Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 47 | |
From: May 12, 1999 |
To: May 23, 1999 |
Page: 5 Of: 5 |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 23:02:01 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Good question, Angel Message: [Here's something I posted over on CD's page] Yesterday, Angel posted the following: This is no joke.In your mind you think this is a great site.Nowhere on the premie sites is this site being promoted why? That's a damned good question that I've wondered about myself. It's true, no one mentions this page at all on any of the glossier premie sites. Not even Harlan's premie page, which itself gets ignored by the others, mentions this forum. In a way, I guess, the question might apply to Harlan's site as well but, seeing as no one goes there (perhaps because of the insufferable muzak, or maybe because there's nothing there but a bunch of anonymous premies saying 'Hello! Anyone out there?') I'm not really interested in why he's being snubbed. I'd say that's just an exercise in good taste. This page, however, makes me wonder. When we first started discussing Maharaji on the net it was on the newsgroup, alt.support.ex-cult. Soon, the first ex site started and it was around then that we learned of Maharaji's then-policy to discourage premies spending time, let alone discussing him, on the net. First, through reports of comments he'd made at programs, then, when some PAMs started contacting everyone they could find who'd posted on Harlan's first premie site advising them that Maharaji didn't want the net presence. I know that's what happened, by the way, because I spoke at length to the guy running this anti-net 'phone tree', David Coyne. He confirmed that Maharaji had indeed made his wishes known on this point. Well, everyone's entitled to change their mind, even (former?) Lord's of the Universe, and change his mind, he did. I won't speculate as to why the Perfect Master of our time but we all know he did. First by condoning ELK, then settign up his own site. Now EV and Visions have theirs and there's that Australian page, 'Appreciation' too. And, as Angel says, none of them have ever acknowledged, let alone endorsed, this page. Why? Again, I hesitate to speculate as to why but I do think it's interesting that while they promised to host its own discussion board once they 'mastered the technology' as they put it, the ELK people no longer promise any such thing, sooner or later. It does kind of look like 'Expressions' is about it. Similarly, the Appreciation site has no place for dialogue and, probably to everyone's disappointment, premie and ex alike, Maharaji's opted for merely summarizing some of his email, rather than actually posting it. Did it surprise anyone that he wouldn't include criticism or even questions? What I wanted to say is this: ever since this net thing began I've always predicted that Maharaji will never condone an open discussion amongst premies. Why? Well, what's happening here between Steven, Catweasel and Angel says it all. As soon as premies open themselves up to one another and explain what they honestly think is going on, they must necessarily get completely caught in the many varieties of concepts Maharaji's traded in over the years. Yes, I know, he claims to be above all that. But, as must have occurred to anyone who's ever considered this guy for more than two minutes, that claim, in itself, is just another concept. And, of course, it sure isn't the only one Maharaji's traded in over the years. The problem is, he's shifted ground so often, and so vaguely, it's absolutely impossible for premies to not get confused. I mean, for example, how's a premie who got knowledge in the last few years going to deal with a quote like this: Why do we have this human body? To know this, we will have to take the shelter of Guru Maharaj Ji. Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destoryer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.' or: When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ...... Notonly would they find it a little unsettling, to say the least, I think Maharaji's not in any great rush to clear up their confusion. After all, what could he say? He was joking? He really is the Lord but doesn't like to talk about it? Tell me that this stifling of his premies' real 'expressions' -- beyond 'Thank you, Maharaji!' -- doesn't make the whole trip seem like, well, like it's holding its breath, so to speak. Anyway, it is a good question, Angel. But I think the answer's obvious. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 08:04:31 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Catweasel@hotmail152 To: Jim Subject: Good question, Angel Message: Dear Jim your on holiday you agressive maniac .Chill you Lunatic!!!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:09:09 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Is it possible for you Message: to say ANYTHING of substance or are you totally incapable of rational thought? Just asking... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 20:10:03 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: None To: Mike Subject: Is it possible for you Message: What you want is a rational debate.No current practicing premie is going to bother doing that with you or any one else on this site.We will not engage in adebate with you over M,knowledge,current activities, finaces or his personal life.You can ridicule us for this but its water off aducks back! M doesn't need defending or testimonial from us,thats a style that went out in the late 70's ,[by which time many of you had as well!]These days he speaks for himself,and the channels are available for you to have a rational dialogue if you choose.However your so paranoid and irrational here ,bound up with your new internet X cult jargon ,dogma and peer group beliefs,you'll never bother to find out how.Of all the stories I've read here ,not one hasnt involved your own integrity and rational freedom of choice.You decided on and agreed to whatever now pisses you off so much.When you admit to that you may be able to genuinely start enjoying your lives again rather than clinging to some percieved wrong, real or otherwise, which ultimately had very little to do with M personally,rather as previously stated ;your decision,your misjudgement,your lack of clarity.What I have said is logical and personally responsible,thats why you'll hate it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 20:51:53 (EDT)
From: JHB Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: What Channels? Message: Catweasel said:- 'These days he speaks for himself,and the channels are available for you to have a rational dialogue if you choose.' What channels are these? None of the official sites have such an option, and he doesn't reply to polite emails or letters. Please tell me. Also, this forum is filled with testimonials of ex-premies getting on with enjoying their lives, so I don't know why you say we don't. John. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 19:38:18 (EDT)
From: JHB Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Catweasel - Please Answer Message: Catweasel, You haven't replied to my perfectly polite and sincere question:- Catweasel said:- 'These days he speaks for himself,and the channels are available for you to have a rational dialogue if you choose.' What channels are these? None of the official sites have such an option, and he doesn't reply to polite emails or letters. Please tell me. John. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 07:47:51 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: None To: JHB Subject: Catweasel - Please Answer Message: Does'nt he???? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 10:41:24 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Wrong... Message: M doesn't need defending or testimonial from us,thats a style that went out in the late 70's ,[by which time many of you had as well!] You're so wrong CatW. By the late 70's M had begun digging a deep and wide moat around himself precisely because his private activities had become totally indefensible. By the early 80's the moat was virtually complete and it sounds like you were on the outside of it. Check out some of the early 80's community co-ordinators and ask them about bongo lists, vetting procedures for special programs and ask why he had such problems with the British Charity Commissioners. Then ask about where Raja Ji's income came from and what happened to it. Then ask about how many residences there were in the UK, wholived there and who paid for them. More than you or anyone knew about that's for sure. Trouble is CatW, if you're not close, you don't know. And that is the situation which most premies today are in. M is promoting the idea that he does not need defending because there is no defence. wake up and smell the roses, regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 11:34:07 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Tricky Dicky and the trap To: Richard Subject: Dick admits to being limp!! Message: Dearest Richard ,Many of the things you speak of are totally coloured by the spin you put on things.I know what matters to me and you do make unsustantiated assumptions about what I know and what I dont know.Read my post again;I said that a debate just wont happen with those people currently involved.I mentioned issues that you continually raise as relevant and stated they would not be discussed.Surprise, surprise,what do you raise?You wake up Richard,you've got a hand on each side of your head ,and your rubbing it frantically.Its only relevant to you because if you let it go ,you'll have absolutely nothing!!Dont assume that everyone your talking to is afflicted with the same inability to comprehend simple facts without throwing a conspiracy spin on it.Whether I'm on the inner or the outer as you call it you'll never know!Suffice to say your probaly incorrect in your assumption.If any one genuinely wants to find out whats happening in M's world either attend your local events or check out his site. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 12:37:48 (EDT)
From: Victoria Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Dick admits to being limp!! Message: Dear Catweasel, Oops, I read this post by accident. Unless, of course, it was by His Divine Grace. Love, Victoria P.S. Glad to see your obscenities are confined to the subject line, at least. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 14:32:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Come on, Cat buddy Message: If any one genuinely wants to find out whats happening in M's world either attend your local events or check out his site. Cat, Would you please settle down for a moment and actually talk with me a bit here? I want to discuss this thing you've said, quoted above. Say a premie had a particular question about Maharaji. Here's one, say some new premie runs into some old premie from the seventies, one of Mata Ji's lackeys like Helen McLelland or Susan Butcher. You know, just runs into them. And they fill this person with all sorts of stories -- not saying they're true or anything -- that confuse the hell out of this premie. Something to do with Maharaji's power struggle with his family for instance. You're not suggesting that this premie's going to be able to find any answers at either Maharaji's site or any 'local event', are you? How? I mean, look at Shp, for instance. He had a question about Maharaji's response to the allegations about Jagdeo being a child molester. So he did what you're suggesting. He went to Maharaji's site and emailed his question. You don't think for a second that he's going to get an answer, do you? It's already been over a month, I'm pretty sure. How long could it take? But you know there's no point Shp holding his breath, don't you? So how can you say what you've said above? It doesn't seem to make any sense. Please respond like an adult, will you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 22:38:55 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Slow Burn To: Jim Subject: You're a paranoid Sociopath Message: I accept that all those involved are human and as such quite capable of making mistakes.Maharaji has often said that he made mistakes.Your problem is you havent been around to enjoy this evolution.Now that M has complete control of what he is pro- ported to say,his schedule and those HE chooses to assist him,there are very few problems for him or for those who choose to be involved.The critical mistake you make is that you blame every action of every VOLUNTEER,skilled or unskilled ,trained or untrained,educated or uneducated squarely at his feet.That is just plain ridiculous and shows your more interested in your 'crusade'however illogical ,than examining the real facts.Many of the people your 'club' have mentioned here over the years were relieved of their postions.None of you have looked at possible alternatives to them being fed up,antagonistic or 'enlightened as to the true picture' regarding M and his activities.What of those asked to step down for the normal every day reasons;Inefficent Management,poor communication or even putting their hands in the cookie jar??Correction,it happens every day ,a million times around the Globe and its called good management!I reiterate,we're all human ,human beings make mistakes.You may wonder why some very prominent inactive people may continue not to take up your no doubt very generous offer to post here.When your an honest broker you dont need excuses as to why something happened ,you just get on with your life.I have many friends both locally and internationally who would back this up personally.The differenceis that theyve learnt to accept change. You cant Jim ,I wonder why? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 22:57:32 (EDT)
From: Victoria Email: None To: Jim Subject: You're okay Message: You cant Jim ,I wonder why? Actually, you recant, Jim. Let's blame it all on those stupid followers, they are the ones that must not have truly surrendered, otherwise the Lord would have used them as vessels more efficiently. Love, Victoria P.S. I really like your posts, Jim, I'm glad you post here and I appreciate the points you raise. And I regularly take respite from the forum, it's good, Life is Good. The Forum's good too, sometimes. Sometimes it's just too much, ya know? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 08:35:19 (EDT)
From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Catweasel Subject: And you're a liar... Message: or you're kidding yourself. I accept that all those involved are human and as such quite capable of making mistakes.Maharaji has often said that he made mistakes Maharaji has never publically admitted to making mistakes. Where's your evidence? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 20:18:03 (EDT)
From: Jethro Email: None To: nigel Subject: And you're a liar... Message: In fact he's said many a time that he is always right. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 07:26:08 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Hows Elly Mae? To: Jethro Subject: And you're totally BORING Message: Did you think that up all by yourself?I doubt it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 09:02:24 (EDT)
From: Jethro Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Catweasel I see... Message: ..you still have your head stuck up your rectum. Try actually listening to him and you'll hear rhat he has said many times that he is always right. Didn't you write the book ;How to win friends and influence people'. I'm am sure that prempal is very proud that you are representing him. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 07:58:12 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Black Gold Texas Tea!!! To: Jethro Subject: Catweasel I'm Blind And Stupid Message: I'm not representing him you Dickhead,unlike most of you clubX losers ,I speak soley for myself .P.S what I say is TRUE.I couldn't care less what you think,so dont bother keeping up this garbage.It might entertain you but its a waste of my valuable cat time Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 09:46:15 (EDT)
From: Jethro Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Catweasel I'm Blind And Stupid Message: Go wash your 'mouth' out. I'll send you some Exlax . Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 07:12:43 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Your out there,junior To: nigel Subject: And you're naive... Message: On video,its up to you to find out which ones.Why act so surprised or is that the only response possible when you live in a world of absolutes as you choose to Nigel! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 09:31:14 (EDT)
From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Catweasel Subject: Put up or shut up... Message: On video,its up to you to find out which ones.Why act so surprised or is that the only response possible when you live in a world of absolutes as you choose to Nigel! God, you're pathetic Catweasel. You can't provide an instance of Maharaji making mistakes because he has never admitted any such thing, and personally, I'd rather watch paint dry than even sit through five minutes of one of the Lard's videos, and all their empty new-age waffle. As to a 'world of absolutes': I no longer live in that world of absolutes where once I believed absolutely that Maharaji was a living incarnation of all the Yogic bullshit, the 'superior power in person' who had come with powers (his claim, not mine), and the rest of the universe is 'illusion'. Do you still believe that? Are you still naive enough to believe that? But I now know with far greater - absolute, in fact - certainty that the meditation experiences - however pleasant and delightful - involve nothing more mysterious than everyday feel-good brain chemistry, and that Prem Rawat is an exploitative, manipulating, self-serving, lying little toerag whose meditation package was never 'his gift' in the first place and whose shabby little cult has caused untold damage to too many people's lives. As you still absolutely believe in all Rawat's crap then why not post your incoherent rubbish to one of the cult websites? I see you're telling Richard you're wasting your precious 'cat time' here. So why don't you just fuck off back to guruland, take your precious cat time with you, and stop making a fool of yourself here... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 09:48:06 (EDT)
From: Jethro Email: None To: nigel Subject: ditto NT Message: ditto Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 19, 1999 at 09:09:14 (EDT)
From: catweasel Email: Nolooknofind To: nigel Subject: Put up or shut up... Message: You've just transferred your world of absolutes,and I'm telling you its there for you to find! So go for it Nigel!!! We're all WAITING FOR NIGEL!!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 08:46:08 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: You're absolutely right CatW.. Message: I said that a debate just wont happen with those people currently involved. ..and it didn't happen then either. Me and all the other limp Dicks stood around and justified ourselves into oblivion with the notion that, if M is who he says he is, then this is all just a distraction to test us. Lila? As soon as I began to think objectively about M, his attraction vanished. I lost my Lord because he only existed in my hopes and dreams and I put off the awful truth as long as I possibly could. You will not debate M because you are afraid of losing your hearts desire. Sadly, he is not in your heart at all, he is in the one place you have been told not to look, in your mind. sadly but with kind regards, Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 07:22:37 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Thoughts of Chairman Ex!! To: Richard Subject: You'reAbsolutelyPredictable!.. Message: Nothing of the kind,Dick. Your dream not mine!Me? I'm comfortable ,if it was just a belief structure for me well maybe you could rattle my chain,but its not.Why bother you'll only throw up the same scrambled regurgicated crap you always vomit here! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 14:34:07 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: It's not just about you... Message: It's not just about you dickhead..but I guess you can't see that. People here have been trying to communicate with you but you're so intent on being slick that you've missed the point. Well, the ball's in your court. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 08:03:13 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Greetings Mr Cranium To: Richard Subject: It's not just about you... Message: Dear Dick ,People want me to think what they do!I dont want TO! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 08:06:47 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: Greetings Mr Cranium To: Richard Subject: It's not just about me?? Message: Dear Dick,people would like me to think the same as they do .I dont want to!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 20:17:29 (EDT)
From: larkin Email: larkin@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Catweasel Subject: ode to catweasel Message: with pen and paper you are like an artist at his easel so tell 'em all to take a hike most lyrical catweasel... I've seen some insults hereabouts that barely stand repeating, so I thought it time I sent you this my warm and friendly greeting your rhetoric is sharp and clear your rationale incisive it pains me that there's some folks here make comments so derisive of course our lord would never lie, deceive, exploit or kill and if he did, it's long ago - and what about free will? so when they call you 'waste of space' or 'moron', please don't worry, or 'fuckwit', 'asshole', all the rest... don't race off in a hurry and if they call you 'fucking mad' or 'narcissistic bore' just stick around and entertain enlighten us some more... with pen and paper you are like an artist at his easel so tell 'em all to take a hike most lyrical catweasel... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 21:35:13 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: larkin Subject: ode to catweasel Message: Dear Larkin, A joy as always. :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 19, 1999 at 02:07:01 (EDT)
From: KB Email: None To: larkin Subject: Larkin the wonder-(nt) Message: dfh Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 15:04:25 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Catweasel Subject: Is it possible for you Message: CW: I would be most happy to 'dialogue' WITH M, but I don't accept so-called 'inner' answers. The dialogue must be two-way or NO-WAY. That means a coherent, physical two-way conversation using any means that is acceptable to both parties. So far, I haven't seen or heard of ANY communications media with which to speak to the 'master.' I don't accept 'channeling' as a communications media, by the way, so I'm not interested in those types of channels; or tarot cards or ouija boards or the I Ching or any other method of divination (including meditation). Actually, I would be happy if he'd answer SHP's letter concerning jagdeo. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 08:13:55 (EDT)
From: Catweasel Email: If I could be like Mike!!!!!! To: Mike Subject: Is it a small possum Message: Try E.mail.......if your game,or you just another Blowhard,being really silly on this crazy site?? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 14:39:41 (EDT)
From: Richard Email: None To: Jim Subject: Good post Jim... Message: No, let me take that back, it's a GREAT post Jim. To anybody who reads this post, THIS kind of posting and forcing the issue is EXACTLY why I stuck around and continued to come to the forum even before I realised what kind of dream I had been living in before I finally grew-up and rejected Maharaji. We all need to use our brains and THINK about things instead of simply reacting with our emotions. Thank you Jim, another well thought out and precise nail in the coffin of the shyster. regards Richard Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 21:46:03 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Richard Subject: And good post, Wm Message: Thanks Richard. By the way, here's Wm's answer from the premie page. I thought it was worth sharing with you guys. He makes some good points and some funny ones.: I kind of knew this one and only 'open' premie forum would get strange, I think of the old days when we gathered and had satsang. I kind of imagined this forum as like that but with a major difference, the audience talks back. I guess we also called ourselves 'the company of truth' I forgot about that for moment, it didn't matter what was said as long as I got off. I think the obsession propagation would have eventually lead to approved satsang givers, which I imagine was the policy more in some places than others. The video of Maharaji is the approved policy now. Right or wrong, I think if this, the video satsang, did not take place, there probably would be a very strong giver of satsang personality cult, much more now than years past, as I am not as young and naive as I used to be and my patience for nonsense is not as good as it used to be. Leaving Maharaji as leaving a cult is pretty straight forward, you can diss Maharaji and his followers. I was fascinated the organization the Moonies had in the ‘70's and there was a time in when I saw as great potential the growth of DLM into a slick machine. It never happened. We could have molded each other in group sessions Mishler started and expand on it with lessons, but he was fired. We could have aspired to give clear and uplifting satsang and given inspiration to our bongo premies to think correctly I also think being an ex-premie would have been much more satisfying, more enemies, more organization to look into, methods, more leaders in scandal. I don't know if forum will go anywhere, for a propagation I thinks its a flop but at the moment I am not obsessed with spreading the word. I like to post from time to time and there really isn't any other place where I can, because I sometimes say fuck shit and spit. Wm. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 19:01:17 (EDT)
From: nigel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Lock up your children... Message: I like to post from time to time and there really isn't any other place where I can, because I sometimes say fuck shit and spit. It make you wonder why anyone with a first-class ticket to the heavenly kingdom would even want to post to a website from time to time, let alone use bad words like those... (especially 'spit') What is the world coming to? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 21:38:23 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: nigel Subject: Lock up your children... Message: Dear Nigel, Sometimes when I am really pissed, not drunk, mad, I say, 'I could just spit.' But I can not spit, haven't tried in yeas as I just dribbled down my shirt, I just like to say it. :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 21:47:07 (EDT)
From: Victoria Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Spitting, OT Message: Hey Robyn, Spitting is one thing, but what really satisfies is a first-class hocker...I learned how in the little gang I belonged to on the streets of downtown Toronto at the tender age of 8 or 9. We took the escalator to the roof and hockered down on the unsuspecting. A great way to turn all that rage into a fit of giggles. For which I am heartily sorry to this day. Hail Mary, Bole Lila, Namaste, Sat Nam, Good God! Forgive us for we knew not what we do'd. Love, Victoria Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 18:59:20 (EDT)
From: Keith (Gerry) Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Gerry's Right Message: Hi.This is Keith, aka Vacol,etc.I would like to put the rumours about poor,hapless gerry to rest.It was indeed me who posted as Keith and vicey versey.So Jim your wrong.Keith is Mick and Mick is Keith.Wanna fight? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:34:24 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: Keith Subject: Gerry's Right Message: how lovely that that little misunderstanding is all cleared up! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:59:59 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: cp Subject: Not so fast there Message: This is just not true. I got an email from Mick and it wasn't Keith. Different writing style and vocabulary etc. Different email address too. Mick was definitely NOT Keith at that time. So Keith, you know that it isn't true that Mick is Keith. Perhaps you pretend to be him sometimes but I know for sure that Mick's not you. But who cares anyway. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 08:24:32 (EDT)
From: Meith Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: Not so fast there Message: Mick was definitely NOT Keith at that time. Well maybe now he is. Huh? Ya think? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:42:34 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Meith Subject: The real truth about Keith Message: This current person who is calling himself Keith and who is claiming that Keith and Mick are the same person IS NOT THE ORIGINAL KEITH. The real Keith has a certain writing style and uses a certain vocabulary which this new 'Keith' imposter doesn't use, although he is trying to copy it. This latest Keith is just someone fooling around. He's not the genuine article. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:52:51 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: agree with David (nt) Message: nt Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 12:01:59 (EDT)
From: gerry Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: The real truth about Keith Message: Jeez did *anyone* not get that it was me posting as Keith? Well Duh! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 14:09:46 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: gerry Subject: They will now! Message: Really, Gerry, things can get pretty confusing around here. I had to check the IP myself. Thanks, by the way, for 'outing' yourself. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 14:39:40 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: gerry Subject: The real truth about Keith Message: Dear Gerry, I got it! :) I almost posted the other day but am just recovering from my last tangle with Jim! I KNOW Keith and Mick are not the same person. I think it is so funny that everyone thinks all these people are Keith. I say I think everyone is Helen though! :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:06:18 (EDT)
From: Mick Email: None To: Keith Subject: Gerry's Right Message: Your a lying,little gutless prick gerry, and I reckon that in the flesh you'de run a mile if someone so much as looked sideways at you. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:14:35 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Mick Subject: Alright meet me outside... Message: Your a lying,little gutless prick gerry, and I reckon that in the flesh you'de run a mile if someone so much as looked sideways at you. Oh, you're so right Mick. Only I don't think I could run a mile. Limp, maybe. (Anterior Crucial Ligament is torn, damn, that hurts!) But Ke, er, Mick, I thought we were friends! Remember? I was gonna come visit you and Mi,er, Keith and you were gonna pick me up at the airport. Please don't back out on me now, I booked the tickets already. Wanna take this over to the Fuck You forum? We have to be polite here. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:25:04 (EDT)
From: Marianne Email: None To: Gerry Subject: BOYS!!!!!! Message: Stop it. Even in virtual land you can't keep from picking fights. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:38:30 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: Marianne Subject: apes-dont read this Message: I was trying to see what the difference is In my experience - women fight by stabbing said female in the back (so to speak) or pull hair and scratch. we dont really challenge and call each other body parts-do we? I cant recall having wittnessed fights between females here. Maybye its because one can't really talk behind someones back or discuss their use of female dirty tactics on air. ...just reflecting between brain surgeries. just reflecting how guys like to brawl instead of nice refined slow motion erosion of the opponents sanity. sexist? - probably Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:52:32 (EDT)
From: Marianne Email: None To: cp Subject: BOYS!! Message: I grew up with 4 big brothers. I know how guys are. I was the only girl. These mindless threats, if even made in jest, seem so juvenile and out of place to me. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 21:34:08 (EDT)
From: Mick Email: None To: cp Subject: apes-dont read this Message: Yeah, men and women do seem to react differently.This thing with gerry has been bugging me for awhile,and now I've said what I wanted to say,cleared the air,it's got no more hold over me.I'll probably spend the rest of the day laughing about this,although I still think he's a prick:)Now,'the slow motion erosion of the opponents sanity',that does sound scary!!!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 21:57:14 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: Mick Subject: apes-dont read this Message: that didnt come out right. I dont mean it quite so macabe. Might just be the kind of day I am having. Substitute 'Emotional eqilibrium' for sanity. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 02:42:18 (EDT)
From: Mick Email: None To: cp Subject: I ain't no ape Message: Hi cp, emotional equilibrium sounds like a good definition of sanity to me. Hope your day improved. Mick Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 04:27:18 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: Mick Subject: I ain't no ape Message: Thanks Mick the day did improve slowly. the emotional debris is starting to sort itself out. some days all I can do is wince! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 22:00:32 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: glyng@techline.com To: Mick Subject: apes-dont read this Message: Peace, dude! Really Mick, this come out of nowhere as far as I'm concerned. I thought the grand Keith debate was long over. If I insulted you by referring to a ''pissy'' philosophy you share with Keith, I'm sorry. Really. You're a good bloke, no doubt. If it was bugging you, you could have e-mailed me. If it's still bugging you here's my address. You DO punctuate like Keith does, though. Is it something in the water or is your space bar broken? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:04:09 (EDT)
From: Attorney/Rolling Stones Email: None To: Gerry & Mick/Keith Subject: On behalf of Mick Jagger and Message: Keith Richard, I have been retained to advise you to cease and desist from using their first names in any more of your inane and riduculous conversations. Any further problems arising from the use of my clients' names will result in someone getting bludgeoned with a very expensive guitar, which of course will be justified. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:15:23 (EDT)
From: gerry Email: None To: Attorney/Rolling Stones Subject: Ha! good one! nt Message: Now that the new moon is here, I can cool out... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 17:51:11 (EDT)
From: Shp/Attorney for RS Email: None To: gerry Subject: Just to let you know I have a Message: sense of humor. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 21:49:57 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Shp/Attorney for RS Subject: Just to let you know I have a Message: Dear Shp, Doesn't surprise me! :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 20:01:48 (EDT)
From: gerry Email: None To: Mick Subject: correction for clarity Message: You don't punctuate like Keith does, in fact you do something quite the opposite. He puts in extra spaces , and you omit the needed ones,like this. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 21:51:08 (EDT)
From: Mick Email: None To: gerry Subject: correction for clarity Message: Like this. Sorry I called you names Gerry. Sometimes I get these testosterone rushes. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 22:07:32 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: cp Subject: apes-dont read this Message: Dear CP, Sexist maybe but I think very true. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 13:07:26 (EDT)
From: Little Yiddish Grandma Email: None To: you crazy kids Subject: apes-dont read this Message: OY!! I'm so confused!! Keith Mick Meith ? My head is hurting from the strain, vy can't you crazy kids just decide who you are and stay that way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 18:34:04 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Soul possession Message: This has been talked about before in many ways on the forum, but it is really starting to hit me. Been thinking about the absurdity of putting one's soul in someone elses' possession. Father Love's journey story talks about this--how insane it is to think that that can bring any kind of happiness. It's a type of slavery. Our souls belong to us. I will never give my soul to anyone again. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:41:29 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Helen Subject: Uh oh! Message: Helen: I gave mine to my wife already..... Well, at least she takes good care of it and doesn't use it as footwear! :-) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:51:40 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Helen Subject: Soul possession Message: There was a difference in most of our cases. We thought that Maharaji was God and the best person to entrust our soul to. That's why this whole Maharaji thing has had such a devastating effect upon people. People REALLY believed He was God manifest. All the premies believed this in the seventies. Not a messenger from God but God himself. Maharaji did everything he could to convince people that he was God. The Krishna costumes, the crowns, the devotional songs, the wild claims of omnipotence. You were there, you were part of it and no doubt you prayed to Maharaji just like me, like he was God, the One who was always with us. Remember Maharaji's favourite saying at the end of programs? 'I am not going anywhere, I am not leaving.' He made many of us truly believe that he was the Almighty. Don't ever forget that was the truth/lie which kept the whole thing going. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:24:28 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: Soul possession Message: Good point Sir D. To me, M was just a guru. But I still entrusted him with my soul which was a very dangerous reckless thing to do. If I really had believed he was God it would have been more understandable. I guess I wanted to believe it and thought somehow if I wanted it badly enough it would be true. I still don't understand it all, will any of us ever get a grasp on it? I'm just glad to be free and to claim my own soul as mine. It is weird to see that premies are still being brainwashed that their experiences come from M. They are still giving their souls over to him even though now he is not claiming to be God in the same overt explicit way (although in some sneaky jokey way). Oy vey. It's abusive in the worst way. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:43:05 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Helen Subject: Soul possession Message: Hi Helen, I know I'm rollercoasting but I don't think m's saying he is God. He is saying I can show you how to connect with that higher self inside you which sime people call God. Even in the early seventies I didn't think he was God, although I experienced the connection inside that I 'knew' from experience that he was talking about. Previous to this I had not experienced it. When I practiced it at various places ie The Buddhist Society in London and various meditation groups I experienced the same experience but I'll never know what I would have experienced if I had not received k. Regards, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 22:03:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Liz Subject: Really, Liz? Message: How can you say he didn't claim to be God in light of quotes like these: 1)I told you yesterday: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? **** When God has come here, then what is the need to give devotion to God there? or: 2)The Lord Himself reincarnates, reincarnates, reincarnates Himself for the very purpose of saving us. And we do not even realize who gave us the authority to refuse Him! Who are we anyway? From which field do we come that we can reject, that we can refuse, that we can deny our Lord? This is something that I cannot answer. And we do it every time!. Because we have got a stupid ego. ..... We just don't know that we are His puppets. or: 3)So when Lord comes to us, accept Him. And Lord is here. He has always been here. How can we make a statment, 'The Lord is gone', and then turn aroudn and say, 'Lord is omnipresent'? We are contradicting ourselves. He has always been here. He has always been saving us, but it's us who pull out of His shelter. or: 4)Why do we have this human body? To know this, we will have to take the shelter of Guru Maharja Ji. Guru Maharj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destoryer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us.' or: 5)When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ...... When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, .... But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. or: 6)Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing... or: 7)So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. **** And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith. or: 8)You look at Christ, for instance. And he came and was Perfect Master. According to the belief, he had enough power that after he was crucified, he came back. So, you think twice about this and you figure, if somebody has got a power -- and it was incredible as to be able to to be crucified and them come back again -- you can definitely figure out that he must have the power to sort of take the whole Earth and jiggle it once in a plastic bag. Give it a little twist, all us teensy-weensy things go falling into this palstic bag. He opens it up and says, 'Listen, you thing in there. Realize the purpose of your life, aim of your life. This is it. Period.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 09:15:14 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Question Message: Jim, I've got a question for you. Isn't it a cultural thing when gurus call themselves God? In India, nobody thinks anything of it. All holy men are incarnations of the Supreme Lord. But when someone claims that in the west, its unusual. Could it be that somewhere along the line, M realized he had made a mistake dragging his culture over here and he's been trying to rectify it ever since? I can't figure why all of a sudden he changed his tune the way he did if not for this reason. I'm not saying what he did was right. Personally, I think he should have stayed in India. It was only his big fat ego that drove him here to 'save' the west. But I think too much might be being made of all the things M said in the past. He may have been too ignorant at that time of the negative effect his culture would have on the western psyche. Perhaps he realized that it was limiting his reach here with all this God talk so he devised a new strategy to see how far it would take him. I know a lot of people got hurt in the transition, and nobody knows better than those who did how full of shit M really is. But maybe it just boils down to a cultural thing why M called himself God. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 09:49:39 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Question Message: I think you bring up some great points. JM posted those posts below about how gurus are a dime a dozen in India and not treated as such celebrities as they are here. Perhaps, originally, Maharaji was an innocent, and merely following the dictates of his own culture. But he sure took advantage of the West's fascination with Hindi mysticism and turned it into a cash cow. And as so many have pointed out here there was no meta-cognitive shift in which he clearly stated to his devotees 'hey I made a mistake based on cultural expectations. I should never have said I was God....instead I want to help you find God in yourself, blah blah blah' He never renounced the perks of celebrity. So while I agree that originally he was part and parcel of his culture, now he knows better but still cashes in on the adulation & fascination I feel this way about Buddhism's recent popularity in the West too. Suddenly it's fashionable to be a Buddhist. Richard Gere seems to be everywhere. From what I understand about Buddhism it was originally more of an existentialist kind of path, a way out of human suffering, a way to connect with part of human consciouness that could give you peace from attachment and anger etc. Buddha never meant to be anyone's Guru or said he was divine. Funny how we have a need for Bhakti paths, making a human into a divine being and worshipping them. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:20:02 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jerry Subject: No! Message: Sorry, Jerry, I don't think so. Whether or not other gurus in India have tried to sell themselves as the 'Avatar' doesn't affect the meaning of the word, in India as elsewhere. These quotes are unequivocal. He was indeed claiming the be all that any of us would associate with the notion of the 'Supreme Lord come in human form'. Sure, maybe the guy down the street said he was too but that only speaks to the naivite of anyone (like us!) who'd believe either of them. The concept was diluted by the number of people who tried to play it. No, I can't agree with you at all on this point. In fact, neither could Maharaji. That's why he went out of his way to explain time and again that there could only be one such incarnation alive at any time, that all other so-called gurus were dangerous vipers, that he was exactly what Jesus, Krishna, etc. were -- God in human form -- only better. Plus, he knew he was being perceived as such because, as I said, that's exactly what he intended and that was certianly the feedback he got from his flock for decades at least. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:22:33 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: correction Message: I mean 'the concept was not diluted by the number of people who played it.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 23:00:32 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jerry Subject: Question Message: Dear Jerry, This post is interesting. I like the totally new direction of your thought. You never know. Different cultures are just that and who knows. I think it is very hard to relate to how people from very different cultures really think. The one thing that I always come back to though is that at some point when he became more western himself that he should have been honest or more honest than he was. We each become responsible for ourselves no matter what past we come from. We have to make it right for ourselves, to work to become a person we can ourselves, respect. I don't think M respects himself, not really in his heart of hearts because he knows he is a fake and uses people to distance himself from that reality. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 15:02:06 (EDT)
From: Mike Email: None To: Jim Subject: Really, Jim! Message: Jim: Those quotes, and many more like them, certainly put the final coffin-nail in the argument that 'M never said he was god.' Anyone that can say this after reading these direct, uncensored QUOTES is either can't read, has a very limited understanding of the english language or just can't think anymore. Jeez, I wonder which of these groups has the most premies in it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 09:34:32 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Liz Subject: Soul possession Message: I don't think he was saying that he could 'show you that connection inside to God'. I do think he said he was God and that was reinforced by all the hoopla around him. I think a lot of us ignored or denied that he was supposed to be the Lord incarnate, but he was. I wonder if something was ' revealed' to us or if we were simply conditioned. I still spontaneously 'go into' holy name when I'm not even aware of it--I think it was conditioning. The conditioning was not all bad for me, 'surrendering into holy name' is kind of a full body experience which is different from a lot of other meditation techniques which involve 'going into the light of the crown chakra' etc. But to me, now, surrendering into a relaxation experience is entirely different from surrendering to Maharaji, which was what the whole trip was/still is about. The path of TOTAL SURRENDER to another human being who many thought was God but he's just another guy. So in reality it was surrendering to what??? He wasn't the loving gardener of our souls, if people had any kind of soul growth it was because of their own good natures and good intentions. M's intentions were/are more mixed--sell a little peace, get the cash. With 'get the cash' dominating the scenario more and more until now, it is completely obvious to any intelligent outsider that that's what he's all about. The insiders don't have the benefit of objectivity with which to judge him, because they are so conditioned to connect him with 'that experience inside' . I guess I have kept the baby and thrown out the bathwater because I still enjoy Holy Name as a relaxation/centering kind of thing. But when I catch myself with a goofy contrived smile on my face when I'm not feeling particularly happy/content, that's a spooky part of the conditioning I don't like. It's all mixed up for me. If I had never followed M, I'm sure I would still have found a way to center myself that didn't have so much other garbage attached to it. I felt an inchoate sense of connection to life/God etc long before M, just singing songs in church, for example, or playing outdoors as a child. I do NOT attribute M with 'revealing' my soul or self to me. I think that is part of the conditioning process in which folks give/gave M way too much credit. All that 'thank you for this breath, this life' satsang just makes me puke today. We had our breath and our life long before M and I'm sure we all would appreciate our life and breath if we never had seen his porky pnuematic little face. This was not intended to rant at you, it's just a rant in general. Thanks for listening. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 16:19:14 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Helen Subject: Soul possession Message: Thanks Helen, I needed that! I wish I had the certainty that you have.You certainly have seen the wood from the trees. I have not been very well for the last six weeks after originally saying I was much better after leaving I don't think I really was. I was finding it really difficult to practise before I left and also after but still had that inner desire to know that peace. I know this 'goodie-goodie' approach does not go down well with many people on the forum. I am even having arguments with my daughter who likes to watch horror-movies that I don't think are good for her. I did meditate for the first time in ages today and that only happened because I felt better physically and was able to do it. I did feel better before AND after which leads me to question which comes first the chicken or the egg. I should call myself 'muddled thinker.' I am hoping that after deprogramming my thinking will get a lot clearer. Much love to you, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 21:26:10 (EDT)
From: Diz Email: None To: Liz, Jerry, and all Subject: Soul possession Message: Hi Liz Hang in there, girl! You may be a 'muddled thinker' but you're doing the work to get sorted out and you'll get there. I really appreciate your posts - they're honest and insightful. You raise explicitly many of the doubts that people have about MJ, and about leaving MJ, and I think that's very valuable. I've been thinking a bit about this 'different cultures' argument too. I think there's something in it to the extent that Western ideas of one super-God may have amplified M's claims to be the Lord, both for him and for us. Also, we were naive in relation to Eastern ideas, and thus vulnerable to simplistic acceptance - same as many people from non-Western cultures have been vulnerable to Christian evangelism: they don't have the cultural context to support a critique, and neither did we. Part of my path away from MJ was reading a few Indian novels, and recognising how much of what I had thought unique to MJ was in fact just par for the course over there. Still, there's no doubt MJ came on as the one to whom we should surrender. Remember the 'reins of your life' quote - that resonated through my psyche and through the premie community for years. So it wasn't just that MJ said he was the Lord, or God (as Jim's quotes show), and that WE then extrapolated and exaggerated what that meant. He TOLD us what that meant, and it meant total surrender. If he'd said he was the man in the moon, or a meditation teacher AND that to have the only worthwhile experience in the world we should totally surrender, the effect would have been the same, if we believed him. Now, he wouldn't use words like 'total surrender'. But he still sits on the stage, and does the talking. He's still the one who knows what's what, and who tells the plebs how to see life. If you accept that, then you're still doing some sort of pretty big surrender, in my opinion. (I'm using the word 'you' in a general sense here, Liz, not targetting you specifically.) The above is a big reason why I no longer follow MJ. I do need to take responsibility for my own soul, not hand it over to someone else (although there's a wider question here about the dangers of thinking I'm IT - another topic for another day). Of course, that doesn't meant I can't learn from others, of course I can and should. But ultimately it's for me to decide what to accept and what to reject. I didn't feel I was free to do that with MJ, although every now and then someone would talk about 'taking the best and leaving the rest.' I never got that vibe from MJ though: he wasn't in the business of encouraging discrimination in relation to his message, so far as I could see. On the contrary, he often ridiculed premies' attempts to ask questions, didn't encourage discussion, talked about 'empty vessels', pointed out how small our understanding was compared to his, never asked for advice or feedback. By the time I left about five years ago, I'd come to the conclusion that he wasn't a good teacher, at least not for me. Not only did I find his process out of step with what I felt I needed as someone attempting to become an adult, discriminating learner, I decided his content wasn't much use to me either. I figured that if I wanted to 'realise Knowledge' as the primary goal of my life, in a kind of isolated part of my soul, then he would have useful things to say. But if I wanted a broader understanding of what it means to be human, of how to deepen my relationships, be part of a community, develop compassion, strive for justice, and integrate the inner experience with my outer life - then he wasn't much help at all. By the way, Liz, my experience of K was fine. It was always that way from shortly after I got K, and still is today when I tune in. My problems weren't with K per se. They were with the view of life that came with it. Love, Diz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 18:19:33 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Diz Subject: Soul possession Message: Thanks Diz, I really appreciate your feedback. Yes, I'm going through through doubts I didn't think I'd be having by now but realize that doubts are normal. Lots of questioning about m's life-style and other outward appearances that can't be totally overlooked. When I practice & experience k I don't feel soul-possessed. Actually I feel more like me than ever & I don't buy the fact that I'm delusional. It does however, prevent me from having great worldly desires although I usually have an increased energy in just getting on with what needs to be done at the time. This is the part of the trip I'm willing to accept when I feel that connection (with me, God, m, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet) that drives me crazy when I'm 'in my mind.' I suppose this is what is meant by detachment. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 16:17:23 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Liz Subject: Soul possession Message: Hi Liz, I stopped following M 15 years ago and I still have a lot of muddled thinking, believe me. I am sure that you will sort things out to the extent that is right for you. The more I talk to people the more I think most people are muddling along, doing the best they can. Love Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 18:27:40 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Helen Subject: Soul possession Message: Thanks Helen, You sound like a really kind person. One of the doubts I sometimes have about Elan Vital & co is the lack of loving-kindness, rather a blatant fanaticism much of the time. However some premies are very kind as are many people. I appreciate you for being one of them. I hope I'm as kind as you. It's hard to know what yourself is really like to others isn't it? Love, Liz p.s. Do you know that song'If God was one of us, just a slug like one of us, just a stranger on the bus trying to make his way home.'(Joan Osbourne) It's playing on the radio as we speak! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 09:37:15 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Liz Subject: True self, and knowledge Message: I love that song. It is so cool, and the picture of God in that song so unlike M who never lowered himself to be just a slob like one is us. If he had, he wouldn't have had special status or special power over us. Liz, I agree with you that the meditation is something special and I think that if you enjoy it, go for it. And when you say it makes you feel like yourself, I know exactly what you mean. I do not think the meditation constitutes 'soul possession'. What does constitute a kind of spiritual slavery (to me) is this idea of surrendering to Maharaji which is what the path of total surrender was all about. M never said 'surrender to your true self within.' He said 'surrender to me', he issued agya, etc. He promised to take us from darkness to light if we surrendered the reigns of our lives to him. In my spiritual seeking this idea if the ' true self' came up a lot. That concept can have a lot of traps attached to it, in my opinion. because it can make a person feel that no experience they have is quite up to snuff to that 'true self' kind of oneness experience meditation gives. The further I got from meditation as a lifestyle, the more comfortable I got with my mind and the more I learned how to be friends with my mind instead of just negate it as not my 'true self'. For me, meditating all the time set up an expectation of life as a rarified existence, having to be filled with moments of crystal perfection. This actually stunted me developmentally because certainly life is filled with tough times that can't be transcended through meditation. I guess my Unitarian background which had a strong 'it's okay to be human' message helped me through. Best wishes with sorting out the right balance of K in your life Love Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:26:15 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Helen Subject: True self, and knowledge? Message: In my spiritual seeking this idea if the ' true self' came up a lot. That concept can have a lot of traps attached to it, in my opinion. because it can make a person feel that no experience they have is quite up to snuff to that 'true self' kind of oneness experience meditation gives. What is the 'true self', if any? Who said it has ANYTHING to do with meditation (beside m and his kins - radhasoami & sant mat)? This is truly part of the brainwashing: introducing new ideas, turning them into 'concepts' (one of m's redefined words), and making you believe this is true! My conclusion is that this is one of the most dangerous consequence when you listen to m's discourses. This is called sofism, nothing new. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:39:44 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: True self, and knowledge? Message: The 'true self' concept is in just about every spiritual tradition I've encountered, including Christianity & it has to do with one's 'higher self' , as opposed to the 'lower self'. Of course it is nuts. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:42:00 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: JM Subject: True self, and knowledge? Message: I would say though that we have all had moments of being ourselves that were filled with happiness, I have had those experiences with and without meditation. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:52:01 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Helen Subject: True self, and knowledge? Message: OK, OK, I've also read this! But WHO said that whatever you experience whilst practicing meditation is 'true self'? That's where the problem lies for me! The concept of self is fine, and widely used. Some people also add funny ideas to it. But WHY should it be 'true'? Does this mean that there is some 'false' or 'bad' part to it? ..... weird idea.... If so, why do some people reject the other parts of self? Isn't this the core of the problem? You start rejecting your true (not the one defined by m and some gurus) self, and build something weird in your psyche. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:24:21 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: True self, and knowledge? Message: YES--this IS the problem. Let's see-where did the idea of 'true self' as opposed to other selves come from. I guess every religion has its version of 'original sin' or rationale for human suffering. If we focus on ____ (fill in the blank--Jesus, meditation, Buddha), we can be redeemed from our curse of humanity. The conditioning that being human is a curse, and that the mind is inherently evil & bad is a big part of the problem. I wasn't raised with the notion of original sin, & though I don't think we are inherently evil, I do think think that some of us are pretty neurotic!! So I do like the peace meditation, or any focussing type of thing, gives me. But you're right it's no 'truer' an experiecne than any other. Maybe though it is more 'desirable' to behave a certain way than other ways. Is it necessarily more 'godly' though, that's the question! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:44:28 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: JM Subject: True self, and knowledge? Message: I just figured out the answer to your question. In M's trip & other new agey Hindi trips, your 'true self' is LIGHT. So supposedly, when you die you go into the light, your body, mind, ego are just illusions, the reality is that we are PURE LIGHT. I heard this so much much in my new agey years. No wonder reconciling practical everyday life is so hard for the newagers if we are PURE LIGHT. What a hoot. I remember trying to sustain the Light-filled bliss while walking around. One friend told me 'you're on the bus, for God's sake, you are not in a meditation room.' Honestly the 'true self' experiences I have had with knowledge have to do with feeling connected to my body. I get the same experience from walking 3 miles on the treadmill. Meditation helps ease the pain of my back injury--I don't think it is the TRUTH OF MY EXISTENCE & I will turn into light and kiss M's feet on the astral plane at the moment of death, ha ha How are your 'patients' today? The French equilivents of Rover and Spot, Fifi and Cheri perhaps? Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 12:13:45 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Helen Subject: True self, and knowledge? Message: How are your 'patients' today? The French equilivents of Rover and Spot, Fifi and Cheri perhaps? Not too many of them obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be here now! Lots of minou/minette/mimine, calin/caline & prince/princesse. I just figured out the answer to your question. In M's trip & other new agey Hindi trips, your 'true self' is LIGHT. So supposedly, when you die you go into the light, your body, mind, ego are just illusions, the reality is that we are PURE LIGHT. I heard this so much much in my new agey years. No wonder reconciling practical everyday life is so hard for the newagers if we are PURE LIGHT. That wasn't the most important stuff for me. But I agree with you this is very destructive, and makes you loose the true sense of your real self. Of course you first have to accept the idea, which is maybe the reason why many premies don't 'experience' anything in meditation: they don't want to merge with light, and I can understand why! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:50:30 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Helen Subject: 'Self' in search of love Message: I guess every religion has its version of 'original sin' or rationale for human suffering I don't know if we actually have to go that far now. Looking for a 'true self' merely suggest for me the idea that we didn't like what we perceived as our 'self' somehow: our own image, the fact we're not this or that, that we're not good enough, that we were not worth being loved, etc. This is what I have seen in me, and in most of the premies I know well. Thus, why not have a look at something nicer (blissfull) supposedly our 'true' self. And this is what the 'master' and the group of premies say: 'there is something wonderful inside of you, bla bla...'. M says he 'loves' us, we find some premies 'loving' us, etc. We feel so much 'taken care of' (look at the external comfort for the conferences), all the 'ushering' trip. Then the whole story become true, IF if we fit the conditions, and if we buy all this and the rest of the show. Otherwise we'd have to find something else. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 12:29:40 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: 'Self' in search of love Message: I guess M capitalized on the idea of making us feel defective, or cashed in on the fact that many of us already didn't like ourselves very much. For me, the promised 'other reality' or 'revealing of your true self'--that pure self, untarnished, like a baby-- would wipe away my detested self and I would be born anew! This is what I tried to do with LSD and every other mind-altering substance I could get my hands on. Give a kiss on the lips to the French princes and princesses for me. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 13:26:12 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Helen Subject: Yuk Message: Give a kiss on the lips to the French princes and princesses for me. I never do this, errrrkkkkk.... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 14:07:44 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Yuk Message: Aren't dogs gross? I figure if I have one living in my house, we're sharing all the same microbes, so what's a little inter-species 'French kissing' I AM JUST KIDDING. Do dogs have a lot of antibodies in their saliva because of all that garbage they eat or is that a myth. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 06:29:11 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Helen Subject: What humans can really share! Message: Aren't dogs gross? I figure if I have one living in my house, we're sharing all the same microbes, so what's a little inter-species 'French kissing' That's a funny one for non-american people! Do you have any idea of what's inside the air you breath in the streets? Or the water you drink from tap? Or any salad you eat? Beside the germs involved in contagious infections, everyone has his own flora. Any other germs are stopped and killed in the mouth, the stomach or the nose. Do dogs have a lot of antibodies in their saliva because of all that garbage they eat or is that a myth. All mammals, including humans have about the same stuff: natural germs killers in the saliva (not much antibodies). When you've just eaten something, you have some left-overs of course, and a rotten smell if you've had too much camembert! So us humans can share camembert and coffee leftovers, when animals can't! I guess that's the main difference between animals and humans. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 11:47:29 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: M's grace & toxicology Message: I work with microbiologists who never hesitate to tell me the gross junk that is all around us, stuff that I never think about, like fecal matter in the water we drink and chemicals in the air we breathe. It is fascinating though. Knowledge of this aspect of life (the biological-scientific-medical) was woefully lacking in our premie days, as evidence by those porr premies who got liver disease working unprotected with all the chemicals on DECCA. As if holy name could protect one from toxicololgy. The data vacuum of M and knowledge was not only harmful mentally but physically Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Tues, May 18, 1999 at 12:33:22 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Helen Subject: M's grace & toxicology Message: Not talking about all the premies who've got serious diseases whilst in the ashram (sleeping 15 in a room), and in India (there is definitely one westerner who died a few years ago). M never performed any miracle for them! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 19:59:51 (EDT)
From: Blue Bird Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The Newfield Network Message: Good Evening, Another interesting site to visit. The Newfield Network Mr. Dettmers gives a two thumbs up as one of the NN Clients. Surely, Mr Rawat's portfolio is worth millions. If it isn't by now then he is an idiot. BB Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 21:13:34 (EDT)
From: Rahab Email: None To: Blue Bird Subject: The Newfield Network Message: Hi BB, Interesting site. I just found one which features Julio as a keynote speaker as well as Tim Gallwey. Check out some of the Break Out meetings. Breakout 4 – Cash Flow 202: The Game Loral Langmeir Game format for what the rich tell their kids. Not about survival but about taking $60,000-$200,000 practices and becoming rich from them. What say all, shall we sign up to attend. Perchance Mr. Rawat is changing his Krishna Crown for a Baseball Cap? ICF Tim Gallwey Rahab Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 17:42:15 (EDT)
From: crow Email: None To: Blue Bird Subject: Blue bird is not bill b-(nt) Message: uje Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:37:38 (EDT)
From: Blue Bird is really... Email: None To: crow Subject: Keith! nt Message: As if you didn't know. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 21:27:10 (EDT)
From: Blue Bird Email: None To: Blue Bird is really... Subject: Tweety Bird nt Message: tweet Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:55:52 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: crow Subject: but crow IS bill burke, right? Message: It gets a bit confusing, bill! Love, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 08:50:58 (EDT)
From: K.B. Email: None To: Katie Subject: not now. Message: Just K.B. Now Katie, I'm not going to use the -from- column for changes. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 19:01:48 (EDT)
From: mo Email: None To: Everyone Subject: money Message: is there a complete listing of m.'s holdings anywhere on this site ? such as what is owned outside e.v. and where the money goes. what about the i.r.s. investigation, any news? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 20:35:51 (EDT)
From: Blue Bird Email: None To: mo Subject: money Message: Hi Mo, We don't have a complete listing of anything Mr Rawat owns because he has good lawyers. We do have quite a few public records from Florida, Colorado, California, Chile, New York, New Jersey, Switzerland, India that track the DLM/EV workings starting circa '1970's slave workers' to present day 'Silk Suited' Shareholders, Registered Agents, jet setting, Rawat derriere kissing crowd. It would probably take weeks just to set up an Entity Relationship Diagram. It's almost incestuous;-) Stay tuned though.... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 18:27:28 (EDT)
From: Martha Email: land of nod To: Everyone Subject: my ex- lover is a premie Message: Many thanks for all your replies- I am signing off now, I have a lot to digest. I didnt even know what the 4k bits were until today. At least I now know what I'm up against, and the next time he starts telling me about 'the grace of m' I shall stick my fingers in my ears (2nd tech. right)! Sleep well, (if you're in my time zone) Best wishes Martha Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 21:30:41 (EDT)
From: john cavad Email: None To: Martha Subject: my ex- lover is a premie Message: 'Martha, my dear' We are all ex-premies not because experience was our teacher. But because of PAIN, which is the best teacher of all. John Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 16:37:44 (EDT)
From: Sane Email: its all in the mind To: Everyone Subject: pet names Message: I like to refer to him as Glen Maharaji ... one small taste gives a nice warm glow, drink too much and you start to see things that arent there! Apologies to single malts everywhere. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 16:07:34 (EDT)
From: Martha Email: None To: Everyone Subject: my lover is a premie Message: I found your site today - thank you. I have been to video showings and several events over the last two years - instead of increasing my desire for knowledge I became aware of being the 'mark' in an old fashioned con trick. I have argued for many months with my lover, or tried to, he has made a promise to M and considers him to be the most important person in his life. I am a mere mortal-my love is like chewing gum on the soles of his feet-our love is transient, but M&K are forever etc. I have no problem with him meditating whilst holding his eyeballs if thats what he wants, but all this spiritual clap trap leaves me cold, and the secrecy worries me. Any advice ? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 16:30:11 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: None To: Martha Subject: my lover is a premie Message: You didn't say too much about the situation, so I guess my comments will be to the point. I wouldn't commit for the long term if I were in a similar situation. It's like being with an alchoholic. As you say, your importance is pretty much negated in comparison to what the person really is committed to. To be honest, I would consider just leaving, but maybe you were with him before he met the mirage, so I dunno. As an ex-premie, I refuse contact with premies. It's not an absolute rule, but there isn't much reason to do otherwise. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 16:36:07 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Runamok Subject: refusing contact Message: Hi Runamok, If I refused contact with premies I wouldn't get laid. Antony the Animal (Cert Ed) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 17:47:28 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: AJW Subject: refusing contact Message: Dear AJW, To funny! Are you married? I think you are otherwise you are crusing the premie scene for chicks! ;) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 13:21:00 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Robyn Subject: refusing contact Message: Hi Robyn, bin married 28 years. (and it don't seem a day too long) anthony the husband Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 18:30:23 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: AJW Subject: refusing contact Message: Dear Anth, 'bin married 28 years. (and it don't seem a day too long)' That is great, nice to know about it when it works. Thank the flirt down below for me too if you would. :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 16:58:36 (EDT)
From: Martha Email: None To: Runamok Subject: my lover is a premie Message: Thank you for replying - We met during the time he was waiting to be given k. He believes that this grace stuff was responsible in part, for finding me. Every good thing is attributed to M . How can I wake him up to his own self delusion ? What triggered the alarm bells for you? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 17:21:36 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Martha Subject: my lover is a premie Message: Every good thing is attributed to M. This is a very astute observation and is THE key piece of programming that goes into being a premie. But there is another side. The Maharaji cult programming is also that anything BAD is NOT atributed to M, so it has to be attributed elsewhere, and I would be concerned that any bad stuff, at some point, might be attributed to YOU. This is something to really watch out for. Most premies blame themselves for bad things -- the idea is that it's because they aren't devoted enough, don't understand correctly, are to confused and worldly, aren't practicing enough etc, but certainly Maharaji is beyond criticism and the fountain of all that is good. In my experience this 'core' piece of the cult is very difficult to talk people out of because it's a closed system. Logic and reasoning do not apply. I think I agree that you just have to not discuss it. Agree to disagree as AJW said. But be sure to take care of yourself. Under no circumstances allow yourself to get sucked in. I think sometimes people do that, with the hope that it will make the relationship better, which is a HUGE mistake. Just because he is drowning, don't let yourself get pulled under as well. Good luck, Martha. By the way, there have been a few other people who have posted here who were in similar situations. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 17:51:06 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Martha Subject: my lover is a premie Message: As JW said, you seem to know exactly what is going on. Keep your head about you because the premie trip is not one of logic but of 'emotions' . Jeez, I didn't realize that the knowledge trip was still programming people to attribute stuff to Maharaji's grace. I agree also that it is like dealing with an alcoholic, they have their own logic and don't always 'hear' how their behavior is affecting others. As with all relationships, you can't change this guy, you can't assume that he will turn away from M one day despite your best efforts. You may be able to live with him despite this if you have real tools for communicating together for example, if you can 'call him on it' if he treats you like you're defective since you're not a premie, or if he doesn't take responsibility for his own behavior. Not all premies are completely bongos, and I think that there are probably a lot of premies and non-premies in relationships that work because they want it to work. My heart goes out to you because it won't be easy. Best wishes. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 16:31:27 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Martha Subject: my lover is a premie Message: Hi Martha, Several options come to mind. Agree to disagree. Look on it like it's his religion, and everyone should be free to beleive what they want. If that doesn't work you could try to deprogramme him with awkward questions like: Why did God bother? Would you still love me if I joined the Hari Krishnas? Can I handcuff you to the bed tonight? If he says 'yes' to question 3, do it, and don't unlock him until he promises to leave the cult. Ah..it's been a long day. Antonio le senile. (Oh yes, my wife's a premie. We had several heated discussions after I quit, then things calmed down and we've virtually stopped talking about it. She said I was tring to 'bully her out of it' so I shut my big mouth. (But I think I've instilled doubt in her mind [Heee hee hee, cackle cackle evil laughter. Crack of thunder. Bolt of lightning.]) Bye again, Anton le burninhell. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 17:06:30 (EDT)
From: Martha Email: None To: AJW Subject: my lover is a premie Message: thankyou - I take comfort from knowing that being married to a premie doesnt kill your sense of humour - good luck with your 'subversive' action. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 17:51:37 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: AJW Subject: ignore 1st post answered here Message: Sorry 'bout that :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 13:24:40 (EDT)
From: AJW Email: None To: Robyn Subject: ignore 1st post answered here Message: No problem Robyn, I'm flattered by your interest. Anton le flirt. (oops ou est Anton le husband maintenant?) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 17:33:29 (EDT)
From: Mary Email: None To: Martha Subject: my lover is a premie Message: Hi Martha, Diss him and find 'yourself a lover with a slowwww hand and an easy touch'. Oh, and sweetie, I'm not talking the eyeball technique here;-) Luv, Mary M Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 18:52:00 (EDT)
From: Traveler Email: None To: Mary Subject: my lover is a premie Message: Here's a sure-fire recipe for relationship disaster: He's pushing you to accept Maharaji, you're pushing him to give him up. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 20:44:22 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Martha Subject: my lover is a premie Message: I am a mere mortal-my love is like chewing gum on the soles of his feet-our love is transient, but M&K are forever etc. Ask him why he even bothers with you if that's the way he feels. You're probably a lot more important to him than he lets on. I'm sure the love he gets from you is a lot more real than what he gets from M & K, but he's too afraid to admit that to you or himself. Like you say, your love is that of a mere mortal. M & K give him the illusion of immortality. How are you going to compete with that? It's not like you're going up against some other woman for his love. You're competing with his visions of perfection. To admit that you're the best thing he's got going in his life would mean stepping down a peg and admitting that M & K aren't really all that, and you are. You've just got to make him see that your love for him, and his for you, is what's real in his life. If you don't think you can do that, I would leave him. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 05:05:20 (EDT)
From: cp Email: None To: Martha Subject: my lover is a premie Message: The real test will come when there is a conflict of interests- or when he meditaites when you want to talk something out-OR he starts to mutter about the purpose of life when you want to converse about something serious - like a different level of committment or some emotional block he has. If he starts to use the knowledge or 'devotion to Margy' as a defense against deeper communication- or like it says above- if he gets to feeling guilty because he loosens up in the relationship--then snaps back into 'practicing' bieng a good premie. this is when you run like hell. If sex is real good, get these litmus test going soon. some premie men substitute deeper communications with sex and increased meditaiton has the effect of - well youll find out if you havent allready. A few weeks back- this came up and I remembered that a good way to find out if you worries are founded is to allow all hell to break loose with your PMS. You know, all the irrational and dragon like qualities that can be unleashed. If he utters one 'inspirational' word- you got a lemon. Unless he is teasing . then it is ok. I would try this during one month. If in the next month you start your symptoms and he tries it again start winking at other premies. Then he might get the message. These bootcamp trials are rough, but a girl cant be too carefull when carrying on with a lover of the livng lord. these tactics are not needed with a normal man. But this is one who is co dependant on an unavailable lord. Its like an alcoholic lover. You may need to find out how much of him is there for you. I would reccommend a 3 month trail if youa re really in love but also really worried. love him but keep your walking boots spit shined and by the door. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 10:58:56 (EDT)
From: Minnesota housewife Email: None To: all Subject: my lover Jahn Jahnson Message: wants me to wear that damn moose suit all the time. What should I do? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 16:06:30 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: Human beings are social creatures. Gathering to share our hopes, dreams, aspirations, etc. is a natural need. But the atheist has nowhere to turn to fulfill such needs. Most are dispersed throughout the land, solitary voices in the wilderness. But a group of atheists in North Texas (and elsewhere perhaps?) is changing that by forming their own church. Could this trend spread as ancient beliefs further evaporate in the face of science and reason? Seriously, isn't religion, at its best, a communal affair? Won't the current religions have to be replaced with more current ones that satisfy our demand for rationality, something which current religions do not? The future of religion? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 20:28:06 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Jerry Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: Sounds like you're talking about the Church of FreeThought. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 21:02:45 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Denise Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: Yes, Denise, I am. I stumbled upon their website while surfing the net. Too bad I don't live in North Texas. I'd start attending their services. Maybe there's something like it in my area. I'd like that if there were. I provided a link to their website in my last post. Maybe you missed it. Here it is again if you did and would like to browse it. It's interesting. North Texas Curch Of Freethought Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 04:49:51 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Jerry Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: The Humanists are all atheists. Perhaps you could check that out. I'd disagree that the church you mentioned is about free thought. They have layed down their beliefs and if you don't agree with them, you won't be accepted by their church. Perhaps it should be called the Church of Like-minded Thought. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 08:51:29 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: David, Would you consider ex-premies to be free from Maharaji or just like-minded in their appraisal of him? This is what the Church Of Free Thought defines as free thought: free thought, n.: opinions about questions of religion formed independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Sounds similar to the way exes feel about the cult of M. Yes, these freethinkers think alike. In comparison to the blind faith of the religious, they think they're free. I agree. I guess I'm just like-minded with them. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 09:02:30 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jerry Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: Dear Jerry, 'In comparison to the blind faith of the religious, they think they're free.' One of my favorite sisters is a Fundemental Christian. They usually give me the hebby gebbies but I've known her all her life and she doesn't force her views on me and she really tries to be a good person, but.....in a recent email she sent me to comfort me she talked about the possibility of life after death in the Christian sence not reincarnation but she clarified this possibility as, for her, something that was a true and total belief. I see that as misguided. I don't understand how anyone can believe with certainty about something that they have no proof. I am open to all sorts of thoughts and ideas, possibilities but unless it is proven and much never is, I reserve my undying belief. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 09:40:42 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Robyn Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: I think that ex-premies are not completely free of Maharaji. Only people who have never encountered him would be totally free of him. Robyn, I think your 'church' is a good one for me, as you've outlined in your last two sentences above. Sign me up please! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 10:00:30 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Robyn Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: Robyn, I hope your sister's email comforted you in spite of her sharing beliefs you yourself question. It sounds like you may have lost someone dear to you. I'm sorry if that's the case. I think that the life after death belief is just the ego's way of dealing with it's inability to fathom its own end. It sometimes bugs you out to think that there will come a time when you just won't be. But, in the same respect, I find that understanding this also gives you a deeper reverence for life. Thinking the real prize is the life to follow gives you license to take this one for granted, even to snub it. A terrible mistake. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 15:46:20 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Jerry Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: I agree with you regarding prizing the afterlife so much one doesn't fully enjoy their time here & now. Believe it or not, M has been talking about this quite a bit and challenging peoples' beliefs in reincarnation. It really bothers a lot of people that he does this (me included), but I think his reasoning may be to encourage enjoyment of this life. (As an aside, if one is truly open-minded, one can admit that there are both negative AND positive teachings of GMJ.) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 18:23:06 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jerry Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: The Unitarians and Unitarian-Universalists also have a lot of atheists in their churches. (I grew up Unitarian). It is there to be a supportive community, 'religion' is defined loosely there. There are people there who believe in some kind of spiritual being and many who don't believe in anything supernatural but are moral, humanistic, rational folk. I think many Unitarians would understand your longing to be part of a church community, and you may feel quite at home there. No doubt NYC has a gazillion Unitarian fellowships. There also is something called the Ethical Society here in DC,they are like a 'church', I imagine they are national. Did you see my post to you below. In case you didn't see it, I will make you that tape soon Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:59:59 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Helen Subject: Tapes and Unitarians Message: There's no rush on the tape, Helen. So don't put yourself under the gun for it. Believe me, I've got a library of music as it is to choose from. People are always marvelling at the size of my CD collection. And it's just getting bigger. Let me know if you want more tapes. I get a kick out of putting them together for people. The Unitarian Church sounds interesting. What is it's creed that you have atheists as members? I can't imagine a church which consists of believers and non-believers alike. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:26:46 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jerry Subject: Tapes and Unitarians Message: Dear Jerry, Hey, how many people do you get a kick out of making tapes for? :) Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 07:52:05 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Tapes and Unitarians Message: Robyn, Email me an address and I'll send you a tape: What_Gives_Huh@MSN.Com Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 20:38:49 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Tapes and Unitarians (ot) Message: Hey Jerry Unitarians originally believed in God (in 'one God' as opposed to the the Trinity--they don't believe Jesus was the son of God). They were non-trinitarians, in other words, like Jews and Muslims. Unitarianism has a history of being very embracing of different beliefs, (if there's one God, there are many expressions of God, therefore people shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs)....for example, Uni ministers will perform inter-faith marriages etc. Unitarian-Universalism teaches that there are certain universal truths in all religions. Over the 20th century Unitarianism has become more intellectually oriented, and started embracing atheists, agnostics, secular humanists into their 'fold'.The only 'creed' one has to embrace in order to be a Uni is respect for your fellow people, reverence for life and the search for truth, and a commitment to equality and social justice. It's a mish-mash to be sure, sometimes frustrating to me, & sometimes incredibly inspiring. The Unitarian symbol is not a cross but a flame to represent the flame within each of us. I was raised in the Uni church so it's in me blood, and boy, am I grateful for it. For example, in the Sunday school curriculum we studied The Bible, the ancient Egyptians, creation myths from around the world, social justice issues, visited synagogues, mosques, Baptist churches etc. Lincoln, Emmerson, and Thoreau were Unitarians. You'll just have to go to a service and find out more, read their literature, talk to the minister and then let me know what you think!! I have an article somewhere I wrote about growing up Uni I'll try to dig it up for ya. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:31:27 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Tapes and Unitarians Message: Jerry wrote: 'I can't imagine a church which consists of believers and non-believers alike.' All churches have believers and non-believers in them, but not all churches admit it. Most main-line Christian churches encourage questions and do not see doubt as something bad. Most mainline churches also accept evolution as fact. Don't limit your understanding of religion by the words and actions of the fundamentalists of every faith. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 13:26:09 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: Tapes and Unitarians Message: Mickey you are right of course, but I have found that more Christian oriented churches will have as their theological base/tradition, this idea of Christ as the son of God, who died to offer us salvation. Even if it is not taught literally as actual literal fact, it is still the tradition, with sermons and Sunday school curriculum being influenced by that. Of course these non-fundy Christian churches also have sermons containing truths, nuggets of humanism that apply to all people, and these churches would embrace/accept anyone into their fold. My guess is that someone like Jerry might chafe at the percentage of Christian 'stuff' in even a non-fundamentalist Christian church. Jerry doesn't even believe in God to my knowledge so that even a non-fundy Christian church might be a turn off to him. Can you believe I was proselytizing about Unitarianism to Jerry. What a riot, the religion that is a curse and yet a blessing to me. I tried going to a non-fundy Christian church for awhile & it is a wonderful church, driven very much by the social justice message of Jesus. But when it came to communion, hymns about the divinity of Christ, and Sunday school lessons about 'God's son', I couldn't escape the fact of the matter: This was a Christian church, for Christ's sake!! What the hell did I expect? A discussion of the mitzvots? What the hell was I thinking? I am now back in the bosom of my Unitarian roots which I cannot escape, if I were to run to the farthest corners of the earth. Also when it comes to teaching my daughter something, I am informed by Uni (and Jewish) ideals. Although she is quite enthralled with Jesus and I don't discourage it. Oy what a conundrum this religion thing is!! How do you reconcile the Son of God died for our sins thing, Fr. Mickey? Don't have to answer if you don't feel comfortable doing so. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 17:32:00 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Helen Subject: Tapes and Unitarians Message: 'How do you reconcile the Son of God died for our sins thing, Fr. Mickey?' I think I mentioned here once ages ago (at least several months ago) about different christologies. The 'Jesus died for our sins' christology has to do with atonement. I have a lot of trouble with the idea of a God who demands blood sacrifice to make things right. The idea of Jesus as the only acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world held much appeal to the Medieval church and is very popular among Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants and most of the Roman Catholic laity. It has its adherents in more mainline churches, too. I think it makes a lot of sense when we try to understand how the early Christians tried to reconcile the fact that their leader, the one they loved and followed, was executed as a criminal; it is difficult to make sense of such an act. If one sees it as an atoneing sacrifice, as part of God's plan, it becomes more acceptable, I guess. I am more of a liberation theology kinda guy. I believe that Jesus' message was one of liberation and the coming of the Reign of God, a way to set the world right. It is a message of justice and has deep roots in the Hebrew prophets. As far as the Incarnation is concerned, this is an idea which I find appealing. The idea that God would become human and live among us as a means of understanding humanity speaks to me. The idea that God lived a life of poverty, suffered as we do and was executed is more attractive to me than an incarnation who comes with all 64 powers, lives a life of material excess and doesn't know shit about the lives of average people. But I will also admit that I go back and forth on the Incarnation thing. But, unlike the world of M and K, even as a priest I am allowed to question and doubt. Do I think that you have to believe this stuff to live a good, moral, ethical life? No, I don't. Do I know non-religious people and atheists who live good lives? Yes I do and I respect them. Do I know Christians who are assholes and do not live the life they proclaim? Yes I do and I have no respect for them. I am aware of all the evil and terrible things done throughout history and presently in the name of God, but I also know of good things done in that name, too. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 16:31:34 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: Tapes and Unitarians Message: Thanks Fr. Mickey!! I agree with you that the myth of the resurrection was a way to make sense out of Jesus' crucifixion. I also find it VERY attractive that God in human form, would look like Jesus! It certainly is attractive to me, to think that God would manifest in human form to show us His nature. But it is too much for my mind to grasp the theology of it, so I prefer the idea of one God. It's hard enough believeing that sometimes! I think it is really cool that you can admit that you sometimes doubt the incarnation aspect, but that you are still inspired to be a good person no matter what. I'm sure you are a wonderful priest. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 20:56:33 (EDT)
From: Dizzy Lizzie Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: Healthy Doubts Message: I got inspired by a minister at church this morning who said it was normal to have doubts and healthy to talk about them to all concerned. This would be a great lesson for m, elan vital, premies et al. Regards, Dizzie Lizzie p.s. just realized that communicating on the net makes me feel a little dizzy. Know what I mean? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:30:23 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Denise Subject: Get real, Denise Message: I agree with you regarding prizing the afterlife so much one doesn't fully enjoy their time here & now. Believe it or not, M has been talking about this quite a bit and challenging peoples' beliefs in reincarnation. It really bothers a lot of people that he does this (me included), but I think his reasoning may be to encourage enjoyment of this life. First, what are you saying? That you don't like Maharaji challenging your own belief in reincarnation? Why's that? Second, when you say he's encouraging 'enjoyment of this life', what do you think he'd have premies do to enjoy 'this life'? (Aren't you a little tired yet of cult jargon, by the way? You can drop the 'this' now, Denise. It's okay.) Is Maharaji encouraging people to learn what they can about the world so they can enrich themselves and others? Is he advocating deep, committed relationships full of honesty and passion? How about just doing what one can to avoid cults and other mind traps? Or what about just simply becoming 'successful investors'? No way. Maharaji's encouraging people to buy his flotsam and jetsum, hid from life in his videos, pathetically think that watching them is an 'event' and that's about it. Am I missing something? (As an aside, if one is truly open-minded, one can admit that there are both negative AND positive teachings of GMJ.) Yes, and if one is 'truly open-minded' one can admit that there are both negative and positive teachings in any cult. That's how they work, isn't it? A few safe, irrefutable truisms covering a poisoned hook? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 22:37:51 (EDT)
From: Victoria Email: None To: Jim Subject: Get real, Denise Message: Jim and Denise, A few irrefutable truisms, positive and negative teachings... and of course what's perceived as positive to one person may be negative to another...such as those of us who wanted M to be God vs. those who wanted him to be a meditation teacher...ample quotes to support either side of the issue. I remember asking premies if he was God, back when I was an aspirant. I remember being told that he doesn't say he is god, but some of the premies say it. I remember listening very closely to his recorded satsangs for him to let slip that he was god. Well, he did say it. The statement that set the whole question to rest for me was when he announced that Guru was greater than God. After that, I just let it all go and practiced, practiced, practiced. Oh god. What folly! How do you trust yourself and your own critical faculties after swallowing such shit? Tell me, because to me, the feelings are just feelings and don't really have any relationship to what others are feeling, not necessarily. And the thoughts and reasonings can just fly through the air with the greatest of ease until you crash there. Do you know what I mean? Am I going schizo or what? Reality is what you can touch, hold in your hand, but this is exactly what the eastern trip is saying is all illusion, maya or whatever. They are wrong. Love, Victoria Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 10:49:00 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Jim Subject: Get real, Denise Message: Ok, ok, Jim, I surrender to your greater wisdom on this one. And give me some time to get rid of the 'cultspeak'. I laughed out loud when I read 'get rid of the 'this''. But, no matter what, I still believe in reincarnation, no matter who says it's wrong. Nobody can really say either way, so this is what I choose to believe. M has said over and over it in recent years that it's not true, total contradiction of earlier statements. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 19:10:49 (EDT)
From: nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Denise Subject: Get real, Denise Message: Hi Denise, Well I'm not gonna get started on reincarnation, but if you check out Jean Michel's site, you'll find some very bizarre early-days satsangs from Maharaji, where he quite clearly does believe in reincarnation and gives this detailed account of what happens to the soul after death etc. Whether you believe in reincarnation or not, the sheer inconsistency in M's teachings should at least give everyone reason to doubt that he actually knows anything at all about his supposed field of expertise. (He's also given out many contradictory messages about karma, vegetarianism, and other basic tenets of belief) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:43:27 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Denise Subject: Maharaji's insights Message: Denise, there are a number of things that M has said that I've found insightful but not to the point where he was unique in that respect. You, I, or anybody else can be just as insightful. The problem is that when M expresses his insights, its treated as the wisdom of the perfect master. He's seen in an inappropriate light as being wiser than the rest of us. I don't think he is. In fact, not only don't I think he's wiser than the rest of us, but he's proven that he can be just as stupid, if not more so. You have read his philosophy on what makes a vegetarian vs. a meateater, I presume. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 10:58:06 (EDT)
From: Denise Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Maharaji's insights Message: Yes, Jerry, I have read the vegetarian vs. meateater satsang and even have the magazine it was in. Regarding M and insights, he may not necessarily have more but his job is to think about such things and be an inspiration, so I tended to think of it as him reminding me what is important in life. Recently he has discussed not letting your dreams go because you only have one life, enjoying every day because you don't know if you'll be here tomorrow, etc. They have been nice reminders when I'm focused on other things lots of the time. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 10:50:07 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Denise Subject: Maharaji's insights Message: Hi Denise Do you think M really supports anyone fulfilling their personal dreams? I always thought he ridiculed & kind of derailed people's personal dreams, ie, career and family goals. He seems to support enjoying knowledge, but that's about it. I've never heard him say 'hug your kids and your family close' or 'go after that dream of traveling, becoming a dancer, etc'. If you interpret his 'enjoy your life' message as meaning encouragement to fulfill personal goals and dreams that's because you are a self-directed person. It has nothing to do with M. I believe we have all given the guy way too much credit. I get better inspiration from my neighbor up the street. M's message in my opinion has always been 'stay tied to me through Knowledge, and make me rich' I have a good premie friend who finds M very inspiring also. I just don't see it. Helen Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Mon, May 17, 1999 at 23:44:20 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Helen Subject: Really, Denise? Really? Message: Denise, One thing that amazes me about current premies is their lack of sensitivity to corn. Shmaltz. Saccarine sentiment, fake and embarrassing. Maharaji is full of it, his web site's full of it and he even teaches his 'students' to be like that too. Hence the ridiculous 'expressions' that have no irony, no swing, no personality. Much like old Soviet or Chinese party songs, no inner life of the mind ever taints their starched 'purity'. This, Denise, is what Maharaji teaches. Are you really so blind as to credit him with anything? How many times did you see Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Do you really get something new from it every time? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Sun, May 16, 1999 at 20:27:46 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Veggie v. meateater? Message: M's view on what makes a vegetarian and what makes a meateater? I haven't heard it. Can you elaborate? Thanks, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 18:17:55 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jerry Subject: The future of 'religion' Message: Dear Jerry and David, David, I think you may have mistook me for someone else as I don't think I said anything about a church. Jerry, yes my sister did comfort me just because she cares, we really love each other. No, I haven't lost someone, I think she had just gone off on a bit of a tangent. I do not believe or disbelive any possiblity about what happens at and after death for the reasons I mentioned, I just don't know. I do see what you are saying about not believing in something beyond this life making it more precious but it is just another possibility to me. The possibility I see as the least plausable is the heaven and hell one though. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 19:37:43 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Maharaji's an ignoramus Message: Robyn; by your 'church' I meant your way of thinking as you described it. Denise; People don't need someone like Maharaji to tell them to enjoy their lives. His philosophy changes by the decade. In the seventies he was always talking about re-incarnation and how we had better be careful we don't come back as animals. Read all of Maharaji's own words about this on Jean-Michel's site. Maharaji does not teach anything. All he does is cobble together what he thinks people will swallow from Hindu mythology and new buzz phrases from his expensive business advisors. The guy's an ignoramus. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 22:17:19 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Sir Dave Subject: Maharaji's an ignoramus Message: Dear Sir, Oh, :), well maybe it is worth 10% of your income. ;) You can be the first member of the Church of Robynology. All donations welcome. Love, Robyn On High Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 23:34:49 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Can I Kiss Your Ring Message: Can I carry the train of your robes, O Holy One? I will be stuck on you like white on rice on a paper plate in a snowstorm (remember that from the 'Little Rascals')? And remember the 'he-man woman hater's club' from 'The Little Rascals'? Time to go back in my cage, g'nite. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 05:39:34 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Helen Subject: Can I Kiss Your Ring Message: Dear Helen, I LOVE the Little Rascals! When I was a premie and pregnant with Jess I would drive her dad to work and RACE home so I could see them at 8am. No robes, silly. It will all have to center itself around belly dancing I think! :) See, it is already becoming a set way of behaving, institutionalization! BAD!!! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 09:13:37 (EDT)
From: Helen Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Bellies Message: Yes before you'd know it everyone would be kissing your belly and there would be PARs (People Around Robyn). The best belly dancers would have special status but they would also be told they are not humble enough if they weren't belly dancing with the proper attitude, and they would also be chastized for not belly dancing enough. Which eventually would take all the fun out of it and make people into fruitbeans. Then again Sufism has its whirling dervishes, so why not not belly dancing as a proported gateway to mystical experiences? I think you could make big $ heading up this cult, Robyn. I love the Little Rascals too Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:22:59 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Crimes of the Soul (1) Message: Here is some interesting stuff I just found on the ex-siddha yoga website: Siddha Yoga ex-followers website ------------------------------- Crimes of the Soul by Jill Newmark, Marian Jones and Dennis Gersten The link between gurus and their followers and the sometimes dangerous consequences of their relationships)(includes related articles why people follow gurus and how Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung made themselves idols for their patients. ------------------------------------- It isn't often you invite the mother of God to drop by for a visit, but that's exactly what I did one wet morning last December, when the rain snapped on the pavement like popped guitar strings. She arrived at my home in a parka, leggings, and sneakers, shaking out her umbrella, an endearingly messy halo of bleached blonde hair around her face. After plunking a few playful notes on my piano, she sat down to tell her story -- a peculiarly American story of the search for transcendence and how it had gone awry, morphing into a gothic horror flick of abuse and betrayal. America, home of Deepak Chopra and O. J. Simpson, The X-Files and Touched by an Angel, the endless search for grace and the endless fall from it. And home of Luna Tarlo. Luna wryly calls herself the mother of God (and has written a book by that name) because her son, Andrew Cohen, is an American guru with an international following, and for three and a half years she became his disciple. Today they are estranged and she believes they will never speak again. 'I've been burned,' she says. 'I don't believe in the premise anymore that anybody can save you. And my son has become a monster to me.' Cohen himself is a boyishly attractive 43-year-old with thick, dark hair and a mustache, and a pensive softness in his eyes. He travels around the world offering teachings and retreats, and his foundations -- Moksha, and Friends of Andrew Cohen Everywhere (FACE) -- are headquartered on an estate in Lenox, Massachusetts. He produces tapes, books and a magazine called What is Enlightenment? in which he himself has addressed the question of purity and abuse in spiritual life. In 1986, however, he was just another spiritual seeker who had broken up with his girlfriend when he met an Indian teacher named Poonja. Later that month he claimed that a 'spiritual realization [had] transformed his life beyond recognition.' He immediately began to attract followers, and brought his mother to India, where, she says, he told her that the son she knew was dead, that he felt like God, and that in his presence she was now enlightened. 'At first, I felt I'd won some kind of cosmic lottery' recalls Tarlo, who was astonished by her son's new charisma and 'silver tongue,' and who was longing to be catapulted out of her own pain (she'd lost her husband, father, and mother in the previous four years, and had just left a second marriage). 'Andrew said he felt he was on fire, that his body was like an electric generator. Poonja told me he'd been waiting for Andrew all his life.' Andrew and Poonja wrote each other ardent letters. From Poonja, November 2, 1986: 'You've occupied my whole mind day and night.' From Andrew, April 13, 1988: 'Master, I love you so! My each breath is only you and you and you!' By 1989, Luna was sending similar adoring letters to her son: 'Beloved: just as a leaf turns toward the sun am I turned towards you.' Surrendering to a spiritual teacher is, she says, as mysterious and shattering an act as falling in love. 'Men and women fall in love with Andrew in this mad, hysterical way as if he's their savior. I did, too. I believed he had reached this exalted state.' But the enlightened teacher, she warns, was not all love and compassion. She recalls him lashing out at his disciples -- supposedly in an attempt to strip away the ego. Tarlo says he told her to give way to him or their relationship would end; he once ordered a regimen where she would cook one meal a day, meditate for two hours, and remain in silence except for talking to him, saying that 'since I was so full of opinions and nothing but opinions, I was absolutely forbidden to express an opinion on anything.' Her son, formerly the 'sweetest, sensitive kid, had changed into an unrecognizable tyrant.' Tarlo found her moods veering from ecstasy to self-loathing. 'He thinks if you disintegrate the personality you'll find your true self. I think it's an extremely cruel act. I wouldn't have remained if Andrew were not my son, but I knew if I seriously objected to anything, I'd be kicked out.' Finally, she returned to New York and burned all her writing as a gift to her guru: 'I watched [myself], a remote, alien being, move to and fro, to and fro, from filing cabinet to incinerator, from filing cabinet to incinerator.' When she called to tell him of this spiritual act of renunciation, his response, she says, was: 'Show me how much you love me. Show me.' When she returned to sit at his teachings, 'I hardly dared look at him. He sat, backed by tiers of gorgeous flowers, looking like the king of paradise.' Eventually, Tarlo broke with her guru and son. 'I've lost a child and I'll never get over it.' But, looking back, she believes she knows why she followed him and why he is still so popular: 'Everybody wants to be saved from their suffering, and the unique quality gurus have is that they seem so certain, so confident. Confidence is its own kind of magic.' Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:23:56 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Crimes of the Soul (2) Message: Only Luna Tarlo and her son can know whether her story is an accurate rendering. But she does trace a topography of seduction and betrayal described by many American disciples of gurus. Something happens to that venerable, ancient tradition teacher and seeker when it hits our shores. It mutates. There's too intoxicating a liquor of freedom and power here to keep it intact. A while back, when I decided to write about this topic, we were a country mesmerized and deeply baffled by Heaven's Gate. In that tragedy we heard the eerie echoes of Waco, and of the massacre at Guyana, when Jim Jones' 900 devotees drank Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. Each of these stories is a message from a bottle from the heart of America. It may not be our gurus who are ultimately at fault, but the alchemy our society works on them. Our primal themes have always been writ large: God, freedom, power, possibility from sea to shining sea. We were founded by bands of the persecuted in search of religious freedom. 'Spirituality in America has always consisted of large and small groups of spiritual communities permitted to live side by side,' explains Eugene Taylor, Ph.D., author of The Psychology of Spiritual Healing. 'That freedom is protected by the constitution and unprecedented in the history of any other culture.' But freedom has its discontents and dangers, because we also free up the devil -- and, paradoxically -- our need for boundary and authority. 'Who are we now that we're free?' asks Mark Edmundson, an English professor at the University of Virginia and author of Nightmare on Main Street. 'Angels perhaps, but maybe sadists, too. As a culture we've become nearly as obsessed by angels as by Gothic images of the serial killer. In fact, one often creates the need for the other.' We've found both in our religious gurus. One of the deeper ironies of a life committed to a spiritual teacher is that, though you ten thousand attachments, you end up surrendering your entire existence to a single woman. In the most extreme cases, that surrender leads to absolute powerlessness and death. 'There isn't any power more absolute than the power of a `spiritually enlightened' human being over his disciples,' points out Joel Kramer, co-author with his wife, Diana Alstad, of The Guru Papers. 'That is as absolute as you can get on a psychological level.' To Kramer and Alstad, gurus preach freedom but wear the mask of authoritarian power. 'Gurus are actually a metaphor,' says Kramer, 'for any human being or system that establishes itself as fundamentally unchallengeable, presuming to know what's best for others. And that kind of authoritarianism is everywhere in our society.' Yet if gurus are contradictory straw men dancing to our own epic tale of good and evil, freedom and punishment, selfishness and surrender, it's because we are contradictory, too. As Eugene Taylor puts it: 'The power, danger, and possibility of gurus lies in our projection. A simple human being can inspire you to spiritual ecstasy because of what you believe him to be. Or you can end up totally bamboozled.' We have met the guru, and he is us. Just who is that, anyway? 'It's anybody who has ever been vulnerable, lonely, and searching,' says New York psychotherapist Daniel Shaw, CSW. 'For me, following a guru was a way of relieving all my depression and emptiness.' For 12 years, Shaw was an ardent disciple of Gurumayi Chidvilasananda, an Indian beauty who inherited the spiritual path called Siddha Yoga (SYDA) from her guru, Swami Muktananda Paramahamsa, nicknamed Baba. (Most gurus are crowned by the lineage they lay claim to. It's a rare one who's born full-blown out of nowhere.) In 1981, when Shaw joined SYDA, he was a struggling New York actor. 'I was enraged at my failure to achieve what I had wanted. I ended up trying to annihilate all that I had been, devalue everyone I'd known, take a new spiritual name and identity,' he admits. 'The idea that I could be the pure, devoted servant of a great master was very intoxicating.' In addition, he had a sudden, fully formed, 'loving' community. As Alstad and Kramer note, 'Community is very hard to get in this world, and it's a powerful enticement to followers.' SYDA's claim to spiritual fame is an ecstatic state known as 'shaktipat', a cosmic body orgasm that one experiences after connecting with the guru. Shaw remembers 'a crescendo of sensation that goes from your toes to your head again and again in waves. It provided a kind of addictive substance, a kind of heroin, that seemed to completely allay all anxiety.' Shaktipat is not unique to SYDA -- many spiritual traditions honor ecstatic awakening. Perhaps its most striking image is Michelangelo's statue of Saint Teresa, stabbed through the heart by an angel and collapsing in his arms in agonized bliss. For Shaw, the experience of shaktipat 'was magical proof' of his guru's power, and he began a somewhat tortured apprenticeship. 'Now I view what I went through as a dissociative phenomenon. In my private life I was depressed, exhausted, and quite unwell most of the time. But when I was at SYDA I literally put on a happy face.' Like gunshots on window glass, he managed to overlook the scandals that have marked SYDA's history. First of all, Muktananda was widely rumored to be a pedophile, initiating young girls in sex -- apparently choosing them from a six-bed dormitory called the Princess Dorm. One young woman reported that the guru inserted his penis inside her, without an erection or ejaculation, and remained that way for an hour and a half, joking and talking, while she lay in a state of ecstasy. Shortly before Muktananda died in 1982, he appointed a brother and sister (whom he had raised) as his successors. Both were children of an admirer of the swami's. Within three years, the sister, Gurumayi, took control of the organization, and in 1985 announced that her brother, Swami Nityananda, was stepping down. Nityananda, told the New Yorker magazine that before being forced out, his sister ordered him to be caned for three hours by four women followers with whom he'd had consensual sex. Gurumayi, in later reports, said the cane was a small walking stick, and that he was only slapped with it a few times. Other rumors have followed in the wake of that disruption: ex-devotees suggest that Gurumayi has had her cheekbones, chin, and nose enhanced by plastic surgery; that although she claimed celibacy, she'd had a love affair with George Afif, an upper echelon SYDA member; and that she issued a 1990 edict to fire all gay and lesbian yoga teachers at SYDA ashrams around the country. one former follower says that when he tearfully questioned Gurumayi about her ouster of her brother, she walked away, and that evening publicly announced that she was offering a new course in 'delusion' in honor of the questioner. If the response sounds defensive and hostile, it may well be. According to British psychiatrist Anthony Storr, author of Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners, and Madmen, even though gurus may feel divinely inspired, 'they are not as certain as they look. They need disciples to help them believe in their own revelations. Gurus tend to be intolerant of any kind of criticism, believing that anything less than total agreement is equivalent to hostility.' And the gurus make sure to maintain that absolute adoration. When Amrit Desai, the now dishonored 'guru' of the holistic facility called Kripalu, in Lenox, Massachusetts, was questioned about a new policy of silence at all meals, a poster went up in the dining room: 'Never wound the heart of the guru.' Most disciples signed their names to it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:24:58 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Crimes of the Soul (3) Message: It sounds as if these gurus are half mad, and maybe they are. When Storr examined the lives of ten gurus, he found that each had suffered a 'dark night of the soul', an episode akin to a manic-depressive or psychotic illness, which ultimately seemed to resolve itself though revelations and religious insights. Take David Koresh: Storr notes that at age nineteen, his sixteen-year-old girlfriend got pregnant but refused to live with him. 'He began to suffer from mood swings of pathological intensity, sometimes believing himself to be uniquely evil, sometimes thinking that he was especially favored by God.' Mad or Bad or Sad? Yet gurus are not actually insane, says Storr. They may be frankly delusional in their beliefs about God and the universe and their exalted role in it, 'yet they function very well as long as they have people who believe in them.' Storr cites the intricate, many-tiered cosmologies of gurus such as Georgei Ivanovitch Gurdjieff or Rudolf Steiner. 'Gurdjieff stated that he'd invented a way to increase the visibility of the planets and the sun. Steiner invented his own history of the universe.' These men, and other gurus, says Storr, were narcissistic, isolated, and arrogant, but they did not suffer from the thought disorders prevalent in schizophrenia or actual psychosis -- buffered as they were by adoring disciples. The cost of that adoration is, oddly enough, isolation. Kramer and Alstad note that gurus are deprived of real relational intimacy, and thus try to fill the need for genuine closeness with more and more followers: 'The role of guru is a gradual entrapment. Power is seductive, and they don't realize what they're giving up -- humanity, a normal life of horizontal rather than vertical relationships. When people succumb to the temptation to be a guru, they are often destroyed as human beings.' As for the loving disciples, they reach out for certainty and transcendental meaning, but are asked to give unconditional love and selfless surrender in return. That's particularly hard for Americans, bred on independence. 'That kind of idealism doesn't leave room for the needs of the self,' says Alstad. 'The guru blocks feedback. You need a way for dealing with issues of power, control, and self-centeredness, all of which arise in long-term relationships, even those with a guru.' The disciple cannot surrender his human needs forever. Neither can the guru live up to his presumed divinity. Luna Tarlo echoes this in her own experience. 'My son must be living under terrible tension,' she says. 'He has to maintain that he's enlightened all the time. I don't know what happens when he goes to bed at night.' The guru-disciple relationship is by nature unhealthy, believes psychologist Rachel Brier, who has worked with over a dozen former devotees of Kripalu's Desai. 'When a relationship is based on the idealization of one and the submission of another, the system invites abuse. Disciples believe that the guru is godlike, and the disciple is lost without the wisdom, knowledge, and love of the guru. It is an emotionally fused relationship in which each needs the other to exist. There are no healthy boundaries, no checks and balances, no real `other.'' Kissing Feet? Yet religious teachers and their disciples are as old as recorded history. That relationship has long been regarded as a sacred and yet pragmatic path to God. And it can be, says Eugene Taylor. Some of our problems with gurus are our own: we don't understand the nature of the relationship we're importing, and we respond to it inappropriately at times. 'Let's not attack the idea of a spiritual mentor before we understand that the definition is culture-specific. Americans interested in Tibetan Buddhism fall all over themselves to meet the Dalai Lama, while Tibetans can't understand why we'd want to meet him at all. They feel he's too busy, and it's enough to have his picture. In Bengali Tantrism, the idea of using sexuality as a vehicle for spiritual attainment is common, but that idea is almost incomprehensible to most Americans. And take the idea of kissing a guru's feet -- in India this is common, but in America it gives us a completely different impression. What a religious scholar might see as Hindu devotion, looks to a typical American like guru worship.' Before we rush to condemn, cautions Taylor, let's try to understand the roots of the guru's own culture. John Perkins, the founder of the Dream Change Coalition and author of Shapeshifting agrees. 'In their native cultures, shamans are looked at as ordinary people who happen to heal others. They milk cows, plant corn, and also perform healings.' But when a shaman comes to America, says Perkins, he's often idolized as a saint and guru. 'To come from a culture where they are respected but not revered, and to be suddenly idolized, is difficult for them. A lot of women throw themselves at these men sexually. And because shamans tend to consider sex as an ecstatic experience that opens the door to other realities, it's a very confusing issue.' Some gurus have championed what is known as 'crazy wisdom' -- knowledge gleaned from breaking boundaries and indulging in mind-altering drugs, alcohol, and group sex. Yet, imported to this culture, crazy wisdom began to look merely crazy. Consider Chogyam Trungpa Rimpoche, who appointed a successor he knew had AIDS and was having unprotected sex with the disciples. A Saffron Paradox? For Americans in particular, the guru is an irreducible paradox. Here in the land of religious freedom, the guru is inevitable, often irresistible. How can we curtail his freedom, whether he's dreaming up bacchanals or penance for his flock? 'We are the only culture that has enshrined within its legal system the expression of religious freedom in any form,' notes Taylor. 'We believe in the idea that the small sect can live and thrive next to the large sect.' Even when that tiny sect is in Waco, Texas, or Rancho Santa Fe, California, we are reluctant to intervene -- often until it's too late. And yet, as Esalen Institute's Michael Murphy says: 'This is one of the glories of America, this freedom.' Let our gurus fall. We'll hoist up new ones in their place. Land of the brave, home of the free. I've never followed a guru. But, like a curious and slightly bedazzled tourist, I've stood at the periphery of the pack. I've invited shamans into my home, trekked with them up mountains, and listened with suspended disbelief as they told me about myself, the universe, and God. But I always shook myself out of the dream and went on my way alone, under the authority of nobody. An American in her sect of one. Wandering through what Mark Edmundson wryly calls our 'spiritual lazy Susan', in search of transcendence, as Americans are wont to do. Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson long ago said that the impulse to believe in God is 'the most complex and powerful force in the human mind ... (and) an ineradicable part of human nature.' When we funnel that force down to a single religious teacher, we rebel against the very freedom we fought for from the start. Eventually, most of us wander free again. Luna Tarlo says she has given up the possibility of enlightenment; in its place has come religion with a small 'r'. 'One has these moments of religious feeling,' she says. 'Sometimes I go bird-watching and look at the variety and beauty of these wonderful creatures, and whatever created us, and a sense of awe brings tears to my eyes. How can any of us presume to rise above it? I don't know where we come from. I don't think we ever can know.' The Incredible Shrinking God Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:26:25 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Crimes of the Soul (4) Message: Freud, Jung, and their Followers Not all gurus wear robes. 'If someone were to do today what some of the early psychoanalysts did, you would say that person was a megalomaniac,' says psychiatrist Peter Kramer, M.D., of Listening to Prozac fame -- and a bit of a reluctant guru himself. If psychology has often been called a secular religion, do two of its most memorable pioneers qualify as saints or as sinners? 'In Freud's presence, people felt there was this penetrating power,' claims Frederick Crews, professor emeritus of English at University of California at Berkeley and author of The Memory Wars, a book compiled from one of the most controversial sets of essays the New York Review of Books ever published. In those essays, Crews took pleasure in brilliantly dismantling the 'cult of Freud' and its stepchild, the recovered-memory movement. Though Freud presented himself as a scientist, Crews argues that he operated more like a guru, convincing people of the superb rightness of his ideas through the sheer force of his personality rather than through their objective validity. Who's Afraid of Sigmund Wolf? Crews thinks there was a dark side to Freud's charisma. 'People were afraid of Freud, arid would do anything to avoid his disapproval. They became abject in his presence, and this abjectness was itself indoctrinating. If you give up your intellectual independence in somebody's presence, that person becomes all-consuming. The message Freud gave his followers was that he personified psychoanalysis. He was psychoanalysis.' Yet, says Crews, Freud understood from the very beginning that his patient were not getting cured. 'As late as 1906, he writes to Jung that he has not successfully completed a single psychoanalysis.' Freud's scientific contemporaries criticized him for this, but much like the gurus described by British psychiatrist Anthony Storr (p. 76), Freud resisted any criticism. He called these attacks manifestations of unconscious resistance, and claimed that critics needed to be analyzed to understand psychoanalysis properly. 'What Freud is saying to the world is, `If you disagree with me it's because you're not an initiate,'' Crews says. 'You have not had the experience that creates true belief.' The whole history of religion is a history of placing faith ahead of knowledge. If you can acquire the faith, you will get the knowledge. If you can be a member, you will understand why we make the assertions that we do.' For Frederick Crews, Freud was a guru with a dark pedigree. Once psychoanalysis had been evangelized by Freud, he attracted priests for his new religion.' [In 1912] Ernest Jones and Salvador Ferenczi, two of Freud's most loyal disciples, came to him with the idea that they should have a secret central committee of psychoanalysis,' Crews says. 'They would monopolize the psychoanalytic channels, and plant negative stories about defectors. Freud was so thrilled with this idea that he went out and had rings made for the members of the committee; he then held a private ceremony in which members acquired their rings and swore loyalty.' Crews sees this as a cult-like experience of having the master metaphorically lay hands on his disciples through personal psychoanalysis. If Crews sees Freud as a shameless guru in scientist's clothing, Peter Kramer differs: 'Given the high regard Freud was held in, he could have been far worse.' Kramer points out that Freud's ideas were novel and threatening in a way that late 20th century Westerners cannot even imagine, and that his secrecy and defensiveness in the face of criticism might have been a protective mechanism. Freud 'was trying to create a scientific movement in an area where he felt there was going to be natural resistance to the viewpoint. My sense of the guru is that it corresponds more to what Carl Jung did.' The Jung and the Yang Kramer recounts a famous instance in Jung diagnosed Sabina Spielrein, his first patient, as schizophrenic, then seduced her and asked his wife to take Spielrein into their house; he then allowed her to idolize him. In fact, Jung seemed to be very comfortable in the role of idol, even in the role of a secular religious leader, Kramer says. 'Jung was much more invested in his own omniscience than Freud.' While Freud discussed his dreams, Jung wrote about numerous waking visions, including one in 1913 where he saw a great red flood over the Alps, which he later interpreted as a premonition of the first World War. He also unabashedly expressed his belief that God himself implanted dreams in his head, and that he had a special connection to a higher power. He promoted neo-religious ideas such as that of a collective unconscious which exists outside individual human life, and synchronicity, a kind of coincidence. Some think Jung saw himself as an Aryan Christ, and though these claims are not widely held, Jung's followers did virtually enslave themselves to him, Kramer says. 'While Freud's ambition may have caused him to cut corners scientifically, Jung aspired to the guru's mantle.' Freud's guru-like greatness, in the end, did transcend the foibles of the psychoanalytic movement. Part of this can be attributed to the times in which he lived, Kramer thinks. Before the world wars, 'There was a willingness to accord great mental powers to certain people, which was part of a more general belief that human beings were on a progressive course and that leaders were sort of the advance guard. It was a time of genuine, widespread hero worship.' Love or Libido This cult of the hero not only warped the guru but it warped the teachings as well. Freud's image in America as the source of sexual liberation is a striking example. 'America embraced Freudianism in a spirit that Freud himself found ridiculous,' Crews says. While Freud himself had mixed feelings about sexual freedom, America has always been about overthrowing the past. In the 20th century, when we discarded the mores of our sexually puritanical past, we needed somebody to personify that, someone who could give a scientific and medical blessing to the idea that unqualified sexual freedom is a good thing. 'What Freud wanted was more civilization,' says Crews. 'But people didn't care. They cared about finding someone to validate the tendency that they were already inclined to follow.' And this is, after all, one of the main reasons that people seek out gurus in the first place. Holy Madness In Healing Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 at 12:27:28 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Crimes of the Soul (5) Message: Psychiatrist as Disciple Dennis Gersten, M.D., is a psychiatrist in private practice in San Diego, and author of Are You Getting Enlightened Or Losing Your Mind? (Harmony Books). Here follows a letter he wrote me about his transformative experience with a guru named Sai Baba. On reading this letter, I thought to myself, 'Yes, he's probably lost his mind, but maybe he's a little enlightened, too.' Whether or not what Dr. Gersten describes is objectively true, his twenty-year history with a guru has been deeply beneficial to him personally and as a psychiatrist. Here is all the passion of the devotee arid true believer, but one gets the feeling that even if he discovered that Sai Baba were a fake, Dr. Gersten would go on believing in divine grace. I've thought about your questions and decided to go all out, 100% truth. Many people will think I am crazy for what I am about to say. It's so controversial that my publisher deleted this material from the book. I began my psychiatry residency at the La Jolla Veterans Administration Hospital at the University of California at San Diego. Within the first month, a nurse named Madeleine approached me and gave me a photograph of an Indian holy man with a big Afro and an orange robe. 'You're a spiritual person, and I think you should have this picture. His name is Sai Baba.' That was all she said. I kept the photo, but had no interest at all in Sai Baba. In my second year, I was supervised by a San Diego psychiatrist, Dr. Samuel Sandweiss, who is a devotee of Sai Baba. For two years we met and he told me stories of this man of miracles. The miracle stories shook my very foundation of reality. Sometimes I thought that Dr. Sandweiss was himself out of his mind, except he was friendly, intelligent, and sociable, with a loving wife and four daughters. When I finished my residency, I traveled with Sam to India to see Sai Baba. Baba deluged me with so many miracles that after four days I couldn't take any more and left on the fifth day. During that brief visit I observed and experienced Sai Baba manifesting material objects out of thin air. He manifests sacred ash, called 'vibhuti,' rings, medallions, even candy, with a wave of his hand. If you think this was sleight of hand, let me say that Sai Baba even materialized a three-foot-high gold brooch for his pet elephant. During the closing moments of that first trip, I was called in for a personal interview. Sai Baba knew everything about me. Now, I'm obviously interested in things that most doctors and psychiatrists shy away from. But it was as if he'd lived inside my head every moment of my life. But we've just scratched the surface. There is no miracle known to humankind that Sai Baba has not performed. I personally know two people who had a loved one resurrected from the dead. The most astounding was a woman whose husband died while at the ashram. She refused to let anyone take the body for cremation. She told people, 'Baba said he would come help him.' Five days after the man's death, Sai Baba came to the room, which reeked with the odor of the decaying body. Half an hour later Sai Baba walked out of the room with the resurrected man...arm in arm, cheerfully greeting the wife. Isaac Tigrett, founder of The Hard Rock Cafe, is a devotee of Sai Baba. In Isaac's younger days, he says, he was sailing around the curves of the Malibu hills in his sports car when it flew over the cliff. Sai Baba appeared in the car, held his arms around Isaac and protected him completely. The car lay demolished at the bottom of the cliff with the waves pouring over it. Isaac was unharmed. These stories are jarring to the average American, but more so to the average psychiatrist. 'Magical thinking' they call this stuff. Yet, if one dares to explore what I have said, then we are faced with more than a challenge for the theories of modern psychiatry. Psychiatry is a speck of dust compared to the infinite mystery of God. Sai Baba says, 'I am God and you are God. The only difference is that I know it and you don't.' And so, yes, this psychiatrist is saying that, after his puny, medical ego had been sufficiently deflated, that he, that I, know that God is on earth, walking, talking. Is Sai Baba my guru? We, in the West, have a very hard time with the idea of a real guru. We're tough-minded individuals, and surrendering to Sai Baba has been a tough lesson. What is a guru, anyway? The word means 'he or she who removes the darkness.' These people are like human magnets, their power of attraction is so great. Although gurus throughout the ages have developed immense powers, these are not what attract. It is the boundless love one feels in such a presence, a love so great that one can be permanently changed. How has this transformed my practice? Because I have witnessed miracles, I now expect miracles. It's my job to create the atmosphere in which a miracle can occur. The mere belief in miracles is like a fertilized garden. I now know that deep change need not take eight to fifteen years of psychoanalysis, four times a week. Deep change can be instantaneous, and that is a miracle. But there are 'real' miracles that I have been part of in my clinical work, and I stand in awe before them. Take Carmen, an acquaintance who came to me for help after being diagnosed with lung cancer. I gave Carmen the works: meditation, mental imagery techniques, nutritional supplements, and some lingham water. A lingham is an egg-shaped stone. Sai Baba materialized one for a friend of mine and said, 'This is for healing purposes. I will send you patients.' She returned to America and made bottles of water prepared with the lingham. Carmen's entire right lung was filled with cancer. Then came the call. 'Dennis, you just won't believe this. Then again, you probably will. I had the surgery. They opened my chest and discovered that the cancer had spread into the left lung and was wrapped around the big blood vessels. They closed me up and sent me home to die. Well, I was meditating one morning, and suddenly Sai Baba appeared in front of me. He was reaching inside my body, pulling cancer out. They gave me one radiation treatment. And you know what. The cancer has shrunk by 75%.' Six months later Carmen walked into my office and said, 'Dennis, I am 100% cancer-free.' The question arises, when going beyond traditional medical and psychiatric boundaries, what to do with spiritual experience, how to 'treat' it. Before each session with a patient, I now say a silent prayer for guidance in working with the next person. I imagine my guru, Sathya Sai Baba, in the office with me. When I am stuck, I will silently ask Baba for advice. Part of my spiritual practice is to look for the spark of God in every person, including the craziest of my patients. Sometimes this can be quite a challenge, but I've learned to find wisdom in the midst of insanity, divinity amidst the darkest depressions or psychotic episodes. A few months ago, I was working with a woman named Sarah, who suffered from a full-blown manic psychosis. Mania is interesting. These people have an ability to zero in on your personal weaknesses in an instant. When this woman and I met, she was loud angry, and threatening. I managed to simply listen, remaining centered. Toward the end of that first meeting, she asked about my family. I told her I have a 22-year-old daughter. 'Do you tell her you love her?' she asked. 'Yes,' I said, 'I do.' 'But do you tell her everyday?' she insisted. 'Yes,' I said, 'every single day.' And then the kicker: 'But do you really tell her from deep in your heart? I want you to tell her tonight from the bottom of your heart how much you lover her.' I agreed. I knew that the divine part of Sarah had spoken, and that I had better pay attention. I went home that night and told my daughter how much I love her, from the bottom of my heart. Spiritual psychiatry is about bringing my patients to a point of serenity they may never have experienced, but it is also about finding the divine in another person and connecting with that, soul-to-soul. This is the psychiatry of the future, a psychiatry of love, hope, faith, and miracles; a psychiatry that heals and uplifts, that sees the pain as part of the spiritual journey, that knows that spiritual ecstasy is real, and that God exists. A psychiatry that dares to bring God into the office, that dares to offer miracles, and that considers Prozac the last choice and not the first. Psychology Today - March, April 1998 Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 17:54:19 (EDT)
From: K. Bill Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Crimes of the Soul (5) Message: Thank you JM Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 00:41:07 (EDT)
From: Liz Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Crimes of the Soul (2) Message: Hi Jean-Michel, It seems like all these Guru's are up to no good. How could we all be taken in so easily? I read that Swami Rama had sex with many of his female disciples and people are still following him. (Swamis are supposed to be celebate). The Tibetan lama who started the first Tibetan monasteries in the West was very promiscuious and died of aids. (By the way Charles Cameron credits himself as introducing this lama to the west - see his web-site.) I have a tape called Gurus which is very interesting. It states both sides of the story, that of the disciple and also that of the disenchanted. I will try to get hold of the transcript and let you have it. The British Psychiatrist you mention speaks on it. Regards, Liz Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Thurs, May 13, 1999 at 15:43:37 (EDT)
From: Jerry Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Great stuff, JM Message: I just killed half the afternoon reading all this stuff while I should have been working. Oh, well. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 01:52:45 (EDT)
From: crow-Sho, read 'the rest Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: of the story' at the site.(nt) Message: df Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
|
Date: Fri, May 14, 1999 at 01:54:29 (EDT)
From: crow Email: None To: crow-Sho, read 'the rest Subject: Not sho, I mean SHP-(nt) Message: fhj Return to Index -:- Top of Index |