber's philosophy of dialogue views the human existence in relations, and that in two fundamentally different kinds of relations: I-It and I-Thou relations. An I-It relation is the normal everyday relation of a human being towards the things surrounding him. Man can also consider his fellows as an It - and that is what he does most of the time -, he views the other from a distance, like a thing, a part of the environment, forged into chains of causality. Radically different the I-Thou relation. The human being enters into it with his innermost and whole being, in a meeting, in a real dialogue this is what both of the partners do. For Buber, interhuman meetings are only a reflection of the human meeting with God. The essence of the biblical religion consists for Buber of the fact that - regardless of the infinite abyss between them - a dialogue between man and God is possible.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 21:01:06 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: G Subject: That was a great post, G. So well said... Message:

I think you could develop this section into a longer (potentially *Best of*) thread: 'Keeping quiet about doubts is part of the trap. It might seem innocuous but often it leads to 'surrender' (now called 'synchronization') to the guru. It is an act of submission, of subserviance. When people act a certain way for long enough they start to believe it. Part of the reason for the long wait to 'receive Knowledge' is so people start to believe the way they are acting. You smile long enough, you believe it, frown long enough, you believe it. Supress doubts long enough and you start thinking that they should be suppressed because they are 'no good', not just as a way to 'get Knowledge'. 'Getting your questions answered' really means 'Don't question anymore'. 'Resolve your doubts' really means 'Stifle your doubts'. 'Still your mind' means 'Keep in chains, ignore, any thoughts or feelings that oppose being a slave of the 'Master' irrespective of logic or reason'. Rawat just a year ago even blabbed about the 'logic of the mind' as being a 'bad' thing. So much for his getting rid of the religion that he said he would do, he was just making it more covert. Actually that's also a valid point you make about the Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo et al - look it up, anyone who doesn't know about it - it's all the introductory psychology texts). The scariest detail of this study isn't the fact that people can easily become sadistic - I mean, wow, big deal - but that subjects who volunteered to be 'jailers' were made to play inmates and those who volunteered to be 'prisoners' had to act the role of jailers. The former very quickly became emotional wrecks and the latter psychopathic bullies - routinely allowing their own behaviour to go beyond that permitted within the rules of the experiment. So, yeah, acting a role until you become that role is no idle speculation. It happens quite easily and alarmingly quickly. Similarly we acted the part of non-thinking devotee until we became non-thinking devotees. And having come thus far before the K selection, the quality of your meditation experiences become a secondary consideration. Why else would M need an aspirant process?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 02:30:45 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Other experiments. Message:

Thanks. Yes, a thread would be good, discussing the psychological aspects is very therapeutic. Guru, Master, Mahatma, Initiator, Instructor, devotee, 'student' (a misnomer), premie, PWiKie, they are all roles. In another experiment, real subjects thought they were administering shocks to people that they thought were the subjects. They went all the way to the red zone, where XXX was printed, and beyond the point where no more (fake) screams were heard. Submission to authority. Scary. In yet another experiment, the subject, with about nine other 'subjects' (they are actually in on it) are asked to judge the comparative lengths of two bars. There were cards where it was extremely clear which bar was longer, but a surprisingly high percentage of subjects went along with the lie told by the other subjects that the shorter bar was longer. Yeah, 2 + 2 = 5, sure it is, yes suh, and Rawat knows everything even though he doesn't know everything. Freaky. The experiments seem to indicate that a large portion of humans are suseptible to cults. Just consider Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII. It's not just cults that these experiments relate to, but to human behavior in general. The pressure to submit to the alpha male and/or to the pack appears to be quite strong. It takes courage and level headedness not to when not appropriate. I remember at the first 'festival' I heard 'Run to your lord.' I basically thought 'What the fuck?' and had a sinking feeling like 'Oh shit.' Unfortunately I chose the wrong road, maybe I didn't want to lose my new found 'friends' (in a certain sense the premies were my friends). Oh well, better late than never. Another factor is not wanting to admit you've gone done the wrong road. The further you go, the more reluctant you are to double back to get on the right road. I think Rawat, rather manipulatively, used that analogy in one of his talks. A person's mind, quite correctly, tells them that worshipping Rawat is the wrong road. Rawat turns it around so that you interpret that message differently, thinking it is a warning to not 'leave' Rawat.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 06:46:59 (GMT) From: Steve M Email: None To: Been There Subject: Nice to have you here BT Message:

I forgot to give you a warm welcome before now. You'll find that the reception you get here may get hot but please stay. regards Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:29:30 (GMT) From: BT Email: None To: Steve M Subject: Thanks. Trying again Message:

Thanks Steve. Early on when the Forum started I posted a few times under a different name. I was JUST BEGINNING to step back and take a fresh look at everything related to M. and Knowledge (like Erica Anderson recently said she was). I was so viciously reemed by Jim, Jerry and G (though well received by others) that I stopped posting. I'm glad to see that in the last six months or so the standard and quality of discussions on the Forum has risen considerably. I'm finding the content much more substantive (good writing (GREAT in the case of Babs), great humor, real feelings, deep thinkning; not just endless trashing (although some of that is still here too). I couldn't disagree more with Pia in her description of the posters here as hate mongers (or whatever she said...something close to that).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 17:15:41 (GMT) From: Katie H Email: None To: BT Subject: to Been There - working it out in public. Message:

Hey Been There - Glad you gave the forum another try. I wish there was more space here for people who, as you said, are JUST BEGINNING to step back and take a fresh look at everything related to M. and Knowledge. It is hard to deal with attacks when you are feeling confused in the first place - and it's difficult to deal with getting so many answers to your first tentative posts. However, I also agree with you that there has been more space and a better attitude here in the last 6 months or so - it's a dynamic, changing environment. I read your posts in this thread and I think part of the problem - and why you got attacked - was that it wasn't clear that you were basically trying to explain EV's propagation rationale and not your OWN rationale. BTW, I also think it's interesting that they edited the bhakti discussion out of the video of M's Portland speech - although I don't think this would have happened without M's specific permission (don't his own daughters work at Visions?!) I don't think M or EV or Visions gives people much credit for being able to understand what it's all about, and probably thought the bhakti discussion would 'confuse' people - even though it's TRUE. Take care, Katie H.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 08:23:12 (GMT) From: PatC Email: pdconlon@yahoo.com To: BT Subject: You're fading in and out, Been There Message:

I've read your posts with interest in spite of my tendency not to take anonymous posters seriously mostly because in the end it is always disappointing to realize that you can't really ever get to know the real person behind the alias so why waste time trying. I'm hearing your honesty and sincerity but your voice would be much be louder and clearer if I knew something about you. You seem willing to talk about yourself. I'm here more for the personalities than the politics so I'd like to know more about you. And always feel free to be as nosy as me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 04:50:31 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Been There Subject: You're not that far removed. Message:

'I think it is more about reaching levels of understanding, acceptance and inspiration than about absorbing and mastering quantities of information' 'understanding' what? 'accepting' what? That you are to be a slave of the 'Master'? That you are to accept anything that Rawat says without analysis or criticism, even statements that contradict each other? That you are to NEVER doubt the 'purity' of the 'Master'? Do you actually think that his behavior shows that he is 'pure'? You know what behavior I'm referring to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:57:31 (GMT) From: Gregg (been there too) Email: None To: Been There Subject: You don't feed prasad to an ignorant heathen Message:

On the face of it, Been There, your argument is convincing to those who believe in the usefulness of a guru and the necessity of incremental learning in any field of study. And, in fact, I am also sympathetic to the traditional progression of esoteric study: first master the basics, later the wild stuff. (This is the traditional Tibetan way, for example, although Tibetan lamas selling their wares in the West find that Westerners want the Highest Teachings right away, and they are willing to pay top dollar for the right to listen to teachings about Black Hat Dzogchen, or whatever, as long as it sounds like the Best Buddhist Buzz.) However, with Maharajism, I'm not sure this works. See, there are no esoteric teachings. Just raw quasi-Hindu messianic bhakti. There are countless teachers preaching this sort of path, and if you look at their web pages (hey, that's how you advertise these days!) you'll see that most of them are pretty up front about their schtick. Maharaji is not only coy about the true nature of his religion, he lies about it! That's so wrong, man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:34:28 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Been There Subject: And you don't feed false milk to a baby either Message:

I am sure that premies rationalize the incremental teaching approach in just the way you say, Been There. All would be fine and dandy if what the student learns in chapter 1 does not get contradicted in chapter 15. Ch.15 should just add to and compliment Ch.1. One example is that newcomers are told outright that they will be free to keep their current religion and still practice Knowledge without conflict. So they continue with their interest and continue to investigate. Then they are at a Knowledge selection and asked about any religious affiliations. Lo and behold, no Knowledge initiation for them until they renounce all other religious affiliations. We were visited here by a one-time aspirant with this very complaint. It is also true that newcomers' questions will not be answered fully and truthfully, certain true information will be purposely kept from them. So the steak and the baby analogy is not really appropriate, either for Moonies or premies. Because the baby is being fed food that the grown-ups know is not real food and that it is food that none of the grown-ups ever eat. The babies are being given false food, like milk that only looks like milk and taste like milk but doesn't have any of the nutritional qualities of milk that the baby needs. p.s. sorry, Been There, to be so contradictory to your posts this week, but you have been playing the devil's advocate in favor of the premies viewpoint.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 22:29:31 (GMT) From: Been There Email: None To: Way Subject: And you don't feed false milk Message:

First, Way, I'm enjoying the discusseion. Your input is thoughtful and well stated. Second, I have heard a story like the one you cite, however, I was IN a Knowledge selection some years ago (doing service or 'participating' in current parlance) in which a woman said she was a practicing Christian, went to church regularly, etc. and WAS selected to receive Knowledge. So there are two scenarios re having religious affiliations: repercussions and none. Where people said they were not selected to receive Knowledge because of religious affiliations, it is possible that that was the PERCEIVED reason, but not the actual reason. However, the 'Lo and Behold' story you tell of the aspirant who visited you sounds convincing. If that story is true (and the similar case I heard about), then clearly Chapter 15 contradicts Chapter 1, and misrepresentation is taking place. I suspect that sometimes it happens one way and sometimes another. That would explain the effort to 'synchronize' wouldn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:16:13 (GMT) From: The Deli Lama Email: dilemma.com To: Been There Subject: You can feed dung to a cow but you won't drink Message:

it's milk if it smells like bullshit, or something like that there. Lao Tse.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 23:04:04 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Been There Subject: Then how do you explain this bullshit? Message:

From the EV FAQs page: 'Can one receive and practice Knowledge and still keep all of one's beliefs? The only request Maharaji makes is that people do not approach Knowledge as another thing to collect on a ‘spiritual shopping trip’ as it were. Knowledge stands apart from the other things you do in your life and should be approached without preconceptions. He explains: 'To give Knowledge the best chance possible you need to have a clean slate. Just as a gardener will not plant a tree where another tree is growing, you have to clear a space in your life to allow the seed of Knowledge to grow.'' *** If the answer was 'Yes' that would have been stated. The answer is 'No', but Rawat and his sycophants don't want to come out and say it. Instead they talk in cult speak. '...do not approach Knowledge as another thing to collect on a ‘spiritual shopping trip...’ They are saying that you must not 'collect' anything else, i.e. 'Knowledge' must be your only spiritual practice. 'Knowledge stands apart from the other things you do in your life and should be approached without preconceptions.' What the hell is that supposed to mean? It seems to mean that if Rawat tells you to do something, do it, give it number one priority without a second, nothing else matters, i.e. be a total slave. '... you need to have a clean slate ... you have to clear a space in your life ...' That is cult speak for 'Get rid of all your beliefs, 'clean' your mind (brain wash), clear yourself of your own desires, motivations, goals, beliefs, attitude, dehumanize yourself. We will 'help' you do this.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 05:11:09 (GMT) From: Been There Email: None To: G Subject: Don't know how Message:

G, I don't know how to explain it. It's confusing. It sounds like 'speaking out of two sides of the mouth'. I'm not sure how it can work to keep your religion, practices, etc. (which is said to be O.K.) AND have a clean slate, etc. I see what you mean.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:21:01 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Been There Subject: That's absurd. Complete nonsense Message:

In the normal course of things we have an adequate choice of words to describe ideas on the spectrum of wisdom. But this kind of cult reasoning really pushes for some new terminology that might expand the lower end of the scale. What you're saying tests the limits. I mean, once you've said 'stupid', called ideas 'worthless' and the like, what's left? I'm curious why you perceived it as brainwashing? Did you think people were being encouraged not to exercise their own powers of discernment and discrimination? Lots to think about here. You don't feed steak to a baby because a baby can't digest it. You don't teach calculus to five year-olds for the same reason. But indocrinating premies into accepting Maharaji as the Lord is a whole different matter. There's nothing fancy about the concept -- indeed, Maharaji'd be the first to say you can't really understand it anyway. The only 'fancy' trick is getting people to buy it. We used to blast it on the streets. Now it's hidden. Take a look at the Instructor Training Manual for aspirants elsewhere on this site. I don't know about 'brainwashing', exactly. That's a pretty fancy term. But, whatever you want to call it, it's trickery. Doubts are never dealt with as substantive concerns, rather they're just mind-noise that must be avoided, repressed, and browbeaten down. You really need to think further on these matters.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 20:48:27 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Been there Subject: and also contradictory Message:

'...it makes sense to introduce it incrementally. It is true actually: you DON'T feed steak to a baby.' You are writing and thinking just like a moonie. For Rawat to say he is a teacher in 'introductory' talks, then later say he is NOT a teacher is not incremental, it is contradictory. The 'introductory' talks give a false impression, they serve the purpose of bait to get people hooked, then the switch happens later as a person 'learns' more about 'Knowledge'. When you learn a language (or say mathematics), what you learn later on does not contradict what you learned before. That is an entirely different process. 'Learning about Knowledge' is a case of deception, not incremental learning. Calling an adult a baby is disrespectful. The cult speak 'You don't feed steak to a baby.' means that you don't tell people what the actual beliefs of the cult are up front because people would gag, they would not accept it. No, first you soften them up by giving them a false impression (the bait), then you damage their critical reasoning abilities so that they will swallow the bs later. Once a person has unwittingly invested time in a cult and has developed a desire for the bait, it becomes harder to drop out of it. Cults use that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 16:49:35 (GMT) From: Gregg Email: None To: Way Subject: The Master of All (well, at least all premies) Message:

That's right, Way, and this duplicity has been the modus operandi since the mid-seventies. Perhaps in the first few years, acid-addled premies were frank about their love for the Living Lord. But in the years I was involved (1974-78) and ever since, as far as I can tell, there have always been two stories about Maharaji: the story premies tell to themselves and to each other; and the story marked for general consumption. To the public, Maharaji is a 'teacher.' And that was the word I would use when first breaching the subject to an acquaintance or coworker. Maybe 'guru,' an exotic and ambiguous word to Americans, but never 'Master,' a word which clearly implies omnipotence on His part and subservience on our part. The truth, in other words. If a person is in a 'spiritual group,' and gives one version of her involvement to strangers, a version which leaves out the most important parts, does that make this group a cult? Hell, yeah. Here's what satsang would really sound like, if it were true to the meaning of the word (company of TRUTH): 'Oh, you want to hear about my meditation? Well, this guy from India is my guru, Guru Maharaji. He teaches meditation. But the main thing is that he's like, an incarnation of God. I'm not sure what incarnation really means, but for me it mea ns that I pray to him. I think he guides the direction of my life. Everything that happens, it's because of him. He's like, in the sky or something in my imagination. When I die, he'll be there, at the end of the tunnel of light, smiling. I'm watching my mind all the time to make sure it doesn't, like, think too much. I'm trying to be good for Guru Maharaji. The main thing I do is earn money so I can go and see him in person. I always want to kiss his feet, but I don't get to much anymore. Look at his picture. Isn't he, like, so divine?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 18:24:55 (GMT) From: Will Email: None To: All Subject: Worshipping a Degenerate Message:

The new premie cult think is maharaji doesn't judge my lifestyle, I won't judge his. He's supposed to be a spiritual leader, better than god, yet his private lifestyle is that of a complete degenerate. And premies can explain that away and worship him anyway, it's beyond me how low they have stooped. He also promotes selfishness, many have suffered form being involved with him but he doesn't care, and neither do his premies. I feel more open and compassionate towards others in pain than when I was in the cult.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 21:36:45 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Will Subject: You're right nobody in Rawatworld gives a fuck nt Message:

f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index