Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum I Archive # 2 | |
From: May 3, 1997 |
To: May 7, 1997 |
Page: 3 Of: 5 |
Premie -:- life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 13:35:23 (EDT) ___Anon -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 15:41:04 (EDT) ___Jon -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:04:50 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:19:41 (EDT) ___op (as in old premie) -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:21:38 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:24:27 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:53:49 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:08:49 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:27:43 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:43:44 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:55:15 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:04:04 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:12:55 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:29:04 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:31:06 (EDT) ___op -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 19:52:55 (EDT) ___op -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:00:41 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:07:14 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:48:45 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:51:08 (EDT) ___Mili -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:14:21 (EDT) ___Bobby -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:53:11 (EDT) ___Bobby -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:59:26 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: life -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 22:00:36 (EDT) ___Deena to Premie -:- Re: life -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 00:00:00 (EDT) ___Bill Cooper -:- Re: life -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 01:57:59 (EDT) ___jon -:- Re: life -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 02:52:33 (EDT) ___Jon -:- Re: life -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 03:35:22 (EDT) Scott: Thanks Anon -:- Partially recovered archive -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 03:10:19 (EDT) ___Scott (PS) -:- Re: Partially recovered archive -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 03:12:11 (EDT) ___Scott (PPS) -:- Re: Partially recovered archive -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 12:15:07 (EDT) ___op -:- Re: Partially recovered archive -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 13:04:28 (EDT) ___Scott -:- Re: Partially recovered archive -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 23:22:09 (EDT) Scott -:- Expiring your links. -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:16:08 (EDT) ___op -:- Re: Expiring your links. -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:19:57 (EDT) Jim -:- OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:36:24 (EDT) ___op -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:18:35 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:17:07 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:22:02 (EDT) ___op -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 19:43:55 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:01:46 (EDT) ___Anon -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:23:44 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:49:55 (EDT) ___Anon -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:45:37 (EDT) ___Jim -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Sun, May 4, 1997 at 22:04:19 (EDT) ___JW -:- Re: OP, what's with Chris? -:- Mon, May 5, 1997 at 11:44:05 (EDT) |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 13:35:23 (EDT)
Poster: Premie Email: To: Everyone Subject: life Message: What do former premies want? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 15:41:04 (EDT)
Poster: Anon Email: To: Premie Subject: Re: life Message: What do former premies want? Personally, I want to share my understanding and experience of 'Knowledge' and 'Maharaji' with the world (warts and all), so that others may avoid the pitfalls I encountered. Some may want Maharaji's head on a plate. That is not my particular wish. Far too messy. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:04:50 (EDT)
Poster: Jon Email: To: Anon Subject: Re: life Message: What do former premies want? Personally, I want to share my understanding and experience of 'Knowledge' and 'Maharaji' with the world (warts and all), so that others may avoid the pitfalls I encountered. Some may want Maharaji's head on a plate. That is not my particular wish. Far too messy. Three things: To get in touch with, old, lost friends To learn from how others have made sense of their experiences with DLM To come to an understanding of what was good, wasted or harmful.... and to move on from there Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:19:41 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Jon Subject: Re: life Message: Yeah, I agree. I was an O.J. bug. I had to ask myself the same question -- what did I want? I kept coming back to this silly notion of 'justice.' Funny, huh? Go figure. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:21:38 (EDT)
Poster: op (as in old premie) Email: To: Jon Subject: Re: life Message: I've had this gnawing feeling that there are the 'participants' on this forum and then there are a lot of people who are standing on the sidelines reading what goes on - a name appears once and disappears, mayble flashes in and out again a couple of times. Are you one of those? It would be great (I think the ex's would agree with me) for all the sideliners to step forward. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:24:27 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: op (as in old premie) Subject: Re: life Message: Yes, absolutely. I don't want to get into some sort of mushy all-the-different-flowers-in-the-garden thing, but I really am impressed with the unique sincere persepctives. That's what keeps me coming back. That's also why I have so little patience for insincerity such as Chris'. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:53:49 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: Jim, I have no problem in accepting your bleak perspective. Well, it took me some time, but there you have it. How come you can't accept that there are people who have had a generally positive experience with Maharaji? Aren't you being a little narrow-minded here? And Anon, and Douche, and Deena, Scott, ...??? It's not even a matter of black and white anymore. You insist just on black. I don't get it. I mean, I am not about to get into another useless cycle with you guys. It's obvious you have your opinions writ in stone. But, it IS a garden of different flowers out there, and as a matter of fact it's Spring! remove the curtains and take a look out your window. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:08:49 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: Yes, absolutely. I don't want to get into some sort of mushy all-the-different-flowers-in-the-garden thing, but I really am impressed with the unique sincere persepctives. That's what keeps me coming back. That's also why I have so little patience for insincerity such as Chris'. How DARE you accuse Chris of insincerity. He's put up with your crap longer than is humanly possible, believing that there is yet something worthwhile in you. Weren't you the person who swore to the ad-hominem fallacy? Not attacking the person, but only thier arguments? How consistent you are, Jim. The other ex-premies are more honest - at least they never imposed that civilsed rule on themselves.
If you want to form a pure ex-premie group (cult) here, that's
fine with me. I have better things to do, anyway, like earn a
living for instance. A couple of more insults like that, and
we'll all be out of here. Scott, then you can erase the 'let
current premies and ex-premies hash things out' hype from the
forum description. Or is that just hypocrisy, too?
|
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:27:43 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Mili Subject: Re: life Message: Mili, Ask yourself this: was Maharaji a perfectly enlightened soul, indeed the 'Perfect Master', better still the 'Supremest Lord of the Universe' when he was annointed at eight? It's not like playing bass in a punk band. 'Well, you know, I'd never really played anything before, but they knew I had a car so they asked me to join. I just faked it at first but, after a few months of secret lessons, well, I found I had a bit of talent. The rest, I guess, is history.' You can't fake your way into divinty. If Maharaji was NOT the Lord at eight, EVERYTHING we did based on that premise was sorely misguided. Isn't that obvious? Premies who try to salvage so much, even respect for Maharaji, out of the past without looking at it clearly are just squinting. After all, if he wasn't the Lord at eight, what was all that shit? The answer, Mili, is that it was nothing, nothing at all. Just a mirage. Maybe that's how he got his name. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:43:44 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Mili Subject: Re: life Message: Mili, Mili, Mili -- you still don't understand what an ad hominem argument is do you? Oxford simply says '(of an argument) appealing to the emotions not to reason.' I'm not sidestepping any rational point Chris is making by attacking him personally. I'm just attacking him personally. Get it? And why am I attacking him? Because, Mili, as even OP admits, Chris is apparently playing the fool. He's NOT sincere. In other words, it appears to me that he consciously pretends to not understand whatever's said to him. It's infuriating. Remember how you felt when you thought JW wasn't straight with you? (No pun intended!). You asked him a simple question and, you thought, he was avoiding answering you. Mili, I've felt that way a lot with Mahraji's defenders. Lots and lots. Chris, in particular, has another stupid trick. He skims the superficialites off any discussion and pretends that that's what's being discussed. For example, I post this long brain-washed letter for obvious commentary and he gabs on about inanities. For example, I then offer an analogy of just how off the mark that is (discussing the beer gardens of nazi germany when asked to comment on the third riech's tyranny) and he pretends to not understand the import of the analogy. Instead, he cries like a complete buffoon, 'Jim's comparing Maharaji to Hitler!' So what's up? Either Chris is stupid or feigning stupidity. I asked OP who opined it is the latter. She said he was playing the fool. What's your opinion -- fool or stupid? If I really thought Chris was stupid I wouldn't think of treating him poorly. But I don't. Like OP, I think he's fucking around adn I've got no time for it. Tell me, why do you think Chris participates here? Why do you? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 17:55:15 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: Mili, Ask yourself this: was Maharaji a perfectly enlightened soul, indeed the 'Perfect Master', better still the 'Supremest Lord of the Universe' when he was annointed at eight? It's not like playing bass in a punk band. 'Well, you know, I'd never really played anything before, but they knew I had a car so they asked me to join. I just faked it at first but, after a few months of secret lessons, well, I found I had a bit of talent. The rest, I guess, is history.' You can't fake your way into divinty. If Maharaji was NOT the Lord at eight, EVERYTHING we did based on that premise was sorely misguided. Isn't that obvious? Premies who try to salvage so much, even respect for Maharaji, out of the past without looking at it clearly are just squinting. After all, if he wasn't the Lord at eight, what was all that shit? The answer, Mili, is that it was nothing, nothing at all. Just a mirage. Maybe that's how he got his name. Jim, what does it mean to be 'Lord'? As a matter of fact there was a Lord Jim! I'll tell you, sincerely, I don't know! I don't know what it means to be a Lord, and I don't know if Maharaji is a Lord. To me Maharaji is just Maharaji. And this might surprise you, but to me Maharaji is relevant simply as the person who talks about Knowledge, the meditation. He really is inspiring about that. I have had experiences where that chubby person outside was directly correlated with that amazing thing inside. You might think I am deluded. I don't care! He did something for me that nothing else did, and he consistently does it! I tell you, all those labels 'Lord', 'Guru', 'Spiritual Master',..., fall short. It's something else, it's something novel. Look, I am a practical person. I wouldn't be involved in this for so long if I did't get something real out of it! I certainly wouldn't be involved in it just in order to prove a point! I consider myself a free-minded person. I don't belong to any church, I think things out. I don't see my involvement with the Knowledge as limiting, but rather as eye-opening! There IS no dogma. There IS no belief. There is just discovery of life by being aware of life! And like I said, I have't received a receipt from Maharaji for the Knowledge, and I don't think I ever will - it's priceless. He knows it, and I know it. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:04:04 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: Mili, Mili, Mili -- you still don't understand what an ad hominem argument is do you? Oxford simply says '(of an argument) appealing to the emotions not to reason.' I'm not sidestepping any rational point Chris is making by attacking him personally. I'm just attacking him personally. Get it? And why am I attacking him? Because, Mili, as even OP admits, Chris is apparently playing the fool. He's NOT sincere. In other words, it appears to me that he consciously pretends to not understand whatever's said to him. It's infuriating. Remember how you felt when you thought JW wasn't straight with you? (No pun intended!). You asked him a simple question and, you thought, he was avoiding answering you. Mili, I've felt that way a lot with Mahraji's defenders. Lots and lots. Chris, in particular, has another stupid trick. He skims the superficialites off any discussion and pretends that that's what's being discussed. For example, I post this long brain-washed letter for obvious commentary and he gabs on about inanities. For example, I then offer an analogy of just how off the mark that is (discussing the beer gardens of nazi germany when asked to comment on the third riech's tyranny) and he pretends to not understand the import of the analogy. Instead, he cries like a complete buffoon, 'Jim's comparing Maharaji to Hitler!' So what's up? Either Chris is stupid or feigning stupidity. I asked OP who opined it is the latter. She said he was playing the fool. What's your opinion -- fool or stupid? If I really thought Chris was stupid I wouldn't think of treating him poorly. But I don't. Like OP, I think he's fucking around adn I've got no time for it. Tell me, why do you think Chris participates here? Why do you? O.K. I can understand that you can get upset with people not taking you seriously. I know the feeling.
Why do people participate? Well, I don't know about everyone, but
as far as I am concerned, I find it more invigorating to clash
opinions with someone than merely to agree with someone. Maybe
it's a dialectic process of some kind. In better moments, I view
it as some kind of a 'brainstorming', wherewith even the most
ludicruous opinions can be found to be potentially valuable. But
really, for that sort of thing to take place, it is important to
try to minimize the personal attacks. I sincerely feel that and I
am making the effort. Sometimes I just get provoked by blantant
lies and insults, though. But, as soon as I cool off, I'm back!
(Have you noticed?)
|
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:12:55 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: Mili, Mili, Mili -- you still don't understand what an ad hominem argument is do you? Oxford simply says '(of an argument) appealing to the emotions not to reason.' I'm not sidestepping any rational point Chris is making by attacking him personally. I'm just attacking him personally. Get it? And why am I attacking him? Because, Mili, as even OP admits, Chris is apparently playing the fool. He's NOT sincere. In other words, it appears to me that he consciously pretends to not understand whatever's said to him. It's infuriating. Remember how you felt when you thought JW wasn't straight with you? (No pun intended!). You asked him a simple question and, you thought, he was avoiding answering you. Mili, I've felt that way a lot with Mahraji's defenders. Lots and lots. Chris, in particular, has another stupid trick. He skims the superficialites off any discussion and pretends that that's what's being discussed. For example, I post this long brain-washed letter for obvious commentary and he gabs on about inanities. For example, I then offer an analogy of just how off the mark that is (discussing the beer gardens of nazi germany when asked to comment on the third riech's tyranny) and he pretends to not understand the import of the analogy. Instead, he cries like a complete buffoon, 'Jim's comparing Maharaji to Hitler!' So what's up? Either Chris is stupid or feigning stupidity. I asked OP who opined it is the latter. She said he was playing the fool. What's your opinion -- fool or stupid? If I really thought Chris was stupid I wouldn't think of treating him poorly. But I don't. Like OP, I think he's fucking around adn I've got no time for it. Tell me, why do you think Chris participates here? Why do you? Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. Examples: (i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive) (ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial) (iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial) (iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque) Proof: Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended. References: Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80 26 May 1995 / 06 January 1996 http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/attack.htm Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:29:04 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Mili Subject: Re: life Message: It is indeed a dialectic. That's why it's so frustrating when people don't play ball. Lets' face it, there are some strong emotional mindsets here. All the way from Maharaji's God to Maharaji's an asshole. The argument's bound to be intense. So, like a sail in heavy wind, it's going to crack like crazy if someone lets go of the thread and leaves their focus 'untrimmed.' Chris, doe sthat ll the time. He has no focus. Just words. He avoids the logical structure and I say he does it purposely to piss people off. Maybe I'm wrong but, if I am, too bad for Chris. Better to be a jerk than brain-damaged. Mili, you do at times seem to be making an effort. I always notice that. But I also know that you're facing a big choice here. Are you committed to following the discussion, or dialectic as you so accurately say, at all costs? Or, are you committed to protecting Maharaji in the end? Which one's got your ultimate allegiance? See, I'm pretty sure that I can get a lot of torque in a discussion with someone bound by fair, rational play. I can prove Maharaji can't be trusted, basically. [No, I'm not arguing the point now. I'm just telling you that I'm confident taht the debate eventually leads there]. The question is, would someone defending Maharaji stay true to the rules of fair rational duscourse if they saw their very foundation crumble in the dialogue? Mili, it's easy for me to talk. I'm the one who feels like I'm standing on solid ground on this point. I realize that. But that doesn't change things. You say you're making an effort. The only effort that counts is the one to stay focused on the debate as it develops no matter what cost. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 18:31:06 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Mili Subject: Re: life Message: Thanks. Now I'm sure you'll agree I'm not guilty of any of these three forms of ad hominem attacks on Chris. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 19:52:55 (EDT)
Poster: op Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: as even OP admits, Chris is apparently playing the fool. He's NOT sincere Wait a minute! Just because someone plays the fool doesn't mean he's not sincere. For centuries monarchs hired fools because they were the ones who could DARE to say out loud what the rest of the populace was thinking. Are cutting-edge comics not sincere? Just another perspective, another angle of vision of the situation - usually one from which we can take a breath, lighten the mood, and start digging in the muck again. You seem to prefer the muck. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:00:41 (EDT)
Poster: op Email: To: all Subject: Re: life Message: And what happened to the denizens of the deep I thought this thread would dredge up? Did you all forget poor 'premie' up at the top who sincerely (sticking to the current lingo) wants to know what all the ex's want? I think it would be a great idea to re-express what you want out of this forum. Especially Scott, who was just lumped together with all the 'totally black' viewpoints by Mili above. [by the way, Mili, I don't necessarily agree with you on that - I think a few people here sincerely (aaaarrrgghhh, there's that word again!) want to find out what connected and disconnected them from something they still haven't quite been able to dissect.] Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:07:14 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: op Subject: Re: life Message: Sorry, OP, 'playing the fool' means anything BUT being sincere. Key word - 'play'. Unless you've got one of those new-age dictionaries that come with blank pages and a full crayon set. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:48:45 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: That's really funny. I know exactly what I know - what I've experienced 'inside'. It was exactly what Maharaji promised, and it's exactly what he talks about. It is also solid ground to me, too! You can't know what I've experienced, therefore please don't pass any comments on that. Obviously, if you haven't experienced it, to you Maharaji doesn't make sense. As for how come you didn't experience it - well, as I see it, it takes two to tango in this story. He can be doing somersaults to convince you to meditate, but if you don't actually try it, you'll never know. Or, maybe some people are just incapable of having that experience. I don't know. So, it seems, we're both right! That's for the logical part. As for the bottom line, if it comes to defending Maharaji in any way, of course I will, but I know why. It's not a blind thing for me. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:51:08 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: Thanks. Now I'm sure you'll agree I'm not guilty of any of these three forms of ad hominem attacks on Chris. I am sure you don't feel guilty, but it's exactly the contrary - you did attack Chris personally, instead of his argument, i.e. what he was saying. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:14:21 (EDT)
Poster: Mili Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: life Message: See, I'm pretty sure that I can get a lot of torque in a discussion with someone bound by fair, rational play. I can prove Maharaji can't be trusted, basically. [No, I'm not arguing the point now. I'm just telling you that I'm confident taht the debate eventually leads there]. The question is, would someone defending Maharaji stay true to the rules of fair rational duscourse if they saw their very foundation crumble in the dialogue? You have to narrow things down a little bit - I am willing to argue the point that he CAN be trusted for what he offers: a unique inner experience, through your own effort of meditation (for which he DOESN'T take credit, by the way - it's YOUR effort. I can find the exact quote if you want me to). I am simply saying that for me, he has fulfilled that promise. Maybe for you, he hasn't! As for anything else beyond what I've just described, that's just pure speculation, and it's NOT what he is asking people to be trusted about, and I'm NOT willing to debate about that. Comprende? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:53:11 (EDT)
Poster: Bobby Email: To: op (as in old premie) Subject: Re: life Message: OP says: >I've had this gnawing feeling that there are the >'participants' on this forum and then there >are a lot of people who are standing on the sidelines >reading what goes on Yeah, I agree! show yrselves! I'm tired of the same old arrogance that frequents this place. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:59:26 (EDT)
Poster: Bobby Email: To: Jon Subject: Re: life Message: Jon says what he wants here: Three things: To get in touch with, old, lost friends To learn from how others have made sense of their experiences with DLM To come to an understanding of what was good, wasted or harmful.... and to move on from there I met one old friend here. I'd like to meet more. Spirituality is very real for me and a predominant part of my life. Though I no longer consider myself a devotee, I don't regret my involvement with Maharaji at all. I still practice the meditation that Maharaji gave after 25 years. I might never have gotten the experience of meditation anchored in everyday life were it not for Maharaji. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 22:00:36 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Bobby Subject: Re: life Message: Well said! Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 00:00:00 (EDT)
Poster: Deena to Premie Email: To: Premie Subject: Re: life Message: What I want is closure, so I can... not be a premie or an ex-premie, but just who I am without a label. Just celebrate life and enjoy the moment called now without attributing that contentment and joy to being a devotee of a master. I want to live my life free of remembering Maharaji all the time (which has been a result of years of practice and devotion ). Being on this forum is helping to empty me of that, bit by bit. With each post I read I find myself remembering less aboutMaharaji in my day to day existence Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 01:57:59 (EDT)
Poster: Bill Cooper Email: To: everyone Subject: Re: life Message: I want to resolve these ambiguous emotions that I feel for Maharaji knowledge DLM and all that stuff. It was okay that I caused my family pain and confusion or cheated my employers to get off work etc etc because I was following the LORD. Now that I have a dark shadow of suspicion over M and all that I did and those premies did around me in Ms name. I feel hurt, cheated, confused and life looks pretty bleak from here spiritually speaking because the essence is to let go and for that you need trust and my supply has run out. I want to resolve all of these hotch potch of feelings. Its good to talk. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 02:52:33 (EDT)
Poster: jon Email: To: op (as in old premie) Subject: Re: life Message: I've had this gnawing feeling that there are the 'participants' on this forum and then there are a lot of people who are standing on the sidelines reading what goes on - a name appears once and disappears, mayble flashes in and out again a couple of times. Are you one of those? It would be great (I think the ex's would agree with me) for all the sideliners to step forward. No, I just joined - It'd be interesting, though, to hear other's views....... Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 03:35:22 (EDT)
Poster: Jon Email: To: Everyone Subject: Re: life Message: I'm pleased and a bit comforted to find others with what seems to be the same feelings about their involvement with DLM. I've always felt that I gained many benefits from the practice of meditation and from being part of a close and, mostly, supportive group of people. I don't feel any particular rancour towards GM for exploitation, hypocrisy or whatever. I feel that we were children of the times and the times gave us answers to suit - the choices to be involved were, I guess, our own and at least some of our needs were satisfied. The end of the ashrams in the UK, for example, coincided with a change in perspective in many ways both - much had moved on around us from the early 70's. It was uncomfortable even hurtful, but timely and liberating, really, I thought. My main difficulty was and is, to a degree, in not saying goodbye - to the people and the beliefs .... the lack of closure that one of the previous corrspondents talked of. I find this discussion helpful and welcome in that respect and am grateful to the others for their comments and views which are helping me, for one, to understand, accept and appreciate those times. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 03:10:19 (EDT)
Poster: Scott: Thanks Anon Email: To: Everyone Subject: Partially recovered archive Message: Due to the dilligence of Anon, I am able to make available to you Anon's collection of postings from the previous Forum. Many thanks Anon Scott
|
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 03:12:11 (EDT)
Poster: Scott (PS) Email: To: All Subject: Re: Partially recovered archive Message: PS The archive is now available as Archive #5. - Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 12:15:07 (EDT)
Poster: Scott (PPS) Email: To: All Subject: Re: Partially recovered archive Message: If anyone else might have happened to have saved any other old messages from the last archive for what ever reason, please feel free to forward them to me, and I will be happy to add them to the partial archive. Scott Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 13:04:28 (EDT)
Poster: op Email: To: Scott (PPS) Subject: Re: Partially recovered archive Message: I have all posts thru the 27th saved, but as Word documents. Can you reconvert? The are saved by thread. I don't know how helpful they would be, since they cover only the first couple of days of that last archive. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 23:22:09 (EDT)
Poster: Scott Email: To: op Subject: Re: Partially recovered archive Message: Sure, please send them to me at sperry2@miraclevision.com . Every little bit helps. Thanks
|
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:16:08 (EDT)
Poster: Scott Email: To: Chris, Jim & All Subject: Expiring your links. Message: Chris, You are correct in describing the reason that unread messages are highlighted as having been read after each archive. Unfortunately, until I can persuade the folks at Paradise to rewrite their new archive program, we're stuck with this. Meanwhile, in Netscape there are two ways I know to fix this problem. Probably in Internet Explorer they have two similar options. 1. The best way would be to set your links to expire after 6 or 7 days. Archiving seems to be required about every 7 days these days. 2. The other way to do this would be to manually make all links expire each time a forum is archived. Scott
|
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:19:57 (EDT)
Poster: op Email: To: Scott Subject: Re: Expiring your links. Message: How was the archive lost? no chance of recuperation? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 00:36:24 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Everyone Subject: OP, what's with Chris? Message: OP, Would you please read my reply to Chris under 'titantic'. There I've asked for your opinion as to what Chris is all about. He plays the fool and I want your take on why. Or maybe, on the other hand, I'm jumping the gun. Maybe you think his answer to my 'millenium' post was just fine. Well? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 01:18:35 (EDT)
Poster: op Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: OP, Would you please read my reply to Chris under 'titantic'. There I've asked for your opinion as to what Chris is all about. He plays the fool and I want your take on why. Or maybe, on the other hand, I'm jumping the gun. Maybe you think his answer to my 'millenium' post was just fine. Well? Playing the fool? Probably. I think he's trying to counter your recollections of the event with his recollections. And make light of both. Oddly enough, my reaction to your post was probably closer to what you were looking for - although neither as humorous as yours OR Chris's. It reminded me of when my father wrote to me that my mother was dying, and I should come home and be with her. He even said that the doctors thought she might live longer if I came back. I was out of the country at the time, and had just received word from Mataji to stay put. My mother had been ill for a long time, you will recall - also she had received Knowledge and there were quite a few premies looking after her. Not like my father, who had divorced my mother a few years after it was discovered she had cancer. Their most recent encounter had been in the hospital, when my mother told him to leave and not bother her any more. So part of my father's communication with me, I'm sure, was out of guilt that HE wasn't there, either. But, nonetheless, the response I sent to my father was completely insensitive and incredibly arrogant. I was going to search for that letter to transcribe a bit, but that would probably take a very long time - basically it said something about the body being illusion, that my mother had suffered for so long that it was best for her to finally leave it behind. Things of that nature. I did reread the letter a few years ago, and wondered how I could have been so callous. And so opinionated. I also have a slew of other letters with similar messages - both from me and to me. Can I defend the letters? No. Some of them have wonderful messages, some are simply reflections of the fanaticism that existed at the time. Was part of that fanaticism youthful euphoria - the same sort that produces total allegiance to ANY cause? I think so. The fact that I said (and did) some pretty stupid things 22 or so years ago doesn't invalidate the path I've taken. Not very many people would want to share the love letters they wrote equally long ago, but that doesn't invalidate the marriage. When my mother did die I went back to take care of all the red tape surrounded with dying. For years I dreamed of her as still alive. Once I had my own daughter, it was hard for me to imagine what could have kept me away from her deathbed. There are a lot of other issues - one is that I have always regretted not calling Maharaji at that time, instead of obeying his mother implicitly. But that's a whole other thread. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:17:07 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: op Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: The youthful enthusiasm was directyl related to trusting Maharaji. There's no wedge. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 16:22:02 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: op Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: OP, Thanks for your candour. Now, may I ask, WHY do you think Chris plays the fool? Why is he here at all, might be my next question. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 19:43:55 (EDT)
Poster: op Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: Nice that you have so much faith in my ability to read the human psyche, but I don't know Chris, I've never met Chris, and I can't speak for Chris. I think Chris can answer for himself. Chris???? Chris???? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:01:46 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: op Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: Too late. Thanks for your opinion. Do you want to retract it? If so, why'd you give it in the first place? No, OP, you can't have it all. You called a spade a spade and now you want some wiggle room. Look, none of us know each other. That doesn't mean we don't form opinions as to what we're all saying to each other. You know that and that's why you opined that Chris was 'playing the fool, probably.' You even explained why you think that. You expressed your honest opinion and you know it. I never asked you if you were certain. That would be too much. But you gave me what I asked for - an honest opinion - and, as I see it, it's mine to do with as I will. Do you disagree? As for Chris speaking for himself -- that's a different question. It seems that he has. He says he's trying and we all make mistakes. That excuse only goes so far. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:23:44 (EDT)
Poster: Anon Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: There are much more interesting things awaiting discussion than the endless dissection of premies apologies and their semantic errors..Reserve your powers of cross examination for more deserving criminals and let's get on with the real issues. In fact let's talk about MJ NOW. Fuck milking 'Maharaji's saying he's the Lord in 1972.' Nobody apart from us can even remember that! New people don't give a damn. It's not their reality. How about what's going down now. I do agree that stuff is worth remembering but I'm not sure there's much more mileage in it though, argumentally. At least not without running the risk of sending everyone to sleep. This forum doesn't need to be a cockfight. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 20:49:55 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Anon Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: There are much more interesting things awaiting discussion than the endless dissection of premies apologies and their semantic errors..Reserve your powers of cross examination for more deserving criminals and let's get on with the real issues. In fact let's talk about MJ NOW. Fuck milking 'Maharaji's saying he's the Lord in 1972.' Nobody apart from us can even remember that! New people don't give a damn. It's not their reality. How about what's going down now. I do agree that stuff is worth remembering but I'm not sure there's much more mileage in it though, argumentally. At least not without running the risk of sending everyone to sleep. This forum doesn't need to be a cockfight. Okay, I'm kind of repeating myself cuz I just answered you below. Anon, what do you really expect me to do? Ignore or engage? As far as I'm concerned the case against Maharaji is easier made in the past than the present. In the present what we've got is Mr. Innocuous Feel-Good meditation teacher. That's not the persona that couped me up for eight years. It's also so limp it's hard to deal with. I mean, if that's all M is then who cares? Big deal. Nothing interesting there on any score. Anyway, I don't know nothing about him now, other than he makes some pretty hilarious videos. No, the more I think about it the more I realize it all has to do with that eight year old boy who was crowned as the Lord of the Universe. If that was fake, that's it. End of story. As I said earlier, being Lord isn't something I'd imagine one can grow into. It must be the ultimate example of 'kid, either you got it, or you don't'. So, what do you suggest I do? For example, I posted my letter from '73 as some evidence of the mindset then. Chris comes and does his little mime act in front of the stage. Should I ignore him or shoo him off? Honestly, how would you handle it? By the way, cross-examination's beautiful,don't you think? It's like thinking with another person. Expression in tandem. As for more deserving criminals .... I don't know. I get some small comfort from thinking that here, at least, is one place where the whole world can discuss Maharaji frankly. Some will continue to come here and try to obscure the issues -- as Chris did with my Millenium invite. I have my ways. How would you treat them? Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 21:45:37 (EDT)
Poster: Anon Email: To: Jim Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: Anon, what do you really expect me to do? Ignore or engage? Engage!Engage! no... I dunno. I guess if you get involved in these arguments it's best to see them through. I tend to state my bit and ignore the flak. I expect people to disagree but I can't be shagged to argue with sheep. (Have to be careful saying that fast.) If I had posted my juvenile letter (and I will soon) and Chris had written as he did in response , I wouldn't have flinched.
Is cross examination is beautiful? I must give it a try. |
Date: Sun, May 4, 1997 at 22:04:19 (EDT)
Poster: Jim Email: To: Anon Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: We all have our talents and personalities. We are all God's children drooling little spaghettios and spilling our milk on the cat. That's what makes us special, no? I DO have a cerebral cortex or whatever that thing is that makes us not jump without thinking. I just don't know where I put it. No, seriously, engage? Patronize? Who the fuck knows? Do I wear my green shirt or my blue one? Maharaji!! Back To Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, May 5, 1997 at 11:44:05 (EDT)
Poster: JW Email: To: Anon Subject: Re: OP, what's with Chris? Message: I'm not sure about the cockfight, but I think bringing up where GMJ has been, and where we all have been in his cult, is extremely important, particularly because of his attempts to obscure it. Back To Index -:- Top of Index |