Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 13

From: Jun 18, 1998

To: Jun 25, 1998

Page: 4 Of: 5



Mirabai -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 05:48:34 (EST)
__Jean-Michel -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 06:09:55 (EST)
____Mirabai -:- I am God. -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 05:14:36 (EST)
__Katie -:- I am God -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:50:52 (EST)
____Mirabai -:- I am God -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 23:01:40 (EST)
__Sir David -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:33:58 (EST)
____Mirabai -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 23:05:56 (EST)
__Stephen Harris -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:20:06 (EST)
__Jim -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:56:36 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- Me too. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:13:46 (EST)
______x -:- Me too. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:32:54 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- Me too. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:47:46 (EST)
______Judex -:- Me too. -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 05:22:19 (EST)
____Indie Yaweh -:- I am God. -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 14:14:57 (EST)
__Robyn -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:57:17 (EST)
____Mirabai -:- I am God. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:45:33 (EST)
__God -:- No you're not -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:10:58 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- No you're not -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 02:31:01 (EST)
______Sir David -:- No you're not -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 04:55:02 (EST)
__Lg -:- I am God. -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 10:37:27 (EST)
____Jim -:- I am God. -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 14:14:58 (EST)
____Judex -:- I am God - to Mirabai -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 01:04:07 (EST)
______Mirabai -:- I am God - to Judex -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 04:04:02 (EST)
________Judex -:- I am God - to Judex -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 05:07:43 (EST)
__________NDYW -:- I am God -It is true -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 14:37:23 (EST)
____________Judex -:- to NDYW is that like NDYP? -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 23:25:08 (EST)
__________Mirabai -:- I am God - to Judex -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 20:47:16 (EST)
____________Judex -:- I am God - to Judex -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 23:31:49 (EST)
__JW -:- I am God. -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 19:33:49 (EST)
____Judex -:- I am God. -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 23:35:28 (EST)

Mirabai -:- To Robyn. Anger & feelings -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 05:28:54 (EST)
__Robyn -:- To Robyn. Anger & feelings -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 18:06:06 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- The Movie -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 18:41:47 (EST)
____Mirabai -:- To Robyn. Anger & feelings -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:55:18 (EST)

Judex -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 05:17:58 (EST)
__premieJi -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 07:49:22 (EST)
____Katie -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 10:16:25 (EST)
______premieJi -:- To Katie -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 06:45:18 (EST)
________Katie -:- To Katie -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 08:48:05 (EST)
__________Judex -:- To Katie -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:21:06 (EST)
________Jim -:- To Katie -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 19:35:52 (EST)
____Jim -:- Dear Premieji -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:17:59 (EST)
____Jim -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:27:52 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- Way to go, PJ. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:22:43 (EST)
____Stephen Harris -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:36:11 (EST)
______Peter -:- lemon fudge marshmallow -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:31:25 (EST)
________Jim -:- lemon fudge marshmallow -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:41:56 (EST)
__Stephen Harris -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:38:33 (EST)
__Judex -:- No way, Judex -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:28:56 (EST)
____Jim -:- Soory, that was me -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:30:53 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- Very confused. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:37:44 (EST)
__victim of Maharaji -:- victim of Love -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:22:16 (EST)
____Hit me, hit me!! -:- victim of Love -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:39:03 (EST)
__Peter -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 00:06:46 (EST)
____seymour -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 06:56:41 (EST)
______Judex -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 07:09:10 (EST)
________Mirabai -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 20:56:48 (EST)
__________Judex -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:49:50 (EST)
____Scott T. -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 10:28:46 (EST)
______Peter -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 17:43:29 (EST)
________Scott T. -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:24:28 (EST)
__________Judex -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 02:40:19 (EST)
__________Peter -:- anger questionnaire -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 15:34:44 (EST)
________Judex -:- cults, shame & anger -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:55:33 (EST)
__________Katie -:- Transferred anger -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:03:54 (EST)
____________Katie -:- Transferred anger -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:42:42 (EST)
______________judex -:- Transferred anger -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:51:06 (EST)

jaycee -:- need to learn more -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 21:54:39 (EST)
__Not doing your work -:- need to learn more -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:17:27 (EST)
__CD -:- need to learn more -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:18:26 (EST)
____NDYW -:- need to learn more -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:23:02 (EST)
______CD -:- need to learn more -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:53:19 (EST)
________NDYW -:- puky drivel -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:38:50 (EST)
__________CD -:- bile in the mirror -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 01:03:55 (EST)
________Are you for real? -:- need to learn more -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:00:59 (EST)
__________CD -:- do you have a name -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:16:51 (EST)
____________just passing through -:- info is certainly well hidden -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:40:20 (EST)
______________CD -:- info is certainly well hidden -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 03:06:46 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Back off! -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:45:05 (EST)
____Jim -:- Hi Chris, I missed you -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 23:12:49 (EST)
______CD -:- well OK - g -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:30:29 (EST)
________Rick -:- well OK - g -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:46:52 (EST)
__________CD -:- good stuff -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 01:20:52 (EST)
________What does the -g mean in -:- well OK - g? -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:37:52 (EST)
__________Katie -:- g? -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:45:05 (EST)
________Jim -:- This is serious, CD -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:27:08 (EST)
________Jim -:- Chris, don't be such a coward -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:31:11 (EST)
__________Katie -:- Chris, don't be such a coward -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 19:41:25 (EST)
____________Jim -:- Okay, Katie, this q's for you -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:48:46 (EST)
______________Katie -:- Okay, Katie, this q's for you -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 00:38:44 (EST)
________________Jim -:- But Katie -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 14:23:48 (EST)
__________________Katie -:- But Jim -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 19:19:28 (EST)
____________________Mirabai -:- But Jim -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 21:19:07 (EST)
____________premieJi -:- Katie calls Jim -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 19:57:43 (EST)
______________Katie -:- Katie calls Jim -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 21:01:37 (EST)
________________Judex -:- Katie calls Jim -:- Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:43:52 (EST)
__red heels -:- need to learn more -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:31:26 (EST)
____Rick -:- need to learn more -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:57:43 (EST)
____Jim -:- please, RH, please -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:14:28 (EST)
______red heels -:- please, RH, please -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:17:29 (EST)
__Scott T. -:- need to learn more -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:10:35 (EST)

Jim -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 18:12:06 (EST)
__eb -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 18:31:05 (EST)
____Jim -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 18:42:58 (EST)
______JW -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 19:32:58 (EST)
________Rick -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:30:14 (EST)
__________Jim -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:40:14 (EST)
____________Rick -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 21:01:12 (EST)
__________JW -:- Good riddance -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:52:01 (EST)
____________Katie -:- Good riddance -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:30:21 (EST)
____________Carol -:- Carlos:Power walk/run exp. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:54:11 (EST)
______________Scott T. -:- Carlos:Power walk/run exp. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 20:07:11 (EST)
________________Jim -:- Scott -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 23:43:47 (EST)
__________Robyn -:- Good riddance -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 18:09:25 (EST)
________Mescalito -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:39:48 (EST)
__________Jim -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:49:36 (EST)
____________Scott T. -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:27:30 (EST)
____________eb -:- Another One Bites the Dust -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:47:11 (EST)
__________Judex -:- Good riddance -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 03:43:09 (EST)
__jaycee -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 21:57:40 (EST)
____Not doing your work -:- Good riddance -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:17:32 (EST)
____Katie -:- Who was Carlos Castaneda -:- Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:37:08 (EST)
______Scott T. -:- Who was Carlos Castaneda -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:36:05 (EST)
________Katie -:- Who was Carlos Castaneda -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 10:18:07 (EST)
__________Scott T. -:- Who was Carlos Castaneda -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 10:25:02 (EST)
____________NDYW -:- Who was Carlos Castaneda -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:22:08 (EST)
______________NDYW -:- Let me say it for you, Judex -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:26:53 (EST)
________________Scott T. -:- Let me say it for you, Judex -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:49:56 (EST)
__________________NDYW -:- Let me say it for you, Judex -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:08:10 (EST)
__________________JW -:- Let me say it for you, Judex -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:58:57 (EST)
____________________JW -:- To Scott -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:01:41 (EST)
______________________Scott T. -:- To Scott -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:47:02 (EST)
______________Scott T. -:- Who was Carlos Castaneda -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:42:17 (EST)
________________NDYW -:- Who was Carlos Castaneda -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:05:58 (EST)
__________________Scott T. -:- Joining the party -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:37:54 (EST)
____________________JW -:- To Scott and Katie -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:03:03 (EST)
______________________Scott T. -:- To Scott and Katie -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:12:04 (EST)
__________________VP -:- Name dropping, Scott -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 22:52:03 (EST)
________________Katie -:- I am ignorant -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:06:14 (EST)
__________________Katie -:- P.S. to Scott -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:13:04 (EST)
__________________Scott T. -:- Me too. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:28:02 (EST)
____________________Katie -:- Me too. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:37:48 (EST)
______________________Scott T. -:- Embarassment. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:42:54 (EST)
________________________Carol -:- Gabby Hayes -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:26:05 (EST)
________________________Jim -:- Embarassment. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:49:31 (EST)
__________________________Scott T. -:- Embarassment. -:- Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:07:57 (EST)
__________________________JW -:- Embarassment. -:- Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 13:37:36 (EST)


Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 05:48:34 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: Golddiva@wire.net.au
To: Everyone
Subject: I am God.
Message:
I was just curious. Does anyone here relate to that statement 'I am god' God resides in me, to me that's a natural state for us to be in. Although unfortunately that statement has so many connotations that are probably endless and probably provocative.

I have to say that it is not an easy state to be aware of though,because of the many layers that seem to cover up this divine part of us. Perhaps my words cannot convey what it really is that I am meaning but it will do for now.

Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 06:09:55 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God.
Message:
My feeling is that it's more or less something like:

1/ you have some sense of being yourself, the feeling of you,
whatever name or feeling you put on this.
2/ then, if you exaggerate a bit, it becomes something bigger,
you are 'more' than others, 'bigger', some 'better' qualities,
you are 'the best' ....
3/ then you take that 'god/divine' preconceived idea, on top of this, and there you are ...

Psychologist say plenty of things about this
lot of ego, inflated ego, whatever.
My idea is that there is nothing bad in the feeling itself
The problem arises maybe because you invest this feeling
in something that creates a problem....
or you compete with other people feeling the same way
or any other interaction ....

Why all this happen? You (and I) have to understand it for ourself, and see what it does when you're in that mindset ...

Meditation and interaction with the 'divine power' definitely plays a role in the game... see where it's been taking you and some people you know ....
Then you have to make some choice....

I find it dangerous for me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 05:14:36 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: I am God.
Message:
Well, why is it dangerous for you and what exactly? For me it is a matter of conciousness opening out somewhat and becoming more aware. Becoming more connected to everything and not so self or ego centred.

Personally I've found that it's not something that I can force. I am what I am and I try to be with that and not try to project onto the future or of being that which I'm not.

I do like the analogy of the child very much. To me children are god-like or angel-like and innocent. Inherently that is. They live in the present and don't have a lot of ideas about themselves. They just are who they are and it's not very complicated for them. They laugh and cry whole heartedly and move onto the next moment. I don't mean to imply that all children are in this state,because obviously many are in unhappy situations that are traumatic etc..

There is something more profound in our conciousness when we let go and surrender to that which is inside of us, whether we call it god or whatever,perhaps it doesn't really matter.

regards Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:50:52 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God
Message:
Greeting Mirabai,
I do have a hard time relating to the statement 'I am God'. Maybe it's because I have too many associated connotations with the word 'God'. I also agree with Jean Michel that that statement can be dangerous when and if believed by certain people who do have some of these connotations.

I know the state that you are talking about though, although I have only experienced it rarely. I personally prefer to use the words I AM to descibe it.

Take care & say hi to Keith,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 23:01:40 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I am God
Message:
Dear Katie,

Keith says hi to you as well. He's had the flu for a few days now. I don't see much point in having a belief that we are god, just words to convey an experience. No big deal. As I said in the previous post I don't mind what words are used,I can relate to any number of words to describe who we are. It also depends on how we define god.

best regards Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:33:58 (EST)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God.
Message:
Personally I can't relate to actually being God. More like God's son. Made up of the same stuff. Some people say that God has brought into being other individuals so that those individuals (us) can share in His creative powers and His understanding. A bit like people having children and watching them grow up into adults. He doesn't see us as his minions or His servants but rather sees us as His younger equals. I can go with this.

We expect our children to grow up and share an understanding with us. If we are good parents, we certainly don't see them as inferior to us. In fact, we probably want our children to do BETTER than us. Why would God be any different? As we are now, is just fine in God's eyes. I'm sure of it. We are the ones who do all the self judging. Like my five year old daughter who draws a picture and says it's awful and wants to throw it away while I think it's actually quite good. (She's a Virgo).

So what is the aim? In my understanding, the aim is to be human. To be what we are and not to try to be something else. And there is great scope for experience and realisation in just that. Any experience we may have had is part of being human. And being human is ideal for us. The 'state' of being like God I cannot relate to. When I've had some good experience from meditation, I still would call that a human experience.

The problem comes from religious people and gurus who try to seperate God and human beings. I believe there is no seperation. All humans are just as much God as God is. All human emotions are just as much God as God is. All human strengths and weaknesses are just as much God as God is.

My stepfather is 84 and spends his whole time looking after my infirm stepmother. He finds it difficult but he says to me that there's nothing else he wants to do and he's happy to be looking after her. I think his understanding and realisation is pretty good, don't you? Better than some gurus I could mention.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 23:05:56 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Sir David
Subject: I am God.
Message:
Dear David,

Sure, I can relate to all that you've said. I've got no problem with any of it. What we really mean can sometimes get mixed up with the words that we use. It's nice that your step dad is so devoted and that you can appreciate him.

best wishes Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:20:06 (EST)
From: Stephen Harris
Email: mulcyber@pacbell.net
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God.
Message:
I do not relate to it in a physical sense such as I created
myself or the universe. That I am part of that creation
is obviously true. That God created this is a relgious belief.
Maybe so. That I AM part of God is still a relgious belief.
The subjective experience that people claim for I AM is
*interpreted* to be proof of the divine. That psychological
feeling can be just another state of consciousness of which
we have many with no particular objective significance. Thus
I think it is another article of religious faith. Maybe so.
Regards,
Stephen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:56:36 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God.
Message:
Mirabai,

Thanks for asking. I think the statement, 'I am God' is about as stupid as anything the human mind can come up with. Have we all heard it before and maybe uttered it ourselves in a certain fashion? Yep, I know at least I have. (But then I used to believe in astrology too!). Does that make it any less absurd? Nope.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:13:46 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Me too.
Message:
I am 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.' Sorry, couldn't help it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:32:54 (EST)
From: x
Email: None
To: whoever
Subject: Me too.
Message:
I think the word god belongs in mythology and fairy tales. I also object to the gender specifying use of His, He, Him, etc.

It seems obvious that there are several things that are beyond human comprehension. The majority of people seem unwilling to accept this as fact and therefore need to create unlikely scenarios which they then try to shear up with unlikely theories, and faulty logic.

Of course in a simplistic way, you can argue that since we all are part of the same universe, and all the components that make up all the matter in the universe have the same basic elements, and everything can be broken down to a common denominator, that that is a way of saying I am God.

I can't even understand what I'm saying in the above sentence either, but I think what I'm trying to say is. Undeniably, you can say, anybody can say, that they are a part of the universe. Whether you can transpose that into' God is in everyone, therefore I am God' is at the very least up to serious debate.

x
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:47:46 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: x
Subject: Me too.
Message:
x:

Whether you can transpose that into' God is in everyone, therefore I am God' is at the very least up to serious debate.

Serious and apparently pointless debate. What's interesting is that we know that, and like to do it anyway.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 05:22:19 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Me too.
Message:
I am 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.' Sorry, couldn't help it.

Scott, you are a very naughty boy! What on earth did the teacher do with you in Sunday School?

Just read this again & couldnt' resist.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 14:14:57 (EST)
From: Indie Yaweh
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I am God.
Message:
'I am God' is about as stupid as anything the human mind can come up with.

Indie Yaweh is the only god on this forum and if you deny such you risk 25 lifetimes as an ball-less ashram premie. You have been forewarned.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:57:17 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God.
Message:
Dear Mirabai,
I have believed, since a young age, that there is a life force but I don't think of a god as an entity with a personality. I think for some the distinction is just in the lable but for many I think it goes far beyond that so I don't know if I can say I am God, but I can say that I have an excellence inside me that connects me to every other thing, living for sure, and maybe even rocks and earth, etc. Yes, I am that!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:45:33 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: I am God.
Message:
To all those who responded,
I was really interested in what that statement would evoke. Maybe I'm pretty casual about these terms and I don't see it causing myself any problems. I can relate to 'I Am' really well. We can be all things to the most human to the most divine.

If we are inclined to have an ego problem then I feel this will manifest itself in our lives.
Maybe once again the words that one uses can be so varying in what they evoke.

I was curious after reading a post regarding Maharaji claiming to be god. I feel that there need not be a division between such states as being human and being divine and realize that it is a challenge to just be who we are whatever that may mean to us personally.

Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:10:58 (EST)
From: God
Email: God@pasturesgreen.redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mirabai
Subject: No you're not
Message:
Sod off! - I have this tenure for at least the next trillion billenia, after which a carefully selected quorum of cherabim and seraphim (the ones with wings and bollocks but no harps) will be designated to a select committee to oversee a democratic handing over of all things bright and beautiful to all my living creatures.

Until then, you betta do as I say...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 02:31:01 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: God
Subject: No you're not
Message:
God:

As I've always suspected you must be British. No Americans know what bollocks are.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 04:55:02 (EST)
From: Sir David
Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com
To: Scott T.
Subject: No you're not
Message:
And His begotten son is Tony Blair.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 10:37:27 (EST)
From: Lg
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God.
Message:
I am familiar with the statement 'I am god', and I'm sure it doesn't mean that we are God Almighty.

'god' here is related as a human being capable of creating his own reality.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 14:14:58 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Lg
Subject: I am God.
Message:
'god' here is related as a human being capable of creating his own reality.

But I thought only unicorns could do that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 01:04:07 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Lg & Mirabai
Subject: I am God - to Mirabai
Message:
Yes Lg I too thought of the 'new age' teachings in this context. They say that I am the creator of the whole of my own reality, and one step on from this is - I am god (I create myself and my universe). A side-step is 'god and I are co-creators).

Not only do I think these ideas are bunkum, 'you wish' and mentally-ill making, I also read a good article by Elizabeth Kubler Ross pointing out that the 'I' they are talking about is not the 'i' and since we are not capable of 'knowing' the 'I' then it might as well be the same relationship we now have with God. It makes no difference. It is not the small 'i' that is god, if it is, and no-one understands that.

It is a particularly harmful concept for addicts, who are self-obsessed anyway.

also, Mirabai, I noticed you have a bit of a split between your compassionate 'god' self and your angry (and no doubt rightfully so) self. This sort of thing causes those sorts of problems. How to be real? How to not be addicted to this all-accepting god-self, thinking it is superior to 'nuts and bolts' life? Not easy!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 04:04:02 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: I am God - to Judex
Message:
Judex,

to me it is not a matter of being addicted to any concepts including the god concept. Before one jumps to hasty conclusions one would have to examine what these concepts really mean to the individual.

I'm all for being with 'what is' within, of course naturally we try to find words to express what it is that we are experiencing.Words like god can evoke such strong reactions in people when the interpretation is so very personal.There is no fixed definition of what god means.

Assuming that if one can relate to the god concept that this would encourage an addictive, self-obsessed individual for me is missing the point and jumping to the wrong conclusions.

regards Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 05:07:43 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God - to Judex
Message:
I'm all for being with 'what is' within

Okay Mirabai but I thought you asked a pretty open-ended question and that's one view point - just to show, as you say, that not everyone has the same picture of what you are talking about when you talk about god.

How do you know god is within, by the way? Or what is within? I'm just trying to point out that by favouring one experience, and saying it is more god-like or better, then by definition you end up with other parts and indeed people who are less than. It's still Maharaji's trip. You are avoiding the whole question of discussing it by saying you are 'non-aligned' and very open. You want to share openly and gain some benefit from it, and yet you want to remain very vague and elusive about what you are really talking about.

And if I say words like addiction, shock, horror, that is not what you are talking about at all. Don't you think some people are addicted to the master like a drug? some people are addicted to their partners. Some people are addicted to a fundamentalist religion concept of god. To say 'Iam God' for most people is to encourage a very self-centred view of reality, because the ego identifies with it. Then you are blessed, special, gifted, and somehow 'above' all of 'that.' Do you see what I am getting at?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 14:37:23 (EST)
From: NDYW
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: I am God -It is true
Message:
Then you are blessed, special, gifted, and somehow 'above' all of 'that.'

Indie Yaweh thanks Judex for her insightful insight.

Indie Yaweh also wonders how ''Judex'' as a psuedonym can be more protective of the user's identity as opposed to her original name, and suspects the user merely stumbled upon this derivation and considered it to be clever rather than concealing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 23:25:08 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: NDYW
Subject: to NDYW is that like NDYP?
Message:
geez you can't have very much to wonder about!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 20:47:16 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: I am God - to Judex
Message:
Judex,

would I be avoiding the issue if I was more willing to align myself to something. I think not. Perhaps I sound vague if someone needs to fit me in somewhere. The fact is it is a very personl subject what ones actual experience is of life, ones inner experience that is.

Personally I don't actually go around thinking I'm god. I was curious to know how others would respond to it. I can relate to the feeling that god resides within but I personally am not hung up on the words. I could just as easily say 'I am that', Or just 'I am' or any number of other definitions.

My curiousity was evoked when I was reading posts regarding M suggesting he was god. Also, the way I view things I do not see that this feeling of god residing within evokes a self-centred or addictive experience. If one is inclined that way then one will manifest it in ones life regardless.

How I relate to myself and life has nothing to do with Maharajis trip. I don't see how you sum things up so quickly. You know little or nothing of my experience nor of my interpretation.

It is fair enough that you have negative associations and in fact have an entirely different definition to the meaning of god than I do.

I would never encourage people to have a particular view point regarding life. People are just too different and have their own experiences. I don't really see a universal way that suits everyone. If I appear vague,what is it that I am avoiding? I don't try to be avoid issues.

For me the god-like experience is not an egoic,self-centred-indulgence. When my conciousness opens up, I feel more connected to everything else and feel more alive and more present. In fact, there is less of an ego-centred experience. Images,ideas of who I am and who others are, are of less importance than the experience itself. But like I said, I'm not fixed on using the word god. Have I made myself any clearer?

You said the following:

'How do you know god is within, by the way? Or what is within? I'm just trying to point out that by favouring one experience, and saying it is more god-like or better, then by definition you end up with other parts and indeed people who are less than. It's still Maharaji's trip'.

I can relate to having different parts inside of me,although I sense the potential for wholeness and a oneness that is undivided. If this creates a sense of comparativeness, then so be it. I see that people are also in different states of being,that does not have to create a conflict,or a sense of us and them. There just are differences,that's all. Like there are murderers in this world and more compassionate souls. I think I have understood what you were saying.

best regards Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 23:31:49 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God - to Judex
Message:
Yes Mirabai I respect what you are saying. I am just interested in devloping this discussion tho maybe it has now right out of steam. Because for example, it is fine and okay to describe the feeling of god inside or onesness with god as all-inclusive, non-egoic and a 'surrendering' experience; yet another aspect of god is as the 'creator' which involves POWER. This is where the new age philiosophy used the concept of god within because they say ok and since you are god, you can create your life, etc.

I know this doens't really interest you but just remember that this awesome powerful non-defined thing called god is more than just good feelings within isnt it- it's the power that created the world we know. So how do we use the power given to us to live? Then other questions arise beyond where you are going in your previous statement. We can't just spend all day inside. So what do you do the rest of the time, for example? And then responsibility enters in.

Regards, she who has a mysterious name
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 19:33:49 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: I am God.
Message:
To tell you the truth, I don't know why you would waste precious time thinking about something so......unimportant (note that I did NOT used the words 'meaningless' or 'stupid.')

Go out and live your life and see what happens. Approach living with a little confidence mixed with humility. Don't worry about whether you are having the right experience or not. When you have it, you will know. Forget about teachers, masters and gurus. They just slow you down and get you focused on stuff that makes you stagnate, and then you have to spend time getting rid of the nonsense they fill your head up with. This is my definite opinion. So, there.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 23:35:28 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: I am God.
Message:
This is my definite opinion. So, there.

JW You are so Practical. Are you a Realist or something?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 05:28:54 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: Golddiva@wire.net.au
To: Everyone
Subject: To Robyn. Anger & feelings
Message:
Dear Robyn,

I was just reading over some of your posts on anger and just wanted to add a few things. Did you ever see that movie with Michael Douglas in it where he asks for a breakfast meal but it is about 5 mins past the breakfast menu time and he gets out his gun and demands the meal?

I can relate to that kind of anger. I experienced some of that today. One can feel it welling up inside of you and the heart starts to beat faster and faster. Humans can be so damn provokative. Especially when we already have a storehouse of emotions tucked away from our childhood.

I also have anger towards my Father. I confronted him many years ago about things he'd done,but he denied them and I would not be at all surprised if he has forgotten what he did.

We as humans have so many different sides to our nature. I've struggled with the part of me that looks upon him compassionately and more from the part of me that is god like. Forgiving and beyond feeling anger and resentment. More pity. But there is the other side which is just purely subjective.

The spontaneous erruptions of anger need to come out in the way that they need to come out. Freedom to be we completely who we are.( without acting out in the world of course).

Freedom to feel completely what we feel to me is extremely important. How I see things is that fundamentally,deep down our nature, the source of who we are is something to be trusted and when we surrender to life, to ourselves and be who we are completely then I feel only good can come of it.

The layers of the onion is very relevant here. Many layers around the one source. Keep up being Roby, and you can do no wrong!! ( Well not too much anyway). Tears are really cleansing too in more ways than one.

Best Wishes Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 18:06:06 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: Mirabai
Subject: To Robyn. Anger & feelings
Message:
Dear Mirabai,
Thank you for that. Never saw that movie but that is to much anger for me and I would have a hard time watching that, never mind feeling anger that strongly. I guess I have on very few occassions , not violent though and it has been empowering to stand up for myself, at job 1 or my children in the past, just to see I 'had it in me!'.
You talk about seeing your dad from that divine side and having a feeling of pity. I feel something similar sometimes when I can see/imagine his hurt inner child so to speak. He was the child who went above and beyond to please his parents and they always favored his younger brother more and he never came to terms with that I'm sure. We lived in a real, don't ask, don't tell home.
Thank you for your encouragement, dear, and I know you know you are in my heart as you work through things in your life. I am gald we can help each other.
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 18:41:47 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: The Movie
Message:
Robyn and Mirabai:

I think the name of the movie was 'Falling Down.' It was very disturbing, and Michael Douglas was nominated for the academy award. Don't recall whether he got it though.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:55:18 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Robyn
Subject: To Robyn. Anger & feelings
Message:
Dear Robyn,

perhaps I should have expressed what the movie evoked in me better. It wasn't the pulling out of the gun I could relate to,it was the sense of frustration at society having to do things in a certain way and how fixed that can be at times.

The way that the world is structured can sometimes be most provocative. Actually I think michael Douglas was probably more like 1 or 2 minutes late for the breakfast menu just to get the point across. The Mc Donalds guy was so mechanical and doing his job so 'nicely' with a smile. He was doing what he was taught to do. Just the robotic way that society works is often very two dimensional.

I don't have a problem with that generally, just sometimes a situation will be just a real frustration.

Take care
Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 05:17:58 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Personally I need to understand how to handle this stuff better. I see the interactions between people in this Forum 'family' like the dysfunctional family recently discussed here. We are all partly here to recover from the unhealthy 'cult family' we have all been in as far as I can see. I can also see that some of us have a different perspective, eg some have suffered more than others, perhaps in the earlier more full-bloodedly 'cultish' version of the family.

Still, I think communally the discussion is healing and I want to keep that healing going. Shame also can be the result of things being kept hidden. Shame according to Bradshaw can be like a 'hot potato' in a family, it keeps getting passed around.

Is this because it is a dynamic that has to be kept being propogated because it is somehow integral to the functionality of the whole group? In other words, are we all shame-based?

In our family, I think premies are often 'shamed' and it seems to be 'fair game'. Not just one person does it. I have recently done it to Keith, attacked him that is, and it has made me think about it. Someone mentioned that in a family when one person stops doing stuff like bullying, often another will take their place.

I am interested in learning more, not in proving right and wrong. I like Scott's comments about the Guru Papers and welcome more information. Personally I want to be free of the space I was in with Knowledge and Maharaji. It's very simple. I'm not afraid to examine myself. I'm not afraid to shut up either.

If this topic is too 'hot', fine. I made it a new thread because some stuff went down here recently that was probably too personal. Maybe it is better to keep looking at the group dynamics. But I for one, get offended by premies being attacked as stupid, brainless or whatever. It is the same bullying tactics that Maharaji has been described as using, the same authoritarian attitude.

How can we be free of it here. Maybe not? I guess it is part of the deal, as is warned of in the information pages. Should I accept and allow others' anger? - I just wish it wasn't directed at victims of Maharaji, like we were before we 'saw the light'.

Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 07:49:22 (EST)
From: premieJi
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Dear Judex,

You said,
But I for one, get offended by premies being attacked as stupid, brainless or whatever. It is the same bullying tactics that Maharaji has been described as using, the same authoritarian attitude.

As one of the premies who gets attacked for just about anything I say here, I thank you for these words. It shows to me that you are still able to show others respect, regardless of their views.

As you are trying to be an independent thinker, which I believe I am despite the image painted here of premies all being mindless morons, why not pursue this train of thoughts some more.

Here are some more things to think about.

1) Why is it basically the expremies who do all this abusing ,frothing at the mouth stuff, just because a premie talks about their own, genuine experience?

2)Why do expremies have to pretend to be premies but premies don't feel the need to impersonate expremies?

3)How come expremies can make up stories 'for a joke', but premies are abused like hell for even the slightest error.

4) how come only premies get blocked from posting. Bruce is still
blocked for daring to suggest that his new thread posts were being blocked.

5) Count up the regular posters here and see how long they have been posting and how often. You will find its many times a day, almost every day, for months, even years.

6) Look up a few histories to find out how long its been since the main 'experts' here have actually been anywhere near M.
You'll find its on average about 15 years.

Then think about all these things and ask yourself;

Do these people have something I want? Do they really know what M. is on about? Is this more of a cult than the premie thing? Just who is indoctrinating who?

Happy thinking,
premieJi
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 10:16:25 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: premieJi
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Dear Premie Ji -
I am one of those people who tries not to slam premies regardless of what they say. In fact, I don't mind premies coming on here and telling their own experiences. I do think that they WILL get slammed, if not by me or Judex, by someone else. I don't think all premies are 'mindless morons', but there are those who post on here that do, and premies who post on here will have to be able to contend with these folks.

What I DON'T like, is when a premie relates his or her experience AND laces it liberally with criticism of ex-premies, such as you did above. I believe that the primary purpose of this forum is to be a support group for ex-premies who are trying to heal themselves after having been involved with Maharaji. You and others may disagree with this, and may feel that the primary purpose of the forum is to be a place where premies and ex-premies can debate the merits of Maharaji.

You posed some questions to Judex:
1) Why is it basically the expremies who do all this abusing ,frothing at the mouth stuff, just because a premie talks about their own, genuine experience?

I have to answer this one by saying that there is frothing at the mouth on both sides. Maybe you don't froth, but other premies definitely have when ex-premies have talked about 'their own genuine experience.'

2)Why do expremies have to pretend to be premies but premies don't feel the need to impersonate expremies?

Don't know. Maybe because all ex-premies were premies at one time, whereas the reverse is not true. Some premies HAVE come on here in the past and impersonated people who were 'on the edge', and decided to go back to Maharaji. I'm not in favor of impersonations of anyone unless they are clearly a joke.

3)How come expremies can make up stories 'for a joke', but premies are abused like hell for even the slightest error.

I don't like it when people make up stories 'for a joke' whether they are ex-premies or premies. By the way, ex-premies HAVE been criticized for this. Also, I don't think premies are abused 'like hell' for slight errors, although I have seen premies get abused for twisting the facts, because this is something that is particularly irritating to most ex-premies.

4) how come only premies get blocked from posting. Bruce is still blocked for daring to suggest that his new thread posts were being blocked.

I can't answer this one, as it was the webmaster's decision. I do think that the notion that someone could be blocked from JUST starting new threads is a little far-fetched. I guess it could be done, but I doubt if Brian has the time to do the extensive programming that it would take. Brian said once that ex-premies have the right to post here, while premies have the privilege of posting here, so maybe that is why.

5) Count up the regular posters here and see how long they have been posting and how often. You will find its many times a day, almost every day, for months, even years.

6) Look up a few histories to find out how long its been since the main 'experts' here have actually been anywhere near M. You'll find its on average about 15 years.


I am guilty as charged on both points. I have been posting here for about a year and I left Maharaji's organization 20 years ago. I've said this many times before, but I'll repeat it here: I began posting on here because a premie friend of mine committed suicide. I think that if there had been a place where he could have gotten some support for his feelings about himself, he might NOT have killed himself. My primary reason for continuing to post on here is to give support to other ex-premies. Incidentally, I have come to care for many of the other posters on here (even a few who are premies!) and have gotten support from them for some other issues that I am working on in my life. Also, sometimes it's just a lot of fun to post on here too - us exes are not heavy ALL the time!

I hope that answers some of your questions (even though they were not directed to me).
Regards from Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 06:45:18 (EST)
From: premieJi
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: To Katie
Message:
Dear Katie,

Thanks for taking the time to answer (even though my post was not directed to you!)

I have to say though that I find it very strange that this business of premies suiciding is brought up quite a bit by expremies.

I have always been aware that M has been very pro life, and I remember him saying a very long time ago that about the worst thing that anyone could do was to take their own life or someone else's.

In my line of work I hear of a great deal of suicides, mostly young men. Absolutely nothing to do with M.

I would have thought that doubting K. and M. might well be more likely to send someone over the edge than believing in M. and practicing K. Certainly the way it is these days. Just a thought.

Ever thought of going along to see him and find out what its
actually like? I don't mean to be rude but you seem to be really out of touch, and if you read this stuff so much you couldn't really hope to have a balanced picture, not from where I stand anyway.

Regards,
premieJi
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 08:48:05 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: premieJi
Subject: To Katie
Message:
Hi Premie Ji -
I bring up the suicide of my friend (more than I want to) to explain why I post on here, even though I am, as you say, 'out of touch'. I still feel sad about his suicide, and I am still grieving because I know I'll never see him again. Thus I don't particularly enjoy bringing it up.

You may be pleased to know that I've been watching relatively new M videos to get some kind of idea of what he is like now. He really doesn't seem very different to me than he used to back in the seventies. He still, in my opinion, implies that if you don't have knowledge, or if you have knowledge and don't practice (OR don't experience it), you are ignorant, unenlightened, or worse. Also, there is a strong message that his way is the ONLY way.

I don't necessarily believe that reading the stuff on here keeps one out of touch. It's actually helped me get back in touch. There are some very recent exes (Judex is one, also Jean-Michel) and some current premies that post on here, and I have learned a lot from them.

I don't think that my friend committed suicide because he doubted M and K . I think (and of course I don't know this) that he committed suicide because he doubted himself. I think he felt guilty and worthless and that he wasn't good enough because he couldn't practice Knowledge as well as he should have. (I knew the guy very well at one point, but then we lost touch when I left Maharaji. This is why I make these conjectures, which could, of course, be totally wrong).

I can relate to this feeling of not being good enough for knowledge, because that is how I felt when I was a premie. I did try to practice Knowledge fairly diligently for five years, didn't experience very much in meditation, or through going to satsang and doing service, and absolutely hated programs (or festivals or events or whatever.) I felt horribly guilty all the time because I felt like there was something WRONG with me because I wasn't experiencing what other people were experiencing. It was a relief to stop practicing knowledge, even though I really believed that there was a good chance that I might go to hell (the rotten vegetable quote from Maharaji kept me practicing long after I wanted to.)

I post on here not to try to convince premies to leave Maharaji, but to offer support to people who might want to leave. Believe it or not, there are still people who believe that they might go to hell, or be punished, if they don't believe in Maharaji. There are also people who believe that M and K are the only true way, which really messes them up if they don't experience anything through practicing knowledge. I don't believe that Maharaji's way is the only true way - in fact I don't think the 'knowledge' is exclusive to Maharaji. I know this is heretical, but that's what I believe.

BTW, I should say that while supporting others, I've gotten quite a bit of support myself in other areas of my life. I appreciate the people on this forum very much.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Regards from Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:21:06 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: To Katie
Message:
Dear Katie, you've given wonderful support to others. I just want to say that is true. You are a good person to have around.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 19:35:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: premieJi
Subject: To Katie
Message:
I would have thought that doubting K. and M. might well be more likely to send someone over the edge than believing in M. and practicing K. Certainly the way it is these days. Just a thought.

Hey, premieji, that's a really good point.

With much respect,

Jim
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:17:59 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: premieJi
Subject: Dear Premieji
Message:
As you are trying to be an independent thinker, which I believe I am despite the image painted here of premies all being mindless morons, why not pursue this train of thoughts some more.

Nothing you or anyone says can change the basic fact that premies who post here have, without exception, been unable to maintain a rational discussion about Maharaji. Not a single one. That makes them look, indeed, like morons.

Now, if you're saying that you're a little different, that you ARE able to rationally discuss Maharaji, let me know and we can have a little chat. I'll promise to answer your questions fully and responsively, if you do the same. Come on, if you're such an 'independent thinker' let's see if you're willing to let your mind go where logic will lead it. If you don't, if you're afraid to do that, you can hardly call yourself unbound. Instead, just think of yourself as one with prior committments. Yeah, maybe you don't have brain damage but you certainly are afraid to let your own brain does its own thinking.

As for YOUR questions, I'll just say that they are ridiculous and I'll answer them separately.

So, what do you say, are you up for an actual discussion or not?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:27:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: premieJi
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
1) Why is it basically the expremies who do all this abusing ,frothing at the mouth stuff, just because a premie talks about their own, genuine experience?

Katie's right, both premies and ex's slag each other.

2)Why do expremies have to pretend to be premies but premies don't feel the need to impersonate expremies?

Expremies don't HAVE to pretend to be premies. When they do so, they're enjoying making fun of the premie mindset which, as former premies, they remember too well. They do it for fun. Premies are welcome to mock ex's and have indeed done so at times. These efforts are usually quite dull, by the way.

3)How come expremies can make up stories 'for a joke', but premies are abused like hell for even the slightest error.

Apples and oranges. If premies want to make up their own funny stories for whatever reason, no one's stopping them. Premies are never abused for 'slight' errors. Just glaringly mammoth ones. If you say othewise, give an example.

4) how come only premies get blocked from posting. Bruce is still
blocked for daring to suggest that his new thread posts were being blocked.


I imagine if any ex started falsely accusing Brian of blocking his or her posts, he or she would find themselves locked out too. It's just never happened, that's all. How would YOU deal with that situation if it were up to you?

5) Count up the regular posters here and see how long they have been posting and how often. You will find its many times a day, almost every day, for months, even years.

no response needed.

6) Look up a few histories to find out how long its been since the main 'experts' here have actually been anywhere near M.
You'll find its on average about 15 years.

Then think about all these things and ask yourself;

Do these people have something I want?


Yes.

Do they really know what M. is on about?

Yes.

Is this more of a cult than the premie thing?

No.

Just who is indoctrinating who?

Maharaji indoctrinated all of us at some point.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:22:43 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: premieJi
Subject: Way to go, PJ.
Message:
PJ:

It is entirely within type for you to take Judex's statement of objectivity as an opportunity to proselytize. Good going.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:36:11 (EST)
From: Stephen Harris
Email: mulcyber@pacbell.net
To: premieJi
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
I think that if I had already tried chocolate marshmallow
icecream and did not like it, that I would not be open
to someone telling me to try it again. I am close-minded
about various cults and that is exactly how I want it.

Your posting is like one person in a room wanting the
heat turned up and most of the rest want the air conditioner on.
Of course you will encounter opposition. I have thought of
myself as stupid for wasting time and money on cults. But it
more correct to say I was gullible and wanted a cosmic comforter.

People who have delusions of being Napolean consider their
experience genuine. People have different moods like at
basketball games. Picking a mood and calling it divine does
not make it so. It is not the feeling that I question but the
ability to correctly describe what the feeling actually means.

Nor do I think you are here to be open-minded. You are here to
convert. Maybe you are a sincere con artist. Better change
your tune, the marks have caught onto this swindle of yours.
I can't think of any reason why I should have any respect for
your opinions. There is a lot of anger surrounding ex-premies
and MJ and it is naive for you to think you are not going to
feel the brunt of it. Naive=gullible. Solution: Get real.

Why should I care about the opinion of somebody who bought
the same lemon car as I did? I got rid of the car. Now you
are trying to sell me the same lemon car.

Lemon Fudge Marshmellow,
Stephen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:31:25 (EST)
From: Peter
Email: None
To: Stephen Harris
Subject: lemon fudge marshmallow
Message:
Stephen,

I loved your post. You cut past the words of Premie Ji to the clear intentions. And you made me laugh. I especially loved your sign-off.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:41:56 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Peter
Subject: lemon fudge marshmallow
Message:
Yeah me too.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:38:33 (EST)
From: Stephen Harris
Email: mulcyber@pacbell.net
To: Judex
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
My particular way of looking at the desire for a guru or god
is 'searching for certainty'. I found myself doing this too
when reading recovery material. Someone who had all the answers.
What is your feeling about those people who knock on your door
and want to spend an hour converting you to their religion?
Regards,
Stephen
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:28:56 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: No way, Judex
Message:
Judex,

As you can imagine, I think you're really wrong here. That's right, 'wrong'. I think it's absolutely great to shame premies. It's wonderful. Probably the nicest thing anyone's ever done for them in a long time AND it's fun and cathartic to boot. I also think it would be absoltutle wonder fun to shame John Bradshaw if I ever had the chance. Shame him for feeding his flock a lot of meaningless cotton candy that -- surprise, surprise -- just makes the kids get sick in the backseat driving home from the new age fair.

You get my drift but there's one thing in particular I need to add. You say here:

But I for one, get offended by premies being attacked as stupid, brainless or whatever. It is the same bullying tactics that Maharaji has been described as using, the same authoritarian attitude.

and, to me in particular, you said below:

I should have said, you use bullying tactics at times. Authoritarian tactics.

Judex, please. This is nonsense. (That's why I got so pissed off last night. I got back from a gig with my band, was feeling good, had a few friends over, came in to the office to check the page and there you were, ragging on me. That's why I told you to 'fuck off'. This isn't an apology by the way. I would have said as much if you'd been here. It wasn't a loud 'fuck off', though, just one of those, 'ah, come on, get off it will ya'?' kind of 'fuck off's.)

I say it's nonsense because you're turning the notion of 'authoritarianism' on its head. Lest you forget, WE ex's are, in the premie world, disenfrachised little nothings, so irrelevant to the cult leader that he thinks he can just ignore us forever. We're nothings, taking a few pot shots at him for educational and entertainment purposes.

No one, including me, has worked up any deep-seated prejudice agaist premies. Anyone posting here from the start can tell you that even I have been nothing but polite to premies who have actually been fair and open here. Hey, I'm just that kind of person, I guess. On the other hand, premies come here sleepwalking and yes, they're gonna get shaken up a bit. That's a good thing. Too bad you're so confused about this because one thing I've personally enjoyed about your own contributions has been your ability to be quite caustic at times. I LIKED your post to Keith. He deserved it. It looked like he even learnt something from it. Your subsequent backpedalling was, I think, unfortunate.

You also accuse me, more generally of being a bully. With what? The truth? A few questions? Like it's so bad to hit premies over the head with the truth? Hey, if they didn't like it they wouldn't read or post here. They do both. You want to make a safe environment for people to 'share' their feelings about Maharaji whatever they might be? Fine, but you better keep me out.

See, Harlan tried that. His original premie page was offered as a place to discuss Maharaji. I was one of the first peopel to notice it and posted there asking a few questions about Maharaji. Nothing rude, not at all. Harlan got upset.

What was really funny, though, was when Mili got involved in the page. A couple of premies started squaring off on the question of whether Maharaji was God or not. Now, we're not talking tentative speculation. We're talking one said OF COURSE he is, how can anyone say otherwise? The other said OF COURSE he isn't, how can anyone say he is? It was pretty funny. Mili shut them both up. Why? Because he understood that even premies can't discuss Maharaji between themselves anymore! That's how funky this thing's gotten.

Finally, I wasn;t avoiding any points red heels made. I've addressed all these stupid premie 'points' ad nausem. I just chose to comment on red heels' word plays, that's all. If you think red heels made a good point I actually evaded, please let me know what it is and I'll address it specifically.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:30:53 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: Soory, that was me
Message:
Did I say a little groggy still?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:37:44 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: Very confused.
Message:
'From: Judex' 'To: Judex' 'Subject: No way, Judex.' I'm hoplessly confused. Who wrote this and to whom is it addressed? I need a good plate of spagh.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:22:16 (EST)
From: victim of Maharaji
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: victim of Love
Message:
please, Judex, if I my being a premie makes me Maharaji's 'victim' then I am only victim of Love. I wish to be victimized further, much further!!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:39:03 (EST)
From: Hit me, hit me!!
Email: hit_me@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: victim of Maharaji
Subject: victim of Love
Message:
Fine. Could you do it elsewhere please? - there's a discussion going on and ladies present.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 00:06:46 (EST)
From: Peter
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Judex--

You start by saying that you 'need to understand how to handle this stuff better' (cults, shame, & anger), then the rest of your message seems to be that you found your own and other people's anger unacceptable when expressed on the forum. And that you were RIGHT in finding it unacceptable.

Well, I agree that some expressions of anger are unacceptable behavior. But I think that some expressions of anger are very positive and productive. And my opinion is that accepting that anger can have a positive effect is the first critical step in 'understanding how to handle this stuff better.'

I don't mean to be pushy or a know-it-all. And I know it can be hard to face these things and sometimes there's only so fast you can go with them. I just want to encourage you to pursue an understanding and acceptance of anger. It has been very helpful for me to do so.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 06:56:41 (EST)
From: seymour
Email: seymour_t@rocketmail.com
To: Premie-ji
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Hello Premie-Ji.
I enjoyed the spirit of your post but, although I am very much the ex-premie, I feel that I do not fit into your stereotype of those who participate in this forum.
(1) I try not to indulge in frothing at the mouth or (2) pretending to be a premie. (3) I have never made up stories 'for a joke', (4) have never been blocked and (5) only post every few weeks - if that.
As far as being in touch with things as they are now rather than in the past - I admit that I 'dropped out' quite a few years ago but I still have a few friends who are very active and who fill me in on all the latest programmes/events, videos and general ethos, as they see it , within Elan Vital.
I do understand that you do not like being attacked for your postings and tend to agree with Judex that we should not be angry at our fellow Web/Forum contributors who are only expressing the views that most of us spent a large part of our lives also sharing with our 'brothers and sisters' or, more importantly, those who had not yet received the knowledge.
I do feel that it is reasonable to complain to the supplier of a product ( even if it is only advice) when the result is not what it was promised to be. The view of life that was and still is put forward by GM and premies is that the knowledge is a tool with which we can solve the really important problems of life;
a way to realise our potential as human beings( some even say to reach the 'divine'), to get wise to the true meaning of life and, after showing us what it is, to give us the strength to 'do the right thing'; an end to heartbreak and loneliness; an exciting journey on the road to 'bliss' which is our rightful state.
GM is the 'perfect master' - the 'satguru' or one true teacher who can lead us to the higher level on consciousness .... I could write pages on these promises and hopes but the problem is, for many of us, none of it worked. Despite giving it our best shot( donating all our money, moving into ashrams, meditating for 2 or more hours a day, attending satsang every night, telling everyone we could about it, not chit-chatting, trying to always remember the 'Holy name'......another endless list!) for a large portion of our lives( some of over 20 years) we felt no better for it - yet every time we questioned why we felt like manic depressives( blissed out for a day, and 'freaked out' for a week) and were having difficulty understanding what the whole thing was a about we were told we were 'in our minds' and that there was nowhere else to go but deeper into satsang, service and meditation. Of course, having built our whole lives around the practice of knowledge, we really believed there was no alternative way of life so we carried on - even though we knew the product was not working for us. Eventually enough is enough and we got out, although all those years of feeling that you are are the one true path to enlightenment and that if you leave it not only are you the biggest fool but you have snubbed the Lord of Universe who has offered the ultimate gift. Also there was the fear that if you stopped practicing the knowledge it would be like having a ton of rotting vegetables inside you, that the connection with the Supreme being would be severed and could never be repaired and countless other scare stories that sure did put the 'fear of god' into us.
So, although I sympathise with your post, I hope you can understand why some of the ex-premies are a tad bitter and tend to take out their anger on anyone who defends that which caused, as many us now feel, a large portion of to be wasted by being encouraged to chase a 'pipe dream' and then having to take up where we left off before hearing about the path of 'knowledge'.
I hope this won't put you off posting to the forum.
Cheers
Seymour.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 07:09:10 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: seymour & premies
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Thanks seymour. Personally if I hadn't found this Forum just as my accumulated concerns and intuitions were building up to a glaringly conscious level I probably would have been a very sick person.

Doubt is very destructive when you are told not to trust it. Yet another word for doubt is 'internal warning mechanism'. To doubt and question is healthy and is our right.

To stay in agreement with the beliefs Maharaji teaches means to block out your own individuality, your own feelings, your own knowledge.

Try listening to yourself for a change, and read what others have to say here - that's the best advice I could give anyone about knowledge.

Perhaps if premies read the information pages and treated this Forum with a little respect they would be better treated by everyone here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 20:56:48 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Hi Judex,

yes, I can understand why it would be very provocative that most premies don't really listen to what people have to say here.

I have to admit that I find it hard to relate to a lot of what people say here because many were involved in the years that I wasn't. After being involved in this site for some time I still am somewhat perplexed by the way ex-premies feel. I remain open and realize that I cannot really put myself in these other shoes.

I don't feel that I belong with premies or non premies because I don't have a fixed stance. But I do know that I appreciate openness of mind and heart. Perhaps that is one thing that keeps bringing me back here.

My involvement with M has been pretty simple and essentially straightforward. Practising K has been my main priority and I've understood that I've needed to go through major therapeutic processes to go deeper and find a more peaceful contented state of being.

Perhaps M has made people believe that just practising K would take them to that wonderful place within without making it clear that there is a lot of other 'stuff' we need to go through as well.

Personally for me I have an inherent feeling that there is something truly beautiful within to aspire towards but I do not underestimate how difficult it can be to maintain that kind of experience. I don't doubt that experience. To evolve is not something that I see comes easily or quickly in this earthly existence.

Healing,sharing and living through our inner turmoil is something that M has seemed to completely ignore and ignoring our human need to go through such radical stuff gives the message that if we are going through such stuff, then we must be failing in some way. Not practising enough or not listening to him correctly.

To my way of thinking it seems that to evolve our conciousness can be a pretty harrowing experience. It has been for me and it looks that way for others. One of the major faults that M seems to have is to ignore that and almost make fun of such people who are having difficulties. I did hear a video recently where he suggests that such people need therapy in a somewhat condecending tone.

I agree with sayings that suggest that nothing great is ever achieved easily or quickly. Practising K has been very beneficial to me and I have changed enormously in the past 13 years or so that I've been practising. But there is still a long way to go. Qualities such as trust and surrender I do see as essential to major change and contentment. Trust in oneself and life itself is what I'm talking about.

best regards Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:49:50 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Mirabai
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Thankyou Mirabai.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 10:28:46 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Peter
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Peter:

Well, I agree that some expressions of anger are unacceptable behavior. But I think that some expressions of anger are very positive and productive. And my opinion is that accepting that anger can have a positive effect is the first critical step in 'understanding how to handle this stuff better.'

That's fine Peter, but I just can't seem to come up with a reliable formula that allows me to tell the difference until after the fact (sometimes with a pretty long lag). I mean, some things are unambiguous but most lie in that gray area. How conservative are you willing to be, and is it possible that the negative effects of expressing anger might outweigh the benefits in many of those cases? Have you a suggestion about what to do in the gray area?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 17:43:29 (EST)
From: Peter
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Here's the reliable formula:

Is this situation really what I'm angry about?
Yes = acceptable anger
No = unacceptable anger

Now I admit that it can be difficult to apply this formula and get the right answer. Probably takes some practice. I'm sure there are many people who would answer yes when that was not true (to justify their subsequent behavior). And some that would answer no when that was not true (an excuse to avoid their anger). And the true answer is much more found in the subconscious than the conscious, so it can be easy to fool yourself and believe the untrue but convenient answer. So here's some other questions to help get to the truth:

Was this person's behavior acceptable?

Is the anger that I feel in proportion to how unacceptable their behavior was?

Am I angry with this person for something else that they've done?

Am I angry at a different person (than the one I'm currently expressing anger toward)?

Do I feel safe expressing anger toward this person? (a warning sign of transferred anger)

I'll concede that there are situations where the anger passes the above acceptability test but it would show good sense not to express it openly. Mainly when the target of the anger is either unusually vulnerable or unusually powerful.

In the gray area you can probably go either way and it's okay. I can't say that I've been doing this for very long, but it has worked well for me so far. I don't think I've screwed one up real bad either way.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:24:28 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Peter
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Peter:

Do you find that your anger has usually dissipated by the time you've finished the questionnaire?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 02:40:19 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Scott
I am worried about gushing now. Let me check my plumbing. No, all is well.
Okay. What I want to ask you is, how do you deal with anger when you feel it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 15:34:44 (EST)
From: Peter
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: anger questionnaire
Message:
Do you find that your anger has usually dissipated by the time you've finished the questionnaire?

The main questionnaire is only eight words long. A yes-or-no question. I find that I can usually complete it well before the anger has dissipated. Practice has helped. I'm better at it now than I used to be.

The trickier part is having the answer be true. That is what the rest of the questions are for. These are probably best completed once you're no longer angry to provide feedback for whether you behaved appropriately or not.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:55:33 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Peter
Subject: cults, shame & anger
Message:
Peter I printed this post out - thanks -
One question - could you clarify:

Do I feel safe expressing anger toward this person? (a warning sign of transferred anger)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:03:54 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: Transferred anger
Message:
Hi Judex -
No doubt Peter will have something to say about this, but I wanted to add my two cents here.

In my experience, feeling safe about getting angry at a person means that that person will get a lot more of your anger than they necessarily deserve. For example, in my family, my dad raged and screamed a lot. My mom didn't feel safe getting angry at him, so she got angry at me instead. I became a surrogate for her to express anger, because even if I screamed back (as a child), she could handle it.

I think children and animals tend to get a lot of this transferred anger because they are safe. Part of this is because they are physically small, and part of this is because they can't hurt you as much emotionally if they get angry back at you.

Here's another example from my family. My brother is very angry at me for some incidents that happened when I used to have to take care of him when my mom was drinking. I would say he was about 4 or 5 and I was about 13 or 14. I didn't physically abuse him, but did some things that he felt violated his boundaries (for example I wrote his name on the wall in pencil to get him in trouble. The other stuff was about of this magnitude). We went to therapy together and worked and worked on these things, and he just could NOT give up his anger. He finally admitted that he needed to be angry at me. I think he is really angry at my mother, who drank almost continually and neglected him considerably from the time he was a baby till he was a pre-adolescent, but he is afraid to express any 'big' anger towards her because she might drink again. I am a safe target, and I'm kind of resigned to this. At least it keeps him sane (I hope).

I hope this helps you understand more.

Take care, Judex.
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:42:42 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: Transferred anger
Message:
An addendum:

Feeling safe about getting mad at people doesn't necessarily mean that your anger is NOT valid.

For example: I feel relatively safe getting angry at my husband because I know he loves me. Sometimes I get mad at him when I am really mad about another situation where I don't feel safe expressing anger (invalid). But sometimes I get angry at him when I am really mad about something that HE said or did (valid).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 09:51:06 (EST)
From: judex
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Transferred anger
Message:
thanks - it was just the term. In pyschiatry transference is like when you fall in love with your therapist (or want to kill them?)
Completely different meaning, same word. I think.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 21:54:39 (EST)
From: jaycee
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
I need to learn more about this organization and how it
functions. How it can trap so many intellegent people.
I met a beautiful Spanish woman who has been involved for
about 13 years, and I need to understand her thinking.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:17:27 (EST)
From: Not doing your work
Email: None
To: jaycee
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
Try reading the rest of this website.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:18:26 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: jaycee
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
>I need to learn more about this organization and how it
functions. How it can trap so many intellegent people.

Many intelligent people benefit from the perspective and emphasis on the inner experience that M speaks about.
You can always go and check it out first hand for yourself.
You might be in for a suprise.

I am biased. I just attended a large program in London.

Regards,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:23:02 (EST)
From: NDYW
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
yeah go and join the cult like this moron CD suggests. Then you too can be a brainless idiot.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:53:19 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: NDYW
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
>yeah go and join the cult like this moron CD suggests. Then you too can be a brainless idiot.

Foolish words seem to give you pleasure NDYW.
You must consider music and art a waste of time.
Just not practical enough for a dull life.
For you there is no meaning if you can not analyze.
An inner feeling of peace and gratitude are foreign to your daily toil.
The greatest pleasures and mysteries of this existence defy the boundaries of logic.
They exist without explanation and we are here to enjoy if we so wish.

I found out about M hitchhiking out of London over 25 years ago.
I don't regret the adventure as it continues to this day.
My brain is actually quite good.

Cheers,
CD
Some Books for Perspective
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:38:50 (EST)
From: NDYW
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: puky drivel
Message:
Foolish words seem to give you pleasure NDYW.
You must consider music and art a waste of time.
Just not practical enough for a dull life.
For you there is no meaning if you can not analyze.
An inner feeling of peace and gratitude are foreign to your daily toil.


What is this? My fucking horoscope?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 01:03:55 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: NDYW
Subject: bile in the mirror
Message:
>What is this? My fucking horoscope?

Its only your reflection!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:00:59 (EST)
From: Are you for real?
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
CD,

i just went and checked your website out. how come u dont mention
your lord and master? your SQL server three day training course
is more important than the lord of the universe? you even have a
link to mili's page. come on bud, dont you think a small tribute
to the man you have been worshipping for the last 25 years would
be in order?

just wondering,
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:16:51 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Are you for real?
Subject: do you have a name
Message:
>come on bud, dont you think a small tribute to the man you have been worshipping for the last 25 years would be in order?
>just wondering,

Finding Maharaji Information

My computer consulting work gives me a bit of money so I can help support the programs and buy music and videos to share.

A tribute is useless if people don't understand what you are giving thanks for.

Regards,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:40:20 (EST)
From: just passing through
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: info is certainly well hidden
Message:
CD,

you do have some info there. well hidden. can you reach
it from your homepage, or is it only for 'secret' access?

don't you want to share your own testimony?

how the awesomeness of the lord of the universe has given
you such incredible peace and contentment for 25 years!
no small prose in his honour?

is this the best you can do? just posting a couple of marketing
driven phone numbers?

maharaji is going down, isn't he?

programs are being cancelled left and right. seattle, denver, ...
the boat is sinking, isn't it?

tell me my friend, what would you do if maharaji stopped touring,
for whatever reason? how would it affect your current life?

best wishes and regards to you as well
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 03:06:46 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: just passing through
Subject: info is certainly well hidden
Message:
>or is it only for 'secret' access?
Say Search Engines

>don't you want to share your own testimony?
>is this the best you can do? just posting a couple of marketing
driven phone numbers?

My role is not to sponsor a mob of people.
People who know me personaly know a bit about Maharaji.
I recommend that they take a look at one of his presentations.
It has been a very positive factor in my life.

>maharaji is going down, isn't he?

I don't think so.

>best wishes and regards to you as well

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

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:45:05 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: NDYW
Subject: Back off!
Message:
Indie Yaweh:

yeah go and join the cult like this moron CD suggests. Then you too can be a brainless idiot.

Geez, back off fellah. Chris is our friend. Only Jim has license to mistreat him like that, and only on rare occasions when he becomes especially insensitive. Are you trying to provoke Katie or something?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 23:12:49 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Hi Chris, I missed you
Message:
Many intelligent people benefit from the perspective and emphasis on the inner experience that M speaks about.
You can always go and check it out first hand for yourself.
You might be in for a suprise.


Always chilling to hear your voice, Chris. How've you been?

Did you get to kiss Maharaji's feet in London? Did you get close to him at all? Did you get to really let go in the river of love? Did you swoon? Did they play your favorite songs again? You know, the ones you've swayed to for years and years and years? Did Maharaji reassure you, once again, that you've always got a place in his parking lot?

Chris, you're an extremely intelligent person. I want to ask you something (I mean something else). I posted this old Q & A the other day where Maharaji said some pretty wonderful things. Explaining why we are supposed to be vegetarian, he explained that plants come from dead things like seeds, unlike cows that come from their mothers. He really got into it. Here's a bit, if you haven't already read it:

The root has a consciousness, but where does the consciousness actually lie? Because if you take a root itself, it's in a seed. You see, thee is a little explanation to that. If you are eating meat, you are eating out of a BEING. Right? Not from a dead.

Priceless, huh? A little before he's talking about that old Hindu lick/suck thing. Really, it's great.

Now, a less generous person might say, 'Ah, there is the perfect proof that this 17-year-old kid was a complete idiot. I mean, he was supposed to have been somewhat educated or something. What is this shit?'

Well, Chris, I'm just wondering what you make of this? Now, before you leap to respond, let me remind you of two salient facts:

1) Maharaji earnestly vouched for his idiotic exposition and put his integrity right on the line. Check it out, at one point he says, 'I know one thing. What you eat, so you become. I'm not telling you a lie. I speak from experience.' So you see, he's promising that this wisdom he's sharing is NOT just something he's picked up somewhere.

2) The subject matter is life itself. Consciousness, life, you know, the area he was supposed to know the most about.

Anyway, always eager to hear from you,

Jim
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:30:29 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: well OK - g
Message:
>Always chilling to hear your voice, Chris. How've you been?

I am sure you really meant 'thrilling to read your words'.
You probably just had a few shots of that good tequila.

Great trip!
I'll admit that I had quite a few beers and glasses of champagne in England.
Beware of that Carlsburg Special Brew.
I had some flashbacks to playing the guitar in the London tube stations.
And I remembered some of the generous people who put me up during the time I was pursuing Knowledge in England in 1972.

It is not hard to give 'proof' that M is an idiot.
You're an idiot too. A guitar playing lawyer.
How about trying to convince a canibal to be a vegetarian?
That would certainly be a waste of time.
The vegetarian debate is a hotly contested topic with a lot of ridicule thrown in.
Anyway, I happen to prefer the vegetarian way with good food.
I did try some pricy beef in Edinburgh and the trendy Mezzo in London.
M now publicly stays neutral on the topic of food.

Did M give some good talks at Wembley? Certainly.
The guy is consistently motivated and projects that.
Watch the video of the Sunday morning London talk to see what current tidbits popped up.

>2) The subject matter is life itself. Consciousness, life, you know, the area he was supposed to know the most about.

Each person needs to answer the question of their own existence for themselve to their full satisfaction.
Logic can provide perspective.
A direct simple experience of life itself provides clarity and satisfaction.
This is not the priority in todays society where happiness is thought to be a consequence.
Happiness exists as a fundamental part of the life force of each human being.
It needs to be rediscovered by each person.
All human beings have a great feeling in common.
Jim, I think that your priority is a search for the truth.

Great to be back,
CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:46:52 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: well OK - g
Message:
CD said The guy (maharaji)is consistently motivated and projects that.

Jeffrey Dahmer was consistently motivated and projected that. Try again, CD.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 01:20:52 (EST)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: good stuff
Message:
>Jeffrey Dahmer was consistently motivated and projected that. Try again, CD.

Yes I see.

M is consistently motivated to motivate people towards the natural good that exists within themselves from birth till death.
That is why some intelligent people benefit from listening to his presentations.
The good part is the default experience that exists below the layer of thoughts and ideas that we accumulate as we age.
People of all intelligence levels can enjoy and understand that experience of simplicity, peace and love.
People of all intelligence levels love to debate and argue about the theories of what it all means.
We are human beings after all.

CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 02:37:52 (EST)
From: What does the -g mean in
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: well OK - g?
Message:
Just curious.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:45:05 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: all
Subject: g?
Message:
I've also been curious about this. I think it means (grin), but I'm not sure, and I've known CD for a year, too!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:27:08 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: This is serious, CD
Message:
The vegetarian debate is a hotly contested topic with a lot of ridicule thrown in.
Anyway, I happen to prefer the vegetarian way with good food.
I did try some pricy beef in Edinburgh and the trendy Mezzo in London.
M now publicly stays neutral on the topic of food.


Chris,

If this is really how you think.... I mean, seriously, if this is the realy you talking, you need psychiatric care and you need it immediately. Chris, this is unintelligble. Your entire post is like my best-dreamed 'Chris' imitation. If this is REALLY you, Chris, I feel so sorry for you. Damn Maharaji, CD,for doing this to you. Honestly.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:31:11 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: CD
Subject: Chris, don't be such a coward
Message:
Chris,

This is ridiculous. I asked you a simple, EXTREMELY straightforward question. Do you have any idea what you look like sidestepping it so? You prove in spades the terrible mental trap of Maharaji's cult.

Now, care to try again?

How can you reconcile to yourself Maharaji's gross ignorance about life? Calling seeds 'dead' was dumb, amazingly dumb. Saying then that plants come from these dead things and are thus okay to eat, is stupid beyond comprehension. Add to that, Maharaji's boast that he was talking from his 'experience' and what do you have?

Come on, Chris, if you don't deal with this squarely, everyone here will be able to SAFELY assume, for once and for all, that you are either very fucked up or VERY fucked up.

Well?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 19:41:25 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Chris, don't be such a coward
Message:
With all due respect, Jim, why would Chris want to answer your question after you told him:

you need psychiatric care and you need it immediately. ?

Is this the statement of a guy who would take anything that Chris said seriously? So why should he answer? I wouldn't if I were him, and I wouldn't consider it a cowardly act, either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:48:46 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Okay, Katie, this q's for you
Message:
Is this the statement of a guy who would take anything that Chris said seriously? So why should he answer? I wouldn't if I were him, and I wouldn't consider it a cowardly act, either.

Your point, Katie, I think, is that I can't have it both ways. Either Chris is 'sick' and needs help or he's capable of 'smartening up' and talking like a human being.

Yes, I'm completely inconsistent here. I don't know how to approach Chris. But, since you've jumped in to his defense once again, let me ask you: do you think Chris is mentally ill? If so, will you tell him? If not, then how in the world can you say he's not being cowardly here?

Yes, I can't have it both ways. But neither can you, Katie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 00:38:44 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Okay, Katie, this q's for you
Message:
Jim, my point was NOT that you can't have it both ways. My point was that you can't insult someone one minute by saying that they are mentally ill, and then expect them to answer your question the next minute. I wouldn't answer your posts if you treated me like you treat Chris, and I'd advise Chris not to answer them either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 14:23:48 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: But Katie
Message:
Look, either Chris is brain-damaged, in which case he doesn't understand what's really going on here (What's your favorite beer, Chris?), OR he's intentionally bugging people -- yes, like me -- by pretending to misunderstand or simply ignoring almost everything said to him. If that's the case -- and you KNOW it is -- he's behaving like a COWARD or, perhaps, just a jerk.

Can you imagine sitting down for a discussion with Chris. Sorry, I mean a discussion about Maharaji. Tell me, what do you imagine?

What I imagine is Chris, with a big fat smile on his face, saying 'sorry, I don't really want to talk about him'. That's what would happen in real life. That's what happened with Gerry, isn't it? Fine, so they enjoyed each other in other respects. Great.

So why's it so different here? If he doesn't want to discuss Maharaji here, why does he keep pretending to? It's behaviour that no one could possibly tolerate in real life. I don't see what the fact that we're here makes it any more acceptable.

Well?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 19:19:28 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But Jim
Message:
Dear Jim,

This is the last post I am answering about Chris in this thread. I am not a mind reader. I'm just gonna give you my opinion.

You said:
Look, either Chris is brain-damaged, in which case he doesn't understand what's really going on here ..., OR he's intentionally bugging people -- yes, like me -- by pretending to misunderstand or simply ignoring almost everything said to him. If that's the case -- and you KNOW it is -- he's behaving like a COWARD or, perhaps, just a jerk.

Jim, I don't agree with either of your 'either/or' statements. It's obvious that Chris is not brain-damaged (at least not any more than the rest of us are!), and I don't think he's intentionally bugging people, except perhaps you. He might be intentionally bugging you, and in this case, I think you deserve it for giving him such a hard time. Only Chris knows this, so this is just a guess on my part. I don't think he's acting like a coward or a jerk.

By the way, there is no 'merit of content' rule on this site. You keep wanting to get rid of Chris because you say his posts lack significant content. Maybe that's not an exact quote, but you have said something like that. I don't agree on two counts - for one thing, I don't have as much of a problem understanding Chris's posts as you do, AND I don't think they are obnoxious. For another, who exactly is going to decide which posts have 'significant' content? You? As far as I am concerned, if Chris doesn't make violent threats, harrass people continually, or pretend to be someone else who posts here, he should post on the site. Furthermore, I'll support his right not to answer you until you start treating him like a human being.

Sorry, but that's how I feel. I really don't understand why Chris's posts bother you so much. Would they bother you so much if he was an ex-premie? I just don't get it.

Regards from Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 21:19:07 (EST)
From: Mirabai
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: But Jim
Message:
Dear Katie,

I should probably butt out here, but I feel to say that the way you're responding to Jim is great!! You're probably one of the few people here that Jim seems to take notice of when he is being justly criticized. You've been making such logical sense here.

best regards Mirabai
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 19:57:43 (EST)
From: premieJi
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie calls Jim
Message:
Dear Katie,

I'm pleased to see you calling Jim on his practice of abusing and demeaning premies and then expecting them to respect him by answering his questions.

Of course no-one with any self respect would bother to answer him.

That's why he hasn't got a hope in hell of ever getting M. to even
look his way, let alone talk to him or answer his questions!

Not unless he swallows a big humility pill.

Jim has dug his own hole and the more he rants and raves against M. the deeper he digs himself in.

Warm regards,
premieJi
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 21:01:37 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: premieJi
Subject: Katie calls Jim
Message:
Dear Premie Ji -
You wrote:
I'm pleased to see you calling Jim on his practice of abusing and demeaning premies and then expecting them to respect him by answering his questions.

Actually, I was 'calling' Jim because I felt that he was being abusive to CD (aka Chris). Some premies come onto the forum and are very abusive, insulting, and dismissive of the ex-premies here. While I don't personally like to insult people, I can understand why some of the ex-premies do insult these particular premies. I don't feel that CD's been abusive or insulting, thus I stick up for him.

You also wrote, regarding Jim:
Of course no-one with any self respect would bother to answer him.

That's a fine thing to say to me, considering I just answered him! (I'm kidding.) Seriously, I like and respect Jim, and that he does ask questions that are worth answering. I consider Jim to be my friend, although we disagree about many things. (I am not sure if he feels the same towards me right this minute, though!)

Premie-Ji, I appreciate the friendly intent of your message, but feel I should tell you that my intention was not to trash Jim, but to defend CD. Although Jim's and my styles are very different, he has really helped many of the exes who post on here (and possibly some of the premies as well!)

Regards
from Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 00:43:52 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Katie calls Jim
Message:
Well said Katie.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:31:26 (EST)
From: red heels
Email: None
To: jaycee
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
you say you need to understand her thinking, and you are looking here for it? why not go to a video event and listen for yourself and made your own decision? i seriously doubt she would condone most of the banter that flies around on this website.

if you're looking for trouble, get all your opinions from here and don't give her any credit for having a heart and mind of her own.
but if you really want to understand her, why not take a more direct and honest approach: both checking it out for yourself and asking her opinion rather than the opinions of those you have never met?

many women might feel betrayed somewhat that you should take such a (1) negative and (2) backdoor approach as to get your information from those who publicly proclaim to be against what she holds so very dear.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:57:43 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: red heels
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
red heels said many women might feel betrayed somewhat that you should take such a (1) negative and (2) backdoor approach as to get your information from those who publicly proclaim to be against what she holds so very dear

Men, on the other hand, are pleased when someone takes a negative and backdoor approach. One minor detail though, is that someone with intelligence might realize that Maharaji runs a cult and that accurate information would not be forthcoming.

Jaycee is smart to come here for information on BM because she will hear from people who are encouraged to use their minds to think for themselves and evaluate what BM is offerring.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:14:28 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: red heels
Subject: please, RH, please
Message:
but if you really want to understand her, why not take a more direct and honest approach: both checking it out for yourself and asking her opinion rather than the opinions of those you have never met?

Red Heels,

A really basic question: does 'checking it out' include asking questions? Of whom? Like, what if Jaycee wanted questions from someone IN the cult about some of the stuff printed here. Who could Jaycee ask?

Here's an example -- say Jaycee wanted to know the truth about how Maharaji became a guru. How could he (or she?) get to the botom of the conflict between what Mishler says, what Bal Bhagwan Ji says and the official Maharaji explanation?

Or say Jaycee was curious about some of Maharaji's earlier proclamations that he was the Supreme Lord in Human Form and Saviour of Mankind. Who could Jaycee turn to for answers? How would that work? Huh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 22:17:29 (EST)
From: red heels
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: please, RH, please
Message:
or, he could show some respect toward this woman he says is so beautiful and give her a chance to tell him her own feelings or views. it is simple respect. but i guess you can't comprehend that, being biased as you are.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 17:10:35 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: jaycee
Subject: need to learn more
Message:
JC:

More on this beautiful Spanish woman. Never mind what these guys are rattling on about...

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 18:12:06 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Just read on the AP newswire that Carlos Castenada died. Alright!! One less diabolical con artist off the face of the planet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 18:31:05 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
C'mon now Jim.

Don't tell me you never circled the earth as a crow. Shape shifting wasn't your thang, huh? But surely peyote, no?

The question on my mind is how in the world did you ever get sucked in by Maharaji?

Baffled,
eb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 18:42:58 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: eb
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
The question on my mind is how in the world did you ever get sucked in by Maharaji?

What do you think? I read Castenada, that's how.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 19:32:58 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Jim, as with everything else with Castenada, even the circumstances of his death are suspect. I read today that he actually died almost two months ago and it is just being reported now!

Frankly, I guess I was of the wrong mindset to read his books. I tried. Man, I tried. But they just drove me nuts, they were so inane and terribly written. I felt guilty about not finding 'so kuel and tubular' until I heard he just made all the stuff up while sitting in the UCLA library and it never really happened anyway. Now I'm glad I couldn't stomach the books.

JW
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:30:14 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Bravo, JW. I was unable to get into Castenada's books, either. I tried like hell. I certainly could've been cooler if I would've read his books. I never could get into 'The Hobbitt', either.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:40:14 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Rick,

I'm not sure what could have made you cooler but, if you're interested, it's never to late to try. I could tell you a bit about the Hobbit, if you like. You could run with that. You know, I ahven't been single for some time now but, if you're out there, so to speak, I think girls still love talking about Frodo and Bilbo and which do you go for, youth or wisdom. You know, like this shit is deep, man.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 21:01:12 (EST)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Indeed Jim, it's apparent you haven't been 'out there' for some time. Castenada is no longer a valid currency, even in New Age circles. If you want to get hip for the late nineties, I'm afraid I'm ahead of you, but as you were so willing to help me, I'll offer you a helping hand when you need it. There's a lot of new stuff to learn, and you're bound to have a bit of a rough time, because you're a JWA (Jew With An Attitude). Nowadays, it's about healing the father wound, getting to know your shadow, and workshops for middle-age white guys to bond while playing conga drums. It's too late for me to be cool now, but if I can grieve properly I might find acceptance from some similar has-beens of the opposite sex.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:52:01 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Well, I liked The Hobbitt, of course I read them when I was 14, so I was in a different mindset then. The Casteneda books were just stupid. And sorry, Katie, Journey to Ixtalan came out about 1975 and premies were reading it right and left, and, again, I tried, but after throwing the book against the wall a couple of times I stopped trying.

I just heard a report on the BBC that said that Castenda was born 'in either Peru or Bolivia,' and died 'at the age f either 66 or 72.' (I kid you not), at his home in Westwood, although he died two months ago and his death was being hidden, for some, unknown reason. I think this guy has been a liar all his life and should be further discredited for having started the 'new-age' movement with all the hooey, hooey that has caused. [eb, I never saw those terms until I saw you use them, but I think they fit.]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:30:21 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
JW, It doesn't bother me that you don't/didn't like Journey to Ixtlan. I am not recommending it to anyone as a spiritual book, by any means. I like science fiction and dark fantasy, so that's probably one of the reasons I liked that book. It is scary - in a horror story type of way which is enjoyable - to me. Actually 'Ixtlan' probably helped me get deprogrammed from Maharaji. I can definitely understand why you threw it against the wall, though (wish I'd been there.)

I never liked the Hobbit because my dad gave it to me when I was about 7, which was too young. By the time I ended up reading it again I was 15 and had already read the Lord of the Rings trilogy (which my dad ALSO had, so I never thought they were 'hippie books'), and the Hobbit seemed too young for me.

P.S. I just read a book on Earth First! and they called 'hooey hooey' woo woo. I am sure this is common knowledge to lots of people on here, but I'd never heard either term before. I kind of like them though (thanks eb).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:54:11 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: JW % All
Subject: Carlos:Power walk/run exp.
Message:
I also read the first 2 books books in '72 and '73. The only part I really remember is something I tried that seemed to really work!
He described a Power Walk or run that you could use on eneven ground in the dark. Basically you bend you knees deeply and run. I was moving to the country with a car full of stuff and encountered my friends locked gate to the long rocky driveway. It was pitch black, couldn't see my hand in front of my face. There were tall fir trees and thick woods on either side of the rough rocky driveway, so if I looked up I could barely see a slightly lighter sky so I could follow the drive by doing so. Then, I did the Power run all the way to her house. It was spooky and exhilerating and I managed not to fall in any ruts. Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 20:07:11 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Carol
Subject: Carlos:Power walk/run exp.
Message:
Carol:

It sounds like Groucho Marx. Did you also clasp your hands behind your back. Seriously, I remember that walk, and tried it myself on occasion. As I recall, it worked. Still think he got the idea from Groucho though.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 23:43:47 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Scott
Message:
It sounds like Groucho Marx.

Very funny, Scott. But really, isn't this just another example of your Marxist name-dropping?

:)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 18:09:25 (EST)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs
To: Rick
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Dear Rick and JW,
OK, I'm gona come clean here. I couldn't get into his books either. I did love the Hobbit though but not the Triligy. Jessica read the Hobbit and the Triligy while she was in the 3rd grade and loved them! What a smart kid!
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:39:48 (EST)
From: Mescalito
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
So let's start a self-help website for everyone who was coerced into reading Carlos Casteneda and were mentally and emotionally scarred for life as a result? Now that Don Juan's dead we can't hold his feet to the fire but surely the publisher has to bear some responsibility for creating those colorful and enticing covers that forced us to pick it up and read it. I tell you the bastards owe us... we've been abused!!! (now where did I misplace my lithium?)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 20:49:36 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mescalito
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Ah Mescalito,

You sound like a premie. Am I right? Well, dear nonexistant friend, here's something I know a bit about for a change. I helped a friend here in town publish a book called 'Carols Castenada: Academic Opportunism in the Psychedelic Sixties'. I just really gave him a few ideas and, at the eleventh hour, got them to change the cover. (Frankly, the book's terribly written. Oh well.)

Anyway, it's by an anthropologist named Jay Fykes who's quite dedicated to the respectful study of Huichol culture. He explains absolutely convincingly -- although a little less than elegantly -- how Carlos ripped off the Huichols for his fake Yaqui story(ies).

Then my friend Dave published the memoirs of Carlos' estranged wife who he booted out without a dime. Her memoire, now on sale, is a too-respectful remembrance of this capitalistic shape-shifter. Still Carlos actually sued her for invasion of privacy. A couple of years ago my friend took her and her son -- Carlos' son -- to a secret talk Carlos was giving in Santa Monica. Afterwards, the son, who grew up without any contact whatsoever, let alone support, from his immensely wealthy father, tried to approach him. The bitches that Carlos notoriously had guarding him tried to stop the kid. Carols, was pulling away in his car but he stopped and motioned for the boy to come over. He did and Carlos gave him a nice L.A. hug. He promised to call him and took off. Of course, the next thing was the lawsuit. And no, he never called. Well, whatever.

Fuck him, I say. He's a complete fraud and he took a whole generation for a ride just to make some money, get liad and have some fun. A good ride? Depends where you got off. I ended up with fatso. How about you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:27:30 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Jim:

I think I shared on the forum previously about my little trip to Oxnard to see Casteneda. Anyway, in '76 I putted up there on my Lambretta and only got to talk to the housekeeper (or perhaps it was his wife). There was also a little boy in the house, who I saw from the front door. The house was not exceptional at all. Simply your conventional 'devo' in suburban Southern California. Not even as nice as the house I grew up in. They must have thought I was nuts. I was quite taken with the books, and even got angry with the Providence, RI library in 1974 when I found out that they were classified as 'fiction.' My god! Fiction! I really thought those librarians were about as clever as my parents.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 00:47:11 (EST)
From: eb
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Another One Bites the Dust
Message:
Good Evening. Thanks for your post, Jim. Puts things in a different perspective.

Somehow when I was a premie, I was able to accommodate the ideas put forth by Castenada, Ram Dass, Da Free John, Alan Watts, and Aldous Huxley, (to name a few), along with Guru Maharaj Ji and his Kabir slant.

Another teacher bites the dust. (I keep killing these buddhas on the road; it's a virtual bloodbath).

Castenada: Guess I wasn't really a mountain lion that time I went camping.
Ram Dass: No more dropping to read the centerfold of BE HERE NOW.
Da Free John: Never did like the guy, but figured he fit into the scheme somewhere.
Alan Watts: I love zen stories but I hate feeling insecure even though it might be wise.
Aldous Huxley: Deathbed acid sounds like fun but I have no connections.
Guru Maharaj Ji: Thanks to you wonderful exes, I'm free from the tyranny that enslaved my mind and emotions. And I don't have to go watch those horrible videos anymore.

Good night.
eb
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 03:43:09 (EST)
From: Judex
Email: None
To: Mescalito
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Read it in the country....age about 16....sitting under a tree....a big white bird crowed....white galah.....

am I still here? Must have all been a dream.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 21:57:40 (EST)
From: jaycee
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Who was Carlos Castenada?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:17:32 (EST)
From: Not doing your work
Email: None
To: jaycee
Subject: Good riddance
Message:
Try doing a web search.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 22:37:08 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: jaycee
Subject: Who was Carlos Castaneda
Message:
He was a guy who wrote a series of books which describe how he was apprenticed to a Yaqui Indian medicine man in Northern Mexico, and learned how to do all kinds of magic and sorcery. The books were real popular in the seventies. I read about four of them. (I really liked 'Journey to Ixtlan' - sorry guys! I think it's great even as fiction. His first book 'Teachings of Don Juan' was his doctoral thesis and was really boring, IMHO.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 09:36:05 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Who was Carlos Castaneda
Message:
Katie:

I'm just curious. Is the allegation that he did not even do the research for his thesis, and just made it up? That's a scream.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 10:18:07 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Who was Carlos Castaneda
Message:
I really don't know Scott. I heard it from Jim, who probably has the documentation. Wouldn't it be tempting, though? I bet I could make up a great Ph.D in my own field!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 10:25:02 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Who was Carlos Castaneda
Message:
Katie:

Wouldn't it be tempting, though? I bet I could make up a great Ph.D in my own field!

There is actually a type of 'what if' dissertation that does allow the researcher to make up their own data. That was even suggested to me by one person in my committee. (Thelma) However, it is not kosher to do it without specifying that you're doing it. And it is probably not valid to do it in anthropological field studies at all. I wonder what Geertz would say?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:22:08 (EST)
From: NDYW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Who was Carlos Castaneda
Message:
I wonder what Geertz would say?

Scott,

Nothing personal (well maybe it is) but the above quote, in my arrogant opinion, is a perfect example of intellectual snobbery. Who the hell is Geertz? Does anybody here know? I doubt it.
You just drop a name and go. Real impressive, but not very interesting or informative, bud.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:26:53 (EST)
From: NDYW
Email: None
To: Judex
Subject: Let me say it for you, Judex
Message:
''Oh Scott, I love it when you talk like that'' (gush,gush)

Quit picking on him you mean, bad NDYW!!!!!!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:49:56 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: NDYW
Subject: Let me say it for you, Judex
Message:
NDYW:

I don't think you are 'picking on me.' Your issues are precisely those that would be raised by a student, and I'm not unduly threatened, unless you are? You have a right to express these questions and issues. I may be making assumptions about people who tune in here that are invalid. It's easy to do. I've been in an environment where mentioning Geertz would automatically evoke recognition, so I may be a bit isolated. No problem. I do wish there was a spell-checker on this damned browser...

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:08:10 (EST)
From: NDYW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Let me say it for you, Judex
Message:
Thank you. You make me feel understood
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:58:57 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Let me say it for you, Judex
Message:
Scott, again, with all due respect, I do think you have a tendency in posting on the forum to drop names that are meaningless to most of the people reading your post, with no explanation of how they fit in to what you are saying.

In reality, I think it would be more effective to just say what the point is you want to make, even if someone else had the idea first. You could do this with or without the name. I don't think anyone will accuse you of plagiarism. As it is, I think some of the good points you are making get dropped because it's unclear what your point is, and I for one just move on, because unless I undertake a research project, I don't know why you are mentioning the name. Then it looks like you are performing name-dropping, when I'm sure that's not what you are intending. [At first, I thought you were doing it to be funny, but I realize you don't see it that way.]

By the way, I recognize at least some of the names you mention, but most of us were in academic settings decades ago and being middle aged, I feel like I have forgotten more than I ever knew to begin with. And I'm lucky to have the time to read and post on the forum at all. Doing research on your references is kind of out of the question.

Please don't take this as a criticism, Scott. You contribute a lot to the forum and I hope you continue.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:01:41 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: To Scott
Message:
Sorry, Scott, the post above should have been addressed to you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:47:02 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: To Scott
Message:
Joe:

Point taken about name dropping. It is a sort of shrothand, because the arguments these guys make are sometimes extrememly complicated. I figure if you're interested you'll follow up. I may just stop commenting, but after all a lot of people have been urging me to read the Guru Papers. They negrected to tell me that it was a burgeoning religion, of sorts. Next time, or perhaps this time when I finish the chore of reading the book, I'll post a review on Amazon.com.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 11:42:17 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: NDYW
Subject: Who was Carlos Castaneda
Message:
Bud:

I expect that Katie knows who Clifford Geertz (the father of modern anthropology and author of 'Thick Description') is. If not she would have asked me. This was a semi-private discussion that you were legitimately evesdropping on. Do you know how to run a bibliographic reference on the Internet? It takes all of two minutes. If not, go to the Library of Congress website. It isn't intellectual snobbery to expect you to do some work. I may be in error in thinking that many people are aware of this basic controversy in the social sciences launched by Geertz, but if you are not you should be. It will profoundly affect your life. You sound as though you are not willing to leave this to expersts, and I quite agree. But just how are you going to hold their feet to the fire if you're not willing to inform YOURSELF? I get a kick out of the fact that you expect me to give a full citation in the context of a semi-private conversation. I don't actually resent it, because you're probably a very good guy. But, you do have a very typical chip on your shoulder.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:05:58 (EST)
From: NDYW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Who was Carlos Castaneda
Message:
I don't expect a full citation, but a clue as to what the hell you mean when you drop all these names (which you do very frequently-at least you're consistent) would be appreciated. Not everybody here is a PhD or married to a PhD.

It's asking a little too much to go running to the LOC every time someone mentions a name nakedly. I will check out this Geertz, especially if it will profoundly affect my life. So thanks if so, but I'll be the judge of that.

Chip on my shoulder? Maybe, but more likely merely annoyed.

Semi-private conversation on this forum? Ludicrous!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:37:54 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: NDYW
Subject: Joining the party
Message:
NDYW:

Point taken about the name dropping. It is habitual, and was not intentional.

Semi-private conversation on this forum? Ludicrous!

Katie and I were in the midst of a conversation about Castaneda's thesis, or did you miss that? Of course you can listen in, and even join in. It's like a cocktail party. It's a bit impolite to come in and start throwing insults around, though. You even threw one at Judex, for reasons that completely escape me.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:03:03 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: To Scott and Katie
Message:
Scott,

I don't know all of the details, as the discrediting of Castaneda was written about some years ago, but the general allegation was that Cataneda made up his thesis, at least in the sense that he didn't go to Mexico and meet with someone named 'Don Juan.' If I remember right, neither he, nor anyone else, has been able to show that Don Juan actually existed, and some other records show that Cataneda was actually in LA when he claims to have been in Mexico meeting and doing peyote with Mr. Juan. Cataneda denied all of this, but, he was unable to show any evidence that any of what he wrote is actually true.

The conjecture was that he made up, to a large extent, his thesis, expecting that it would end up never being read by anyone,andd then when it got published, but he never expected it to be such a big seller. So, when he made lots of money, he wrote more books. But that also raised the level of scrutiny of the original story. He had weaved a tangled web and had to continue to lie, shuck and jive, to continue to carry it off. Anyway, that's the theory, which he always denied.

JW
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 13:12:04 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: To Scott and Katie
Message:
Joe:

Thanks for the clarification. It is probably true that he invented the whole thing. I wonder who his committee was? Actually, I may be able to check that on UMI. I'll bet they were just tickled by the controversy (NOT).

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 22:52:03 (EST)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Scott
Subject: Name dropping, Scott
Message:
Scott,

Don't feel badly. At least you are dropping names for the purpose of sharing ideas and giving people a reference to follow up on. You COULD be dropping names of celebrities like some OTHER people on here have done...

VP
Mentioning NO names-certainly not his own
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:06:14 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I am ignorant
Message:
Oops, Scott, I confess that I don't know who Geertz is, and I don't know anything about his theories! Maybe I should have asked you, but I usually let it slide when you make a reference to someone I don't know much about. My knowledge of the social sciences is abysmal. I was an art major for two years and then switched to soils. You can probably tell by that where all my humanities and social science credits went. I know lots about famous artists and 'hard' scientists, but that doesn't help much in these discussions.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:13:04 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott
Subject: P.S. to Scott
Message:
P.S. to Scott. I think you are assuming a level of general knowledge that is above that of most people on the site. This is an age of specialization, after all. (I just asked my Ph.D. husband and he doesn't know who Geertz is either).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:28:02 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Me too.
Message:
Katie:

I apologize for making assumptions that are apparently invalid. Chalk it up to my social isolation for the last five years. Geertz authored a famous article (and also book) entitled 'Thick Description.' He was mainly concerned with the implications of anthropological field research, and specifically with a form of research called 'participant observer,' which is what Castaneda supposedly did (a little heavy on the 'participant' part). His thesis was that you can't compare cultures to one another, and that the researcher brings in the biases of his own culture.

His perspective is 'particularistic' in the sense that he does not believe in any sort of universal standards that can be applied to judgments about cultures, or even to understanding them. All you can do, given that you are hamstrung by your own predjudices, is to describe a particular cultural practice in terms of it's implications througout the entire social network. This is what he means by 'thick description.' I agree with this to a certain extent, but think he takes it too far. We have to be able to compare cultures or we can't come to a valid decision about whether human sacrifice is somewhat suspect, for instance. We can't regard cultures as entirely ideosyncratic. Doing so leaves us with no purchase on understanding our own. Geertz's influence extends into other areas of social science, so his ideas ultimately have an impact on social policy.

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:37:48 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Me too.
Message:
Thanks, Scott. I apologize for letting you make those assumptions - I feel like I might have embarrassed you by revealing this on the forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 12:42:54 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Embarassment.
Message:
Katie:

If the stuff I've been talking about for the last few days has any validity at all, embarrassment is a social necessity. I'm not always going to be the one that's saddled with it, at least. Incidentally, why has no one commented on my perfectly excellent deconstruction of Gabby Hayes?

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 14:26:05 (EST)
From: Carol
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Gabby Hayes
Message:
No comment here because I only have name familiarity for GH. Don't know if I've seen him/her. I like to read about anthropology (and linguistics) BTW. I'll look up Geertz.
Carol
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 15:49:31 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Embarassment.
Message:
Scott,

Yes you WILL always be the one saddled with embarassment. You know that. Why fight it? Frankly, Scott, this HAS to be a good intervention for you. JW, Katie and I hired Indie Yaweh (NDYW) to break the ice. Now that that's done, can I hit you up for a contribution to pay this guy's fee. Hint -- it wasn't cheap.

Seriously, Scott, -- no, nothing serious.

Except this, back to Carlos -- the trip is Carlos got his doctorate for his second book, not his first. The younger, likely nehru-jacketed bucks on the faculty were so happy to take their ties off they trumpeted a 'new' approach to scholarship, one that did away with stifling proof and excessive rationality. If you guys really want to know more I can walk right over to my bookshelf BUT, please, it's in the other room. So only if you're really interested.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Jun 20, 1998 at 16:07:57 (EST)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Embarassment.
Message:
Jim:

The younger, likely nehru-jacketed bucks on the faculty were so happy to take their ties off they trumpeted a 'new' approach to scholarship, one that did away with stifling proof and excessive rationality.

This sounds familiar. Geertz began publishing in the 60s, but didn't become influential until the '70s with Myth, Symbol and Culture and Kinship in Bali. I think he would be extremely embarrassed by Castaneda because it calls into question his whole attack on objectivity in scholarship. Incidentally, students normally pay a handsome fee for the privilege of embarrassing the professor. Perhaps you were 'taken.'

-Scott
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Jun 21, 1998 at 13:37:36 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Embarassment.
Message:
Jim, I didn't realize that it was the second book that was the thesis,; I always assumed it was the first. That makes a lot more sense, come to think of it. Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index