Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 25

From: Sep 26, 1998

To: Oct 13, 1998

Page: 3 Of: 5



Jim -:- Too much excitement!! -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:08:51 (EDT)
__Mike -:- Wow.... -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:30:20 (EDT)
____Jean-Michel -:- Hi dear colleague! -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:54:50 (EDT)
______Mike -:- Fan-belt -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:06:25 (EDT)
________Jerry -:- Fan-belt -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 13:37:13 (EDT)
__________Mike -:- A 'server' -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 18:55:19 (EDT)
____________Jerry -:- A 'server' -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 19:42:47 (EDT)
______________Mike -:- focus on the form.... -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:04:04 (EDT)
________Jean-Michel -:- Fan-belt -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 04:02:03 (EDT)
______Robyn -:- Hi dear colleague! -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 06:04:56 (EDT)
________Jean-Michel -:- Hi dear colleague! -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 15:58:56 (EDT)
__Robyn -:- Too much excitement!! -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 21:28:42 (EDT)

Jim -:- Ron Geaves -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:00:41 (EDT)
__Mike -:- Ron Geaves -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:21:08 (EDT)
__Sir David -:- Ron Geaves -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 15:22:26 (EDT)
____Katie -:- Ron Geaves -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 15:46:36 (EDT)
______JW -:- Ron Geaves -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 16:52:37 (EDT)
____eb to Sir David -:- My Sentiments Exactly -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 17:15:08 (EDT)
______Mike -:- Horton? -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 19:51:11 (EDT)
________Katie -:- Horton? -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:01:16 (EDT)
__________Mike -:- You wouldn't believe... -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:20:55 (EDT)
____________Katie -:- You wouldn't believe... -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 11:02:29 (EDT)
______________Mike -:- You wouldn't believe... -:- Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 12:16:01 (EDT)
__________Jerry -:- Horton? -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 22:50:26 (EDT)
____________Katie -:- to Jerry -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 11:08:41 (EDT)
______________Jerry -:- to Jerry -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 12:07:22 (EDT)
____________VP -:- Thanks, Jerry -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 18:51:09 (EDT)
____bill -:- Ron Geaves -:- Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 01:38:11 (EDT)
__Gail -:- Ron Geaves -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 16:31:16 (EDT)
____Gail -:- Val Archer says 'Chaching' -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 17:18:57 (EDT)

Nelson Mandela -:- Thank you Maharaji -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 10:00:47 (EDT)
__Katie -:- Thank you Maharaji -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:38:25 (EDT)
__Gail -:- Thank you Maharaji -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 17:29:39 (EDT)

Jim -:- People really talk this way??? -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:41:04 (EDT)
__jethro -:- People really talk this way??? -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:48:10 (EDT)
__Mike -:- People really talk this way??? -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 10:51:20 (EDT)
__VP -:- People really talk this way??? -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 19:33:35 (EDT)

JW -:- The Premie Forumla 'Lives' -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 20:05:49 (EDT)
__Paula -:- The Premie Forumla 'Lives' -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 21:23:33 (EDT)
____Jim -:- Hey Paula, listen to yourself -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:16:38 (EDT)
______Mike -:- Yea! -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:01:02 (EDT)
______Jerry -:- Forgiveness -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:07:04 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Forgiveness -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:12:40 (EDT)
____JW -:- The Premie Formula 'Lives' -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:58:25 (EDT)
__eb -:- The Premie Forumla 'Lives' -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 23:29:45 (EDT)
____Mc -:- The Premie Forumla 'Lives' -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:29:09 (EDT)

Gail -:- Calling all PWICKS -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:01:44 (EDT)
__nobody important -:- Calling all PWICKS -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 22:59:59 (EDT)
____Mickey the Pharisee -:- Calling all PWICKS -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:31:27 (EDT)
______jethro -:- Calling all PWICKS -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 02:22:06 (EDT)
______Mike -:- Might I add... -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:06:13 (EDT)
________nobody important -:- Might I add... -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 20:40:41 (EDT)
__________Mike -:- Might I add... -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 11:01:37 (EDT)
____________nobody important -:- do what i say...not what i do -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 14:21:26 (EDT)
______________Gail -:- Hey, Noboby Important. Why -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 22:11:32 (EDT)
______________VP -:- do what i say...not what i do -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 18:34:43 (EDT)
________________nobody important -:- do what i say...not what i do -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 14:29:32 (EDT)
__________________Gail -:- Hey nobody important--you lie. -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 17:05:24 (EDT)
____________________NI -:- Gail, Gail, Gail -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 17:34:46 (EDT)
______________________Mickey the Pharisee -:- NI, NI, NI -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 18:00:17 (EDT)
________________________NI -:- NI, NI, NI -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 21:52:00 (EDT)
__________________________Mickey the Pharisee -:- NI, NI, NI -:- Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:33:57 (EDT)
______________________Gail -:- You really are a liar, NI! -:- Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 16:51:56 (EDT)
________________________NI -:- You really are a liar, NI! -:- Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 21:25:29 (EDT)
__________________________Gail -:- MJ's words about the net -:- Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 22:47:23 (EDT)
__________________VP -:- do what i say...not what i do -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 17:25:08 (EDT)
____________________NI -:- do what i say...not what i do -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 22:08:18 (EDT)

Luis Almeida -:- Something related to M -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 08:13:45 (EDT)
__Gail -:- Something related to M -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 09:42:22 (EDT)
____eb -:- Messed up -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 18:58:43 (EDT)
______Gail -:- Messed up -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:07:59 (EDT)
________Robyn -:- Gail and Luis -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 06:16:36 (EDT)
__bb -:- Something related to M -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 03:16:15 (EDT)

Gail -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 23:04:22 (EDT)
__Jean-Michel -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 00:23:14 (EDT)
__Rick -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 00:55:17 (EDT)
____Jean-Michel -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 05:25:42 (EDT)
______Gail -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 06:09:49 (EDT)
________Jean-Michel -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 06:37:09 (EDT)
__Katie -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 11:46:19 (EDT)
____Gail -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 12:14:12 (EDT)
______Saul -:- A visit to a psychiatrist is -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:26:33 (EDT)
________Gail -:- Big hugs to everybody. nt -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:34:50 (EDT)
__JW -:- If This Helps -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 14:45:14 (EDT)
____Jerry -:- If This Helps -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 17:30:09 (EDT)
______JW -:- CAN is now Called AFF -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 17:45:28 (EDT)
__JW to Gail -:- Links -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 18:07:18 (EDT)

Jim -:- Contact!! -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 21:11:34 (EDT)

Web Watcher -:- Here's the old premie site -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:15:16 (EDT)

Jim -:- Revisionism? Naaaawww... -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:12:59 (EDT)

Jim -:- Mr. Mind finally shows up! -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:33:23 (EDT)

Jim -:- Who was Mitch Ditkoff? -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:21:29 (EDT)
__Mike -:- Real Communication -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 15:01:58 (EDT)
__Lurk Skytalker -:- Who is Mitch Ditkoff? -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 22:25:43 (EDT)

jIM -:- A Case Against God -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 13:47:08 (EDT)
__Sir David -:- A Case Against God -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 15:06:31 (EDT)
____Jim -:- A Case Against God -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:09:11 (EDT)
______Sir D -:- A Case Against God -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:46:35 (EDT)
________Jim -:- A Case Against God -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:00:33 (EDT)
____x -:- A Case Against God being a He -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:56:32 (EDT)
__Jerry -:- A Case Against God -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:46:21 (EDT)
____Sir D -:- A Case for God, Jerry -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 11:23:38 (EDT)
______Jerry -:- A Case for God, Jerry -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 15:42:09 (EDT)
__rUNAMOK -:- a case against belief -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 00:31:49 (EDT)
____Jim -:- a case against belief -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 09:42:13 (EDT)
______Runamok -:- a case against belief -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 10:10:27 (EDT)
________Jim -:- a case against belief -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:00:41 (EDT)
__________Runamok -:- a case against belief -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 02:10:37 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- a case against belief -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 10:23:05 (EDT)
____________Mike -:- a case against belief -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:31:47 (EDT)
______________Sister Mary Elephant -:- a case for belief -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 14:26:54 (EDT)
________________Mike -:- a case for belief -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 18:08:04 (EDT)
________________Mike -:- Oh, sister.... -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 19:18:27 (EDT)
__________________Runamok -:- My Case -:- Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 00:58:40 (EDT)
____________________Jim -:- My Case -:- Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 13:47:44 (EDT)
______________________Runamok -:- My Case -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 00:34:34 (EDT)
________________________Jim -:- My Case -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 01:57:49 (EDT)
__________________________Runamok -:- My Case -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 10:03:31 (EDT)
____________________________Mike -:- My Case -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 10:54:36 (EDT)
______________________________Katie -:- Earth at the center? -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 15:36:47 (EDT)
________________________________Mike -:- Earth at the center? -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 17:54:22 (EDT)
________________________________VP -:- Earth at the center? -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 14:23:42 (EDT)
__________________________________Mike -:- Earth at the center? -:- Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 14:41:09 (EDT)
____________________________________VP -:- Earth at the center? -:- Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 15:06:36 (EDT)
____________________________Jim -:- My Case -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:01:16 (EDT)
______________________________Runamok -:- My Case -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 13:56:52 (EDT)
________________________________Jim -:- My Case -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 21:25:54 (EDT)
__________________________________Runamok -:- The real dirt -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 02:36:47 (EDT)
____________________________________Jim -:- Don't you see? -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 09:29:53 (EDT)
______________________________________Runamok -:- Don't you see? -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 01:06:01 (EDT)
________________________________________Jim -:- Don't you see? -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 11:17:43 (EDT)
__________________________________________Runamok -:- Don't you see? -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 23:54:45 (EDT)
____________________________________________Jim -:- Don't you see? -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 13:44:23 (EDT)
______________________________________________Runamok -:- Don't you see? -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 16:30:35 (EDT)
______________________________________Runamok -:- PS from your pal -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 01:18:56 (EDT)
______________An Elf -:- a case for Santa Claus -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 14:09:50 (EDT)

JW -:- 'Enjoying Lives' -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 13:37:52 (EDT)
__Mike -:- Hilarious -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 13:46:57 (EDT)
____JW -:- Hilarious -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:10:48 (EDT)
______Jim -:- Hilarious -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:16:44 (EDT)
________JW -:- Here's What I Think -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 17:28:01 (EDT)
__________Robyn -:- Here's What I Think -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 18:30:27 (EDT)
____________Jerry -:- Here's What I Think -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 09:11:32 (EDT)
______________Gail -:- Here's What I Think -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 12:16:41 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- Here's What I Think -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 18:30:42 (EDT)
__Robyn -:- 'Enjoying Lives' -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 15:59:45 (EDT)
____b..*<* -:- Jan Buckhalkters missing baby -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:14:38 (EDT)
______Gail -:- Jan Buckhalkters missing baby -:- Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:15:53 (EDT)
________bill -:- Jan Buckhalkters missing baby -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 08:44:57 (EDT)
______JW -:- Jan Buckhalkters missing baby -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 13:01:36 (EDT)
______a lurker with white-out -:- Jan Buchhalter -:- Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 22:19:03 (EDT)
________Joy -:- Jan Buchhalter -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 00:24:47 (EDT)
__________jethro -:- Jan Buchhalter -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:59:37 (EDT)
________bill burke -:- Jan Buchhalter -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 03:58:05 (EDT)
__________Lurk -:- JB -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:46:50 (EDT)
____________RT -:- ...Superscam! -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 13:08:50 (EDT)
____________bb -:- JB -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 21:26:57 (EDT)
________JW -:- I Agree -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 13:17:25 (EDT)
__________Joy -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 15:30:37 (EDT)
____________bb -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 18:36:05 (EDT)
______________op -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 00:41:25 (EDT)
________________jethro -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 09:04:49 (EDT)
________________Katie -:- Hi op! -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 13:50:33 (EDT)
________________Rick -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 19:28:44 (EDT)
________________JW -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 15:14:32 (EDT)
__________________bill -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 00:23:13 (EDT)
____________________op -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 09:41:00 (EDT)
______________________Joy -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:02:08 (EDT)
________________________op -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 01:53:03 (EDT)
__________________________Joy -:- M = Mother Teresa?? Not!! -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 11:46:04 (EDT)
____________________________JW -:- M = Mother Teresa?? Not!! -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 12:56:00 (EDT)
______________________________Joy -:- M = Mother Teresa?? Not!! -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 13:14:31 (EDT)
______________________________VP -:- You said it, JW -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 19:51:35 (EDT)
______________________Runamok -:- Of Free Speech -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:38:48 (EDT)
______________________Katie -:- Of Bongos and Gopis -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 14:53:19 (EDT)
____________Jean-Michel -:- Gopis or former mistresses? -:- Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:34:08 (EDT)
________VP -:- Jan Buchhalter -:- Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 13:33:29 (EDT)
__________bb -:- Jan Buchhalter -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 01:04:25 (EDT)
____________VP -:- Jan Buchhalter -:- Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 11:21:09 (EDT)


Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:08:51 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Too much excitement!!
Message:
And you thought your life was thrilling! Check out what Gianni Vignola has to say about video distribution in Italy. I think he understates things a bit when he simply calls it 'really incredible.':

'When we started distributing videos here we had one thing very clear: let's do it in a way so that anybody who wants to see a video can do so. People who have Knowledge or are interested in it are spread all over the country: from the Alps to that triangle way down south you can see on the map, called Sicily.

In order to be faithful to our commitment sometimes we have to be very, very creative: some videos are shipped via carrier, some by mail, some are given by hand, brought somewhere by somebody or picked-up at a video event. Even the way people ask for videos changes from place to place: fax, e-mail, a telephone call, even a 'live' conversation. And it's always so beautiful to talk with people and to be able to say: 'Yes, there are new videos and you can have them. Are there new people in your area that want to see them? Would you like the receive a video for people who have Knowledge? Are you preparing to receive it and you would like to receive some videos that can help you with that?'

It's really gratifying to be involved with video distribution.

And when you think of all the work and effort that goes into this, worldwide, it is really incredible, and I'm sure everybody is enjoying doing it.

In Italy we distribute videos to almost 40 cities. If we all lived in the same city, well, then we would have really big video events. The potential is definitely there, and maybe soon we will have a lot of very big video events every night in many cities!'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:30:20 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Wow....
Message:
Jim: Sign ME up for that fantastic tour of UPS and FED-EX, I must be missing something soooo beautiful AND exciting! I never knew that 'live' conversations with real people could be so wonderful, either..... Wow.... what's this guy's phone number.... maybe I can talk to a real 'live' person, too!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:54:50 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Hi dear colleague!
Message:
That was 'my service' 2 years ago!

I would have said the same thing ....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:06:25 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Fan-belt
Message:
JM: Even M had a buzzword for this a few years ago: 'Fan-belt grace.' It's when a premie takes the most mundane things and attributes amazing amounts of 'grace' to the subject at hand, like it was some kind of miracle. For example: It's amazing and beautiful that FED-EX got our videos 'there' overnite! WOW, we handed a video over to a premie and he HAND-CARRIED it to its destination... and it all happened 'by his grace' (or words to that effect).

- Well, considering the postal service, maybe there is some 'grace' involved when a package gets where it's supposed to go..... he he he. :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 13:37:13 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Fan-belt
Message:
WOW! I just saw some paint dry! Totally AWESOME!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 18:55:19 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: A 'server'
Message:
Jerry: You know, it's like really beautiful. I just went deep within inside, stayed centered on holy-name, tapped that magnificent grace and was able to build an entire NT & MS-Exchange Server today! It worked on the very first try... by his grace! I could never have done it on my own, you know! I am nothing without his grace.... I am too stupid to build servers.... When I'm deep in meditation, he just guides me to the proper place and it just happens as if by magic. MahaCULTji is soooo powerful and knows everything about everything. This life is so precious, I wish I didn't have to waste it building servers. But M told me to 'serve,' so I do..... he he he he

- God, I think I'm going to be sick....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 19:42:47 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: A 'server'
Message:
I must have been totally in my mind today because I too tried to setup an NT server, but it just refused to recognize the hard drive. Oh well, some days are just filled with more grace than others, I guess. I'll just meditate real hard this weekend and I'm sure that NT will recognize the drive on Monday.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:04:04 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: focus on the form....
Message:
Jerry: factor! You KNOW this to be true: Focus on the form of satguru... always remember the supreme power the satguru... in your heart cherish the feet of satguru... and your heart's desire (hard drive) will be 'recognized!' I 'feel' it, therefore it MUST be true! I feel it deeeeep within, inside! Meditation without devotion is effort wasted. Boy, your mind has got you worse that I could have imagined.... wait.... 'I'M' imagining....OH NO... I must be... in... my MIND! Damn Jerry, now you've got me doing it, too. Ok, Ok, I can fix this.... all I have to do is pinch my eyeballs and everything will be OooooKayyyyy! Ahhhhh! That's better.... ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 04:02:03 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Fan-belt
Message:
You know what happens in France quite often (used to):
the parcel gets lost (not for everybody of course), meaning someone stole it because there are tapes inside.
And you know what: that person GOT the message, then EVEN IF the tape is stolen, it's still grace because someone got hit by the 'message'
Wooooowwwww.....
And of course if the tape is delivered, the grace to be able to watch it. So much grace in it, it HAS TO get to someone!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 06:04:56 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Hi dear colleague!
Message:
Dear Jean-Michel,
It is very hard to imagine you speaking in that way but thank you for admitting it here so people can see a clear example of the striking difference the cult can make. That post from Italy sounds like it was written by a marshmellow brain and reading your posts, you sound warm and intellegent. It is comforting to know that no matter how imbedded one becomes there is always hope they will see the 'light' someday.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 15:58:56 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Hi dear colleague!
Message:
Their case is not too bad IMO.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 21:28:42 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Too much excitement!!
Message:
Dear Jim,
Wow Indeed! Boy was that an eye opener. A third eye opener! I am Italian and now imagine the pride I am feeling. No really, this is scary. This is your brain, this is your brain on BM! Gone!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:00:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Ron Geaves
Message:
Ron Geaves is one of the old-timers on the new premie site. He's described as a lecturer in religious studies and, amongst other things, he says this:

This was good enough for me and in July 1969 I received the four techniques which Maharaji calls 'Knowledge' and which provide the means to go within. At the time I had no idea that Maharaji intended to make Knowledge available throughout the world. All that is history now. Maharaji came to England in June 1971 after a few of us had spent two years preparing a small platform from which he could begin to spread his message. (my epmhasis).

Isn't this something? Maharaji's 'Peace Bomb' ('I declare I will establish peace in this world!') becomes Maharaji's Peace Balm ('I declare I will make peace available throughout the world. You, too, can have my peace. All it takes is a VCR and a sincere desire to stop asking questions.')

Anyway, Geaves also says this:

I am now a lecturer in religious studies in a British university where I teach Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism to undergraduates. My area of expertise is in contemporary forms of religious traditions and I spend a lot of time visiting religious communities and sacred sites around the world. I enjoy my work as it utilises the analytical and discriminating brain that academic training has developed. I am free to be even more independent, self-willed and individual in my beliefs and thoughts than at any other period of my life. However, the gift of Knowledge that was given to me nearly 30 years ago remains the mainstay of my existence. The experience has grown and deepened over the years and it has brought with it wisdom. The essence of that wisdom lies in the discrimination that practising Knowledge has brought with it: the ability to differentiate between the things of the mind and the heart. I like using my intellect and I enjoy the fruits of this world but I know that real and lasting satisfaction can only come from feeding the inner longing that comes from a thirsty heart.

So I wonder if he's actually done the OBVIOUS work of following his guru's footprints back thorugh the forest. In other words, what does he know of the Radhasoami tradition and all the related information JM's got up on his web site. Really, it's beyond imagination that this guy, complete with 'analytical and discriminating mind' and everything (including the ugly and unnecessary word 'utilize') would avoid doing the obvious research. Well, maybe he just didn't know where to start. Ron, try starting here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1151/indian.htm
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:21:08 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ron Geaves
Message:
Jim: When Ron says K gave him wisdom (a very sweeping generalization, if I may say so), I'd like to know EXACTLY what wisdom K gave him, SPECIFICALLY! What, EXACTLY is a 'thing of the mind' and a 'thing of the heart.' I'd sure like to hear what he THINKS is the difference between the two, EXACTLY! How deep is 'deeper' experience (does he walk into walls from seeing all that light, all the time)? What 'scared sites' has he visited (prem nagar), EXACTLY? What 'religious communities' has he infiltrated and become an expert on, EXACTLY? 'Independent' and 'self-willed' sound like the premie interpretation of 'mind' to me. Hmmmm.... This guy sounds really confused to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 15:22:26 (EDT)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jim
Subject: Ron Geaves
Message:
Having known Ron back in the seventies and early eighties, I don't think anything you say will make a jot of difference to him. My question is this; why the experience that Ron has had is so different to most other people's experiences?

The last time I saw Ron, I was completely freaking out and almost having a nervous breakdown. I was working, living on my own and attending ashram applicants satsang every evening in an attempt to be allowed to get back in to an ashram again. All of this was taking its toll on me mentally and emotionally and that evening, Ron had given yet another rendition of his story about how Maharaji had told him to leave his sickness in his blankets and have a curry - and I just flipped out!

I was crying and shaking and I remember saying that I couldn't take any more of this, I felt completely lost. Ron, assured me that now I was found but it just didn't gel. I didn't feel 'found' in this Maharaji trip which I'd been in for eleven years. I felt utterly confused and bereft of any peace or stability.

Now I've nothing against Ron or Glen or any of these old timers. Ron was a nice guy. But what I don't understand is how such people seemed to fit into Maharaji's trip and yet most others didn't. For me it became a most heavy and difficult number. Any peace which I'd gotten from meditation at the start back in 1972 had all evaporated long before the eighties. By then, I was in turmoil and close to a nervous breakdown.

So does anyone understand how people like Ron and Glen and company, just seemed to sail through this whole trip as if nothing was amiss. And still be involved in this Maharaji trip now. It is beyond me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 15:46:36 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Ron Geaves
Message:
Dear Sir D,
I really don't know why such people as Ron and Glen can stay in the cult and be happy, while people like you and I can not, but here's what I think (for what it's worth...). I read what JW quoted above about the 'Painful Truth vs. the Pleasant Lie'. In that quote, it talked about how people who remained in a cult had strong 'dissociative defenses'. In other words, they just overlook all the contradictions and obvious problems within the cult. They are in denial. You obviously couldn't do this and neither could I.

Several people on the forum have quoted the line about how one would rather 'be a free man in hell than a slave in heaven'. This has a lot of validity to me: I just HAD to get out of DLM and away from Maharaji. I felt like I was slowly smothering to death. But I can understand that some people would feel that they had no choice but to be 'a slave in heaven', that as long as they're 'enjoying their lives' everything is all right, and that it would be too painful to leave. Plus they get lots of reinforcement that they're doing the right thing from Maharaji and other premies. It's a hard trap to get out of.

Anyway, just my two cents (tuppence) worth.
Love,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 16:52:37 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Ron Geaves
Message:
I also had that 'somothering' feeling, Katie. It had to get strong enough so that I was willing to forgo the psychological pressure and security of the cult and start thinking for myself. When something happened that contradicted a very deep value, I started to rebel. Then I was considered, if not a 'bongo' premie, at least a 'suspect' one. Then I lost the psychological support, even was on the receiving end of hostility from other premies, and since I was really unhappy, I felt it was better to leave, no matter what.

I also agree that many people just take the path of least resistence. Remaining a premie, refusing to question the time and energy that has been invested into the cult, can be a lot easier than thinking critically about it. Denial of all the contradictions, flip-flops of the master, and unethical behavior, is easier than recognizing it. That way, you avoid the pain involved in doing so. I'm not surprised people stay involved. Especially now, when M doesn't seem to require very much of the premies anymore. Plus, if they have the opportunity to make postive statements about their subjective 'experience' which no one can ever challenge, they get positive reinforcement.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 17:15:08 (EDT)
From: eb to Sir David
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: My Sentiments Exactly
Message:
I remember having a nervous breakdown during a private interview with Dr. John Horton. I came away feeling that I was just not surrendered enough. Afterwards, I rationalized that the reason Knowledge didn't work for me was because I wasn't willing or able to leave my kids and move into the ashram.

Sir David, your question about how some people are able to sail through is one I keep asking too. Another question I have is about those awful videos. How anyone gets spiritually fulfilled watching them is beyond me.

I've come to a place where I can no longer take Maharaji seriously as a spiritual master or a meditation teacher. I can't just open my heart and close my mind and pretend that he showed me anything I couldn't have gotten in a lot less time at a lot less expense.

In the spirit of truth,
eb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 19:51:11 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: eb
Subject: Horton?
Message:
eb: Is Dr. John still around the premie scene? I hadn't heard that name in an age!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:01:16 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Horton?
Message:
Hi Mike - Yes, the last I heard, he is still around, still practicing medicine, and living in Malibu, very close to M. He used to be my doctor when I was a DC premie in the seventies. He was an instructor (initator) for a while, but that was after my time.

He's been discussed from time to time on this forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:20:55 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: You wouldn't believe...
Message:
Katie: Hi and thanks. I met him in DC, too (1985 or so, I think). He was an initiator at that time. He's one of the folks that convinced me that I DIDN'T want to be a premie anymore! I can't get into the specifics, but it was something he asked me that got me wondering (THINKING ABOUT!) who the heck I was following. I guess I owe him a debt of gratitude (non-financial, of course)..... I don't think he would see it that way, though... snicker...snicker... :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 11:02:29 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: You wouldn't believe...
Message:
Hey Mike,
I am really curious now, and I'm sure some other people are too. Can you give us a hint about what he said to you? (If you can't it's OK.)

Thanks,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 12:16:01 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: You wouldn't believe...
Message:
Katie: I can't really go into the details in such a public forum, but suffice it to say that he asked a VERY inappropriate question and it gave me cause to IMMEDIATELY question (and end) my participation in the cult. I don't think he was being malicious, but it was still inappropriate and gave me cause for concern, from a mind-control point of view. Sorry that I can't go into any more detail than that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 22:50:26 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Horton?
Message:
He was my initiator. He wasn't so bad, as I remember. I remember at the Knowledge session, after each technique, he'd go around the room asking everybody, 'Was it beautiful... Was it beautiful..? I don't recall anybody saying 'yeah'. I was the only one, actually, after the nectar technique because it reminded me of something I had done as a kid, not because it was really beautiful. Then he goes on to say how some guru once said 'how blessed are those who experience this nectar'. I didn't feel blessed at all. In fact, my overall impression of the Knowledge session was, 'Is that all there is?'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 11:08:41 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: to Jerry
Message:
Dear Jerry - I haven't harassed you about this before, because I get the feeling that anonymity is very important to you, but is there any chance of you writing a Journeys entry? You have let little pieces of your story drop here and there, and I, for one, would be very interested in hearing it.

Thanks,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 12:07:22 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: to Jerry
Message:
Anonymity isn't so important, Katie. Indulging in paranoia is. I'll get around to it, I promise. Thanks for asking :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 18:51:09 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Thanks, Jerry
Message:
Hey, Jerry
When I read the techniques on this site, I remember thinking the same thing you said here: 'Is that all there is? Big deal!' Relaxation is nice and all that, but come on. Life altering it wasn't.

Of course premies told me that I shouldn't have had expectations (I think M says this in his videos, too) and that the devotion to the master is the real thing, NOT the Knowledge.

Other premies fool themselves with what Knowledge really is. I think they supress their feelings of 'is that all there is to that?' just like in the story of the emperor's new clothes. They don't want to be different or wrong. It's real important for them to experience something, so they fake it. Thank you for being so honest about this.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 01:38:11 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: Ron Geaves
Message:
They are not sailing through,. Sir David,
They are fooling themselves and for the first time in
ages they are giving satsang.
The contrast between these two forums is so vast
one is lie and fantasy and distortion and this
forum is filled with real people.

But that forum shows how zealots will lie to get
thier religion off the ground.
Hopefully we can keep it at a minimum by our honest fun.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 16:31:16 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Ron Geaves
Message:
Isn't this something? Maharaji's 'Peace Bomb' ('I declare I will establish peace in this world!') becomes:

Maharaji's Peace Balm ('I declare I will make peace available throughout the world. You, too, can have my peace. All it takes is a VCR and a sincere desire to stop asking questions.')

YOU'VE GOTTA LOVE IT.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 17:18:57 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Val Archer says 'Chaching'
Message:
Val Archer says to Visions: 'Send me the latest audio tapes of Maharaji speaking to aspirants & people with Knowledge and automatically deduct it from my credit card every month, up to $50.'

I put in the standing order because I never have any money, after the bills are paid. Now I don't have to think about whether I have
money or not. The tapes simply arrive (and my bank mails me a courtesy reminder each month that my card is over the limit).

The first result is, not surprisingly, I concentrate more on Knowledge. And I'm more open to practicing, instead of it being a great big burden on my shoulders.

I remember reading something Maharaji's wife wrote a long time ago: 'You can either do it as a big burden on your shoulders, or you can do it as part of the dance.' I'm feeling the dance again.

________________________________

Obviously Val's not worried--he's dancing his way to bankruptsy. Is this to encourage others to max out on Visions materials?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 10:00:47 (EDT)
From: Nelson Mandela
Email: jmkahn@hol.fr
To: Everyone
Subject: Thank you Maharaji
Message:
Thanks to Maharaji's Name,
the thousands of chidren and adults massacred in the townships,
are gone in the light.

'Guru Maharaj Ji has gone to Africa.
There they have a problem between black and white people.
Guru Maharaj Ji has gone to solve that problem... With this Name .'
(Bhole Ji, Paris - June 19th, 1972)


Check there ....

The simpleton is also a jerk.

Jean-Michel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:38:25 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Nelson Mandela
Subject: Thank you Maharaji
Message:
But when you look at the picture, you begin to feel sorry for him (at least I do).

Good page, J-M, with wonderful pictures and quotes.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 17:29:39 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Nelson Mandela
Subject: Thank you Maharaji
Message:
Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:41:04 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: People really talk this way???
Message:
These premies sound like they all work in the advertising department of a very unimaginative, low-brow cosmetics company or something. Holiday Magic maybe. Really, where else have you seen people say stuff like:

'I like to stop at your site,
it is an ... Expression.'

It is a ... Sentence without any .... Meaning.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:48:10 (EDT)
From: jethro
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: People really talk this way???
Message:
Hi Jim
'These premies sound like they all work in the advertising department ..... '

Sad isn't it. I looked at the new premie sight and felt the same as you. I know(knew) alot of those people and hardly recognise them. I know alot of them have alot more to say...but won't.

Ah well I suppose it's all part of surrendering the self to the guru. Simple honesty has gone out of the window.

regards jethro
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 10:51:20 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: People really talk this way???
Message:
Jim: Isn't it amazing how K makes people sooooo eloquent? snicker, snicker.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 19:33:35 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: People really talk this way???
Message:
Jim,
I used to work in advertising. I resemble that remark! Actually, we never wrote anything quite THAT bad. It does sound like something Calvin Klein might write, though.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 20:05:49 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The Premie Forumla 'Lives'
Message:
I noted a new entry in the 'Lives' section over at enjoyinglife, by one Paula Rosenblum. Paula, if you read this, hello from me. You always seemed like a real regular gal, in a New York sort of way.

I recall you from ashrams in New York and Miami during the 70s, you know, that decade you say you 'kind of missed.' Hey, I kind of missed it too. I guess we are alike in that respect. Unfortunately, you seem to be saying it was all your choice -- for me, it was more Maharaji's choice, not mine.

Anyhow, I detect a real forumula in these premie 'Lives.' Paula writes 12 paragraphs. 6 paragraphs, half the piece, describe her life before knowledge and how she came to it. 5 paragraphs describe her blissful life after receiving knowledge. However, unlike Danny Munter and the others, she does devote ONE paragraph to that period when Maharaji cajoled us to dedicate and surrender our lives to him and live under poverty, chastity and obedience. This is the very same forumula as the other entries: 1)my life before knowledge, 2)How I heard about Guru Maharaj Ji, 3) I receive knowledge, and 4)My life is blissful. However, Paula does try to at least mention the 'Mararaji-is-god-and-I-was-a-nun' period with some nifty rationalization. She describes it thus:

I kind of missed the '70s. I felt like the most important thing to do was to practice this Knowledge and let as many people know about it as possible. So that's what I did to the exlusion of everything else. (Comment: Paula just spontaneously came to this conclusion. Maharaji, of course had NOTHING to do with this decision, right, it was just completely up to Paula. Maharaji's demands for devotion and surrender didn't mean anything, right?)...This was an exciting time for me, and it was a little difficult for me to let it go when the time came to move on. However, at some point, it became clear that I had to get my practical life together. Gradually, I became more mainstream. I found myself a career, got together with my life partner, bought a house in the country, made some money, and learned to enjoy aspects of life I previously disdained. I wonder what I would have thought back then, had I seen my life as it is today.

And so it goes. Paula's years in the ashrams, which she doesn't mention except to say she 'missed' an entire decade of her life, were just her personal choice, kind of like where to go to college. And then it became clear (nifty passive voice with no attribution)that she should stop living like such a cult-member and start living like a normal human being. Funny how that happened. Way to go, Paula. You've done quite well in mastering the intellectual dishonesty that is part of the premie kingdom.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 21:23:33 (EDT)
From: Paula
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: The Premie Forumla 'Lives'
Message:
I'm glad you enjoyed my little vignette. I'm a little disappointed that you found me a 'regular gal'. I don't know many people who've ever called me that...but - what the hey...any press is good press, I suppose.

If my little story made it sounds like life has been easy - well it wasn't meant to. None of the large decisions I have made in my life came without pain. I've managed to come to peace with many of my demons, and I've learned to forgive myself, other people with knowledge and Maharaji for any misdirection that may have occurred.

I wish you and yours the same.

As for this strange 'formula' you have calculated....I think you really need to get out more often. Either that, or adjust your meds.

Have a great life, whoever you are.....

PS Lurking at this site has definitely paid off. That's how I found out about the other site. Thanks for your dedication.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:16:38 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: Hey Paula, listen to yourself
Message:
I've learned to forgive myself, other people with knowledge and Maharaji for any misdirection that may have occurred.

Paula,

If you lurked here for any time at all you'll recall the long discussions we've had about 'forgiveness'. You'll remember that everyone agreed with me in the end that it is absolutely meaningless to 'forgive' someone who avoids taking any responsibility for their transgression. Yes, I know, there were some new age ideas floated here to the effect that forgiveness is just something you can pull out like Stuart Smalley's mirror on Saturday Night Live. You know, that you can just sprinkle forgiveness here, there or anywhere with no concessions from he-who-is-forgiven. Anyway, we unanimously agreed that that's bullshit. (Didn't we, brothers and sisters?)

Here's a simple thought experiment: I'm staying at your house and I rip off a hundred bucks you left in a kitchen cabinet. You realize it and, deciding to be bigger than shit and fully in control of your emotions (like Stuart Smalley, he of 'And I'm OKAY' fame) you forgive me without even bothering to talk about it. We both just sit there watching tv, smiling and a carrying on.

Give me a break, Paula! It ain't gonna happen like that and you know it. Transgression ----> anger------> confrontation -----> contrition and then, if you want, forgiveness.

Now you tell me when Maharaji ever showed any contrition? This is all such bullshit. Really, I'm beginng to think the universal salutation for premies should be 'fuck you'.

Anyway, jai sat chit anand.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:01:02 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yea!
Message:
Yes Jim, you are correct: When M apologizes for the LIES, then I'll CONSIDER forgiving him for lying. Not a moment sooner!

Paula: Why do you have to forgive the LOTU for lying? I thought is was impossible for the LOTU to be a liar. Hmmmmm.... He's not LOTU, he's not a GREAT meditation teacher (doesn't practice his own techniques), he's not a humanitarian (squanders every dime that you send him).... Could you clarify who/what he is, again? I forgot....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:07:04 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Forgiveness
Message:
I agree with your argument about forgiveness, if opposing parties are living under the same roof. But if someone has become history in your life, and you no longer feel a need to confront that person, you can forgive him/her from a distance. Sometimes that's the best way. Don't hate from afar, just forgive and forget and keep your distance.

I agree that Paula can't possibly have forgiven M for his transgressions. They're still living under the same roof, but in my life, I don't even feel that M did anything wrong. I never lived in an ashram only to have my ass thrown in the street after years of selfless dedication. That's gotta hurt. I just placed more faith in M than I should have. Now I've withdrawn that faith. I just need to clear the bullshit out of my system that I allowed in. Forgiveness isn't even an issue, in my case.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:12:40 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Forgiveness
Message:
Jerry,

I think there's a difference between forgiving and forgetting. Someone rips you off for twenty bucks but you never see them again until 10 years later. Of course you've let it go in that you're not simmering or anything. You might even just smile and laugh with the guy and all that. HOWEVER, if you brought up that little ripoff from so long ago and he says 'Ha! That's your problem.' -- in other words, shows no remorse, I think you'd be surprised how much unresolved resentment might flood to the surface.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:58:25 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Paula
Subject: The Premie Formula 'Lives'
Message:
Hey, Paula, glad to see you 'lurk' here. We could have this discussion over on that 'other site', but, of course, like everything else in the Maharaji world, open discussion isn't allowed there. Just sit and watch videos, or listen to the lord, or read and write about how blissful it all is, but any give and take discussion, forget it.

They won't even print my 'life' over at that other site because my experience with Maharaji and his cult are somewhat different than yours. Do you think my experience is any less valid that yours? Why would you think that? Fortunately, open discussion IS allowed on this site. I guess that's why so many premies 'lurk' here.

But I don't think the 'other site' organizers are really interested in hearing the other side of the story, nor to address it, and obviously Maharaji isn't interested in that either. Hey, I've sent Maharaji registered letters asking him a whole bunch of quesions, and, of course, he never answered them, even though I dedicated my life to him for 10 years. This new premie site seems much in the same vein.

Paula, you say,

I've learned to forgive myself, other people with knowledge and Maharaji for any misdirection that may have occurred.

I'm glad you have forgiven yourself, and forgiving Maharaji is also up to you, but don't you think the person you forgive ought to take SOME responsiblity, or at least admit mistake? Has Maharaji ever done that? Has he ever once mentioned that a whole bunch of people got really messed up by the fact that he held himself out as god incarnate and, therefore, people made some pretty awful decisions in their lives and really hurt people they loved? How about my ashram roommate who tried to castrate himself because he feared his sexual desires were getting the better of him?

Has Maharaji ever apologized or even acknowledged any of that? Have you ever met Maharaji? Does he even know you are alive? Do you think he cares if you 'forgive'him? By the way, just what are you forgiving him for?

I aassumed that the decisions in your life might not have all been easy. I just thought you might have been a little more honest by including that in your vignette. Paula, isn't that stuff an important part of your 'life?'

I don't take meds, Paula, and as for the formula, anybody reading those entries will find it. It's pretty obvious. Conspicuously absent is any discussion of who or what you thought Guru Maharaj Ji was and how that affected all those decisions you made. That's the part that's left out, and that's the part I don't think Maharaji wants discussed either.

Thanks for the wish of a great life. It has been pretty good so far. I wish you the same.

By the way, my name is Joe Whalen. I live in San Francisco, California. I was a premie from 1973-1983 and lived in Guru Maharaji's ashrams for 9 years. I didn't like living there and I only stayed because he said to and I believed he was god. I think I got ripped off because of that, but I'm really over that now, although I think it's important that people know about it.

I know I remember you from somewhere. I think once when I went to a conference in New York and you lived in the ashram there, and then, I think when I was Community Coordinator in Miami in 1979-1980 you were there. But it's been a long time, and so many hundreds of premies got sent to Miami to work on that Boeing 707 that Maharaji wanted so bad, it's hard to remember who was there and who wasn't.

Say hello to Meryl for me. I was good friends with her twin sister Karen. Also, if you see Nancy Bloom, give her my love. When she last came to visit me she was doing great teaching special ed. She's a very special person.

I'm sorry if the 'regular gal' comment was inappropriate. I guess I thought it fit, because I always thought of you as a very 'down to earth' person. I meant it as a compliment, but sometimes I'm not too good at that stuff, so I apologize if I offended.

All the best Paula. If you'd ever like to chat you can e-mail me at joger02@aol.com anytime.

Joe Whalen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 23:29:45 (EDT)
From: eb
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: The Premie Forumla 'Lives'
Message:
Hi JW and everyone,

The stories in the 'Lives' section remind me of the videos and programs I've attended during the latter 1990s--bland and vacuous. I guess I was looking for a bit more passion in my search for truth.

The whole thing has become a religion, IMO.

Love to all,
eb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 20:29:09 (EDT)
From: Mc
Email: None
To: eb
Subject: The Premie Forumla 'Lives'
Message:
eb, it became a religion long ago - and it wasn't working then either which is why I left (1980) after seven years. Oh yeah, my ex-wife left at the same time but she was just tired of always being broke (from attending festivals).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:01:44 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Calling all PWICKS
Message:
Hey, premies:

Did you know that your new title is PWICK.

PEOPLE WITH KNOWLEDGE = PWKS (hence PWICKS) It sounds like a New Yorker with a bad sense of humour came up with this one.

ASP = People who have come more than three times and are classified as aspirants. It really stands for All Set to Program. (These folks may or may not be chomping at the bit to receive M's gift.)

NP = These are brand new visitors. It stands for Not Programmed.

EX-PWICKS = These are ex-premies that Maharaji refers to as his 'enemies.'

Did you also know that stats are kept on you? Everytime you go to a video event, you are categorized (PWICK, ASP, or NP) and counted.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 22:59:59 (EDT)
From: nobody important
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Calling all PWICKS
Message:
You know that idea you had about seing a psychiatrist?
it was not such a bad idea after all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:31:27 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: nobody important
Subject: Calling all PWICKS
Message:
Hmmmmmm 'nobody important,' it seems that even though you premies now have an 'it's so beautiful and I'm so full of love by Maharaji's grace' site you still need to come here to experience some honest talk about your 'master,' the former LOTU. Gail is working through some important issues and is being honest with herself, while you continue to pretend that squeezing your eyeballs is giving you inner peace. There is no shame in visiting a psychiatrist but your little dig is just another example of the self-righteous, pompous, ignorant attitude of those who claim to have 'knowledge.'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 02:22:06 (EDT)
From: jethro
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: Calling all PWICKS
Message:
'....site you still need to come here to experience some honest talk about your 'master,' ...'

I was in Australia a few years ago and stayed with a premie couple. Both were former ashram premies and one of them a former initiator. They are still great devotees and run the videos for their local community as well as great involvement with amaroo.

Anyway we were talking and she(the former initiator)told me that when she was at her initiator training session at Penang that prempal one day was so infuriated with someone that didn't agree with him about something that he got together all the initiator candidates and made the all say in unison 'Fuck you'. This was videod and sent to the person.
I know that many premies really miss an honesty slot in their lives......

Regards Jethro(...the Levite)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 11:06:13 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Nobody Important
Subject: Might I add...
Message:
NI: Might I add that Gail uses her name. Why are YOU afraid to use yours? It sounds like she is closer to honesty (with herself and others) than you are, by a LONG shot.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 20:40:41 (EDT)
From: nobody important
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Might I add...
Message:
Hi 'Mike'
you mean...mickey the pharisee, hamzen, mc, sir cheddar, passing thru, etc. are all real names???
wow...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 11:01:37 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: nobody important
Subject: Might I add...
Message:
NI: Mike is my real name, BTW. Mickey the Pharisee has given his real name several times, too. Some people like the 'handles' better than using real names, but they generally don't hide behind them.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 14:21:26 (EDT)
From: nobody important
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: do what i say...not what i do
Message:
Yes mike, for them it is just 'handles'...

the double standards on this site are really cute...

one thing i noticed though is that 'real names' are given on the enjoyinglife site...and still people here are complaining about it...so whichever way, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 22:11:32 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: nobody important
Subject: Hey, Noboby Important. Why
Message:
would you give yourself that handle? Why aren't you important? You are just important as anyone else including GOOMER. How does it go. We are as worthless and insignificant as a grain of sand on the beach; however we are all in the same boat. At least you believe in what you say which is more than can be said for that stupid Guru of ours.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 18:34:43 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: nobody important
Subject: do what i say...not what i do
Message:
nobody important (are you SURE that name fits you?),

With all due respect, why would someone want to use their real name on enjoyinglife when what ends up being printed may or may not be their real words?

VP
not complaining, just pointing out the obvious
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 14:29:32 (EDT)
From: nobody important
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: do what i say...not what i do
Message:
Hi VP
'nobody important (are you SURE that name fits you?)'

My answer: alright, alright, i will admit it! it is not my real name!

'With all due respect, why would someone want to use their real name on enjoyinglife when what ends up being printed may or may not be their real words? '

My answer: It is like anything else on the Internet...it all may or may not be true, right?

Another exemple of something which has never been true: pretending that M gave orders not to post on Internet; this lie has been going around for months on this site, and suddenly, ooops...it was not true (NOTE: not complaining, just pointing out the obvious)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 17:05:24 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: nobody important
Subject: Hey nobody important--you lie.
Message:
I was there in Miami when MJ said it. He is the one who told me about this site. He said not to go out on the net (I knew he meant don't punch in my title). When I got home, I did. Look what I found.

Within two sickening hours I knew these folks on ex-premie.org weren't lying.

Furthermore, why would the Lord of the Universe need pip-squeeks like you and the others to aid in his defence. Why doesn't he just send a thunderbolt to destroy us? What's more likely is that one of you over-zealous idiots would come calling. Remember the poor journalist in Detroit. Two premies did him in, didn't they?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 17:34:46 (EDT)
From: NI
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Gail, Gail, Gail
Message:
Come on Gail, i was there too...sorry, he did not say this.... but it is ok, one hears whatever one wants to hear...
i know, this gives you a very dramatic story to tell, but the reality is quite different...
whatever...

ps: all this bullshit about the Lord of the Universe...please...if YOU believed that even for 1 second...no wonder you are now disappointed!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 18:00:17 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: NI
Subject: NI, NI, NI
Message:
nobody important claimed 'ps: all this bullshit about the Lord of the Universe...please...if YOU believed that even for 1 second...no wonder you are now disappointed!'

Lemme get this right, ni; good premies like you, premies who have realized knowledge, premies who know that Sweetie Pie is the Master, didn't believe the he was the Lord of the Universe? Ever? We who believed it and were reminded of it constantly were bad premies or should not have believed what we were taught by the Mahatmas (now called instructors)? What exactly are you trying to infer? And you, of course, under the guidance of your so-called master, have the best hold on reality? Hey, since you are such a good 'student,' do you know Donald Lynch? He was a premie in the Atlanta community and I haven't heard from him since June 12, 1979, when I brought my wife and new born daughter home from the hospital and he showed up to tell me how all he wanted to do was follow Sweetie Pie's agya. He was a pretty hard-core premie and I figure he's probably still a 'student.' If you or any other reality-realised 'students' of the former LOTU, now 'master of meditation' know Don, let him know I hope he is doing well and would love to hear from him at mgdbach@ziplink.net
Michael Dresbach
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 21:52:00 (EDT)
From: NI
Email: None
To: Mickey the Pharisee
Subject: NI, NI, NI
Message:
Hi Michael
i don't know any Donald Lynch, sorry.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 11:33:57 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: NI
Subject: NI, NI, NI
Message:
Oh well, thanks for responding!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 16:51:56 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: NI
Subject: You really are a liar, NI!
Message:
Did you miss the arti era, the fillabuster satsang era, our Guru Maharaj Ji himself? Have you missed the quotes on line here. Why are you trying to revise MJ's past. He was the Lord. We knew it, and we acted accordingly.

If you can't remember any of this 'Not a leaf moves without the master's wish' junk then you are more mentally ill than I. Run don't walk to the nearest looney bin. Tell them you can't remember a damn thing. Maybe they can help you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 21:25:29 (EDT)
From: NI
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: You really are a liar, NI!
Message:
sigh....

dear Gail,

i know you are pretty good at making up quotes...to each his own i guess.

PS: if we both are 'mentally ill', at least i am having fun.

PSS: what i said about you going to a psychiatrist was not intended to hurt or offend you. if i did, i truly am sorry and i apologize. BUT, i really feel, from your posts, that you do need help, and i hope you do get it. Cult or no cult, Cyberspace is not going to give you the support and help you need, even though it looks like it for now.

PSS: my last note, then i will shut the hell up (i guess i am not credible either, for you). You know what is so sad about all this? i am sure that if i were to meet you in a normal environment, i would probably think you are a very decent person, and you would probably think the same thing about me. Unfortunately, just because i decided to practice K. and follow M., i am this liar, asshole, cocksucker, you name it...this is really too bad. this is not what i am, and this is not what you seem to be.

Bye Gail, i wish you good luck
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 22:47:23 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: NI
Subject: MJ's words about the net
Message:
Dear NI:

My house is currently upside-down. I have painters in. My MJ videos are packed somewhere? By next week, things will be back to normal. I will transcribe MJs satsang regarding the net.

My whole community was shocked that I would actually go out and read it after MJ said not to.

So far, I have found out that I have been an abuse victim for 24 years. Even though it seemed that I was free, there was an invisible chain around my neck that bound me to MJ. The chain was created because I believed MJ was the superior power in person. In an abuse situation, one acts against one's will and better judgment. This cult is no different than being in an abusive relationship or a concentration camp. As a result of this abuse, I am very angry and sad. I have lost this time, and any belief I ever had in a god. How does the song go, 'Empty-handed I reach out to you ... (but there's no one there).

I really did take all the stuff that MJ, mahatmas, and premies said to heart. I really did believe that MJ was the Lord. I know that Anne Johnston and the rest of my community still believes that.

I think that you think he's the Lord, too. Why else would you keep following him and trying to practice K? Maybe you should consider transcribing one of MJs videos and see what he is really saying--absolutely nothing. I'm sure you are a nice person. I wish you all the best.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 17:25:08 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: nobody important
Subject: do what i say...not what i do
Message:
I thought I posted this earlier(?????)

What I meant by the question about your handle was, is that true about the person you are? Are you really someone who is not important--a nobody? Of course I knew that wasn't your given name, silly.

I don't think you answered my question, NI. How does that answer you just gave relate to what I asked you? Does that answer mean that the guys over at enjoyinglife censor things that they feel are untrue? How do they know truth from fiction? Please explain.

Lots of things on the internet are false, I'll give you that. Lot's of things in life are false. False prophets, for one thing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 22:08:18 (EDT)
From: NI
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: do what i say...not what i do
Message:
'Of course I knew that wasn't your given name, silly.'

Lighten up, vp, i was just kidding! even though i am in a cult head over heels, i LOVE pulling people's legs (so to speak).

'Does that answer mean that the guys over at enjoyinglife censor things that they feel are untrue?'

I really have no idea what they do and neither do you. but i guess they can do whatever they want, since it is their site that they pay with their money. Doesn't the 'sissy site' on geocities do the same (erasing whole posts) if it does not fit with certain criterias ?

'How do they know truth from fiction? Please explain.'

they probably don't, since the internet is so full of s...(no offence to your particular site, really). i mean i could start a new site called 'JIM HELLER: MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE' with fake evidence, fake testimonies, fake everything, and nobody would know the difference. (note: i am NOT saying that your's is fake...but if it was, nobody would know)

in conclusion, cyberspace is not very reliable source of info i am afraid
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 08:13:45 (EDT)
From: Luis Almeida
Email: luis@positive-thinking.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Something related to M
Message:
I was premie about 20 years ago and now I found this site. Pls I want to correspond to people who are practicing K.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 09:42:22 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: freedom@gtn.net
To: Luis Almeida
Subject: Something related to M
Message:
I believe you can go to www.enjoyinglife.org. However, you should consider why you left twenty years ago first. I've been involved for 24 years without 20 years off, and I can tell you it is no joy to be involved. I've just left in mid-June of this year, and I'm a mess.

MJ no longer projects himself as the Lord of the Universe. He 's not even Guru Maharaj Ji. Now he's, Maharaji, a 40-year-old meditation teacher with a amazing homes all over the world and a fantastic jet that were purchased with premies (now call pwks - people with knowledge) donation monies. In fact, most of the things he used to say have been totally reverse. He has revised everything.

Why not read the pwk site and read this one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 18:58:43 (EDT)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Messed up
Message:
Hi Gail,

My feeling is that you're not messed up in comparison those posting on the enjoyinglife.org (IMO).

Regarding psychiatrists and therapists: some are better than others. I started seeing them 10 years before leaving the LOTU. I thought it was my fault I was so fucked up and couldn't stay blissed out on Knowledge. Being a premie was, for me, exactly like being manic-depressive. Go kiss the feet and get high. Come home and crash. Over and over and over. All the while chanting in my head 'I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy.'

Once again I would like to thank Brian and Katie and all participants who make this forum possible. Hang in there Gail. I hope you're able to find a good source of support to help you deal with the transition.

With love,
eb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:07:59 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: eb & everyone
Subject: Messed up
Message:
Thank you all so much for taking the time to help. I really appreciate it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 06:16:36 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Gail
Subject: Gail and Luis
Message:
Dear Gail and Luis,
Gail I have read some of your posts and know you are going through such a painful time and wish I could help you but I think a big part of it is just time and of course all the support you do and will get from this site.
Maybe I am wrong here but I took Luis to mean that he is not a premie but still meditates using K techniques and as Bill says below there are really quite a few of us ex's that do still meditate using those techniques or others. BM doesn't own the rights to those techniques, they are available from others and from books.
Luis, as bb says there are ex's here who will discuss meditation with you. Do you want to become a 'connected premie' again or just find support and discussion regarding meditation without M?
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 03:16:15 (EDT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Luis Almeida
Subject: Something related to M
Message:
Hey some of us here practise knowledge.
What would you like to talk about?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 23:04:22 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
my next step on the road to recovery. Even though I am free of this cult, I am not free enough. I don't feel happy. I do want to feel good.

It's more than missing god. What led me to the cult in the first place--some mental instability or crack in my armour, no doubt.

It's the small things I should be enjoying such as swilling a coffee or going for a walk. I can't think of a thing I want to do or accomplish which means I need some help.

I don't know about the rest of you except JM. Do you think psychotherapy will help? I mean, we can't just sit around here for the rest of our lives bemoaning our Master, can we?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 00:23:14 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: jmkahn@hol.fr
To: Gail
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
What you're doing is a hard step to take, it's been for me.
And then you'll have to be a bit patient.
What took you to m & k might be simple, or quite intricated.
I've finally discovered the deep reasons that put me in some kind of a weak state where I found and appreciated the comfort seemingly offered by m & k.
But a lot had to be entangled in order to be able to see it in its simplicity.
I don't think you have any 'mental instability' or 'cracks' ....
We did all feel some weaknesses at some point.
That is the reality.
And then you better live consciously (and NOT in the sense ment by the BM). The BM's consciousness is a dreaming awake state induced by the good old Indian recipe....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 00:55:17 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
Gail,
Bemoaning the master is a great hobby--not every one gets to do it. Before I found this site, I'd already left maharaji and had no affiliations of any kind. I'd wished a few times I was a drunk because I know people who get so much out of AA. I reckon this site is better than AA because you can be totally irreverent. Where else can you do that?

As far as having goals and enjoying the little things: I don't have many goals either, but I do enjoy the little things. And I don't really mind not having goals (I was like that before I followed the fat turd). Coffee is great, and walking is too, if you have a pair of headphones. Who knows where enjoyment comes from? All you can do is try your best. One thing is for sure though... you left that fat stinking guru (ha ha) and you've got a better chance at enjoying yourself now.

I did see a therapist for a couple of years, when I got divorced 17 years ago. It helped to an extent but there were also drawbacks. Anytime you put yourself in such a vulnerable position, you're open to getting annoyed, and hearing things you can't possibly determine the truth of. Like the perceptions a therapist has. I think it took more time to sift through what I'd heard from my therapist, and separate the truth from the fiction, the wisdom from the bullshit, etc., than I actually spent in therapy. Having pondered on it for years, it had its benefits. But I never once mentioned the guru. I mean, I don't want anyone to think I'm crazy--being depressed over a divorce was bad enough.

In any case, I thought I'd mention that I do like reading your posts, and I gather that others do also.
Rick
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 05:25:42 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
I mean, I don't want anyone to think I'm crazy--being depressed over a divorce was bad enough.

It's been a difficult one for me too!
But what makes you think a therapist will think you're crazy?
I thought people would think that about me, and that's been a problem for me, like it is for ALL the premies.
That doesn't mean we are .... specially when we realize the BM is a hoax and a con man.
We've been a bit naive, veru likely.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 06:09:49 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel & Rick
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
Thanks for the input, guys. I didn't mean to imply that I don't want to spend time here because I do. I also want to start enjoying life again. I am very unmotivated.

I'm at the point where I'd like to trash everything. I would like to quit teaching, sell this place, buy a motor home and keep driving forever. This is not a good idea. I feel like I have nothing to look forward to. Objectively, I realize this is nonsense, but subjectively--I don't know.

I just want to feel great for no reason in particular. My security blanket is gone; I don't have the Lord in my back-pocket anymore. No one's coming to bail me out except me. All of you in cyberspace and people I come in contact help a great deal, but it's up to me to take the necessary steps to be happy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 06:37:09 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
I guess you're right to think there is something wrong having that kind of feelings. It sounds like being depressed, leaving something you've been believing in for so long and that's been the center of your life.
You'll have to go back to what you really are, and quit hallucinating. I think it takes time.
What's good is that you know where you're at.
Do things you like, that you used to like 'before' ..... it's going to be OK. Take good vacations, visit people you like, read, go to see movies, theater, whatever you like, talk with friends ... visit your family, explain them what you've been into ...
These are only suggestions! It helped me greatly.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 11:46:19 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: Gail
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
Hi Gail -
Going to therapy at various times in my life has helped me a lot - not only in connection with M, but with other issues in my life. I do recommend that you get a recommendation from someone else when you choose a therapist, if possible. I haven't really found any BAD therapists, but there are some ineffective ones. But I definitely recommend at least trying therapy.

Also, my other advice is to give yourself a break. You've suffered a huge loss. Twenty-some years is a LONG time. Imagine getting a divorce after all that time. It takes a while to get over these things, but I know you will, or at least that you're capable of it.

Take care -
Love,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 12:14:12 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
I WILL GET OVER IT. I'M A SURVIVOR. Thanks, Katie. I'm home from work. I guess I have made myself ill.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:26:33 (EDT)
From: Saul
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: A visit to a psychiatrist is
Message:
Hi Gail,

Congradulations on being a survivor, as you say.

The other day I was reading some basic stuff about how memory
works and it occurred to me that this might have something to do
with your situation.

|
|Gail writes:
|
| my next step on the road to recovery. Even though I am free
| of this cult, I am not free enough. I don't feel happy. I do |want to feel good.
|

|
| JW writes:
|
|And, honestly, to this day, sometimes the cult-thinking
|comes back. Even all these years later. It can be triggered by |certain words or even a smell. (To this day, the smell of that |awful strawberry or sandlewood incense does it!)
|

Anyway, I was reading that when you remember something, that something gets correlated with your whole internal physical and mental state - what you seeing, hearing, feeling, your body arrangement etc. For example, if you learn something when you are feeling very sad, you will actually be better at recalling it when you are sad in the future.

This means that you can take some nice feelings, say the feeling of happiness, enlightenment, etc. and if you strongly associate this with something (e.g. M) then your nice feelings
and thoughts of M will occur together. This may be part of the reason why there is a long aspirant process where one gradually learns about these nice feelings while staying 100% focussed on M and only on M.

Once this nasty setup is established, it might be easy
to think that you are dependent upon M for these feelings
since the nice feelings only happen if M is in your head.
Also, if you decide to avoid thinking about M in the old
way, you may only be able to do this by also avoiding the
nice feelings. If this is so, I would guess that
re-experiencing the nice feelings in a non-M context would
gradually erase the bad association.

Good luck, anyway, even if I'm way off.

Saul
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 19:34:50 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Saul
Subject: Big hugs to everybody. nt
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 14:45:14 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: If This Helps
Message:
Gail:

I've never met you, but I have certainly enjoyed your comments on the forum. I'm not so sure it's a good thing to give advice about this kind of thing, but here's something from my own experience.

When I left the cult, I felt the way you do. Betrayed, angry, directionless, unable to enjoy much about life. After all, the entire meaning of my life was gone, and I felt like an idiot for ever having believed in Maharaji. I had wasted so much time. I had hurt lots of people. How could I have been so stupid? At the same time I felt invigorated and excited about getting my life back.

Anyhow, psychotherapy really helped me, as did talking to other ex-cult members, not necessarily ex-premies. I remember Joy and I attended an ex-members group in Berkeley, which was made up of ex-moonies, ex-hare krishnas, ex-premies and other ex-cultists. Listening to other cult-members makes you see that the cult-programming is essentially the same in all these groups. It was pretty confronting to me to discover that premies were really no different from moonies. MOONIES!!!! You know, real cult-members. Their programming was essentially the same.

Through both the therapy and the group, I began to see that even though I had left the cult, I was STILL very programmed in cult-thinking, which had become SO automatic that I didn't even see it. It was that programmed thinking that was making me unhappy. You have to root it out. You have to question why you think the way you do. As premies, we were indoctrinated that there was NOTHING of value except Maharaji and knowledge -- that ambition and seeking fulfillment was bad, that if we left M we would suffer, go to hell, or other bad things would happen to us. We were programmed into thinking we had NO value except to the extent Maharaji gave us value. All this makes it hard to enjoy ourselves or our lives.

Also, as premies our self-esteem was battered big time because we were essentially told we are worthless without Maharaji. Now you know that is all bullshit, intellectually, but the programming remains. It is automatic, because of the many years of repitition, and it continues after you leave. Of course, when brought up to the light of day, it withers and dies very quickly. But we were taught to protect the programming from any attack. And it's hard to stop doing that.

So, I would highly recommend psychotherapy, but get somebody who knows about cults. Also, see if there is a FOCUS chapter in your community. It's the current name for a network of ex-members groups. They do great work, and I think you would enjoy it. When I get the info from home, I'll also post some info about CAN (Cult Awareness Network) which does great stuff for people coming out of cults, and has done a lot of work with ex-premies, and I think sponsors the FOCUS groups.

And there are books available now that are very helpful in helping people extracate themselves from cult-thinking. One I have been reading lately, called 'Recovering from Cults' is excellent. I'll get it and post the author and other details about that, too.

Anyway, at some point, I began to feel the way I remembered I felt before I was ever in the cult. It was like getting my old life back and all the things I enjoyed then I began to enjoy again, including all the simple things like you mention. I was pretty ambitious then, and the ambition came back, in terms of career, sports, relationships, travel, etc. Of course, I was older then, so it manifested in a different way that it would have were I still in my 20s, but it came back nonetheless.

I also had to accept that I was forever changed by my cult involvement. I couldn't just erase those years from my life, no matter how much I wanted to. I kind of had to accept that and move on. And, honestly, to this day, sometimes the cult-thinking comes back. Even all these years later. It can be triggered by certain words or even a smell. (To this day, the smell of that awful strawberry or sandlewood incense does it!) Of course, now I know what it is and it doesn't have much effect.

Good luck, Gail. And I'll post that info tonight or tomorrow.

JW
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 17:30:09 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: If This Helps
Message:
So far as I know, JW, CAN is no more. It's been taken over by Scientology. Here's an article that appeared in the Washington Post, Dec. 1996. The End of CAN. I don't think anything has changed since this article.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 17:45:28 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: CAN is now Called AFF
Message:
CAN still exists, it just had a name change, and actually still uses the CAN name as well. I'm a member, and I just got their latest newsletter a couple of days ago. They are sponsoring a big conference in Chicago this month.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 18:07:18 (EDT)
From: JW to Gail
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Links
Message:
Gail, I found links to FOCUS and I note there are support groups for ex-cult-members in Canada. It's at www.refocus.org.

Also, check out the AFF homepage at www.csj.org.

Both pages have lots of publications listed, as well as newsletters, conferences and support groups.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 21:11:34 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Contact!!
Message:
Here's a letter I got from Jonathan Cainer and my reply:

>Hi Jim,
>Sure I remember those days. It seems like only yesterday - which
>really makes you wonder where the time goes. Dan and Sal, of course,
>have kids too now - and though we live at opposite ends of the
>country, we keep in touch. It's been lovely to watch them all grow up
>together. It's just kind of strange though, to picture myself
>inwardly as not much older than they are - and then look in the
>mirror and catch my father's face looking back at me!

Yes, my experience exactly. I've got a picture of him (my father, not yours) in my office. He was younger then than I am now. I remember seeing that picture as a child and thinking he looked kind of fat, over-the-hill ... you know. Now he just looks really cool. I used to cringe at peoples' thinking I resembled him. Now I see it and don't mind at all. I miss him.

> Do you still play the guitar? Work doesn't allow me as much time as
> I'd like but I keep my hand in on the bass, just in case the Stones
> ever need me to drop everything and go on tour with them!

Yes I play all the time. We had a band called 'The Flies' but broke up and regrouped as .... 'The Ex-Flies'! I play guitar and sing, my girlfriend, Laurie, plays bass and we've got a drummer. All our stuff. I kind of like it. We play aorund town a couple of times a month and I love doing that. We're recording a CD that's going pretty nicely. (Only one Maharaji-related song. Care to guess the lyrics? :) )

>Anyhow, in answer to your question about 'critical input', I don't
>think we'll be bothering with too much of that on our site. There's
>quite enough on yours, don't you think!?

Well, I wonder how you're going to allow conversations in that case. On the first premie page, the one run by Harlan and Mili (which PAM shut down apparently at Maharaji's request) premies started arguing over whether or not Maharaji was the Lord or even if he'd ever claimed to be. Mili told them to shut the fuck up. But what will you do? Right now you've got a very pretty if a little saccharrine group of people falling all over themselves to say the same, bolierplate nothings about knowledge and to praise Maharaji without qualification. Are you just going to heap that pile up higher and higher? Isn't that what they do in North Korea, comrade?

There's a reason 'free speech' has a perennial appeal, Jon. Don't YOU think? Are you comfortable taking on the mantle of censor? For how long? That whole trip can get a little wearying, Jon. Never having had the pleasure myself, that's what I imagine anyway. Maharaji used to answer questions. Now he doesn't. By accepting him on his very cult-like terms you're making moral choices you might never have made otherwise. Know what I mean? Like, on a personal level, I could never imagine you stifling anyone's expression. But being that Maharaji's taken that tack, you're endorsing that way of realting to people. Don't you feel compromised? Please, don't tell me that you just meditate and then you don't have to think about anything. For one thing, I know that's not how it works. For another, that's thankless work in the end. Protecting a cult leader can get kind of sticky.

Jon, take a look at this page if you haven't seen it already:

http://www.angelfire.com/sc/manavdharma/

It's Bal Bhagwan Ji's page, posted by an innocent, young follower who knew nothing of HIS Guru Maharaj Ji's past. His mind was blown when I told him the truth -- that Satpal has two other brothers, one of whom he worshipped as the living Lord for years before splitting to start his own company. You can se the page ahsn't changed for half a year. I get the feelnig the guy just doesn't know what to do with it.

So, there are all these premies today who have no idea about Maharaji's own past either. Are you going to tell thim? Are you going to let them know that he has an elder brother who claims that he, not Prem, got dad's special sauce? More to the point, are you going to censor other premies who want to mention this?

How about some of the heavy shit that Maharaji did and for which he refuses to take any responsibility? You never lived in an ashram did you? Or did you? I can only tell you that when we all met in Los Angeles, Deborah and I had just left that lovely order with our tails between our legs. Eight years for me. I'm not sure how long she was there, I think five. Here's a link to an ex-initiator's page which includes, as you can see, the ashram manual:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1151/Amanual.htm

What will you do to suppress this document if someone wants to mention or post it?

Well, you get my drift. I think, given Maharaji's own paranoid authoritarianism and revisionism, you've taken on more than you can possibly sit easily with in the long run. Something's going to have to give, either the censorship or your conscience. Hoepfully, the former.

By the way, do you have Maharaji's okay for any of this? I kind of assumed so, given Charanand's contribution but then, what do I know?

> Best wishes and warm regards

> Jonathan Cainer.

Jonathan, I'm going to post your letter and mine on the ex page. There's nothing you've said that's the least bit even potentially embarrassing and, being that you WOULDN'T publish my letter on your page I feel it's only right somehow. If your letter contained any sensitive comments, I wouldn't be doing this but, in the circumstances, I feel okay doing so. Just wanted to let you know.

P.S. Don't worry about the Stones comment. The ex's are a very forgiving bunch as a whole and I'm sure they'll understand. :)

Hi again to Sally and Daniel. We really do have some reminiscing to do some day.

Yours,

Jim
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:15:16 (EDT)
From: Web Watcher
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Here's the old premie site
Message:
Don't forget, boys and girls, the other premie site is still up and running and is NOT censored in any way. Click below to go there:


Go to the uncensored Premie web site


There's lots of uncensored messages from premies there and they are steadily growing. The most popular things are the premie guestbook and the messages to Maharaji. Nothing sanitised and nothing hidden. All premies are welcome to post there.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:12:59 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Revisionism? Naaaawww...
Message:
One Mr. Zinner spoke about getting k in '73:

'I remember that then, the only requirements to receive Knowledge were that you had listened to people talking about it for about a week and that you felt able to say: 'Yes' to the question: 'Do you want Knowledge?'

Yes, yes, they were just giving it away. What was I thinking?

Those early years were magical and crazy at the same time. I had a powerful experience but I had also a lot of strong ideas about how my life should be. I wanted to become less rigid; to shake myself free from a way of looking at the world that had been shaped by my upbringing and environment. I did not always find this easy.

Look, you silly billy, you had a lot of strong ideas because your guru shoved them down your throat! 'Nuff said.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:33:23 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Mr. Mind finally shows up!
Message:
Well folks, it had to happen. Mr. Mind has finally shown up on the new premie site. And just when it looked like we finally had a real oasis and everything. Speaking through the unwitting oracle of one Ms. Jaffe of Seattle, Washington (a place notorious for the mental outbreaks of coffee, grunge and heroin), the mind said this:

'Just a small comment: 'Charan Anand's kind permission' FYI this wording could be perceived as over the top - the content of the piece itself is warm and enthusiastic and stands on its own. Why interject subjective language? 'reprinted with permission' is adequate. As it stands now, it could be misinterpreted as 'clubby'.'

Yes, Ms. Jaffe recovered access to her soul immediately after and blessed the site excessively -- such is the love -- as being 'WAY COOL!' but, let's face it, the mind got in there whether you like it or not.

Oh no!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:21:29 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Who was Mitch Ditkoff?
Message:
I know I heard that name somewhere. Anyway, here's his contribution to the new premie site, a place that's about as real as the mermaid's breast in Fantasia:

'Real communication

Finally! A real reason to go on-line! So much of the internet (and our lives) is filled with useless information. What a pleasure to have a website where real communication can take place. Thank you!'

This has nothing to do with the above -- I mean, what else is there to say? It's like reading official crop reports from North Korea -- but you guys should make a point of seeing Waiting for Guffman. It's really funny.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 15:01:58 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Real Communication
Message:
Jim: I guess the 'real premie' definition of 'real communication' is: communication devoid of relevance, communication devoid of thought, communication devoid of any conflict or difference of opinion, communication devoid of questions and, of course, communication devoid of criticism (the most IMPORTANT point!).

- Hmmmmmm, I guess I have to change my definition of communications, don't I? WOW, what a revelation.... ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 22:25:43 (EDT)
From: Lurk Skytalker
Email: Lurk@PracharWars.org
To: Jim
Subject: Who is Mitch Ditkoff?
Message:
FYI: Just the Facts: Mitch is a writer and creativity consultant. He wrote for the Divine Times, elan Vital, and other DLM stuff. He consults fortune 500 's to think creative; and is married to a beautiful european lady. He is an old timer P and so cannot dare leave the lifestyle, being a highly visable figure. It's diffiCULT to leave!

Lurk
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 13:47:08 (EDT)
From: jIM
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: A Case Against God
Message:
The latest issue of Skeptic has an interesting article by one Massimo Pigliucci named as above and subtitled 'Science and the Falsifiability Question in Theology'. Here is a hackneyed oversimplification of its discussion under the head of 'Should Scientists Mess with Religion?'

1) Steven Jay Gould recently (1997) prmulgated the principle that science covers the physical universe, relgion, questions of moral meaning and value and the two are forever distinct. No meaningful overlap. However, Gould is wrong.

2) Science can definitely speak to morality:

'Think, for a moment, about the evolution of emotions. As Darwin showed (1890), it is easy to realize that the psychological, moral and ethical characteristics of humans are in fact the product of evolution. They are epiphenomenon (wow!) of the complexity of our brains, intertwined with our meandrous history as priamtes and hunter-gatherers. My conclusion is that there is no real distinction between the two spheres that Gould so neatly and Solomonically partitions between science and religion. They both are a legitimte subject of rational investigation, and our best hope for a better society and human condition is the application of reason and self-correciton in both areas.'

3) There are three conceivable kinds of gods: 1) metaphysical (no relationship with the physical world, reflecting no human value); 2) finitely anthropomorphic (like a Greek God, limited, if powerful, full of human characteristics); or 3) infinitely anthropomorphic (all-powerful but bearing enough human-style attributes so we cn relate to Him). People only think of God in the third sense as the first is irrelevant to any of our concerns (i.e. a God that has no feeling, no contact with life and hand in the 'creation, operation and destruction' of the world) and the second is quaint and trivial.

4) The only remaing definition, the infinite anthropomorphic, can be treated as a falsifiable hypothesis about the phyiscal universe in that believers always claim that God did something in the world. Fundamentalists, for example, claim that God created it in seven days, hand-crafted all the organisms, and even manages the every day afairs of the universe. 'Even non-fundamentalists tend to think of god as somewhat interacting with the physical universe (otherwise what would be the point of having a god?)... So, god interacts, to a more or less limited extent, with the phyiscal world, Which means that god is somewhat a part of the physical universe. By this definition, the existence of god is a question within the realm of scientific investigation.'

5) The god hypothesis can and should be treated like any other. If it 'is simply a vague statement, like 'god created the universe' (which has no explanatory power as it simply simply substitutes one mystery [the origin of the universe] for another [where did god come from, anyway?]) it can be at least provisionally rejected as silly and unnecessary even though technically we cannot prove god's non-existence. If, on the contrary, it is meant as a relatively precise statement about the physical world, then we can investigate god's existence with the well-established hypothetical-deductive method. How do we do that? By considering the supposed attributes of such a god and treating them as testable hypotheses.'

6) None of the theses used by theologians succeed. For example, the argument of intellignet design (i.e., Paley, 1831). 'Darwin himself cleverly turned the argument around by painstakingly demonstrating that the universe is not perfect at all (Dawkins, 1996). Take the human eye, one of creationists favorite examples. Some people can see dark spots on their eyes when staring at a very bright light (or sometimes even the blue sky). These spots are caused by the fact that the blood vessels serving the eye are positionined in front of the optical nerves. This is a rather annoying feature which a competent engineer would certainly have avoided. In fact, some animals (squids, etc.) have their eye (which evolved independently from the vertebrate's) built the other way around, so they don't have to suffer form the inconvenience. The only possible conclusions are a) god didn't design the thing; b) god is pretty sloppy and not worthy of our unconditional admiration; or c) god likes squids a lot better than humans.'

7) There are other scientific or simply logical reasons to not believe in an anthropomorphic god. For example, Statistics vs. god: the more we learn about the world the less credit we are willing to give god for direct intervention. This is a constant and 'any scientist faced with such a remarkably consistent trent would not hesitate to extrapolate and declare god very likely non-existent.'

8) Astronomy vs god - speaks for itself. All the biblical and other scriptural cosmologies just don't cut it (i.e., the Earth is not at the centre of the universe).

9) Geology vs. god - the Earth is definitely and significantly older than a few thousand years.

10) Biology vs. god - 'Biology is rich with challenges to established religions. The neo-Darwinian theory is probably the most powerful blow of them all, but the demonstration from modern molecular genetics that humans and chimps are very closely related and almost genetically identical is another.' Millions and millions of speciies unidentified in biblical days scuttles any hope for the myth of Noah's ark.

11) Anthropology vs. god - 'Religions are historical products of changing human cultures. They come in a variety of flavors, often making very different calims about the nature of god and the universe. How are we to choose the right one? Be careful, because many religinos will send you to hell if you make the wrong choice. Furthermore, religions are born, evolve, and die as demonstrated by the extinction of the Greco-Roman gods, or by the evolution of the text of the Bible. Therefore religion, and the belief in a particular god, is a relative concept, subject to historical accident.'

Now, if you want to read why this guy thinks scientists 'offer the other cheek' to religion and don't come out fighting a bit harder for the right to treat the god hypothesis like any other, well, you'll have to buy the magazine, won't you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 15:06:31 (EDT)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: jIM
Subject: A Case Against God
Message:
How about the universe being in God and not the other way round. Although God would still be in the universe. Hey, we can play with words like this all day. Since nobody can definitely prove or disprove the existence of a God, we can make up any old theory.

Anyway, here's one I made earlier:

Sure there is evolution. But to what does the evolving creature evolve? What is the pinnacle of evolution? I think there is no pinnacle because everything can always contunue to evolve further. I think that once a creature has passed the survival of the fittest test and achieved a level such as in humans, where it can control its own evolution, there is a distinct shift in evolutionary emphasis. I mean the fittest can still survive but they then help the not so fit to survive. So would that lessen human gene stock?

Well eventually we can change our own genes. We can probably even regulate the genes of future generations ourselves. It is a different form of evolution which will be occuring. But amongst all of this, what is the one quality that is becoming predominant and more and more apparent in humans? It is love. It is concern for fellow humans and for the whole world.

Because just supposing that such a being as God existed. Would He bring forth into being a universe which did not eventually reflect His main quality? Would not all life evolve ever closer to His main quality, which is love? For sure, it would be a long and winding road. But look at the history of Mankind. Good has triumphed over evil in the end. Love has triumphed over hate, eventually.

If there is a God, then we surely possess his qualities. Most of humanity is caring and compassionate. Perhaps it is only seen on a small, local level and there's a long way to go but it is self evidently there. Because my theory is that we are all God's offspring and we're evolving to become ever more like our parent. And why would God bother to have offspring? Because He wants to share what He is with others. He wants to love others and bring forth other beings who can grow in love and understanding just as He has.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:09:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: A Case Against God
Message:
David,

Why do you continue to speculate this way and that about evolutionary theory instead of actually learning something about it? I don't get it. Don't you really want to understand as best you can what's cooking here?

As for 'good eventually triumphing over evil', where in the world did you ever get that idea?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:46:35 (EDT)
From: Sir D
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jim
Subject: A Case Against God
Message:
Well I don't want to bore people here with yet another discussion about whether or not there is a God. I take your point x, about people making God into a He. Perhaps we should call God an 'It'.

Regarding evolutionary theory, I agree I'm not an expert but surely it is obvious that once a species reaches our level where it can control its own enviroment and genes, the Darwinian theory has to change. I am somewhat familiar with Dawkin's selfish gene theory but I for one, don't buy it. It is only a theory and I don't agree with his conclusions.

Good has certainly triumphed over evil, in this century. The second World war is one instance. Globally we seem to be getting more good than evil if you look at our history. There's more understanding now of other species and also of our enviroment. Globally, as a species we are more caring and tolerant than we were previously. We seem to be slowly growing up. Such a thing cannot be put down to Darwinian theory. In evolutionary terms, it would not matter if we caused many species of wild animals to become extinct such as the Bengal tiger or the White rhino. Why should we care about these animals surviving? It doesn't make evolutionary sense. But in the broad picture of things, as I see them, it does make sense.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:00:33 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Sir D
Subject: A Case Against God
Message:
I am somewhat familiar with Dawkin's selfish gene theory but I for one, don't buy it. It is only a theory and I don't agree with his conclusions.

How familiar? What have you read? Come on, David, last time we talked about this you admitted you knew nothing really about the field and weren't planning to change that. Now you're disagreeing with his conclusions. What conclusions? Hm? How'd he get there? What steps do you take issue with? Why?

Good has certainly triumphed over evil, in this century. The second World war is one instance. Globally we seem to be getting more good than evil if you look at our history. There's more understanding now of other species and also of our enviroment. Globally, as a species we are more caring and tolerant than we were previously. We seem to be slowly growing up. Such a thing cannot be put down to Darwinian theory. In evolutionary terms, it would not matter if we caused many species of wild animals to become extinct such as the Bengal tiger or the White rhino. Why should we care about these animals surviving? It doesn't make evolutionary sense. But in the broad picture of things, as I see them, it does make sense.

Again, David, there's a whole lot of exciting and, for my money, impressive work done in the field of evolutionary psychology that explains how our morality, such as it is, evolved independently of any divine kiss. What? You just don't want to know or you're afraid the work will bore you? What is it? Frankly, the questions you pose which you obviously think are conversation stoppers are just openers in the area. Care to find out why?

But there's another problem with your thinking besides wilfull ignorance and that's this: you speak of 'good' and 'evil' as if they actually exist. Moreover, that they have some sort of consciousness and are duking it out like in the bible stories. Who said? Not only do I not subscribe to that theory, even if it were true I'd disagree that good has triumphed over evil in this century. Sure, Nazism was defeated (for now) but it also cropped up in the first place. How do you factor that in? And on and on and on. If you think the good guys won in the second war and that's what the scoreboard shows, how do you explain that to the millions of holocaust victims. I'd say 'evil' had its way with them. Who cares if the party stopped at a certain point?

Anyway, this good vs evil thing is meaningless.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:56:32 (EDT)
From: x
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: A Case Against God being a He
Message:
Sir David,
I dont mean to disparage your views on 'god', but I always get turned off by what I consider the sexist use of the words He, Him and His, when referring to 'god'.
Why do people so often assume that god or its equivalent has to be male? This is the 90's, that old fashioned patriarchal crap belongs in the past.
Personally I don't believe in any god in the typical sense, or atypical either actually. I guess ths makes me a godless, atheist, heathen.(Which is fine with me!)
I know science can't answer everything, yet, but that doesn't seem like a reason to believe that 'He' had anything to do with anything.
I mean nothing personal with this Sir D, just adding to the discussion. I respect peoples rights to believe whatever they want, whether I happen to agree or not.

Respectfully x
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:46:21 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A Case Against God
Message:
... So, god interacts, to a more or less limited extent, with the phyiscal world, Which means that god is somewhat a part of the physical universe. By this definition, the existence of god is a question within the realm of scientific investigation.'

You haven't said why this is so, Jim. The same argument is given by Daniel C. Dennett in his book Consciousness Explained, only his argument is for the purpose of disproving DesCartes theory of dualism (the notion that the mind is an unworldly, spiritual entity that controls a worldly, physical brain). His argument is as follows:

'A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy... It is this principle of the conservation of energy that accounts for the physical impossibility of 'perpetual motion machines' and the same principal is apparently violated by dualism.'

He then attempts to clarify this by using Casper the Friendly Ghost as an example. 'How can Casper both glide through walls and grab a falling towel? How can mind stuff both elude all physical measurement and control the body?... anything that can move a physical thing is itself a physical thing.'

Since the universe is a physical thing, if the laws of physics are sound, then God must be a physical thing as well, if there is a God. Personally, I once experienced a 'spirit' which I call God, so until science can explain what that 'spirit' is, I will continue to think of it as God the Father. Sorry about the gender thing, x. It's the most comfortable way I know of to relate to it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 11:23:38 (EDT)
From: Sir D
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Jerry
Subject: A Case for God, Jerry
Message:
Yes, I read before of your experience of an overwhelming, loving force. Perhaps I've not experienced it as intensely as you but I have sometimes felt the presence of an overwhelming and unconditional love which I have felt myself being loved by. Often this has been nothing to do with practising any meditation techniques. I actually first felt this, as I remember, when I was just seventeen years old. Two years before I received the knowledge techniques.

When such experiences happen I am quite amazed that I am loved so much and at the same time I realise that everybody else is loved just the same too. I don't and won't even try to explain away this experience by science. I agree with what Bobby has said today on the MMT forum. About not taking hard nosed science into the bedroom etc.

Some here would not agree with me but I'm not trying to prove anything, just say what I've experienced, In my own recovery from Maharaji's heavy trip it has helped me to know that he wasn't God but God was still there and She/He/It did actually love me in a very unconditional way. No rules and no need to try to be perfect. No need to feel guilty about practising K or not either. ANd in fact these days, I'm just down to one technique only. That's enough for me. And I only practise it when I feel like it. The force of love that we were talking of is beyond meditation techniques, in my experience.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 15:42:09 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Sir D
Subject: A Case for God, Jerry
Message:
I'm not trying to explain anything away with science, Sir David. I'm just not going to say emphatically that an experiece I had was the realization of God if there is a scientific explanation for it. I prefer the ways of science to those of religion. Science is always in the process of discovery. Religion has everything written in stone and then winds up wearing egg on it's face as a result. I'm fascinated by the discoveries of science, bored with the dogma of religion. I don't know why you are so anti-science. It's not going to change anything you've experienced. It might give you deeper insight into it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 00:31:49 (EDT)
From: rUNAMOK
Email: None
To: jIM
Subject: a case against belief
Message:
Well, people don't necessarily believe all this shit about the earth being the center of the world or creationism vs evolution and still believe in God. Still, the amount of baggage that comes with the terminology 'GOD' is considerable and would include any of the implied beliefs which your author addresses.

Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' teaches prevailing scientific beliefs as subject to totally non-objective factors (which could be compared with religion). Science falls prey to similar traps as religion in my opinion.

I would also question some of your notions about 'good and evil' down the thread (or seek clarification... altho Im not saying Sir D is making alot of sense). Dont you have a sense of good and evil? If these terms are meaningless.. you said something like that... then why are yousold on how bad the Nazis were? ..which certainly they are.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 09:42:13 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: rUNAMOK
Subject: a case against belief
Message:
Isn't Kuhn the guy who renounced his far-fetched theory later in life? Yeah, I think so. Nigel was talking about that a few months ago. Unfortunately I don't know anything about him other than to say that idea's bizarre and sounds like it was trotted out more for poetic effect than anything else. Care to explain further?

As for good and evil -- sure they exist. But only as measures of how acceptable or not human actions are against the backdrop of our evolved morality. That is, they're not 'forces' as such.

Gotta run.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 10:10:27 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: a case against belief
Message:
Nige said he qualified or softened his earlier statements. But we are trying for some kind of objectivity, so the analysis of his theories is not based on his personality or history as much as the ideas themselves which left their mark.

On good and evil, isnt that really the same point as science doesn't cover that particular area. Aren't you really saying your personal sense of morality has some special status away from rational thinking... the same as you refute?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:00:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: a case against belief
Message:
On good and evil, isnt that really the same point as science doesn't cover that particular area. Aren't you really saying your personal sense of morality has some special status away from rational thinking... the same as you refute?

I don't follow. ??
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 02:10:37 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: a case against belief
Message:
You said, 'this good vs. evil thing is meaningless' but it seems like you really say that science is Good and religion is Evil. That's where I dont get you.. because you seem like you have too much invested in this kind of souped up rational capitol T TRUTH and it means too much to you.

If there's a God or something like a God, bearing any resemblance to any historical God in any conceivably objective, is that OK? I dont think the objectivity vs religion thing is really so true. The earth at the center of the universe or solar system was part of science. We'll come up with stuff that will really mess up whatever theories we currently have.

Honestly, my opinion on some political thing isnt enuf to actually control it. I mean, I guess a person can rise to change the world, but my thought or belief without of balls or something in itself wont change shit. Neither will my belief. I'm think Darwin was alot closer than the belief before him, but I doubt its totally on the nail- in general, anyway, thats how I see science. IT'S evolving and there are tangible benefits- but in a hundred or a thousand years who knows what we'll think or know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 10:23:05 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: a case against belief
Message:
Run,

It sounds like you're assuming that because I have a strong opinion on something I can't be thinking clearly, but that doesn't make sense.

I think a lot of things are good or evil in their effect. What I don't believe in is a FORCE of goodness that battles a FORCE of evil such as David was talking about. Why? Do You?

And sure science is evolving or at least the body of scientific knowledge. It's possible that one day we'll really find some evidence of god. Sure, that will change everything including my own thinking if I'm around. It's just that, as of yet, all of the historic proofs for god have turned out worthless. That leaves believers holding on to a very threatened hypothesis just because of emotional attachment, doesn't it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:31:47 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: a case against belief
Message:
Run: May I interject? I don't know, for sure, if I'm an athiest or not. The jury is still out on that one. I think the problem that is manifesting itself here is that some folks have been burnt by 'beliefs.' The belief that M is god (and then finding out he isn't) was a REALLY BIG BURN for many of us. Rather than get burned again, unnecessarily, the prevailing thought is the theme for the State of Missouri: SHOW ME! The only other example I can come up with is the 'santa claus syndrome.' We tell our kids that santa clause delivered those christmas presents. They believe us because they are 'ignorant' of the facts. When they find out the truth, they are usually VERY UNHAPPY with us (and for good reason) because we lied. Believing in a 'god' is like giving OURSELVES the 'santa claus' treatment (if there is no proof).

- You must prove that there is a god (to an athiest). PROVE IT! If there is a god, why should faith be a requirement? There 'should' be proof-a-plenty. But that proof seems to be missing. The belief in a higher power APPEARS to be rooted in lack-of-scientific-knowledge. If you look back throughout ALL of history, everything that was attributed to any god, was proven to be a lack of knowledge and nothing more.

- For the reasons stated above, the follow-on question (about the existence of god) should be: did we 'miss' something. Is there proof staring us in the face that we have missed? If YOU find that answer, then there will be alot of 'happy' people, that's for sure. But, to an athiest, that proof has got to be real or there is no reason to discuss the issue because 'god is a concept based upon ignorance' and absolutely nothing more.

- Maybe a 'real' athiest could explain it better than I, but I think that's it in a nutshell. Again, this wasn't meant to be a challenge to you or condescending in any way, Run. Just a thought provoker!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 14:26:54 (EDT)
From: Sister Mary Elephant
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: a case for belief
Message:
Of course, you've missed something, dear! Santa Claus is a corruption (How I dislike that word) of Saint Nicholas who was a real person, a real Saint!

Oh and Mike, the Good Lord invented science. So, of course there is a God . < : )
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 18:08:04 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Sister Mary Elephant
Subject: a case for belief
Message:
SME: Oh, how silly of me sister. Of course, you are right... ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 19:18:27 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Sister Mary Elephant
Subject: Oh, sister....
Message:
SME: Are you the same Sister Mary Elephant of the 'our divine lady of the cheech and the chong' or are you someone else?

If you are the same, you seem to have mellowed your temper. To quote you from the last time I heard you in my classroom: 'Claaaaassss.... Claaaaassss.... SHUUUUUTTTT UUUPPPP!'

You always were such a sweetie (respectfully, of course) and we all loved you!

Et patre, et fili, et spiritu sancti....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 00:58:40 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: All
Subject: My Case
Message:
Well... Jimbo I dont think you're missing a lot of marbles or anything. I just think, as Mike points out, that we're burnt on BM, a bona fide false Messiah and our personal ex-cult leader. However, digressing from Mike, God is another question.

It's funny, as you and I (Jim) have discussed Castaneda a bit. I love the stuff in Castaneda where he puts religion down and anything that is spiritual, with particular disdain for Eastern mysticism. My most agnostic moments are laughing and reading this stuff.

It's a fine line between your concept of good and evil and those you refute. I just don't see a big difference. I see what you're saying but I'm not sure you have spelled it out or if that it stands up to scrutiny. It's sounds like, 'my good is better than yours'.

Likewise, I'll stick by the old Kuhn who granted science less objectivity than you do. Remember, science was partners with religion in the Inquisition and science as a god is often found in
totalitarianism in a most hideous manifestation.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 13:47:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: My Case
Message:
Run,

1) Being burnt out on a false prophet is about as good a motivation anyone can have to scrutinize the entire field.... INCLUDING god.

2)Castenada is now, in death as never before, properly dismissed as an entertaining liar. I'm not saying you argue with that. I just wanted to say it.

3)I'm surprised you don't see a gigantic diff between my notion of good and evil and the general religious one. Again, I don't believe there are conscious forces behind those effects. Consider the well-known computer models of 'tit for tat'. The computers that 'survive' when playing that game are the ones that develop reciprocally altruistic strategies. That is, they become 'kind' to one another as a survival mechanism. Surely you wouldn't say goodness has infiltrated the software. Still, for all intents and purposes, that's how the computers end up behaving. Really, do a net search for 'tit for tat.' I'm sure you'll find lots.

4) If you think science isn't objective enough how would you improve it? And what's not objective about double-blind stuides? Sorry, they look pretty damned objective to me. Also, to say that science was god in Russia is a very misleading figurative statement. It only confuses the issue. The fact is, science was very repressed and distorted in the U.S.S.R. That's no sign of weakness in science itself. As for the inquisition, please, how was science used such that you're left feeling burnt and mistrustful of the process?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 00:34:34 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My Case
Message:
I can only address some of this- I'm not familiar with tit for tat computing. ---Your distaste for Castaneda is ironic, I am saying, because that's where I am most inspired to think atheistically or agnostically.

You can scrutinize God all you want and I don't have a problem with it. I think damning many traditional beliefs that are associated with religion doesn't empirically and logically address the actual notion of God. You're arguing against varied circumstantial aspects associated with God by specific groups. Certainly, many people believe in God and Darwin both, for example. Likewise, science has been in on many of the same stupidities as religion. The earth being at the center of the universe was a scientific belief that the Church somehow became dependent on.

Science as a religion resulting in or as part of a totalitarian authority is seen in Mengele and similar variants in Communist countries. It rears its head in U.S. history as well. Such people are convinced of the 'good' in their research.

Kuhn specified that interdisciplinary checks are missing when a certain belief takes hold in a given scientific community. I think the discussion of the disappearance of Neanderthal man is such a case in point, with anthropologists claiming that the dating procedures of archaelogists must be in error and that Neaderthal didn't suddenly vanish around 30,000 (?) years ago, because the evidence as determined by their studies cannot support it. Kuhn sees more room for disagreement in most prevailing theories rather than viewing them as absolutes (as did medieval scientists who saw the earth as the center of the universe).

It was said to me in my education more than once that the last time a person could become totally schooled in all of the knowledge of the world was the Renaissance. Whether this is true, which I doubt, I find it difficult to ever state or develop truths about ultimate truth. Whether God exists or not is somewhat irrelevant to my state of mind. Understand, I think a definitive refutation is equally unsought.

I really appreciate your balls in confronting M but I'm not ready for a rational deity to emerge from the ashes of the cult. If it's a charge to storm the figurative residence and take no prisoners- keep me on the list. For the more intellectual rationalism, I hope it remains more of a forum- a discussion. I'm with you that the sissy forum is pretty boring, but I don't think that Madelyn Murray O'Hair's whereabouts are up there on my list of internet search must-haves.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 01:57:49 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: My Case
Message:
While it's true that lots of people believe in both evolution and god, the more one learns about evolution, the harder it is to find any place for god in the mix.

You say:

The earth being at the center of the universe was a scientific belief that the Church somehow became dependent on.

But what do you mean that this was a SCIENTIFIC belief?

Also, when you say:

Science as a religion resulting in or as part of a totalitarian authority is seen in Mengele and similar variants in Communist countries. It rears its head in U.S. history as well. Such people are convinced of the 'good' in their research.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying science ---a actual science -- was a forced dogma? I don't think so. I think something quite different than that happened. Bizarre, politically-oriented teachings were forced on people in the communist world IN THE NAME of science but that wasn't science. Far from it.

You don't have to get into questioning the god hypothesis if you don't want. But you do have to explain who Madelyn Murray O'Hair is.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 10:03:31 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: My Case
Message:
O'Hair was the head of American Atheists Society or some such, who sued for (I dunno) was it the right not to pray in school?? And then disappeared mysteriously apparently in some kind of tax scam, i.e. as to not declare money taken from her atheist foundation or something, small-time scams for people who are impressed by small amounts like a $1,000,000 (unlike our dear M).

I can't say I understand your questions. When the earth was believed to be at the center of the universe, it was science. Science was, however, woefully incorrect. The people who were responsible for this idea were also responsible for numerous calculations and other scientific responsibilities. It's not my fault they were scientists and they were wrong. If you try to say that it's only science when it's right you're gonna have an infinite catch-22 in your favor and there will be no discussion.

Likewise, Mengele was a scientist who did collect data through scientific experiments. This doesn't mean he wasn't a horrific monster... sometimes people still want to use the data which he collected and can't decide if they should. One aspect of the abortion debate is that many experiments could be done more effectively with a steady supply of fetal tissue- and placing safeguards against doctors (scientists) harvesting it against the best interests of their patients can't be set in place very easily.

Marx was an attempt at social science. Naturally any and all dictums and policies used science as a rationale wherever possible. While obviously this could be done for propaganda, it was nonetheless the actual mentality of the government. When you go to the doctor and he reccomends a treatment, do you assume it's the absolute best? I assume he might be able to make some more money out of me with an expensive treatment, or that he's not going to mention things that won't make him money- like cheap herbs in a health food store.

Trying to make science into a river of objectivity just aint gonna work. It's gonna be the same as religion..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 10:54:36 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: My Case
Message:
Run: The belief that the earth was the center of the universe was put forth by the CHURCH, then 'proven' by church science. The reason they believed this was because they (the church) believed that the earth was the 'center' and masterpiece of creation (according to the bible). 'Scientists' did NOT make the claim first and then the church follow suit. It was the other way around.

- Additionally, Castaneda IS a liar. The Yaqui would NEVER let him, or any other non-native american, participate in ANY of their ceremonies. First and foremost, the ceremonies, as described by Castaneda are crap (read that: not real ceremonies, he made them up). I can't go into alot of detail on this issue, but Castaneda is PURE BULLS**T....PERIOD!

- Now, I'll but-out.... Sorry, I just couldn't let those two issues slide, Run. ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 15:36:47 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Earth at the center?
Message:
Mike, you wrote:
The belief that the earth was the center of the universe was put forth by the CHURCH, then 'proven' by church science. The reason they believed this was because they (the church) believed that the earth was the 'center' and masterpiece of creation (according to the bible). 'Scientists' did NOT make the claim first and then the church follow suit. It was the other way around.

Mike, with all due respect - I don't believe this is true. I think 'scientists' (which I am defining as people who used empirical observation to try and understand things) decided that the earth was the center of the universe because that's how it looks from here on earth. People even came up with elaborate theories including mathematical proofs as to why some planets appear to move forwards and backwards. The Christian church adopted this idea as dogma (and that's why saying the opposite was heresy), but they didn't come up with it in the first place.

Even in our lifetime, scientists have believed and promulgated some pretty weird ideas, as I'm sure you know. I could cite examples from my own field, but they're pretty esoteric and wouldn't mean much to any non-soil scientists. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples from astrophysics, though!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 17:54:22 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Earth at the center?
Message:
Katie: What you say is true to-a-degree. Remember that most 'early' astronomers were actually astrologers that followed a particular religion (whatever it may have been). I wasn't necessarily referring to the Christian Religion exclusively, by the way. Religion(s), until VERY recently, played a major role in any so-called scientific discoveries (partucularly those that involved the 'heavens'). True enough, certain individuals broke free of this and still came to the wrong conclusions, but as you said the religions would prevent anyone from challenging anything that had become part of the dogma. What I took exception with was the inference that 'religions' were the innocent victims of scientific error, when in fact they helped to create and perpetuate them. Many an early 'real' astronomer (people that didn't see the stars as having an effect on human lives) were told to lay-off the 'earth isn't the center of the universe' idea by the church(s). Galileo and Copernicus were two such examples of this type of treatment.

- It's been a while since I looked at the 'ancient history' of astronomy (and religion's involvement in it), so I admit that I can have my order-of-events messed-up. I will do some research and let you know what I find. Again, I'm going WAY back, not just to christianity's involvement, but to much earlier times. I've got lots of earlier reference material (from those cultures that had a written language). By the way, I've got some materials that actually conflict, depending upon the 'reprint' date (some errors were introduced into them). Some 'star atlases' actually do this... Sure makes life a little more difficult!!!!

- As to your other statements about science....Well, OF COURSE you are right. Science ain't perfect, but I don't think it ever made that claim in the first place. BTW, I WOULD be interested in hearing the 'weird' claims concerning your field. I'm obviously not a 'soil scientist,' but hey... I like to learn! Are you a geologist? Believe it or not, when I was in school, geology courses were required for students of astrophysics (for obvious reasons....I think(?)) ;-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 14:23:42 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Katie and Mike
Subject: Earth at the center?
Message:
You mean the earth is NOT at the center of the Universe?
(Just Kidding)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 14:41:09 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Earth at the center?
Message:
VP: Before this scrolls off the page... I saw a poster that was hilarious. It was a 'picture' of our galaxy with a small white dot way-off to the side. An arrow pointed the the very center of the galaxy and it read, 'the good stuff is here.' The arrow pointing to the lonely dot that was way out there to the side said, 'and YOU are here.'

- I hope my description got a smile on your face, the poster did for me..... ha ha ha!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 15:06:36 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Earth at the center?
Message:
That is hilarious! Thanks
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:01:16 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: My Case
Message:
Run,

With all due respect I think you're right. You DON'T understand my questions. In fact, when you say this:

Trying to make science into a river of objectivity just aint gonna work. It's gonna be the same as religion..

I get the impression we're not talking about the same thing at all. So, quite simply, how would you define science?

(Hint: Oxford calls it 'a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and function of the physical universe. Do you accept this definition? If not, why?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 13:56:52 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim and Mike
Subject: My Case
Message:
Definition seems ok. The main point (in dealing strictly with your response) is that just because that's what attempted doesn't mean it's successful.

Aren't you confusing the process of science with the results? The process, in theory, has a certain purity. The results change. Don't the prevailing beliefs/theories change with each new discovery? Hasn't evolution seen varying changes/discussions/modifications with new data, such as dna info?

Mike, I don't mind you butting in.. I wasn't in Castaneda's will- I really dont mind if you insult the guy. He only cost me about $50 in my whole life so he didn't scam me much if he was a scam. As I recall Ptolemy was a genuine scientist with scientific reponsibilities and some correct factual information who represented the scientific community during the birth of heliocentrism. Ptolemy, the earth-centric, was a scientist who today we know was wrong in that specific area.

Isn't that really the way it is? Theories give way slowly and generally there is other information available for awhile before it happens. Chomsky has barely started to lose his 'objective' status after almost 50 years.

The point I am discussing is, how objective can science be considered? It is arguably a process toward objectivity, but objectivity will be elusive at best.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 21:25:54 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: My Case
Message:
Aren't you confusing the process of science with the results? The process, in theory, has a certain purity. The results change. Don't the prevailing beliefs/theories change with each new discovery? Hasn't evolution seen varying changes/discussions/modifications with new data, such as dna info?

Actually, Run, I think that YOU'VE got things backwards. Science IS the process, not the result. After all, the whole point of scientific knowledge (i.e. result) is that it's eternally tentative. Prove the data or process that lead to it wrong and the result's overturned. The only thing fixed IS the theory which, I agree, has a certain purity to it.

For example, Laurie's reading this book by Richard Leaky called 'Origins Revisited' in which he returns to some of his earlier thinking and revises and, in some instances, reverses himself. Is this evidence of science's weakness or its strength? I'd say the latter. I'd also say this kind of open-mindedness in the face of fresh evidence or argument is markedly different than the kind of mentality religion fosters. Are some scientists pretty bad about giving in to new evidence or accpeting flaws intheir methodology? I guess. However, I can't see them thriving for any length of time in the scientific community with that kind of resistance. And even if some do hole up in the odd bastion of avoidance, my understanding is that, sooner rather than later, their barriers fall and the process establishes its proper water levels. Human nature might be weak but the scientific process is fairly impervious to LONG TERM manipulation. In heaven, there are no sissy forums.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 02:36:47 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The real dirt
Message:
Now that the real dirt is starting come out on this subject, I still reccomend that you look into Kuhn's classic, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. I suspect you are dealing wth a narrow strata of scientists on the outside of your own area of expertise (your examples always cite either cosmology or evolution) which completely exclude social science, for example.

What you say about science is true in theory but espousing a theory is not a guarantee of its efficacy. The purity of science is an abstract quantity unrelated to the nuts and bolts of real-world scientists. Why do people go into medicine today? Don't you think it has more to do with $180k paycheck (in the states) than their pure desire to serve truth? When people can claim the truth is their domain watch your wallet!

It's true that the Bowel Movement (BM) kept alot of us from pursuing our education, and many of us have been happier to pursue it belatedly. We are happy to exercise our intellect freely. That's more of a social or sociological phenomena than it is a specific philosophical calling (e.g. rationalism).

We need a good dirt to grow ex-premies in.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 09:29:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Don't you see?
Message:
Run,

The beauty of the process is that it protects its integrity against the smaller interests of its practicioners. (Oh, by the way, I AM excluding the 'social sciences.') Who cares if doctors want money and physicists want glory? That doesn't impugn their research if its subject to the same peer scrutiny that all the rest is. As Rick Moranis would say, 'Beauty!'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 01:06:01 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Don't you see?
Message:
Dunno Moranis, you'll have to clue me.

Didn't your co-debator admit at Katie's urging that his defense of science was historically flawed? Honest, you seem like you have a void where your belief was and you stuck 'science' there.

Medicine is a great place to look for flaws in the practice of science. The pursuit of pure research is often totally obscured by the BUSINESS of medicine. Likewise Ptolemy was employed by the powers that were, who were in accord with the Church. I'll refer you to Ralph Nader's statistics about hospitals. The amount of accidents and deaths attributed to hospitals is overwhelming. Yet they are theoretically in existence to serve the scientific view of medicine. $cience..

It's be nice if people had scruples in a certain field of endeavor, but it's really the same whether the person is a clergyman or a doctor. They're only as good as they are as a person and their label is no guarantee for the actual purity with which they carry out their work.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 11:17:43 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Don't you see?
Message:
Run,

You continue to make what I think is a basic error here. You're still pointing out all the weakness you can think of in the PEOPLE affiliated with science without acknowledging the ways science itself rises above them. And it does. For example, what you say about hospitals:

The amount of accidents and deaths attributed to hospitals is overwhelming. Yet they are theoretically in existence to serve the scientific view of medicine. $cience..

This isn't a criticism of science, it's a criticism of people. If I read that medical researchers have discovered x I'm not going to disbelieve that because of either the possible greedor ignorance of the researchers or that of their bosses. The process -- double-blind studies and all the subject-to-peer-review protocols -- assures me that the results are vaild nonetheless. That is, unless there's some major conspiracy in the field to cover up this or that which, if you're going to claim as much you'd better have some proof (not just you; anybody). Or maybe you'd argue that better researchers would be studying different questions. So what? That's not a fault of science, it's a fault, if true, of people.

In short I think you're way too vague and innaccurate in what you're calling 'science' and what you're holding it repsonsible for.

By the way, thanks much for your compliment in the other post.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 23:54:45 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Don't you see?
Message:
But what you're saying is I should praise an intangible. Yes, BRAVERY is compelling. And people who follow its precepts are undoubtedly capable of acts and worthy of a respect that others may never attain. BUT! c'mon, there's no guarantee that any person is innately bound to an abstract. Again, check out the Kuhn when you get a chance...... What you are saying only exists in theory because people have more practical issues of survival to deal with than the purity of their research. Our mistake as premies was to take someone's word for the purity of their work. You're still looking to worship something that isn't really there- sounds like.

The only place I can take this from here is to discuss specific instances where interesting research is denied mainstream acceptance or exposure because of the 'scientific community'. Be realistic- in practice 'science' is the scientific community. Otherwise you're talking about an abstract that has no corporeality. What you're saying really reminds me of religion- that the worship of God brings certain guarantees to the faithful- that a real spirit exists therefore following it has a real benefit to those who perservere.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 13:44:23 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Don't you see?
Message:
Run,

Quit talking about all the science that ISN'T done for a moment. I guess, if you wanted to, you could become a scientist yourself and pursue what interests you if no one else is. If it's going to cost a lot of money, you're going to have to get a few friends together, I imagine. Those cylotrons can get expensive, I'm told. And, if you want to study the effects of certian illegal subtances you're going to need a little prior authorization from Big Brother. Granted. Still, you could study whatever you want. No one's stopping you.

As for the science that IS done, tell me, do you reject the findings of all these published studies, here there and everywhere? I don't. I feel perfectly comfortable beleiving I most of what I read as study results in scientific journals. That's the bottom line for me. It's a rigorous, sometimes even cut-throat process. All the scientists are either driven, wierd personalities, or jokers just trying to make a living so they cna enjoy riding their bikes to campus, or avaricious and greedy. But, you know, it doesn't matter a bit. The process looks after itself -- kind of like evolution.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 16:30:35 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Don't you see?
Message:
I pay attention to studies- but the study and the conclusions are separate. Often studies contradict each other. There are also many ways and many steps in which misinformation can seep in.

If you were taking drugs on a regular basis and needed money (without regard to any judgement call- maybe smoked a joint once in awhile) and got into a study, you might not be inclined to tell the scientists that you smoke, although they will ask you point blank. With 7 times the tar of tobacco and you smoking it without a filter and holding it in, your tar intact could be a hundred times higher per cigarette than a cigarette smoker. he people who are recruited for studies are in specific populations and are motivated, often by money to join in them- not by a love a science.

Likewise, skilled in mathematics, a statistician can purposefully manipulate these forces withoout that much help from lying pot smokers. If you think it doesn't happen you are naiive. The idea that the purity of science will prevail is about as substantive as Guru's grace.

I do pay a lot of attention to studies and over time make judgements. When you see something in the paper about a study, it doesn't always give you information about how many people were involved and where they came from. The technological fruits of science are tangible and cannot be argued for their existence although we pay a price.

I think the social sciences have more to say about these processes than you realise. The proper academic form for writing scientific papers is taken from the American Psychological Association. The protoculs of any scientific paper can be expressed in keeping with APA protoculs according to the many scientific bodies who use their editorial guidelines.

I'm not throwing this shit out as a mushy headed romantic new ager. I do consider myself a Saturday scientist- but it's still only a day a week.

Leave your email in your next entry before we disappear to the inactive zone (if you want) and talk more specifics.

Sant a clause?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 01:18:56 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: PS from your pal
Message:
For the 3rd, 4th or 5th time, I would like to say, on this forum, that I appreciate your balls in getting in BM's face. Somtimes when I don't agree with you, I back off a bit out of respect. I don't really feel like arguing with you. I think you are often correct and overall raise the level of the forum, but also sometimes lack the nurturing ability to help people step into the world of their own mind.

We're not here propagating anything. If people don't like us, tough shit. Still, there are many viewpoints here.

Like I've said, I meditate now and left M as I became proficient in it. My dislike of M is based largely on his making messianic claims. I really don't appreciate helping some guy save the planet at my own risk, expense and suffering only to have him slowly rescind the promise.

A lot of us have, sometimes belatedly, gotten educated. There are no quick fixes for me with this. We could study our whole lives and still be relatively ignorant. I don't think education can replace the internal struggle with spirituality that we have had, but it helps raise the standard of our dialogue with each other.

Take it slow, I gotta run. Later,
Runamok
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 14:09:50 (EDT)
From: An Elf
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: a case for Santa Claus
Message:
Mike,
I know what you are saying, but I was never angry with my parents about Santa. (How could anyone get too mad after getting all that stuff?!) Ok, a bit disappointed that magic didn't exist...but didn't I know that already somewhere in the back of my mind? By the time I was told, the whole theory made no sense anyway. It would take the guy the whole evening to do my neighborhood alone, especially if he had to wait for everyone to go to sleep!

Here's something from a children's book about Santa Claus by Harold Myra that states a case for Santa Claus:

'Saint Nicholas was a real person. He lived about 300 years after Jesus was born...One favorite story about him goes like this:

Nicholas loved to give gifts, especially to the poor. Only he gave them secretly because he wasn't looking for thanks. Nick knew a kind but poor man with three lovely daughters who all wanted to get married. But in those days, a woman had to have money-a dowry-before a wedding could be announced.

When Nick heard about this, he put some money into a bag and, while it was dark, walked to their house. He tossed the money into the oldest daughter's room, and it fell into a stocking hung there to dry.
(VP's note: So THAT'S where stockings came from) Nick quietly left.

The oldest daughter had a marvelous wedding. Later, on another night, Nick did the same thing for the second daughter. They wondered who had helped them.

One daughter was left. Would someone give her a dowry, too?

Not too long after that, Nick sneaked up to her house and tossed in a third bag of gold. But this time the father heard him! Nick realized he had been seen and tried to dash away. The father ran and caught up to him.

The father recognized Nick and smiled. 'Keep my secret,' Nick asked. And the father did.
(VP's note: How did anyone find out about this story then? heh heh!)

For years after that, no one knew who had helped the three daughters. Nick kept doing kind things for people. After he died, people called him a Saint. Over the years, people remembered Saint Nicholas and how he gave gifts.

In Holland they call him Sinterclaas. In England they call him Father Christmas. In France he is called Pere Noel. In the United States he is called Santa Claus...whenever you see Santa in a store or a parade, remember Saint Nick.'


I think it's okay to do good deeds anonymously. That's probably why I didn't care that my folks played Santa. I know this hasn't got beans to do with M, but I like Santa.
VP
Still a big kid in '98
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 13:37:52 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: 'Enjoying Lives'
Message:
I had the unfortunate experience of reading the 'Lives' section of that premie site over at 'enjoyinglife' and I have many of the same reactions Jim and others have mentioned. But there were a couple of common elements that jumped out at me as I read them, especially because a couple of the premies I knew personally. They were, by and large, very nice people, people living in a cult, just like I was. And I am sure they are still very nice people.

At least as to the US entries, especially those of Jan Buchalter and Danny Munter, both raving, avid, cult-members from the 70s, just like me, and with whom I lived in various ashrams, I think it's interesting that both of them provide long descriptions of their lives before knowledge, how they found out about Guru Maharaj Ji, and that everything has been just so blissful ever since. Now, I have no basis on which to disbelieve the absolute heavenly and ecstatic nature of these premies' lives, at least since I last saw them 20 years ago, but I think it's notable that they say nothing about what actually happened 'in their lives' after they received knowledge. The details are certainly lacking. In fact, ALL of the premie entries on that website omit such details. Wonder why? Maybe because such details would make what they have been involved in sound like...I don't know....a CULT?????

Conspicuously absent is any mention of the fact that they at least once considered Maharaji to be god incarnate (I heard both say that myself), that they dedicated their lives for years in celibacy and poverty in ashrams, (although I think some had trouble with the 'celibacy thing',) that Maharaji considered himself the 'Lord of the Universe' and that they, on regular occasions, bowed down and kissed his feet. They don't mention the time and money they dedicated to Maharaji, the Krishna costumes or the 'fat naked dancing' (as g's mom so eloquently described it) either.

And for anyone who is interested, 'Danny Munter,' the 'successful Los Angeles stockbroker,' is the very same bearded person in the Lord of the Universe video, dancing around the tarmac at the Houston airport with a flower saying, 'Know who touched this flower? The Lord of the Universe!!!' Then he staggers off uttering a few demented laughs, in ecstacy at having possession of one of the lord's flower. Funny how Danny didn't mention THAT in his 'Lives' entry either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 13:46:57 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Hilarious
Message:
JW: I guess THEY (the premies on that site) don't know who's watching THEM and what THEY say..... snicker snicker snicker.

- Hey, you may have started something REALLY good here. A 'revelations' page that can be a counter-point to their personal life-stories pages (e.g. tell the REAL truth). What do you think? I think it's got potential, myself.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:10:48 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Hilarious
Message:
Thanks, Mike. Yes, I think the 'enjoyinglife' website will provide some excellent fodder for this site. I think it already has. It's about time. Wonder how many days it will be before 'people around Maharaji' call up those guys and suggest the site be disbanded? Should we start taking bets?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 16:16:44 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Hilarious
Message:
Joe,

Your satsang below was really funny, by the way. Now that i think of it, there never were any copies of 'Strunk and White' ('Elements of Style') on the ashram bookshelves.

This new premie site really puzzles me. How in the world did they get Mahatma Gurucharanand (that's how I know him, that's how they treat him) to give them something without Maharaji's okay? I just don't see it. Anyway, our reaction must come as no surprise so I'm not sure they're going to change anything based on it. Who knows? Maybe Maharaji just figures he can keep his pigeons happy if they can all coo together in the same coop and they won't bother looking elsewhere for a little Maharaji-talk. Maybe he just don't give a fuck.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 17:28:01 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: joger02@aol.com
To: Jim
Subject: Here's What I Think
Message:
Jim,

Here's what I think. I think there might be some tacit permission by Maharaji to do that website as long as it is VERY controlled. Everything submitted can be, and likely is, heavily edited. Certainly, nothing criticizing, or even questioning, Maharaji, knowledge, or anyhing related will be allowed. Open discussion is lethel to Maharaji, and it cannot be allowed.

Also, all entries will have be be in the new 'premie-speak.' You know, this knowledge is beautiful, there are no, and never have been, any strings attached -- it's simple and easy and people love it. Period. You know, lies like that. Maybe some cute stories like Charanand and Whittaker will be allowed, but nothing about the 'Lord of the Universe' period, darshan, dedication and devotion, ashrams and all the rest, and certainly nothing about M's lavish lifestyle, planes, fundraising, Swiss bank accounts, and that theme park in Malibu he lives in.

Harlan's site excluded anything negative about Maharaji, but I think it upset Maharaji, and PAM, because Harlen just excluded certain posts entirely, but didn't edit the ones he allowed. Premies waxed on about all kinds of stuff that Maharaji no longer wants mentioned for the world to see, like whether or not Maharaji was god, swoonings about darshan experiences, and other stuff that often sounded psychotic, or at least pointed out the embarrassing parts of M's past. They had to try to dump that site because it wasn't controlled enough.

I also think M realized he was taking a hit from questioning premies as to why he was abandoning the internet to the ex-premies. But, can he keep OTHER sites from forming that aren't so controlled, now that the flood gates have opened? We shall see. Maybe we should ask Harlan if he is going to start up his site again in the US.

Problem is, it is going to get VERY boring if people just say over and over how beautiful it all is, and how grateful they are. And it DOES provide fodder for ex-premies that didn't exist before. So, if it got M's approval, I would submit it's a mistake.

I also suspect you will see NO satsang from Maharaji himself (funny there isn't any, is there?), and no 'contact numbers' for EV. I think the website operators have been told in no uncertain terms to keep any 'official' connection to M or EV OFF the site. But, we will see.

But isn't it also interesting that Charnanad mentions Mata Ji, who has rejected Maharaji as a charlatan, and Whittaker mentions Susie Bai, who dumped Maharaji years ago? Soon we will be hearing about Bill Patterson, Arthur Brigham, Barbara Kolodney, Michael Donner, and who knows, maybe the orginal founder of DLM in the West, Bob Mishler. Wonder if we might hear mention of Bal Bahgwan Ji aka that 'other' perfect master, Satpal. Of course, no one will be able to point out the irony in that, at least not on THAT website.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 18:30:27 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: JW
Subject: Here's What I Think
Message:
Dear JW,
Don't you wonder how those premies whose posts are edited will feel? Don't you think they'd feel betrayed? I would. Or are most of them so imbedded into the cult thinking that they would explain it away in any way. That is a very sad thought.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 09:11:32 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Here's What I Think
Message:
I think it would plant some doubt in their minds, Robyn. Every little bit helps. What about those 'lives' that don't get posted at all? Imagine how they must feel. Hopefully, it will become obvious to these edited and rejected souls, if in fact they exist (must leave room for doubt), that this new premie website is primarily an advertisement for M & K, not a forum for free expression.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 12:16:41 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Here's What I Think
Message:
No kidding. Some advertisement, too!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 18:30:42 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Here's What I Think
Message:
Joe, good observations all. You're right, the page is going to get about as exciting as the tea party Anne Johnston organized for our families at the Lowther ashram in '74. I wonder, though, about the 'conversations' section. What on earth will those be like? I can't wait.

BTW, while I have your attention, what'd you think about my 'god' post above? I don't mean about what I said, but about the article.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 15:59:45 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: JW
Subject: 'Enjoying Lives'
Message:
Dear Joe,
Danny Munter, I didn't know you, or anyone knew who he was, he was my FAVORITE part of that video, the funniest for sure. It is hard to imagine him being a stock broker! Thanks, I wondered what ever happened to him.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 19:14:38 (EDT)
From: b..*<*
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: Jan Buckhalkters missing baby
Message:
The lord didn't approve of parents wasting thier lives
raising kids. so vulnerable sincere Jan made hers
vanish. Poof. Adopted by someone, I saw her with it in front of
the Miami residence.
Another trajedy courtesy of the divine lord
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Sep 30, 1998 at 20:15:53 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: b..*<*
Subject: Jan Buckhalkters missing baby
Message:
That is the worst thing I have ever heard. I wonder how often she thinks about her child?

Can you imagine the reunion? Why did you give me away. Well, the Lord said .....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 08:44:57 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Jan Buckhalkters missing baby
Message:
Hi Gail,
Unfortunately there are others.
One woman moved into my apt and she had
also left her kids (at two years old) because of
rawats incessant smears against parents.

I know a few women that left children older
than that! Imagine that trauma.

Some left husbands that were darn good guys and threw
away thier family possibilities for 'the lords' demanding
'no compromiseing' ways.

And the rest of us left family and friends and careers and
self directed living.

Remember ann johnson, she saw the kid she had dumped
on the bus or subway and closed her eyes and 'meditated'
to blot the sight out and keep her focus on 'the lord'
until it was safe to look again.
She had rawats demands to be the only one and get rid of
your mind relationships with others because you have given
you life to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 13:01:36 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: b..*<*
Subject: Jan Buckhalkters missing baby
Message:
I didn't know Jan had a child. This is very sad. I also know of premies, both male and female, that left spouses and children to do REAL service for Maharaji. They usually felt very guilty about it, but felt they had to do it because, at least at that time, Maharaji was saying over and over that the only way was 100% total dedication and surrender, and since he was god, they tended to believe him. What was a parent to do?

In retrospect, I have enormous respect for parents who resisted this, and remained with their kids, despite the derision they got from Maharaji and other premies for doing so. But, at the time, I remember being very grateful to Maharaji that I was 'free' and could dedicate everything to the lord, and feeling sorry for premie parents who couldn't. Gag, barf.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 01, 1998 at 22:19:03 (EDT)
From: a lurker with white-out
Email: Lurk Skytalker @Prachar Wars.org
To: b..*<* and others
Subject: Jan Buchhalter
Message:
Hello, I know Jan well and think that you should not gossip about people on the Internet. Esp this topic: Jan lost the baby at birth and still feels sad -it was a girl-to this day. Evidently you saw her holding another's child. Please be kind and respectful of other's feelings. Thank you.

Lurk Skytalker

PS: I enjoy this site and think you all are doing a good job 96% of the time. Just watch the gossip factor!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 00:24:47 (EDT)
From: Joy
Email: Bluebirdd@aol.com
To: a lurker with white-out
Subject: Jan Buchhalter
Message:
I agree with Lurker. It makes me a little uneasy to see people's private lives discussed in such a callous way as we sometimes do here, just because they still practice Knowledge. I know I wouldn't want to be talked about in such a manner on the net, so hopefully we can respect others' privacy as well (except of course BM's -- anything goes there!). One of the reasons I liked hiding out in the relatively anonymous San Francisco premie community towards the end of my ashram days was because it was so off the beaten track and I felt a little space to start to develop my own private life. I didn't want people I didn't know all that well to know and gossip about what I was doing, who I was dating, etc. So hopefully we can accord this same privacy to the premies; I don't think practicing Knowledge is enough of a sin to warrant having your private life discussed mercilessly on the Forum, despite how much fun it may be for us to gossip and tear apart some of the more radical premies.

Don't mean to be heavy, just my two cents on the subject.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 01:59:37 (EDT)
From: jethro
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: Jan Buchhalter
Message:
'...... It makes me a little uneasy to see people's private lives discussed in such a callous way as we sometimes do here...'

This is an inevitable consequence of not practising what you preach(i.e hypocracy).

e.g. 'this knowledge is so perfect, that anything it touches becomes perfect' quote from prempal......
of course this does not include one's private life!!!!!!

Premies suffer from a severe case of cognitive dissonence, just like Born Againers or other 'fundamentalist' groups.

I am personally grateful to all those people who were 'cruel' enough to help me see my own hypocracy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 03:58:05 (EDT)
From: bill burke
Email: None
To: a lurker with white-out
Subject: Jan Buchhalter
Message:
I also know Jan well.
All the gopis were close.
She goes to many events and did you know she was
pointed out to one of the forum members at an event
as a nutty person that goes to all the events?

And besides this disrespect, she spent her adult life
being fooled by someone who said he was the ultimate lord and
she till this day trusts. At this point, haveing spent her
years and much of her inheritance, what does she have
to show for the deception?

Born for freedom, with great innocence and vulnerability,
she has been led from one false claim to another.
Taken from family and friends and she was shown
great distain by maharaji and the residence staff
in Miami I can tell you that for sure. Ask mike donner.

A gopi, a god damn gopi, haveing devotion like I did
for someone that not only claimed to be the
ultimate lord, but isnt, and doesnt even believe in god
himself. That is about as vicious as it can get.

Or perhaps you have a different slant?

If there is a lord to love, and feel out and know,
rawat wont set her free to have that.

You have got to admit it is completely insidious to take
someone, me and her, and get us all into the lord
idea and then totally debase that lord possibility
and in fact eliminate it from our lives just because he
claimed to be it and isnt. I didnt say that well enough.

Look, it isnt out of line for anyone to fudge the truth
when it hurts, my sisters dont want to admit they aborted
thier first kid. I claimed it was 'the other guy' who took that
stuff from the church (when it was both of us) even though
it was attic stuff, I fudge the story because who wants
to deal with others about the gruesome facts.

The gruesome facts that Jan doesnt want to admit
to you is primarily the reality that she has been taken
for the fantasy ride for her life and that the respect she
gets from that other web site is the first respect she has
gotten from 'official' premieville that I know of.

Jan Buckhalter was considered a BONGO by the
upper dust of the lords world.
Dont white out that true history.
Jan's big crime, like mine and other devotee gopi types,
was that we took him at his word. He was the krishna,
we were the gopi types hangingout to interact with
him and he didnt know what to do with us except try
to avoid us and keep up the distant front.

NEVER setting us free and now, tightening the noose
again by falsely claiming to be the master of life.
Come out of the lurk status and face the facts
square head on.
Do you 'be nice' and not help free the friend?
And why should we let him do this to others all over again?
For some spirituality? Truth?

If there is a god, that prem rawat doesnt believe in,
dont worry about humans getting intouch with 'god'
in this false way and let life educate us further in
an honest way. His actions are not needed by humans.

Dishonesty has no good use in history.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 12:46:50 (EDT)
From: Lurk
Email: Lurk@PracharWars.boom
To: bill burke
Subject: JB
Message:
Hi Bill.

You speak true and accurate. Perhaps someone will send her this thread. There are other groups to dedicated time to; this lovely Aquarian Lady can find satisfaction elsewhere...but probably will not due to time invested..how embarassing to all to leave 20 years of travel and have only memories to show for it, and a few photos.
A non stop slow party:too much fun. Enjoy? Yeah, M enjoys the fame and fortune disguised behind devotion. Selfish Altruism.

P's enjoy having a mission in life, and a superior perspective to filter life through, (I have this Knowledge but THEY don't) but thinking is squelched via Master says, Monkees do, therefore the true evolution of a human is handicapped by thought strangulation in favor of heart feelings. It's a weird trip. It's madness to argue, you could go in mental circles coming to terms; just walk away.

I personally think there should be a spread sheet of all the attributes of this Knowldedge vrs the reality of the brainwashing, posted, on both sites. But it's subjective, so hard to quantify.
Maybe someone could try.

Thanks for the post.

Lurk

I'll be back.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 13:08:50 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: mmmmmmmm
To: Lurk! Up in the Sky! It's
Subject: ...Superscam!
Message:
Lurk - Up in the Sky!

It's a word! It's a plane!
It's SuperScam! SuperScam!!

Superscam...Estranged Being from a mother Mata, who came to West with liars and Liabilities far beyond those of normal men. Superscam! Who can change the face of mighty givers! Bend Truth in his bare Hans! ..And who, disquised as Prem Rawat, mild mannered retorter from Elan Vital India, writes a never ending tattle for Truth, VISA and the Radhasoami Way!

RT who watch Superman TV as a kid, transfered that attention to M, and quit after 24 years (duh!) when he saw the other disguise.
It was a phoney booth!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 21:26:57 (EDT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Lurk
Subject: JB
Message:
I dont know if this thread is something to send her.
Too much roughness and frankness.
Idont think she is very open to change, certainly
she has been to this site.

She has invested so much, some are not going to leave.
I will be surprised if it happens.

We should meet on the sissy forum to discuss y2k.

Are you nearby these days?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 13:17:25 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: a lurker with white-out
Subject: I Agree
Message:
Thanks for pointing this out. Point well taken.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 15:30:37 (EDT)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
I used to live with little Jan in the ashram on Race St. for awhile, and she was alright, she had a good heart. Why should she be considered a 'bongo' just because she was a passionate person and loved Maharaji desperately and couldn't hack the whole way the scene was set up by the premies and BM? (Which, in my opinion, was meant to keep premies at a distance, and maximize the cash flow to BM's accounts, as it still is to this day.) After all, wasn't he TELLING us to surrender our lives completely and worship him to distraction? What was all that dancing in Krishna costumes and crowns about then? When someone takes him literally at his word and tries to do just that, they get labelled bongo. Which is too bad, since I see Jan as just as much a victim of BM's programming as anybody else who was unfortunate enough to buy his hogwash, and am sorry to hear she's still wasting her time and finances on the fat fraud. If BM really WAS the Lord of the Universe, as he was pretending to be, then why WOULDN'T you want to stand outside his house hoping to catch a glimpse of him or maybe even talk to him? What is so bongo about that? No, the real Bongo is BM himself, for perpetrating his nonsense on everyone. Just because Jan took him a little more literally at his word than most of us shouldn't brand her as some kind of special fool. We were ALL bongos for falling for it! I think premies should not be blamed personally for their behavior (even the more radical and obnoxious initiator types), as we were all suckered in by BM and were just trying to do, in our own way, however that may have manifested, what we thought he wanted us to do. The blame should be placed totally and squarely on Maharaji, where it belongs.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 18:36:05 (EDT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
You captured the thread beautifully Joy.

Thanks for the clarity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 00:41:25 (EDT)
From: op
Email: None
To: bb
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
Since you seem so interested in Jan, perhaps you should know that she was kept away from the residence in the early days not because she just kept showing up, but because she kept doing things like hiding in his closet, climbing in the windows, etc., and some other items that threatened his security.

She also has a temper that could shake Shiva out of his boots, and by now she recognizes it.

She just saw Maharaji at a private party, to which she was invited, and I don't think she felt ostracized or out of place.

One of the things I have enjoyed over the years is how many different and unique personalites there are among people with Knowledge.

Have fun.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 09:04:49 (EDT)
From: jethro
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
'One of the things I have enjoyed over the years is how many different and unique personalites there are among people with Knowledge'

I am embarrassed to say that I used to say and believe things like the above.
The above actually applies to everyone in the world in that each one has a unique personality. But in the premie world it's people with k and people without k.
Now there's a concept that is planted early. Mind you it's the same in many'groups'.
I must say that the world is much more interesting and beautiful since I challenged (within inside myself) my own belief and exorcised it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 13:50:33 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: petkat@mail.trib.net
To: op
Subject: Hi op!
Message:
Dear op - Greetings to you - haven't heard from you in a long time.

I'd be really interested to hear what you think of the new premie site, and I'm sure many of the other people on the ex-premie site would be interested in what you think too. I realize that this may be a sensitive subject, and something that you'd rather not discuss, so, if you don't want to talk about it, it's OK with me.

Take care, op. Hope all is well with you.
Regards from
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 19:28:44 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
One of the things I have enjoyed over the years is how many different and unique personalites there are among people with Knowledge.

What on earth does this mean? That 'knowledge' is valuable or exceptional because there are many different and unique personalities? Did you know you could find that in a prison? Or in Nazi Germany? You can enjoy many different and unique personalities on a street corner. How terribly revealing of your cult programming to say something like that.

Isn't it precious how tolerant the Guru is, of so many different and unique personalities. They are all like dust, and yet, in His mercy, He lets them exist.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 15:14:32 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
Hello op. Like Katie, I have a question or two. Do you think Jan should have included any of the stuff you mentioned in her 'lives with knowledge' entry over on that other site? You certainly wouldn't pick up anything about the kind of relationship she has had over the years with M from reading what she wrote, or at least from what the site-operators allowed to get posted.

How did Jan get in M's closet so that she could hide in it? I mean, how did she get into 'the residence' to begin with? And why would she hide in a closet? So she could jump out and say 'boo!!?'

I never knew any of this about Jan. I recall her as a nice person, certainly not a threat to anyone and I can't imagine that M would feel 'threatened' by her, I certainly never felt that way about her. How is 'showing up' a security threat, especially because M knew who she was. Perhaps she became a nuisance, but I think she thinks she loved/loves M and certainly would never do anything to hurt him. So, are you perhaps overstating Jan's threat to the lord's security just a bit?

And isn't it just possible that M's pathological need to be worshipped, which appears to have resulted in him asking for total dedication from his premies for a decade or so, fueled Jan's desires to be with him? I mean, isn't it possible that Jan and some of the other 'darshan freaks' as we used to call them, were just a little more zealous in their devotion that some of the rest of us? Didn't M bring this on himself and then blame Jan for being the way she was? If he thought he was a nuisance, or a threat, isn't that rather hypocritical?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 00:23:13 (EDT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
exactly JW
How did OP make the jump from all her supposed
private 'i know m is the lord because THIS happened'
stories to the point she revealed in her
post slamming Jan?

Obviously OP is at odds with herself about m.
But still, it is Jans fault totally. Thanks OP.
Jan WAS reacting
like a person that believed he was as he said.
After a night with joan apter and the other instructors
belaboring the longing point and the whole total
vise and arti, what is so out of line for a girl that has all
her desires and personal wishes removed to move in the
direction of the only hope given. The only on that had the
power to give the experience. The one who said the
only green grass grew only at his feet.
What possibly can be OP's excuse for her in fact
nasty slam against Jan.

Getting invited to a contributors party is somehow
presented as a sign of devine love and an award for
finally behaveing.
OP has really hit a new low.

And the sign of devine love invitation to the party is
hardly compensation for the life wasted in pursuit of a
madmans domination.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 09:41:00 (EDT)
From: op
Email: None
To: bill and katie
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
hey bill - you haven't got a clue. Slamming Jan?

Jan has grown tremendously over the last few years. And who was it who posted a bunch of very private stuff about her life? Not even necessarily true stuff about her life?

Hi Katie -

I think the new premie site will be highly edited because very unfortunately people cannot say what they feel without being torn apart by media or on this page.

I'm seeing more and more how subjective life is. What I perceive as absolutely true can be completely false in your eyes - and who is to say which one of us is right? Even science can't provide an objective overview - the very matter that makes up the universe shifts depending on who is watching. (I don't want a long and tedious argument from Jim, this is just a comment.)

On the other hand, I think the new premie site will give a lot of people a voice that they and others will appreciate, even if they often can express only every other word. Amazing, that our culture is at a point where it's ok to use every vulgarity imaginable, slam the president and savor every detail of his private sexual escapades. Freedom of speech has become utter chaos.

So, in my view, it's perfectly ok that I have to measure every word. Whatever is said is going to be dissected until the blood starts flowing, whether it be here or on the premie page. So I have to try to say something bloodless, to convey my meaning without actually having any substance that can be chewed up and spewed back at me.

Which is, of course, impossible. So, in my case, I stay away. When you posted the challenge to state some things that M has done for other people, I could have sent in a list that would put Mother Theresa to shame. But I couldn't do it without compromising his privacy (and mine). So I didn't.

No one here really wanted to hear about his 'good deeds' anyway. Just another excuse to pull him apart.

I'm sorry if I seem to be so down on Billy Burke, btw. He is one person here who really does get me angry - all this gopi nonsense. If he'd really lived it, he wouldn't be here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:02:08 (EDT)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
When you posted the challenge to state some things that M has done for other people, I could have sent in a list that would put Mother Theresa to shame. But I couldn't do it without compromising his privacy (and mine). So I didn't.

OP, I'd be dead curious to find out if M. has ever done anything that would remotely qualify as putting Mother Teresa to shame. I feel embarassed even reading about the two of them in the same sentence. Since you know of so many, can you please just tell us one teeny thing that M has done which would fall into the humanitarian kindness category (as in *actually* helping people physically, not just giving them Knowledge and turning them into mindless Guru slaves)? In all my years with him, I couldn't see a thing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 01:53:03 (EDT)
From: op
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
How about a real simple one:

A premie diagnosed with cancer who didn't have enough money for treatment. M payed all her doctor & hospital bills. This is within the past three years.

(Now don't tell me you think he payed for them out of YOUR donations and you're going to demand your money back.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 11:46:04 (EDT)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: op
Subject: M = Mother Teresa?? Not!!
Message:
I admit, OP, that that was a very nice kind for him to do. And no, I wouldn't squawk about where the money came from in that situation.

But somehow, I just knew your answer would have to do with something nice he did for a premie, and not for someone in the world at large. Pretty much any wealthy person would do the same for someone they knew personally, I would imagine. Mother Teresa saw the good (and God) in all human beings, whether they subscribed to her way of belief or not, and acted accordingly. I cannot imagine M. doing the same for someone who was not within his premie/master realm. No, real humanitarian effort would fall outside of the realm of him doing nice things for people he knows and involve him doing something for the people of the world at large, or in a very specific situation where people needed help. If I could see such an example, I would be more inclined to believe he actually cared about people in the world, as he claims in his statements as Perfect Master. Has he, for instance, done anything for the people of Yugoslavia? Sudan? There are thousands of dedicated, religious people in the world who do truly selfless service in the world's disaster areas (I am thinking specifically of the Irish organization Concern.) Now *those* people are on a par with Mother Teresa. Not Maharaji from his ivory tower (or rather jet plane), feathering his own nest in the name of bringing peace to the world.

P.S. I have heard personally of an instructor who eventually left M because he declined to have any contact with another premie (an ex-instructor, I think, I don't know all the details) who was dying of cancer, refused her requests to see him for whatever reason. This so shook up Instructor A that he/she eventually left M.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 12:56:00 (EDT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: M = Mother Teresa?? Not!!
Message:
Excellent post, Joy. The most tragic thing about Maharaji is that, if he wanted to, he would have the influence to encourage premies to actually do something for the world and other people. He could actually advocate that. But no. I don't think he'd like to see premies waste resources that could be going to HIM. Instead, Maharaji is the height of irresponsibility by example, including being environmentally irresponsible by getting jets to fly ONE person around the world. In addition to the massive waste of money, it's also damaging to the ozone layer.

I remember when those premies were shot in the ashram in Gainesville, and also when premies committed suicide. Think Big M even bothered to call up the parents of those premies and state his sympathy? Think again.

And Joy, how about that premie you and I both know, who's health was seriouslly damaged because she had to work with toxic chemicals on the instruments in the cockpit of that Boeing 707 plane Big M wanted to badly. She was so disabled she had to go live with her parents for a number of years and was unable to work. Think Big M ever contacted her and let her know he was sorry or that he appreciated the work she did for him? Think he offered any cash to help support her or get her medical care? Think again.

Sure, I'm willing to think that M might be nice to people he knows personally. At least some of them, although I have heard that he has treated others around him like crap. But when it came to the premies he didn't know personally, he never really gave a shit and likely still doesn't, except to the extent they donate money.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 13:14:31 (EDT)
From: Joy
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: M = Mother Teresa?? Not!!
Message:
Yes, Joe, your comments are all very good. The more we examine this statement about M being akin to Mother Teresa, the more absurd it becomes. I was just about to post something more about that premie we know who became disabled after working on that 707 project before I saw your post. But on second thought, I will submit it, here's what I had typed up . . . . . .

A few more thoughts on this subject . . .

The more I think about it, I fail to see how M's gesture of helping out a premie cancer patient qualifies as humanitarian service along the lines of Mother Teresa. What about all the hundreds and actually thousands of premies who devoted their lives wholeheartedly and completely to M for many years, believing, as they were told by him, that it was to help spread peace in the world? As has been discussed here many times, Maharaji has never even acknowledged the existence of most of these people. How can this callous disregard for thousands of people who have devoted themselves to him totally be cancelled out by one single act of kindness towards someone he knew personally? What comes to mind specifically are the hundreds of premies who slaved away for a couple of years on that 707 airplane project in Miami. These people gave every ounce of their lives, 100%, towards that project, which was nothing more than a big plaything for M, and many sustained damage to their health as a result (I have one friend who took years to recover her health from the toxic exposures she received working on that plane without proper protection). Yet M has never even acknowledged her existence, as far as I know, much less paid her any compensation. Wouldn't those people qualify much more as humanitarian, because their motivation was to serve the supposed bringer of peace to the world, than M, who, on a rare occasion, spends a small fraction of the millions which have been donated by the very same selfless premies, on someone other than himself and his family?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 19:51:35 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: You said it, JW
Message:
But when it came to the premies he didn't know personally, he never really gave a shit and likely still doesn't, except to the extent they donate money.

This is definately my experience. I have said this before, but I knew someone who called M when very ill for a kind word...nothing. No call back. This person probably didn't donate a lot of money, but was very loving and devoted to M. This person committed suicide.

Maharaji has taken on an awesome responsibility by being a person's 'master', and I don't think he really cares about what this entails or the feelings of people who devote to him. He likes to have their devotion but offers little/nothing in return. I feel sorry for the PWKs.

VP-an NP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:38:48 (EDT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Of Free Speech
Message:
These are the risks of democracy. While we're not necessarily at a refined point in our discourse here, at least the controversy and flames is the result of people honestly discussing the truth. I don't see how a propagandized public relations can be the proud hallmark of a 21st century movement capable of bringing improvement to the planet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 14:53:19 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: op
Subject: Of Bongos and Gopis
Message:
Hi again, op. I almost didn't see your post down here. I won't address your whole post, but I did want to say a few things.

You wrote, re the new premie site:

I think the new premie site will be highly edited because very unfortunately people cannot say what they feel without being torn apart by media or on this page.

This is probably true. I hate to be made fun of, and I don't like to see people's postings from the premie page ridiculed on this page. (I can't stop people from doing this, though, because we don't moderate this forum). I understand that this can be quite hurtful. I do think there are some legitimate questions that can be asked about the premie postings - such in some of JW's posts.

I do think that there is such a thing as having the courage of your convictions, however. At a certain point, if you REALLY believe in something, you should be able to say it despite the chance that you might be ridiculed by ex-premies or the media. Does it REALLY matter what the media thinks of Maharaji, by the way - I mean, does it matter to premies? Or does it matter to Maharaji?

Thanks for answering, op, anyway - I do appreciate that.
Regards from Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 06, 1998 at 12:34:08 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Joy
Subject: Gopis or former mistresses?
Message:
How many of them are the little lord ex mistresses ?

Did you ever wonder?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 13:33:29 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: a lurker and bb
Subject: Jan Buchhalter
Message:
What is the true story here?

If what bb says is true, and Jan is over on an Internet site telling how wonderful her experience with the guru is, then I feel it is appropriate to tell a truth about her, even if it may be hurtful. Isn't this site about getting to the bottom of the truth about Maharaji? This includes things his followers have done UNDER HIS ORDERS.(No revisionism, please, ladies and gentlemen!)

I have relatives who shoplifted and stole in order to get to programs for GMJ. I have kept their names (and mine) off of the internet out of respect for them. Then again, I haven't seen them bragging on the internet about how great things are in the cult. If I do, I would feel it was the right thing to do to tell the truth about what they did in their pasts 'in his name'. I'm sure that is what bb intended.

I understand what lurker with white out and Joy are saying and if stories are mere GOSSIP, then they shouldn't be spread. If bb knows this for a true first-hand fact, then I think that it is entirely appropriate for him to repeat it here. If Jan went through this, I feel sorry for her and Maharaji is a bigger ass than I originally thought.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 01:04:25 (EDT)
From: bb
Email: None
To: VP
Subject: Jan Buchhalter
Message:
Jan is a nice woman, but isnt most people?
I liked her a lot and visa versa, of course we shared
an interest so that was the bond.
I didnt flinch as others would tell me about leaving
thier children as I was solidly in the mind set of rawats
confusion also. I saw one guy tell off his mom in miami
because she didnt 'get it' about the lord.
Some hated thier children because instead of greeting the
challenges of family life they were feeling totured because
-the lord- so very clearly showed contempt and distain
for those in families. I have to get the quotes.
Honest to god he made a lot of comments that made it
quite plain that those householders made the wrong choice
and thier chances of dedcicateing thier lives to get
the 'experience he had to give them' were remote at
best.

ect ect.
It is OP's comments that are the damning ones.
JAN, WAS A BONGO! TOO NUTS FOR THE LORD
OF COURSE SHE WAS SHUNNED BY HER LORD.
HER OWN FAULT. SHE DESERVED IT.

Of course, OP doesnt even see that yet
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 08, 1998 at 11:21:09 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: bb
Subject: Jan Buchhalter
Message:
I have seen some of those things myself, bb.

This reasoning makes no sense to me: If someone is sincerely and totally devoted to M, they are a bongo. On the other hand, if you aren't devoted enough you are criticised by the same community.

I'm glad my life is free of that hypocritical scrutiny from a group, aren't you?

VP
Return to Index -:- Top of Index