Ex-Premie.Org |
Forum III Archive # 21 | |
From: Aug 4, 1998 |
To: Aug 18, 1998 |
Page: 2 Of: 5 |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 19:17:44 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Bill & Jim Subject: Consciousness Message: OFF TOPIC Click on your Back button now to return to the guru chat. ********************************************************* Hi Jim, you wrote or shouted: There's no way you're splitting without first answering Bill on Dawkins. Come on, man, you agreed that if I answered your stupid survey question (and yes, you can keep my 'data', if it means that much to you) you'd answer at least one stupid post of my choice. I'm asking for trouble here, and cleverer people than me have made a right pig's ear out of trying to discuss the tricky relationship between consciousness and matter, but - oh well - duty calls... Hi Bill, you posted the following: --dawkins mistakenly thought that intelligence sprang from matter, but since you cannot reduce intelligence and conciousness to matter, he is 100% wrong. Seems like you're itching for the cut and thrust of reasoned debate here. (Let's see if we get a few premies to join in - they just love talking about consciousness ad infinitum, so maybe they should try thinking about it, too, whilst they're about it.) First, I reckon you're completely wrong here, Bill. Just for the record, Dawkins has never discussed either intelligence or consciousness is his writings. Just once, in the endnotes of the Selfish Gene (reprint edition), he nods approval for the philosopher Daniel Dennett's theory of consciousness, and another by Nick Humphrey, but is pretty non-comittal in his support. Dennett tries to explain it all in terms of information processing - the sort of approach the artificial intelligence brigade at the Massachusets Institute of Technology take. People I admire more, such as neurochemist Steven Rose, have been very critical of this kind of thinking. But this is all just quibbling over the fine print, IMHO. What all these very distinguished people do agree on (along with probably 95% of all biologists) is that consciousness is very much a product of our biology - which ultimately comprises nothing more than matter, pure and simple. I would agree that you shouldn't regard consciousness as an intrinsic property of matter, though (as Mili once did on this forum - talking about semi-conscious rocks). Rather it is an 'emergent property' of complex biological systems, and of these alone. Even though nobody has yet explained very persuasively how this could come about, I would argue strongly that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Say we were to accept your argument that materialists are '100% wrong', then there are many phenomena that a non-material view of consciousness are incapable of explaining (unless you want to try...?) - especially when you realise that consciousness behaves more like a variable than a fixed attribute, varying between species, within species, and fluctuating as a result of strictly biological influences operating within very different time-frames. There seem to be four essential ingredients that determine whether or not consciousness will be present in an organism at any given moment. (1) The right evolution All the evidence suggests that creatures only show signs of possessing any kind of consciousness once they have acquired a highly-developed nervous system. For the kind of consciousness a human possesses, a large cerebral cortex appears crucial. Unlike in the case of many evolutionary debates, there is no shortage of evidence for the consciousness/neural complexity correlation, since many (most, in fact) living creatures haven't budged an inch in their structural complexity for hundreds of thousands of years. Those whose nervous sysems have acquired greater complexity show correspondingly greater conscious awareness of themeselves and their surroundings. (2) Adequate structural development No-one knows for sure at what point a baby becomes fully conscious, but an adult chimp probably has more in the way of consciousness than a new-born human. The acquisition of consciousness - and with it memory, language, and a concept of 'self' - happens in tandem with rapid development of the internal structuring of the brain. (3) The right brain processes Consciousness is cyclic; whether we like it or not, we can't stay awake all the time. In order to simply achieve and maintain a waking state, the brain must guzzle up vast quantities of proteins, representing a large proportion of the body's energy reserves. Physical brain damage can prevent consciousness happening, sometimes leaving people permanently in a coma. (4) The right chemistry I have been working in a drugs agency where the clients who stagger through the front door will - depending on their taste in illicit substances - demonstrate anything from speed-crazed hypermania to semi-comatose smack-head zombiedom, and all through the ingestion or injection of comparatively small quanities of psychoactive agent. How, if consciousness were independent of our biological selves, could a doctor's anaesthetic knock us out in five seconds flat - or at all? Consciousness doesn't just exist, it has to be created by all of these biological phenomena. The potential for consciousness is created first by our evolution. It must then be realised in the developing brain, then re-created every time we wake up (or sober up!) A few chemical changes here and there can have large effects of the quality and quantity of consciousness we experience. If we reject a biological basis for consciousness, we end up instead with those 'ghost in the machine' type arguments, where an independent conscious self somehow inhabits the body without being dependent upon it. I think just the four arguments I have made here support the view that consciousness is very much dependent on our biology. These, at least, are the main reasons I can't accept any mystical theories of consciousness, or of the soul. I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on this, Bill, and why you're 100% sure that the materialist view is wrong. Best wishes, Nigel There Jim, are we quits now? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 20:58:18 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Nigel Subject: Consciousness Message: Excuse me. The four requirements for consciousness being in a physical life form are pretty logical and I would not wish to argue against that. The possibility arises though, of consciousness existing outside of a physical life form. An analogy; a car has to have all the right ingedients and engineering in order to work and drive from A to B. Without those essensial ingredients such as an engine, a chassiss, wheels and a transmition system, the car would never leave point A. But did the power that propelled the car come from within the car itself? No, it came indirectly from the sun. Since energy can be present in many different forms and be transfered over vast distances in a state that is virtually invisible unless one actually blocks its path - then why not consciousness? But looking at energy again; the calories which you consume which keep you going have not suddenly appeared out of thin air. They were present billions of years ago long before this forum was started. Could not consciousness have the same attributes as energy? i.e. it cannot be created or destroyed. I would almost be willing to take the pure materialistic view of consciousness more seriously except for two reasons. The purely biological explaination for consciousness does not provide a satisfactory explaination for what consciousness is. There are still glaring question marks. ANd finally, the people who claim to have experienced consciosness OUTSIDE of their physical body do merit serious investigation and scientific research. Thankfully there are some doctors who are looking into this phenomenon and making carefully documented observations. I think this whole field needs to be looked at in a dispassionate and objective way. Unfortunately, people just choose one camp and sit in their trenches and fire off volleys of uncertain scientific 'evidence' to the opposing side. This gets us nowhere. You do acknowledge that there are two camps in this field? It's obvious which one you're in. I veer towards the opposing camp, yet in a sharply sceptical way. There is no certainty here, in the field of consciousness. Do you acknowledge that? Opinions aside, there is no definite conclusion reached about what consciousness is. I prefer to apprach this subject in a non dogmatic way and admit that we do not know the full facts. Serious investigation must continue in both camps and until such investigations reach a successful conclusion beyond all doubt, any argument on this subject is merely like children arguing over something they only pretend to understand. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 21:11:19 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Sir David Subject: No offence, David Message: I would almost be willing to take the pure materialistic view of consciousness more seriously except for two reasons. The purely biological explaination for consciousness does not provide a satisfactory explaination for what consciousness is. There are still glaring question marks. ANd finally, the people who claim to have experienced consciosness OUTSIDE of their physical body do merit serious investigation and scientific research. David, Evolutionary theory does not all click in at a common sense level and, unless you've actually read the stuff, I can't see how you can really know what you're fighting against. What have you read in the field? You say the biological explanation doesn't satisfy. With all due respect, how well-versed are you in it? Fair is fair, no? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 06:23:48 (EDT)
From: Sir D Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jim Subject: No offence, David Message: I am fully conversant with Darwin's theory of evolution which I wouldn't refute for one minute. I was only talking to Dorkins the other day, I kid you not, but that was Amanda Dorkins (model) and no relation. SInce the theory of evolution was formulated, the old creationist view of God making the world in seven days has gone out of the window. Now we know it took eight days. There is nothing I have seen in evolutionary theory which suggests that consciousness can only be attributed to matter. I had an operation an was unconscious throughout. But when a mechanic fixes my car he doesn't run the engine while he's servicing it. The latent power is still there though and as soon as the ignition key is turned, it springs to life. I put a different proposition; that consciousness, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed. There is abundant energy throughout the universe which we cannot see or detect without highly complex equipment. It is 'disembodied' energy and has no obvious physical form. Nobody would disagree with that. So why not apply the same perception to consciousness. i.e. that it appears in physical forms but can also be in an invisible (to us) form that is not physical. I don't feel that I have to read Dorkins. My own theories are just as valid and perhaps one day people will be saying, 'Have you read Simpkiss?' I don't assume that just because some guy's made a mint from publishing evolutionary theory that he knows any more than me about consciousness. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 09:39:27 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Sir D Subject: You're joking, right? Message: I am fully conversant with Darwin's theory of evolution which I wouldn't refute for one minute. David, I'm not sure what's serious and what isn't in your post. Is the above a joke? If not, how did you develop such expertise? If not from reading, how? No, you're just kidding around, right? There is nothing I have seen in evolutionary theory which suggests that consciousness can only be attributed to matter. Again, what indeed have you SEEN? I had an operation an was unconscious throughout. So? But when a mechanic fixes my car he doesn't run the engine while he's servicing it. The latent power is still there though and as soon as the ignition key is turned, it springs to life. What is this? Poetry? Really, I'm not sure where you're coming from here. I put a different proposition; that consciousness, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed. There is abundant energy throughout the universe which we cannot see or detect without highly complex equipment. It is 'disembodied' energy and has no obvious physical form. Nobody would disagree with that. So why not apply the same perception to consciousness. i.e. that it appears in physical forms but can also be in an invisible (to us) form that is not physical. I'm afraid this looks wonderfully naive in the face of all the stuff you're not interested in reading. Too bad for you, I guess. I thought you were interested in really trying to understand life. Here it looks as if you're more keen on just saying shit. I don't feel that I have to read Dorkins. My own theories are just as valid Yeah, I know. Of course it is. Dawkins only has the benefit of having dedicated years and years to studying a scientific body of knowledge. But what's that? You both can open your mouths. I guess that makes for an even playing field, right? Especially if you say so. and perhaps one day people will be saying, 'Have you read Simpkiss?' I don't assume that just because some guy's made a mint from publishing evolutionary theory that he knows any more than me about consciousness. You're behaving like an ignoramus. That's not how I've come to know you. Too bad. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 10:59:03 (EDT)
From: Sir Ignoramus Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Jim Subject: You're joking, right? Message: I do understand Darwin's theory of evolution and about natural selection and survival of the fittest. It is a brilliant explaination of how and why there are so many diverse life forms. Regarding my operation and car examples. What I meant was, if I drive my car into a garage the car has obviously got energy in it. When I turn the engine off and get it serviced, the energy is still there in the car. It hasn't gone away but is latent. During an operation when one is unconscious, I would say that the consciousness is still there. It hasn't gone away but is latent consciousness in the same way that a car has latent energy. I don't see that I am being an ignoramus to attempt to apply the laws of energy to consciousness. If nobody else is doing it, it doesn't mean that I shouldn't. For sure I accept that there's further to go. And I'm not demeaning Dorkins jst because I haven't read him but I prefer to follow my own method of inquiry and take it where it leads me. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 11:32:35 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Sir Ignoramus Subject: You're joking, right? Message: I do understand Darwin's theory of evolution and about natural selection and survival of the fittest. That's what you think. If you actually read some of the work in the field you'd realize how LITTLE you understand it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 00:33:16 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Sir Ignoramus Subject: Ignoramus Crayola isn't joking Message: Sir Ignoramus Crayola: RE: And I'm not demeaning Dorkins jst because I haven't read him but I prefer to follow my own method of inquiry and take it where it leads me. Now now, my good Crayola... let's not get carried away by failing to demean, where deminution is justified. The honorable Dorkins is only one guy, after all. Since when does the evolution of ideas depend on those of one man? Surely someone else must have challenging ideas, even if not in the same vein? Unless, of course, we are in process of honing in to one overarching idea, and it's a race to see who can have it first. Perhaps Hegel is not dead? -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 23:04:13 (EDT)
From: CD Email: None To: Sir David Subject: Consciousness Message: >Serious investigation must continue in both camps and until such investigations reach a successful conclusion beyond all doubt, any argument on this subject is merely like children arguing over something they only pretend to understand. A mans got to know his limits. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 09:42:20 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: CD Subject: Consciousness Message: A mans got to know his limits. Chris, Do you actually mean something you little worm? Were you raised in a fortune cookie factory? What ARE man's limits, Chris? Can you tell us what our technology will and won't we able to do a full thousand years from now? No, how about five? Idiot! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 03:32:42 (EDT)
From: CD Email: None To: Jim Subject: Con-scious-ness Message: >Do you actually mean something you little worm? Were you raised in a fortune cookie factory? What ARE man's limits, Chris? We have been blessed with a frustratingly wonderful infinity to explore and grow into. Consciousness is to really know! Your fortune is: to know forever to seek forever to know. Have fun, CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 15:56:39 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: None To: CD Subject: Weasel words Message: 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' Shakespear (arr. Dawkins) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 12:50:58 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Sir David Subject: Consciousness Message: Excuse me. The four requirements for consciousness being in a physical life form are pretty logical and I would not wish to argue against that. 'The possibility arises though, of consciousness existing outside of a physical life form.' An analogy; a car has to have all the right ingedients and engineering in order to work and drive from A to B. Without those essensial ingredients such as an engine, a chassiss, wheels and a transmition system, the car would never leave point A. But did the power that propelled the car come from within the car itself? No, it came indirectly from the sun True, but I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your analogy, David. We know for a fact that the sun exists. The sun also powers the biological systems that enable consciousness to take place. Are you saying there might be some other, as yet unknown, force responsible for consciousness that uses some other means of transmission? If this were the case, then why is consciousness apparently so limited by biological contingency? As to consciousness existing 'outside of a physical life form', well obviously I can't say it doesn't, but by the same token 'there may be an invisible snorg reading these words over your left shoulder' (copyright Skeptic FAQ). It all depends on the quality of the evidence you're prepared to accept. Since energy can be present in many different forms and be transfered over vast distances in a state that is virtually invisible unless one actually blocks its path - then why not consciousness? But looking at energy again; the calories which you consume which keep you going have not suddenly appeared out of thin air. They were present billions of years ago long before this forum was started. Could not consciousness have the same attributes as energy? i.e. it cannot be created or destroyed Again, we know for a fact that energy exists. We have no compelling evidence to suggest that consciousness has any independent existence outside of biological systems. You are calling in many unknowns here. ANd finally, the people who claim to have experienced consciousness OUTSIDE of their physical body do merit serious investigation and scientific research. Thankfully there are some doctors who are looking into this phenomenon and making carefully documented observations. I think this whole field needs to be looked at in a dispassionate and objective way. I agree completely David. But serious investigation and scientific research always has to be based upon reasonable starting assumptions. For me this means we should assume that nothing otherwordly is going on until such time as the evidence becomes compelling (I had an exchange of views with Keith over this a couple of months back, when I was posting about 'Occam's Razor' and the work of Charles Tart.) We must discount the simpler explanations first - or those that don't call in unknown mechanisms. Clearly the critical test for any serious investigation of OBE's etc, involves the retrieval of remote information that the person having the experience could not have otherwise known about. Have they done this yet? I know there have been a quite a few studies in the area already. Unfortunately, people just choose one camp and sit in their trenches and fire off volleys of uncertain scientific 'evidence' to the opposing side. This gets us nowhere. Is this how you see me? I hope not. Rather than choosing one camp or the other, it was a long, slow process in my case. Concepts such as 'higher consciousness' or 'universal consciousness' were things I fully accepted and took for granted for many years. And I was very reluctant to let go of such beliefs. Now they don't really mean anything to me at all. BTW: How would you define 'certain' scientific evidence? I don't claim any special expertise here, but I have spent more time than the average person (and much more than is good for me) delving into the history of parapsychological and psychic research, looking for solid evidence for the various anomalies people so willingly believe in. And really, I'm (genuinely) sorry to say, there are still as yet no replicable PK/PSI/etc. effects recorded - even after 100 years of looking. The evidence is all on one side only, as far as I can see, and we don't need any irrational bias to be persuaded of that. A great many parapsychologists start out as firm believers, then become reluctant skeptics after years of null results. This is what happened with Susan Blackmore whose eventual change of heart occurred through her own insistence on the kind of dispassionate objectivity you are referring to. You do acknowledge that there are two camps in this field? It's obvious which one you're in. I veer towards the opposing camp, yet in a sharply sceptical way. There is no certainty here, in the field of consciousness. Do you acknowledge that? Opinions aside, there is no definite conclusion reached about what consciousness is. There are a great many opinions, of course - but few strong arguments (in my opinion!) I did not try to explain consciousness - and it might have been more useful if Dennett had first written a book called Consciousness Defined rather than Consciousness Explained . Rather, I pointed out what seems obvious to me, that even if we can't say precisely what consciousness is, we can an least draw some pretty definite conclusions about the circumstances that allow it to happen. We need only look beyond those parameters when evidence presents that makes it necessary to do so. Otherwise we're in the territory of speculation, gut-feeling and wish-fulfilment. Serious investigation must continue in both camps and until such investigations reach a successful conclusion beyond all doubt, any argument on this subject is merely like children arguing over something they only pretend to understand. To my knowledge, only the skeptical camp is involved in serious investigation of psychic phenomena. To view both schools of thought as making equally useful contributions is to take the 'journalistic' approach to investigation: let everybody have an equal say and the truth will emerge in some kind of happy compromise. I don't see it working like this. Unless, of course, you are only referring specifically to consciousness here, in which case I am not aware of any serious investigations into consciousness that aren't centred wholly within neuroscience. Are you? - there are, however, hundreds of books that speak authoritatively about 'universal/God/Krishna' consciousness etc., - surely an area they can only be pretending to understand. I can see you don't share Bill's view that people with beliefs like mine are '100% wrong'. I'm glad of that, but I think absolutist statements like his should always be backed up by evidence or at least by persuasive argument - and I'm always more than willing to carefully consider any point of view, which is one reason I joined the MMT list. But let's just see the argument rather than the bald assertion. I least tried to present a plausible case to explain where I am coming from. If you feel that makes me like a kid 'arguing over something I only pretend to understand', so be it, but I don't see it like that, at all. I'm just doing my best, same as anyone else. The more these things are discussed, the better we'll all understand. All best, Nigel Gotta dash off now and see what CD has to say on this... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 13:33:36 (EDT)
From: Sir D Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Nigel Subject: Don't be disappointed Message: by CDs reply. I'm sure he'll let have more. There is a cardiac doctor in Exeter Hospital (I think) who has seen so many cases of supposed OBEs that he has set up an experinment where there is something written on the ceiling of the ward which cannot be seen from down below. If a patent were to go OBE and then report back and say what was near the ceiling then it would be an indication of consciousness existing out of the body. Myself, I have quizzed people who've claimed to have had OBEs and tried to acertain exactly what happened. Did they really have a view which couldn't have been achieved from their eyes? They say they did. They are emphatic that they did and most of these people I've quizzed are pretty level headed people. This is not evidence, I know. But it is an indication that something is happening beyond our current knowledge. One could say that they were hallucinating an OBE. The crux of the matter is if one of these OBE people can prove beyond all doubt that they've seen something which they couldn't possibly have seen if they were in their body. Even then, one could say it was a coincidental hallucination. But repeated instances would suggest something more than that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 04:03:19 (EDT)
From: CD Email: None To: Sir D Subject: Know Thyself Message: I always found the notion that WE are the ultimate conciousness experiment more interesting than chasing things like OBEs. In this regard I believe that M was/is on the right track. This guy had some good ideas So whats new? CD Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 07:06:45 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: CD Subject: Know Thyself Message: I think both are relevant. An OBE or NDE may teach us that there really is more to life than just what we have previously perceived. While that's fine, we're still here and have to deal with life now. Any enhancement of our present existence, through meditation, prayer or devotion will give us more right now. I think things such as OBEs etc are indicators. I think the value of prayer and devotion have not been emphasised enough by Maharaji. And I mean devotion to the people in our lives and prayer directly to God. For me, prayer is not a thing I do in some formal setting but it is an ongoing communication with God (most often one way, I admit) and sometimes an awarness that love is there. For this reason, I would not denegrate premies. They are trying to do the same thing only they are using Maharaji as a catalyst. That's fine until the catalyst starts to appear less than perfect and make suggestions which are impractical or unhelpful. Also since Maharaji doesn't and cannot know all the premies, there is a major flaw there. I prefer to go direct to the Boss Himself. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 12:46:38 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: CD Subject: But, Chris, Message: Maharaji makes fun of philosophy and philosophers...calls searching for philosophic answers, 'Bla bla bla...' See that video? Anyway, the guy drank Hemlock for cryin' out loud. (Just foolin'-I know why he did it.) Have a good one, VP Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 21:05:54 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Consciousness Message: There Jim, are we quits now? Thanks, Nige, you know I'm the kind of guy that gets so excited by the big picture I end up proseltyzing before I finish the book. That's me and evolutionary theory. Lord have mercy, I'm a dilletante. But after I asked you for some further thoughts I looked through the Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene again. The theory is so beautiful, detailed and sublime. I just like to follow it (even if my brain's a sieve). I'm confused, though, I thought Dawkins DOES deal with the issue of consciousness quite handily here and there. I know Dennet does and I'm also going to look further in a book Laurie has by Paul Churchland. Frankly, Laurie knows more about this shit than I do. But I AM struck by the beauty of evolutionary theory. There's so much to it. This morning I was reading in the Blind Watchmaker how Dawkins speculates replicators first began with cumulative selection in crystals, clay and other inanimate objects. I think if Bill actually read this stuff, or fully appreciated it, his jaw would drop. So are you taking off now? Not before you finish this discussion with Bill I hope? Thanks, Jim Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 18:26:01 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Consciousness Message: I think Dawkins has only mentioned consciousness in passing, probably (wisely) not wishing to tangle himself in areas that others might explain better, and which might detract from those things he explains very well indeed. I can't remember anything he's said specifically but I think he would regard it a bit like the structure of the eye - something that seems to defy all logic in the way it could develop by microscopic incremental developments, yet somehow manages to do so, anyway. It always cheers me immensely when people start talking of the 'beauty' of evolution and, as books go, The Blind Watchmaker is an absolute masterpiece that I would make a standard textbook for every high school - by law if necessary. Its arguments are elegant, often very funny, and (to my mind) irrefutable. The book itself is beautiful. One of the best ever. (And to think of those years I spent thinking Herman Hesse was the bee's knees.) I'll stick around till this thread fizzles out, but I'm meeting my post- grad supervisor next week to discuss what I'm suppose to be doing for the next four years. Truth is, I know f*** all about his area of psychology (hypnosis) and I need to somehow try and get some reading done before then. I really wish I paid attention in biology when I was at school, since the only areas of psychology that really interest me now are the neurophysiological ones, yet I'm not likely to get a chance to ever work in that kind of area and play with the brain scanners. Can't imagine I'll be away for long, judging by my precious attempts at forum abstention Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 13:33:39 (EDT)
From: sean Email: seanl@texas.net To: Nigel Subject: Consciousness Message: Well, I tried to stay silent, really did, but will pop up out of lurking mode long enough to ask a quick question :) >consciousness is very much a product of our biology - which >ultimately comprises nothing more than matter, pure and simple. >...Rather it is an 'emergent property' of complex biological >systems, and of these alone. Even though nobody has yet >explained very persuasively how this could come about... I just think that if you want the benefit of scientific credibility then you must pay the price, which is a rational description of at least the outlines of the the underlying processes, otherwise we can never be sure that the entire rich experience of conciousness totally depends on mundane physical causes. Partly depends, fine, you have demonstrated that, but totally depends requires more... Well, that was a comment, hehe, threw that in for free, my question was this: Are you going to go all the way and say that self awareness is just an illusion? Or have matter and biological systems given rise to something which transcends the physical components? Sean Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 20:05:00 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: sean Subject: Consciousness Message: I just think that if you want the benefit of scientific credibility then you must pay the price, which is a rational description of at least the outlines of the the underlying processes, otherwise we can never be sure that the entire rich experience of conciousness totally depends on mundane physical causes. I'm not looking for personal scientific credibility, and don't deserve any beyond the next person who happens to have read a few books and thinks a bit. But there are plenty of others who have earned it.. Steven Rose, expecially, has spent forty years studying the underlying processes you refer to. He outlines his approach very clearly in The Making of Memory - another classic of its kind. In it he describes his search for what he calls 'a Rosetta Stone' that will enable 'translations' to occur between chemical, physiological and mental events. (BTW to Jim: It's not as entertaining as Dawkins, but a very worthwhile read if you persevere) Also, Gerald Edelman, an immunologist, has a theory called 'Neural Darwinism' which too tries to get down to the process-level nitty-gritty of it all. Don't take my word for it. Read them. (Well read Rose, at least. Edelman is bloody heavy going!) I think with most worthwhile theories the question of necessity must be addressed before the question of sufficiency . Focus first on those ingredients that appear to be essential. Darwin's 'The Origin' inevitably fell way short of explaining natural selection's low-level processes since genetics and DNA were both as yet unknown. In this sense the theory was correct but insufficient. But the hypotheses he did include were those that appeared necessary to his explanation, and no others. Partly depends, fine, you have demonstrated that, but totally depends requires more.. 'Totally depends...' seems reasonable a working hypothesis to me unless you or anyone has compelling evidence for consciousness existing outside of biological systems. No more outrageous, in fact, than saying vision is an attribute found only in - and is therefore a product of - a biological system. Time to switch off the neural circuitry...(Yawn...!) See ya, Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 02:15:26 (EDT)
From: sean Email: seanl@texas.net To: Nigel Subject: Consciousness Message: Nigel, Those books might be heavy going for me! A compromise: I just ordered The Blind Watchmaker from Amazon.com. Maybe its just intellectual sloppiness, but I see no contradiction `in a God who allows life to evolve via natural selection, or even uses matter and biological systems to build conciousness. But I will draw the line at the soul. Materialists don't believe in it anyway, so they conveniently don't have to worry about finding a rational explanation for it :) Sean Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 10:44:25 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: sean Subject: Careful, Sean Message: Sean, I don't know what you're used to reading but my guess is that you'll find the Blind Watchmaker stimulating enough to warrant a bit of effort here or there. Really, there are a few sections where Dawkins elaborates on computer programming, probability theory, chemistry, a couple of fascinating examples of cumulative selection bearing incredible complexity in the long run, even our evolved capacity (and limiations, CD!) to consider 'the long run'. These are challenging only in the sense that he makes his point over several pages rather than sentences. But he has to. And like I say, it's worth it. I'm afraid your notion of the soul might not survive the education. Mind you, there's another way to challenge that idea and that's to trace its own cultural source back into antiquity. The more I understand that story, the quainter it sounds and the more difficult it is to take seriously. But evolutionary theory is more exciting because it explains what is, not just how fragile our spiritual traditions are. If you like, when you get the book and start reading it, stay in touch and we can discuss it along the way. I'm currently trying to find some time to read the Churchland guy I was talking about. And yes, Nigel, I'll get the Rose book as well. David, you don't know what you're missing. :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 11:09:12 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: My resistance to atheism Message: is waning. Here's the really tough part for me. Having had few, if any, ''Intimations of Immortality'' I can see the moment of death as a blinking out of consciousness into...what? I guess the answer is nothingness. How bleak, how hopeless. No light at the end of the tunnel. On the other hand, atheism provides the inspiration to live each day fully, to be aware, and experience as much as possible while alive. Another thing I'm wrestling with is the idea that there exists a ''higher consciousness.'' The references to it are myriad. I think we have all had the experience in varying degrees. It is seductive. And then there is bliss... Can anybody help me out here? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 11:17:39 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Gerry Subject: My resistance to atheism Message: Another thing I'm wrestling with is the idea that there exists a ''higher consciousness.'' The references to it are myriad. I think we have all had the experience in varying degrees. It is seductive. And then there is bliss... Gerry, The myriad references to higher consciousness don't trouble me. We've been caught by the 'illusion of design' for ages. Higher consciousness of some sort has been the logical explanation we'd impose on the mirage. Obviously, I don't agree that we've all experienced 'higher consciousness' in the sense that we usually mean. We might have experienced all sorts of neat brainthings but calling them that is clearer for me than using the term higher consciousness which traditionally means something outside the person. THAT, I don't accept. The bliss? Hey, if you talk yourself into a strong Jesus or Krishna trip, even without meditation of any kind, you can nudge yourself into 'bliss' of varying degrees. Maharaji taught us how to do that in the dark chambers of our minds, trained us to think we were meeting our creator there, that literally, every sound, light and and movement there were the creator's footprints. Who wouldn't get a little wet once in a while? But the point is Christians get it too, in some measure at least, walking into the Crystal Cathedral. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 18:36:09 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Gerry Subject: My resistance to atheism Message: I think I probably am an athiest. I mean, it's the title I feel most comfortable with. But it has been a long time coming. I think being an atheist makes it easier to be a humanist, and I guess that is really what I believe in. Otherwise all that god-stuff just gets in the way. The after-death fear of 'nothingness' I have, is just a carry-over from my catholic childhood, when I was taught the Catholic 'fear control' that if you don't tow the line now, you will be punished in the afterlife, and that if you do good now, sacrifice, and are selfless, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. Then I heard about Fatima. You might have heard that the Catholic church confirmed that the Virgin Mary appeared to some kids at Fatima, in Portugal in the early 1900s. Anyhow, during the time she was supposedly appearing to them, one of the kids died, a little girl who I think was about 8. They asked the product of the immaculate conception what happened to this girl, and she said she was in pergatory, and would be there burning and suffering until the end of the world. 'Great,' I thought, with my second-grade mind, when Sister Mary Hilda told us this. She was an 8-year-old girl and was going to burn for what might be thousands or millions of years. If that was true, what chance did I have? From then on, the atheist mode began kicking in, and I decided it was better to have nothingness rather than eternal damnation. Actually, peaceful nothingness sounds pretty nice to me. But I will miss my dog, who is the sweetest creature on the planet. I'll miss him a lot. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 20:16:58 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: .. To: JW Subject: Good Dog Nigel. Message: Joe, thanks for that. I have noticed you have tended to avoid talking about what you now believe, for reasons I fully understand in the context of what this forum is really all about - and I respect that. But it's funny how doubts we've had since childhood never really go away, but somehow get rationalised then come back to haunt us eventually. 'Out of the mouths of babes', as they say. I remember once in Sunday school, there was a Sunday school teacher going on and on about how how wonderful was God's creation on this beautiful sunny day with all the pretty flowers, etc. There was this kid (not me) who called out: 'So who made the weeds, then?' He was only about ten years old. Cool kid. He got a severe telling-off. Seemed a bit unfair at the time. Did you ever read John Lennon's poem Good Dog Nigel? (It's in either 'In His Own Write', or 'A Spaniard in the Works') From memory, possibly wrong in the detail: Arf, arf, he comes, A merry sight Our little hairy friend. Arf, arf, upon The lamp-post bright Arfing round the bend...' (Warning: the second verse isn't very nice. Read at your own risk) Goo boy! Fetch stick! Waggy tail and beg, Good dog Nigel Jump for joy, Cause we're putting you to sleep at three o' clock, Nigel. Sorry, (I don't really hate spotty dogs.) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 22:53:37 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Good Dog Nigel. Message: Geez, I never read that poem. Actually, I didn't even recall John Lennon wrote poems. I named my dog Nigel after a guy I knew at Exeter when I studied in Britain for a year. I retrospect, I think I was completely in love with the guy, and vise versa, but I didn't realize that at the time, and we were both too repressed even to admit the possibility. [I heard from someone about five years ago that Nigel moved to New York, became an actor, and had died of AIDS in the mid-80s. Very sad.] Actually, the temperment of my dalmatian reminded me of him. Also, you never meet anyone named Nigel in the states, so I thought it was safe to name him that and no one would be offended. And I know you aren't offended, so that's great. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 00:31:54 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: JW Subject: Good Dog Nigel. Message: Hey JW, I used to sign my (very bad) oil ''paintings'' Nigel Lee Miles, out of self protection I guess... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 17, 1998 at 15:38:26 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: JW Subject: To all of you! Message: I'm going to venture into this chat to say that I would be too goddamned depressed if I believed there was nothing after death! I very much want to believe that the universe is friendly and that somehow a consciousness made of love is holding it all together. That love is the 'ground being' of all that exists. It is in the space between the tiniest particles of matter. It is the means and the end. WHAT WE CAN IMAGINE CAN EXIST!I am a part of all that exists and one day or one moment I will be (and have been)conscious of it! Being conscious of life and love and giving myself to loving and helpful enterprise is all that matters to me! See, I can move right into a whole belief system just from my desire to be more that my physical self! And you know what? I get high just thinking about it! I definitely like feeling bliss or high or good and positive and hopeful better than the opposite! Love you guys! Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 02:43:09 (EDT)
From: A Email: None To: thidwick the bighearted Subject: Consciousness Message: When I was 25, I lived in a 'group house' and one of thefellows there was writing a college paper onAlbert Eiinstein. He shared a section of it with me, in which he had written about Einstein's reflections uponobserving the subatomic particles. I wish I had thequote; it expressed something like this: In observing the known physical universe, one sees a remarkable order: patterns, predictable structure & behavior of matter andenergy. Yet, at the subatomic level, that order suddenly,and inexplicably, becomes chaos. One cannot predict nor account for the movement of the particles; and it is almost as if the particles themselves have choice; almost as if they are playful. The implications are marvelous -- the subatomic particles are playful. And why not? Omnipresence? Coincidence? Serendipity? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 10:50:46 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: A Subject: Could be a Disney movie Message: The implications are marvelous -- the subatomic particles are playful. And why not? Omnipresence? Coincidence? Serendipity? I guess we could anthropomorphize anything including a few quirks or maybe even quarks. Could have a Grumpy, Sleepy, Dopey, etc. Why not? Dawkins never reaches below chemical theory but at that level he explains that there is a quality atoms have to pattern themselves after one another. You COULD project all sorts of conscious qualities onto that but you want to be careful to not paint happy faces on the nucleii without a little evidence. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 12:49:07 (EDT)
From: A Email: None To: Jim Subject: Could be a Disney movie Message: fabulous idea,that Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 13:15:28 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Jim Subject: Could be Quantum Physics? Message: Jim and A, Have you read the Dancing Wu Li Masters? The physics are a bit simplified, but it is a good jumping off point, especially if you are as good at math as I am (cough!) This from Amazon: A tear in the fabric of relativity An observation by Tom Dennen. Dancing Wu Li Masters mentions an observation that binary particles have a reciprocal spin. This spin observation sets up a very real contradiction to popular views of Relativity. The best conspiracy - if indeed it is - in my opinion is the 'universal' conspiracy that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Now, submolecular physics - in Wu Li - observes a certain property in the behavior of binary particles. The curious thing is that each binary particle has a spin peculiar to it but matching the spin of the other particle in the opposite direction. Now, if you separate binary particles, they retain their spin. And no matter how far apart you separate those two particles, if you alter the spin of one of them, the other's spin alters in a direct proportion to the alteration in the first's spin at exactly the same time - instantaneously! In other words, something (which is faster than the speed of light) causes a change over unlimited, or infinite, distances. Now what does that do to the Lorentz contraction theories? Let's keep one of our binary particles here and put the other one on a spaceship. We let the spaceship get far enough away to achieve speeds which apply to Relativity and alter the spin on our half of the binary particle. The spin on the particle in space will alter at the same time and, given that we can control both the duration and the speed of the alteration, we can communicate in binary code. So, with one computer here using one half of a binary particle and another computer out in relative space moving away from us with a huge relative doppler effect, we still have instantaneous communication. But, according to Lorentz, the people on board the ship are not aging relative to us while, relative to them, we are aging very fast indeed. So how would our messages read? Would we get a year's summation of their journey all at once and they get one letter an hour? Is there a tear in the fabric of Relativity or are we once again reduced to semantics and our friend Aquinas' Uncaused Cause? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 15:47:18 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Nigel Subject: Evolution - a guru speaks... Message: The following comes from 'The Science of Self-Realization' [I am not sure whether even Maharaj Ji talking about dead seeds was ever this funny:] In April 1973, during a long morning walk at Venice Beach, in Los Angeles, Srila Prabhupada [founder of the International Society for KRSNA Consciousness] turned to the subject of modern science and scientists. With philosophical rigour, profound common-sense, and disarming frankness, he exposed the narrow-mindedness and illogic behind the scientists' commonly accepted theories about the origin of life. Dr Singh: Of course, so much is being written about Darwin's theory. In any library there are hundreds of books on his theories. Srila Prabhupada: Do they accept or reject them? Dr Singh: Generally they accept him, but there are some who are very critical. Srila Prabhupada: Darwin speaks about the evolution of the species of life, but he has no real information about spiritual evolution. He knows nothing about the progress of the spirit soul from lower forms of life to higher forms. He claims that man has evolved from monkeys, but we can see that the monkey is not extinct. If the monkey is the immediate forefather of man, why is the monkey still existing? Dr Singh: Darwin says that the species are not created independently but are descended from another. Srila Prabhupada: If there is no question of independence, how can he abruptly begin with a certain species? He must explain how the original species came into existence. ... Dr Singh: Weren't all the varieties of animals existing from the beginning? Srila Prabhupada: Yes. Simultaneous creation is verified by the Bhagavad Gita. ... Mike Robinson [BBC interviewer]: Can you tell me what you believe - what the philosophy of the Hare Krsna movement is? Srila Prabhupada: Yes. Krsna Consciousness is not a question of belief; it is a science... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 16:25:57 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: mgdbach@ziplink.net To: Nigel Subject: Evolution - a guru speaks... Message: 'Srila Prabhupada: Yes. Krsna Consciousness is not a question of belief; it is a science... ' This reminds me of Yogananda's claims about the 'science' of self-realization and the scientific methods of Kriya Yoga. It was great eighteenth century science! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 19:14:00 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: lotuspower@aol.com To: Mickey & the Gang Subject: Canned Yogi... Message: What about the story of Yogananda's body remaining in state for days? Do you think they slipped him some BHT or just made it up? Any opinions? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 20:54:08 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Runamok Subject: Canned Yogi... Message: What about the story of Yogananda's body remaining in state for days? Maybe the flies knew something the rest of us didn't... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 21:38:24 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: lotuspower@aol.com To: Nigel Subject: Canned Yogi... Message: Here I am, in all my intellectual cynicism, trying to get into metaphysics on this forum and that's all you can say. It's moths that are attracted to light, anyway, Nige. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 23:27:03 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Canned Yogi... side tracked Message: Dear Runamok, This bring up a topic dear to my heart. In Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamozov, the Elder, Father Zossima was thought to be a saint. Alyosha, the hero, is innately good and plans to devote his life to God as a monk until Zossima dies and starts stinking which (according to dogma) indicates that he was not a saint. Just an ordinary man. This was the beginning of the end for Alyosha's innocent devotion. (I love that book; even named one of my kids after Alyosha (Alexey). I used to be a devotee of Alyosha, but as I get older, I am attracted to his brother Ivan, the intellectual atheist. Just wanted to chime in here. My guess is maybe they put Yogananda on ice. More likely: the revisionists are at it again. eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 04:25:01 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: lotuspower@aol.com To: eb Subject: Canned Yogi... side tracks Message: If all else fails, it could always be the name for a group. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 18:01:16 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: None To: All Subject: Fifth technique revealed Message: By way of a parting gift: The Fifth Technique Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 18:54:35 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Fifth technique revealed Message: Very nice, Nigel, but what about the vow you took at your Knowledge session not to reveal the techniques? I'm pretty sure that it covers even the fifth technique! But it is such a fine illustration of the Bliss BM gives himself by his grace. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 19:45:20 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Mickey the Pharisee Subject: Thanks, Nige Message: You know, this is one of the only visual lampoons I've ever seen of Maharaji. I think there was a cool illustration with the Penthouse article, if I recall. But, I tell you, this is cool. Cathartic. Enjoyable. Deserving. Thanks Nige. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 20:27:16 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Nigel Subject: Fifth technique revealed Message: Dear Nigel, To Funny!!!! So long dear, hope you'll be back! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 08:35:04 (EDT)
From: Becky Email: None To: Jim Subject: medina Message: Hi, Jim. I had recourse to my scant sources at home re: the massacre of Medina. I found some conflicting view points, omissions in some things (in Maxime Rodinson's account). This is what I found but I could be wrong: 1. Yathrib was first occupied by pagan Arabs. The Jews who arrived there 'had to fight the nomads to get a foothold there' (Thomas Kiernan 'The Arabs' p.108). 2. Yathrib contained a number of conflicting tribes. Mohammed was trusted to act as mediator between them. (p.120) 3. Mohammed tried to bring about a reconciliation between the new Muslims and the Jews. This reconciliation was rejected. 4. When the plutocratic Meccans closed in on Medina, the Qurayza 'counted among the citizens of Medina and were bound by solemn [oath] to help in defense of the city. But when the Confederate siege happened, they broke their oath and switched sides to join with the Medinans(the Quraysh). (Note 3701 to surah 33:26) If one reads about Arab culture at that time, to break an oath was a cardinal 'sin'. 5. Unfortunately for the Qurayza, the Medinans fled after their horses started to starve. The Qurayza then 'shut themselves up in their castles ... and sustained a siege for 25 days, after which they surrendered, STIPULATING THAT THEY WOULD ABIDE BY THE DECISION OF THEIR FATE AT THE HANDS OF SA'AD IBN MU'ADH, chief of the Aws tribe, with which they had been in alliance. (Note 3702) 6. Sa'ad applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament as follows: (Deut. XX 13-14) 'Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of a sword, but the women and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city... shalt thou take unto thyself'. (Note 3704) 7. The Quraysh who attacked the city of Medina tried to persuade the Banu Qurayza to attack the Muslims after massacring thier women and children (Maxime Rodinson p.210 Muhammad). However, once this fell through (details I haven't checked yet) the Qurayza, who retreated into their castles, suggested killing THEIR OWN WOMEN AND CHILDREN before attacking the Muslims. Jim, there is a point of contention as to who actually appointed Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh as arbiter. However, as you can see, the rules of war and honour were quite different from those of today, and the Muslims were supposedly forced into a war situation by at first the plutocratic Quraysh, because Mohammed was becoming a threat to their authority. No massacre is forgiveable. There is a point that Mohammed allowed the Jews to decide among themselves what was to become of them, and to apply their own law to themselves. This was a do or die situation, and as you can see, women and children sold into slavery (decision made by Sa'd ibn Mu'adh) was slightly less awful than women and children massacred by their own men. Tough times. I'm not sure if I am qualified to make a snap judgement. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 11:02:40 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Becky Subject: medina Message: Jim, there is a point of contention as to who actually appointed Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh as arbiter. Not according to the account below which I lifted from: Comprehensive Index to Koran 'A Jewish tribe living in Madinah. After Muhammad migrated to it following hostilities from the Meccans, many Madinans came to accept Islam. However, many of the Jews were not impressed with Muhammad and his message. The Qur'an revelations began to change in tone and nature, becoming hostile to the Jews and inciting the Muslims to fight infidels. Muhammad expelled two Jewish tribes Banu Qainuqa and Banu Alnadir from Madinah. Banu Qurayza, however, suffered a much worse fate. In the battle of the Ditch (AD 627), Banu Qurayza sided with the Meccans against the Muslims, which were victories. As a result, the 700 hundred male Jews were beheaded, while their children and women became slaves. The judgment was given by one stern Sad, and Muhammad commended him for his judgment: When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), 'Stand up for your leader.' Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. 'These people are ready to accept your judgment.' Sad said, 'I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.' The Prophet then remarked, 'O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.' (Sahih Bukhari, book 4, no. 280)' yes, yes, probably a Christian site. But who else is going to bother with all this stuff but Muslims and proselytizing Christians (and proselytizing athesits, too, I guess)? According to the source However, as you can see, the rules of war and honour were quite different from those of today, and the Muslims were supposedly forced into a war situation by at first the plutocratic Quraysh, because Mohammed was becoming a threat to their authority. No massacre is forgiveable. There is a point that Mohammed allowed the Jews to decide among themselves what was to become of them, and to apply their own law to themselves. You've got to be kidding? Their options were what? Accpet him as the prophet or die? This was a do or die situation Oh come now. Maybe for the jews. Mohammed was just empire building. So he gets rebuffed at some point? Do or die? Hardly. and as you can see, women and children sold into slavery (decision made by Sa'd ibn Mu'adh) was slightly less awful than women and children massacred by their own men. I'm not clear on what you're getting from where. Like, where's this from? Tough times. I'm not sure if I am qualified to make a snap judgement. Well, you better be. After all, you're on the verge of, if you hven't already, worshipping this guy, SUBMITTING to his spiritual authority. How are you qualified to decide if that makes any sense if you're not qualified to judge him? I don't see how yesterday's culture or moral standards provide any excuse for a supposed prophet of God. I mean, if God's own moral conscience is growing along with man's, then who needs him? What you'd have at best is an obsolete prophet for an obsolete God and that would be absurd. We excuse Ben Franklin his slaves because of the times and the discount with cut past characters on account of our evolving morality. But can we do that with God? No way. I think the fact that all these supposed men of God fit so nicely into their own cultural mores is just excellent proof that that's all they were, men. Like Maharaji describing how plants come from dead seeds. It's profoundly significant in that it shows he jsut really didn't know what he was talking about. Similarly, if Mohammed thought slavery was okay, and executing your defeated enemies was okay, what, really, does this guy have to teach us? What really does his GOD have to teach us? Nada, as far as I can tell. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 11:19:46 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: medina Message: Becky, Here's yet another account, this time from: http://www.islamreview.com/index.html Yes, it's another Christian site. But tell me, do you think they're just making this stuff up? After the war of the trench, in which Mohammed was besieged by the Qurayshites, led by Abu Sofyan, it was alleged that the Jewish tribe Bani Qurayza agreed to provide help from within to Abu Sofyan's forces. Although the alleged help did not materialize and the siege eventually ended, neverthless, Mohammed never forgave them for their willingness to help his enemies. Muslims turned against Bani Qurayza and blocked their streets for twenty-five days. The Jewish tribe expressed readiness to accept surrender, to give up their belongings, and to depart from their homes. Mohammed, however, would not consent to this, and instead appointed as an arbiter, Saad iben Moaz, a man who was known to be on bad terms with Bani Qurayza. Saad ruled that all Bani Quaryza's men should be beheaded, that the women and children should be sold as slaves, and that all their property should be divided among the Muslims. Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Medina for disposal of the nine hundred Jewish bodies whom Mohammed had spent the previous night slaughtering. (See Ibn Hisham: The Prophet's Biography; vol. 2 pages 40 & 41). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 11:34:54 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Becky Subject: Some basic questions Message: Hi Becky, Glad to see you're back. What I would like to ask is where is all this leading? Why are you complicating your life with this stuff? Is this really necessary for your happiness and success in life? Things are complicated enough as they are. It's tough living in modern society. Lots of challenges in just making a living and having a family life. You sound like a very ethical and loving person. I don't think you need some medeival philosphy on which to base your life. I know we are all different. But not THAT different. Why get so involved in something that has at the very minimum, questionable origins and certainly reflects poorly on the world today. I just read about the embassy bombing in Africa, done in the name of religion, politics and cultural purity. These are surface differences that pull people apart and cause misery and suffering. Is this really where you want to place your energies? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 13:21:33 (EDT)
From: Becky Email: None To: Gerry Subject: Some basic questions Message: I don't know Gerry. I guess I have an enquiring mind. I am a curious person. Jim with regard to the massacre, I knew that Mohammed had fought in wars, but not the bit about massacre which does disturb me deeply. And yes, you can't excuse something just because it happened years ago. Otherwise we would be excusing slavery and such like. Absolutely I felt something incredibly powerful from Islam and from praying in mosques, and I have seen the positive side of Islam from Muslim friends. Its not all bad. But its not a good time to convert or to be a Muslim because everything is becoming extreme - something which the Qur'an warns AGAINST. Yes, Gerry. All this is incredibly complex, and a pain in the ass at times, but I suffer from compulsive curiosity. I don't know why. The reason I engaged in discussion with Jim is because I want to find things out. When I was thinking of converting, I had already made up my mind that I wouldn't until I had analysed my reasons for wanting to do so, and until I had found out more about Islam. As a consequence I have learned something from Jim, and can reassess my standpoint - although I'm less certain about anything than Jim is. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 13:44:26 (EDT)
From: x Email: None To: Becky Subject: Some basic questions Message: Becky, I've been following yours and Jims discussion about islam, mohammed,etc. I'm glad to hear you are reconsidering whether its a good thing to become involved in. I dont know much about it, but I know there is a lot of hatred and intolerance that go with it not to mention mysoginy and racism. I know life can seem more enjoyable when you have some spiritual answers to explain this random, chaotic world, but at what cost? logic, racial prejudice, torture and murder in the name of god? I'd rather live in the unknown than make a'leap of faith' to more dogma. Be glad you escaped bm's clutches, and stay away from anymore quick fixes or irrational answers to lifes problems, thats my advice for what its worth. with love, x Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 07:29:55 (EDT)
From: Becky Email: None To: x Subject: Some basic questions Message: Thanks for your words of concern. As I have said to Jim, it may take me years to assess the whole thing about Islam. Although here in the west we hear all the bad stuff about what bigoted and ignorant Muslims do, we very rarely actually learn what Islam is in spiritual terms, and we very rarely hear about what in incredible religion it is. The bigotry, racism and mysogyny does not come from Islam, it comes from people. If I could adopt islam in the purest and highest sense, I would, but unfortunately there is just so much shit made by non-believers and Muslims alike, that to take such a simple step becomes dogged by complications. Sad really. although Jim and I have been discussing accounts of what happened with Mohammed during wartime, I still cannot deny that there are astounding and wonderful things in Islam. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 10:02:01 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Becky Subject: Know what you sound like? Message: The bigotry, racism and mysogyny does not come from Islam, it comes from people. Becky, You must know what this sounds like, don't you? Isn't this exactly how people tried to defend communism for years? Die-hard idealists, enamoured with the faith, rationalized every real-world bit of evidence that communism sucked with the same, increasingly wan apology that real communism wasn't like anything practised in the world. Yeah, right. (I say 'tried' but of course there are still some unrepentant believers who even today try to argue as such. In the face of just a ton of evidence....) Or how about Americans, stuck in the tragedy of their Constitutional Second Amendment, arguing against all common sense that 'guns don't kill people, people do'. For all the worthwhile advances that might ahve occured in muslim countries in the past, particularly in contrast to some veins of repression that plagued the Christian world, the fact is that a LOT of bad shit has been done in the name of, and only BECAUSE OF islam. You could spend years trying to separate the good legacy fromthe bad but the truth is it's all there. I think it's completely fair to appreciate how people have developed and cultures thrived under the watch of various religions, giving them full credit for allowing them to foster as they did but let's not get carried away. For example, sure math, medicine and astronomy prospered more under islam than christianity in the middle ages. But math, medicine and astronomy aren't islam. Islam only deserves credit for not snuffing out these fledgling sciences. If the Bird Man of Alcatraz was able to make some serious contributions to ornithology during his lifetime (I don't know, I only saw the movie) does that mean that Alcatraz, for all its horrors, was at least good for the sciences? Hardly. That's how I see it. If the Aztecs developed impressively accurate calendars does that mean their bloodbath religion is somehow vindicated? No way, Jose! Religions have captured societies for thousands of years. It's time to move on. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 12:56:12 (EDT)
From: Becky Email: None To: Jim Subject: Agree to disagree Message: Jim, for me it just isn't so black and white as it is for you. Sorry. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 11:05:18 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Becky Subject: Agree to disagree Message: That's it? Okay. Fine. We'll drop it. But I'm glad we discussed it to the extent we did. I learnt something, it sounds like you did and, forgive me if I'm wrong, I don't think you'll be stumping for Mohammed here too much anymore. Anytime you want to discuss it all further, I'm game. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 08:31:01 (EDT)
From: Becky Email: None To: Jim Subject: never say never Message: Jim, your arguements were cited from a few possibly out of context extract from Hindu, Christian and atheist websites. I still have not come to any conclusion about Mohammed. Over the last couple of days I have found out more about Yathrib and some more info is in the pipe line. I just didn't post it here because I thought you were tired. yes I am glad we've discussed it. One can't go around in the world avoiding people who say things that we aren't sure about. I think some people think I'm a bit nuts to discuss things with you (or anyone else), but forums and discussions go way back thousands of years, and how can anyone learn anything otherwise? I'm game if you are. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 10:51:59 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Becky Subject: never say never Message: I think some people think I'm a bit nuts to discuss things with you (or anyone else), but forums and discussions go way back thousands of years, and how can anyone learn anything otherwise? I'm game if you are. Yes, of course, I wouldn't think of discussing things either if it weren't a thousands-year-old tradition. No, I'm just kidding. I know that's not what you meant. Becky, as I mentioned, I had the hardest time finding anything on the net detailing Mohammed's history that wasn't posted by someone with a religious agenda of some kind. Perhaps when the professors get back in their towers next month that will change. Meanwhile, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that certain core facts are true: 1) Mohammed overpowered the city of Medina with a bunch of jews in it. 2) He gave the men the option of accepting him as the prophet of God or dying. 3) He beheaded them -- anywhere from 600 to 900. 4) He ensalved the women and kids. I take note that the Lucifer Principle, a decidedly secular book, states as much as do a myriad of other sources. Even the muslim sources seem to concede as much although they try to put as favorable a twist as possible on the massacre. But, like I say, let's wait 'til the history departments are back in swing for further clarification. Oh yeah, in the meantime, though, I'd love to see whatever else you've found on the subject. Should we expect you around 8, 8:30? :) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 12:57:23 (EDT)
From: Becky Email: None To: Jim Subject: never say never Message: Invitation accepted. but since I'm on the way out the door at work, I'll post as soon as I can tomorrow. Plus this website has changed to purple which makes a problem reading. Can you tell me how to change the colour back again? thanks. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 12:58:20 (EDT)
From: Becky Email: None To: Becky Subject: colour normal again Message: trip over. colour normal Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 15:46:09 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: Becky Subject: Some basic questions Message: Becky: The bigotry, racism and mysogyny does not come from Islam, it comes from people. It's true that a great deal of what passes for Islam in the West is actually village superstition, but it has been a very very VERY traditional culture until quite recently. They have philosophers, like Ibn Kaldun, who rival those of the West. It seems a shame more is not known about some of that history and culture. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 23:39:37 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Everyone Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: My dear exes, I'm so happy you're here! After spending about 29 hours with my still-a-premie friend, I finally had to come clean with how I feel about Maharaji. She mentioned him frequently throughout the weekend, but just in passing. I listened and kept quiet, like when I visit my Mormon mom and grandmom. On the way home, she mentioned him one more time and I got upset. I told her I really feel strongly about what Maharaji has done in the past and what he continues to do. I was excited and shaking, and she remained calm and serene. Her responses to those things which make me angry (I didn't even know I was so angry until this evening) were typical: 1) Maharaji never told anyone to leave their husbands, wives, or children. 2) Maharaji no longer calls himself a guru. 3) It was the fucked-up premies, not Maharaji, who deserve the blame for how messed up everything was in the old days. 4) Without practising Knowledge, no one can have a connection with Maharaji (My response to this one was 'good'). 5) Maharaji doesn't ask anyone to surrender their lives to him anymore, just relax and enjoy the experience. She informed that there was a two-day intensive this weekend with Pardarthanand or Parlokanand and didn't the fact that she spent the weekend with me rather than with him prove how separate from Maharaji she is? She explained that she never really gave her life to Maharaji totally and doesn't practise daily. Somehow, though, she still manages to maintain her connection, to attend videos and programs, and to take new people to videos. Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I'm still really upset, and I'm thinking, Is it me? I mean, I think Maharaji is dangerous still. Even though he doesn't have his ashrams, his method of establishing and maintaining a dependency relationship exists. In a new age hooey hooey sense, I feel (and I told my friend) that I feel Maharaji actually limits a human beings' spiritual experience. Beyond that, he binds the individual and saps energy, psychic and otherwise. My friend wants to remain friends, agree to disagree, and just not talk about Maharaji. I've been doing just this for the past year-and-a half that I've considered myself an ex-premie, but I feel so strongly tonite that it's not simply an innocuous spiritual path, 4 techniques, no strings attached. There's a lot more that goes on with it. To me it goes as far as trapping the will and removing the ability to discern truth. My friend said that I needed to get beyond blaming Maharaji for my past problems. I told her I'm grateful that I've been freed from the lingering doubts that made it impossible for me to move on and get Maharaji out of my system. She implied, however, that the reason I was so emotional was that I was wrong. I was so un-centered! I'm really angry that this woman who left her husband and endured years of mental, as well as an incident of physical abuse, from premies, still continues to defend him. What's this about? Why should I care? I am really sad, upset, disturbed. Pissed off too! BTW, JW, Selena, Katie, thank you for your kind words. It was lovely in the mountains. Running Bear is considering packing up and hiking the John Muir trail with her goldern retriever, Roxanne. Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to comment on this. Love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:11:55 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: eb Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: eb, I have been wondering what was going to happen between you two. I had a funny feeling that something like this would happen, but wasn't sure. Ex-premie and premie spend enough time together and the subject is bound to come up. I don't think you are so angry because you are wrong. I think you are so angry because you can't stand hearing the points you numbered in your posts above come out of someone's mouth. It is one thing to read similar posts here. That is almost like a farce at times. But to hear it from a real live person in the flesh, someone you care about...it has to hurt. And make you angry. It is frustrating when you see a person drowning and they won't catch the life ring you have thrown to them... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:14:50 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: eb Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: Dear eb, Jesus, wasn't this supposed to be a relaxing weekend, mine was too, must have been the full moon! It is good that these unexpected feelings came out, I think, they are there, repressed or not and thank god something triggered them sooner rather than later. You are a wise woman and have LOTS of GOOD support. Use it and get throught this and feel that much stronger. Read David's (Sir) post, can't remember the name of it but it is fairly new and the beginning of a thread. Dear David, That was a very good post, very sad but eye opening. I haven't lurked there at all. I am not a good lurker, to vocal! We wonder how we could have been fooled but few or none of us can understand how people come to it today with so little if any personal contact, exchange, communtiy. SAD! Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:15:22 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: eb Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: Hi eb - I am sorry that that happened to you - what a drag! I haven't had any close premie friends in a long time, but, the words that your friend said to you remind me so much of stuff that I've gone through with my 'don't ask, don't tell family' that I got infuriated even reading it. There are people in my family who were abused by other family members but won't admit it. They make ME wrong for even bringing up the possibility that there might be a problem (I am 'too hyper-sensitive, or I 'always see the negative', or whatever). I often felt like I was losing my mind - I KNEW that the abuse had occurred - until finally another one of my siblings was able to see it also. Basically, I cannot 'agree to disagree' with my other sibling - we have a superficial (although genial) relationship, and we just don't talk about my parents. I am not sure what kind of relationship you want to have with your friend, but it seems like little else is possible. (Selene spoke about this the other day.) I hope we can act as your siblings in this case and assure you that YOU ARE NOT WRONG. Maharaji has been abusive to his devotees. I am sorry that your friend can't see that, but as a fellow veteran of an abusive family, you probably know how it is. The one who calls the abuse gets called crazy. You are not crazy - you're just telling the truth. I hope you can feel that this is true. I am sorry that your friend treated you that way, but that doesn't change anything. Love from your sis' Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 01:06:00 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: coopmtncarol@hotmail.com To: Katie Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: Greetings to eb, Katie, Robyn,Selena,and others I agree totally with Katie's message and I hope I can be included with those of you who offer support to one another. (I've been away a couple of days with company.) Many of us have such common histories that I know we really do constitute a support group within a support group. If anyone wants to talk over the phone, I am open to that, too. Take it easy!Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:26:22 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: eb Subject: Synchronicity! Message: Dear eb - just wanted to add that it looks like all your fellow 'siblings' are supporting you here, and quite sychroniously, I might add. (I also might add that M is still messing with people's heads, no matter what your friend says!) Love, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:54:18 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Katie Subject: Thank You All! Message: I am so amazed at how much emotion--anger, especially, I feel about this. It's as though a floodgate has been opened. Where would I be without your support here? My husband was never a premie, nor was he ever involved in a cult. He listens, but doesn't have the empathy I find here. I do care about my friend (obviously). We've been friends for 26 years. Together we've done kid raising, sweat-lodging, rebirthing, sufi dancing, body working, 12-step programming, and some of the most bizarre purification rituals, along with being poor single moms going to festivals as best we could for a long, long time. Maharaji has been at the core of our relationship no matter whether we spoke of him or not. The subject was bound to come up. I'm just so surprised at my rage. Oh well, she always talks about how important it is for her to speak her truth. I guess our truths just don't jibe. Things will never be the same. I have jury duty tomorrow, so I'll check back in here tomorrow night. Meanwhile, please know how much I appreciate all of you! More than I can express. Thank you, sibs! Can't wait for the party, VP. Love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:42:05 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: eb Subject: I don't see it Message: eb, I forgot to mention that I don't see you as blaming Maharaji for all of your past problems. I think your friend was wrong to say this. This is a common premie rationalization. You know the routine: 1) All exes are negative 2) This site is just negative 3) All exes didn't try hard enough in their devotion to the guru 4) All exes weren't sincere enough 5) All exes didn't practice enough 6) All exes blame Maharaji for everything 7) Premies are superior BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA, etc... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 01:10:29 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: VP Subject: I don't see it Message: Precisely, VP. I've never blamed Maharaji for how fucked up I was in the past, nor for the difficulties I have now. Perhaps if I hadn't been a premie, I would have worked out my childhood-in-a-dysfunctional-family issues sooner. But then again, I could blame my ex-husband (a premie who converted me) for taking advantage of a young, naive, hippie who lacked self esteem or direction. I suppose I could blame my family of origin who started the whole damn mess in the first place, but where does that get me? (Actually, I've done lot's of work in therapy and groups, dealt with lots of anger, learned to behave more appropriately in relationships). I think Maharaji is a shyster and a fraud. Buyer beware. The lessons I learned were not worth the price I paid, which could've been considerably more. Love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 01:16:57 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: eb Subject: That's not fair, eb Message: I think Maharaji is a shyster 'Shyster' means crooked lawyer. Look it up. eb, You are absolutely right and your frustration stems from dealing with an entirely unreasonable cult mentality. If your friend applied that same wack thinking to the rest of her life she'd be extremely nuts. Instead she applies it to the one area where you've extricated yourself from the foggy delusion. How in the world could anyone in your shoes have patience or dispassion? You're right, she's wrong. Your feelings are completely healthy and honest, hers aren't. Next? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 20:43:51 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: Jim Subject: I apologize Message: Dear Jim, You lawyers are way better than fraudulent gurus. (I'm on jury duty right now, and I have a whole new perspective on the American Justice system. But I can't talk about it yet). Thanks for the support, Jim! I believe you nailed it on the point about patience--mine is wearing thin. Love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Thurs, Aug 13, 1998 at 01:31:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T. Email: None To: eb Subject: Free-riding premies... great! Message: eb: Great to hear from you again. I haven't communicated with any premie friends in years, so don't really know what it feels like. Most people are bound to be duped by something, but I can appreciate your anger at the reaction of a friend. It sort of brings the injustice home. Anyway, I had this idea from something you said: I think Maharaji is a shyster and a fraud. Buyer beware. The lessons I learned were not worth the price I paid, which could've been considerably more. I'd like to propagate the notion of 'free ridership' in response to M, since your friend seems to feel that's the right response anyway. I think as many people as possible should attend programs and receive Knowledge, and should refuse to make any contributions whatever. In fact, I'd consider receiving Knowledge again if I could figure out a way to raise the cost for Maharaji. Heck, why not convince people to receive Knowledge five or six times? Eventually it would start to be so expensive that Knowledge propagation would go the way of the Ashrams. We've been thinking of Knowledge propagation as a revevue source, but we should instead start to support the idea that people should get Knowledge Lite, and just free-ride. Don't buy any videos of course, and like the Venezuelan Premies, refuse to pay for programs. Tell your freind to convince others. We may have something here. -Scott Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 06:42:52 (EDT)
From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: eb Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: I haven't been in a position where I had to confront my 'premie self' on a regular basis, and not speak up as you did. But I'm pretty sure that I'd get shaking-angry at him for his stupidity. Agreeing to disagree is just continuing to evade awkward questions by pretending that they're not there. Did that as a premie. I remember being confronted about Fakiranand's Maxwell Silverhammer impression and not being able to do much more than shrug it off and hope the target lived and the subject died. But I do recall a response to an article in Penthouse about the attack. The responder stated that the only reason Pat Daily even survived the attack was due to Maharaji's grace. Pat brought on the attack by hitting Maharaji with the pie, and Maharaji spared him because that's what Satgurus do. I liked the justification, and adopted it myself. All that was required was ignorance of the facts. I still went to Millennium. Much of the anger that you feel (whether you express it or not) toward your friend is anger at your own past rationalizations. She can continue to pick and choose which of Maharaji's teaching to hear and practice, while still pretending that she has some magical inner connection to him. Following a fraud requires that people be willing to practice blindness. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 13:37:07 (EDT)
From: Selene Email: None To: Brian Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: Brian, you wouldn't happen to have that Penthouse article would you? I was going to try to look for that but haven't gotten around to it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 13:40:16 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: eb Subject: I Came Out But I Freaked Out! Message: Hi eb, I hope you and your friend can 'agree to disagree' if that is what you want. This has not worked for me. The premies I know are just too obsessive and there is always this unspoken tension and wall up due to the fact that I didn't accept M because no matter what they say, they really do think his is more than a meditation teacher. but if it works for you that's fine. Sorry your weekend was like that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 17:21:17 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: eb Subject: Way to Go eb!!! Message: I know it's hard, but standing up and telling the truth as you know it is very liberating. And it IS infuriating to be dealt cult-think from someone who is your 'friend.' I guess you just have to think of her as having a disability. Maybe she can't help it. She has been rationalizing and lying to herself for so long that it's very hard to even see it, and your friendship might be about as strong as her belief in M. So, it's very confronting for her, and it strikes at the root of her premiehood. But, you know me, I can't help dissecting her little rationalizations/excuses, just a little bit. 1) Maharaji never told anyone to leave their husbands, wives, or children. Of course not, he just said dedicate 100% of your life to HIM. Your friend and all the rest of us could do the math. That leaves 0% for anything else, including husbands, wives and children. The fact that people like you and Selena hung in their and fought for your kids in spite of all that dedication pressure, says much more about you than it does M. 2) Maharaji no longer calls himself a guru. OOOOOooooo. Now THAT changes EVERYTHING! It's all fixed now. No problem. Yup. Hey, I've just started calling myslelf 'the best-looking, most talented and sexy guy in the world.' Think that will change things for me? 3) It was the fucked-up premies, not Maharaji, who deserve the blame for how messed up everything was in the old days. Bullshit. He was ultimately responsible. Sure, some premies were assholes and still are. So? Maharaji set up the cult and we hung on his every satsang and agya, reacting accordingly. When he demanded 100% total dedication over and over and over, it wasn't 'fucked up' premies who said that, the premies just repeated it, with the resulting effect of premies trashing their lives to go follow him. No way you can blame that on anyone else but Maharaji himself. 4) Without practising Knowledge, no one can have a connection with Maharaji (My response to this one was 'good'). That's because there is not such thing as 'a connection with Maharaji.' It doesn't exist. It's a complete illusion. At most, practicing meditation might possibly put you in touch with some part of your SELF, which might be a good thing, but, once shown this, why on earth are you bound to focus your whole life on a human being to the extent MJ compels people to do? Why would you want to? 5) Maharaji doesn't ask anyone to surrender their lives to him anymore, just relax and enjoy the experience. Yes, this is the party line these days. But even if it's true, and I don't think it is, why did he use to do it, but stopped at some point? Why on earth would you choose a spiritual master who fucked up so badly in the past, even if he has improved somewhat over the years? [Unfortunately a few thousand people got their lives messed up while he was getting his trip together, while at the same time saying 'follow me.'] I just think it's pretty pathetic that premies are reduced to saying the equivalent of 'he used to be really fucked up, but he isn't anymore' in defense of being in his cult. But it's just more subtle now. M just wants money and he'll say and do what he must to try to get it. If that means using 'knowledge lite' too keep people involved without making too many demands and getting a few bucks out of them, so be it. That's how he operates. Unfortunately, he doesn't care one wit about your friend. If she only knew that. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 17:50:10 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: JW Subject: Way to Go eb!!! Message: Dear Joe, OOOOOooooo. Now THAT changes EVERYTHING! It's all fixed now. No problem. Yup. Hey, I've just started calling myslelf 'the best-looking, most talented and sexy guy in the world.' Think that will change things for me? I can just see Gerry grinning ear to ear! :) Not MMT Gerry. Of course you whole post is very worthwhile reading as they always are but you know me, I gravitate to the off topic. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 19:24:15 (EDT)
From: Rick Email: None To: JW Subject: Way to Go eb!!! Message: JW, You pointed out the notion of thinking of a premie as 'having a disability'. Ever since we had that discussion with Jim a while back about the idea that premies were jerks in the seventies, I've been batting it around in my mind. We also discussed how current premies are so dishonest. It occurred to me recently how AA treats alcoholism as a spiritual 'disease' and how dishonesty is a big part of it. I'm sure you're familiar with all this, but I think I noticed some similarities with premies. For instance, alcoholics are depicted as thinking they are the center of the universe and lying on a regular basis in order to cover their drinking and the problems it causes. They aren't intrinsically dishonest, but they lie alot. Usually when they discontinue drinking and become aware of how their greed works they stop lying. Anyway, we never really came to any conclusions about the current dishonesty among premies who post here, except that it was despicable. Maybe your idea that they are disabled has some validity and perhaps it works in a way similar to alcoholism. What do you think? Rick Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 19:49:50 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Rick Subject: Way to Go eb!!! Message: Well, I think premies are in a cult, programmed, and have a hard time doing any thinking, let alone opening themselves to a rational discussion that strikes at the root of the meaning of their lives. It's just so, so difficult to do that. I know it was for me, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's still that way for premies. I guess 'disability' isn't quite the right word, but it's something like that. They are brainwashed. I think you can tell them that they are brainwashed, but telling them they are idiots and dishonest usually isn't too effective in getting them to see the light of day. I guess I'm just pragmatic. As much as I agree with Jim, I don't think his confrontation of premies has done much for the premie being confronted. But, on the other hand, it might, and probably does, do a LOT for LURKING premies, who are the major audience of this forum if you ask me. But even then, I think a less confrontational style is more effective, but that's just my opinion. It IS popular among a lot of ex-premies who relish seeing premies skewered. I'm sure eb's friend is a fine person, who loves eb a lot, and is very conflicted right about now. Does she have to make a choice between eb and M? I doubt she thinks she is brainwashed and dishonest. She has rationalized for so many years. And it's always possible to accommodate just one more inconsistency. When my dad was alive he was a devout Catholic. He was also pro-choice, pro-gay rights (including gay marriage), thought women should be priests, thought the current pope was a reactionary, was in favor of family planning, and thinks the church should sell it's artwork and give it to the poor, was very critical of vatican policy in Central America, among other things. But he just couldn't question the basic tenents of the church. Things like the mass, the sacraments, the scripture, the tradition. They meant something to him, and although they weren't really rational, he would hold on to them, because they were part of his identity. Maybe sometimes when he discussed it he was a little dishonest -- at least I used to tell him that, but he wouldn't let go of it, although he completely respected my decision to do so. I don't think it's all that different with premies, except they are following someone who isn't as insitiutionally together as the catholic church, and who really IS just into it for the money, and doesn't even have the pretense of trying to help people around the world. At least there is Catholic Charities, which does a lot of good work. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 20:12:58 (EDT)
From: Selene Email: None To: JW Subject: Way to Go eb!!! Message: JW thank you for the dissection. It is badly needed in this crazy world. I especially hate the 'It's not M it's the crazy premies around him' one. Your response to that one and all of the rationalizations was my bright spot in a stormy Monday (stormy, I wish! It's too sunny and too hot) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 13:16:37 (EDT)
From: JW Email: joger02@aol.com To: Selene Subject: HEAT Message: Thanks, Selene. I also used the 'crazy premie' rationale when I was on my way out. I felt I could criticize and blame everything and everyone BESIDES M, but I couldn't criticize HIM. That was the hardest thing and it took some time after I left to be able to do that. When I did, I started to feel very free from it. It only took one other person, whom I trusted, to say the stuff I was feeling but couldn't express. By the way, I heard that July was the hottest month on record for the entire world, since records have been kept. Maybe Al Gore is right about global warming! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 20:47:00 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: JW Subject: Way to Go eb!!! Message: Dear JW, Wow! Great post! I'm going to print it and mail it to my friend. You say things so well! I appreciate your taking the time to respond to each point. I was so shaken, I could barely communicate. So thank you, and thank you all for being here. I'm really, really grateful for this forum! Love and a cyberhug to you JW, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 22:20:48 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: eb Subject: A helpful parable...Part 1 Message: Hi eb! I got e-mailed this parable recently by an ex-premie who used to post here, but hasn't got the time to hang out here any more. Anyway, she kindly sent it to me after I had expressed my irritation at trying to communicate with premies I'm still associated with. It helped me a lot. She also said I could post it here on her behalf. (PS, It's long. So I'll post it in a couple of sections) THE MAN WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE In this town there lived a man who had been able to save enough money from his hard work that he decided that he was now able to afford a very nice house for his family. In one of the nicer parts of town was a beautiful old house that appeared to be vacant, and he often went by and looked at it from the street. The more he looked at it, the more he fell in love with this old house. One day as he was standing admiring this house, he was approached by a very nice-looking gentleman who said to him: 'I have noticed you frequently admiring this fine old house. I happen to be the agent for the owner, and I am authorized to sell it, if I can find a buyer.' This was, of course, good news to the man, since the more he had looked at the house, the more he wanted it for himself and his family. The agent took the man into the house and showed him through it, and everything the man saw made him want the house even more. The house was beautifully designed and built, with skill and imagination, in a style which was no longer very popular among most people, but which he and his family had always found attractive. He could picture in his mind how happy and comfortable his family would be there. It seemed that his fondest dream was about to come true. The man bought the house. Before the man moved his family into the house, he asked the agent about the usual inspections, for termites, dry rot and other possible structural problems. The agent told him that everything had been inspected thoroughly by his staff. 'You can take my word for it: this house is sound and solid. It is the finest house in the city!' The man thought for a moment that he should ask to see the inspection reports, but the agent was the kind of person that inspired trust and confidence, and the man had a strong feeling deep in his heart that the agent would not try to deceive him about something so important. The man and his family moved into their home, and it was even more lovely and comfortable than he had imagined. They invited their friends and relatives to visit them, and they were able to entertain them graciously and hear their guests' praises of their beautiful home. One evening his brother was visiting. The brother was a meddlesome and sometimes unpleasant person, but the man tried to be gracious to him because he was his brother. 'This is a very lovely old house you have,' said the brother. 'Thank you for the compliment,' replied the man. 'How is the foundation? Sometimes these old houses have structural problems.' 'Don't worry about that,' responded the man. 'Everything has been inspected and is in good order.' 'Who inspected it?' The man began to get irritated with his brother. 'It's really none of your business, but I'll be happy to tell you. The seller's agent had it inspected.' 'Did you examine the report yourself?' This was really going too far, the man felt. But he answered anyway, 'I didn't have to. The agent read the reports and told me that they were in order.' 'How can you trust the agent that much?' the brother asked, shaking his head. 'I pity you if you have to go through life without trust, without belief, without relying on the goodness of others! Sometimes you just know in your heart that you can trust someone.' The brother said nothing, but got up to leave. 'I'll maybe poke around a little outside and look over your foundation. I'm not an expert, but I do have some experience with these things.' 'I do not give you permission to go nosing about my house or grounds. You are just looking for something that will give you an excuse to find fault with my home and to spoil my enjoyment of it!' 'I assure you that I am only motivated by my concern for you as my brother. I will not cause any damage.' And with that, he left the house. Part 2 coming up... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 22:27:55 (EDT)
From: TD Email: None To: eb Subject: A helpful parable...Part 2 Message: As he looked around the grounds and examined the house, he had to admit that it was beautiful. But he also knew that paint could hide many problems. Near a corner, in the back, he found a small, almost invisible door that appeared to lead into the basement. It had been sealed shut with a half-dozen screws. He went back inside and asked the man: 'Are you aware of the door into the basement which has been sealed shut?' 'Of course I am aware of it!' 'Why is it sealed shut?' 'Because there is absolutely no need for anyone to go into the basement. There is nothing there.' 'Have you ever been there?' 'No, of course not! Why would I want to go down there? I'm sure that it's just dank and musty, and there's nothing there.' 'I think it would pay to take a look, to check the foundation.' 'Absolutely not!' shouted the man. 'This is MY house! It is MY basement! I have no interest in going there, and I forbid you to do so! I told you that the foundation has already been inspected. Now please leave me in peace!' Rather than argue with the man, the brother left. But the sealed door continue to bother him, and the basement which it concealed. A few weeks later, when the brother knew that the man and his family were going to be away for a day or two, the brother took a screwdriver and a flashlight to the man's house and carefully opened the sealed door. He had to stoop to enter the dark basement. The man had been right: there was nothing down there, except the posts and beams and braces that held up the house. As he crept among them, lighting his way with the flashlight, he noticed that the beams and posts had thick coats of paint. Everything was covered with paint. He took his pocket knife and scraped away the paint in a few spots, and where he had removed the paint, instead of solid wood he found a lacy, delicate framework of worm holes. He scraped away paint from some of the other structural members, in all parts of the basement, and found that the wood fiber was missing in all of them, either having been eaten by worms or termites, or having crumbled with dry rot. He was horrified. Not a single beam or post or brace could be relied on. He wondered what could be holding up the great weight of the house. It seemed to be only the paint which was covering up the rot. He almost imagined he could feel the house settling, having removed the little bit of paint, and he urgently wanted to escape. He found his way to the door, and closed it carefully after he was again in the sunshine. But his mind was troubled. As soon as the man and his family returned, the brother came to see him. 'I have some terrible news for you,' he said. He confessed that he had entered the basement, contrary to the man's order. 'But I know you will forgive me when I tell you what I found.' He then told the man that his entire house was in danger of falling down because of the worms, termites and rot in the structural members in the basement. But instead of thanking his brother, the man flew into a rage. 'You are telling me this only to rob me of the pleasure I have in living in this beautiful house! How can you attack me like this? How can you say such terrible things about a house that is so beautiful? You obviously are my enemy. You are jealous of me because of my house. You have made up these lies with the sole purpose of trying to destroy my happiness and to cast aspersions upon my house, the agent who sold it to me and the people who inspected it and pronounced it sound. Get out! And because you have become my enemy, I never wish to see you again!' The brother tried to calm the man. 'I assure you that I am not your enemy. I am acting only with your good at heart. Why would I want otherwise?' The man would not be calmed. 'You are trying to destroy my love for this house. Therefore you must have an evil motive.' 'Please,' said the brother. 'Come down with me to your basement, and I will let you see with your own eyes what I have found.' 'I am not interested in seeing anything that you have to show me. You are obviously such an evil person that you would stoop to any level to deceive me into believing your lies. You have probably planted phony evidence in my basement. You would twist and misinterpret anything I found so that it would appear to support your filthy lies about my house. No! I will not go into the basement with you! I don't care about your delusions, and I don't have the time to humor you.' The brother was puzzled by the man's obstinacy. He couldn't understand why he wouldn't at least look in the basement himself. Perhaps, by replacing the beams, or by taking other measures in time, the house could be saved. But if nothing was done, the house would surely collapse, sooner or later, perhaps injuring someone. Seeing that he could not help, the brother left, sad that he had been unjustly labeled an 'enemy.' In spite of the man's confidence in the soundness of his house, his brother's words did trouble him for a few days. Finally, he could no longer resist the temptation, and he took a flashlight and crept through the small door into the basement. He looked around and saw where his brother had scraped the paint away to expose the fragile, rotten timbers. He was furious! Why had his brother done this? He went upstairs to a cabinet and got a bucket of paint and a brush, and carefully repainted all the places that his brother had scraped away. 'There!' he said, as he screwed the door back into place. He decided that he would not tell his wife and family what had happened, because it would only disturb them and spoil the love and pleasure they enjoyed, living in such a beautiful house. - Richard Packham, 1995 Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 15:37:31 (EDT)
From: eb Email: None To: TD Subject: Thanks for the Parable! Message: Very clear. And clearly what is going on in my friendship. Thanks for posting it. Love, eb Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 21:21:00 (EDT)
From: Sir David Email: David.Studio57@btinternet.com To: Everyone Subject: A sad reflection Message: When I set the Paradise forum up for premies I rather innocently expected for it to be filled with premies chattering about their experiences, their love for Maharaji and what a bunch of bozos we all are on THIS ex-premie forum. Instead, what do we get? A few tired, paranoid premies deeply suspicious and questioning motives, holding back the love and critisising all and sundry. The dream is over, dear brothers and sisters. Even the premies don't believe it. The genuine spontinaety of expressions of love and bliss are all but disappeared into the mists of time as even the children of light do sit and watch the shadows in the late evening of the dream. Those of us who were there at the start remember Maharaji's cry of 'Shout it on the streets, why be shy' and I remember the overwhelming inspiration I felt to be a devotee of the living Lord, living my life to bring his love to all people and see an end to all the suffering. That part of the song they played on that film where they sang, 'Watch who'll be feeding all the people, watch who will wash away the tears, watch the truth of his knowledge, carry away all our fears' well that bit of the song never failed to bring tears to my eyes as I would feel so glad to be with the Lord and helping bring love to the world. The dream is over, brothers and sisters. Now premies hide away behind closed doors and disappear up their own backsides in an endless stream of premiespeak and cultish behavior. The dream is over as the last vestages of hope are wrung from the words of a 'master' who cannot keep up the act for much longer. I am not happy or proud to be an ex-premie. I would have rather have been a devotee of the living Lord and bringing a shining light of His love to the world. For sure it needs it. But one cannot live a dream especially when it is a lie. Even the tired old premies know that now. How much longer can they endure in their faith? I wish them well. Everybody needs something to believe in and fight for. We that left cannot live and fight for something less than what we saw at the beginning. For sure, that's died now. The king is dead, long live the King. And pray God, please help us all. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 22:05:10 (EDT)
From: Gregg Email: gpainter@dnvr.uswest.net To: Sir David Subject: A sad reflection Message: Sad is right. Reflection is right, too. A reflection of human nature, and hence: happysad, bittersweet. To get fooled is our nature; to get fooled in pursuit of bliss...well, better than to be fooled in pursuit of money, no? We've learned, and we're alive. Cheers. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 22:13:00 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Sir David Subject: If you build it...... Message: David, Your larger point about Maharaji says it so well. That is, I really feel unity with you on that. I don't think we'll ever fully remember the depths of that dream. So how can we ever fully register the depths of our disappointment? Just one of those things, perhaps. One of those things. I think you're being a bit unrealistic regarding the premies' reaction to the premie forum. First, it's only been up a short time. Give it a chance. Hopefully, premies will see past the unfortunate reality that it isn't an official EV web site and will use it. (This must be like building an aquarium!). Also, these guys know they're not supposed to talk about Maharaji with each other, let alone on the net. It ain't going to be like the old days, no matter what. Hey, that raises an interesting question, I think. We know premies aren't supposed to give satsang to new people and certainly not in public. But has Maharaji ever actually discouraged them from giving satsang to each other in the privacy of their own homes? Anyway, I wouldn't judge your effort so hastily. People need to communicate about what they care about. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 22:21:41 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hmmm... Message: People need to communicate about what they care about. This wouldn't apply to some ex's as well would it? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 23:13:46 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Gerry Subject: Hmmm... Message: This wouldn't apply to some ex's as well would it? Sure it does. Doesn't mean they should protect their ideas from challenge though. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 01:10:07 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hmmm... Message: From challenge, no; but from ridicule, yes! Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 10:12:44 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Carol Subject: Hmmm... Message: From challenge, no; but from ridicule, yes! Carol, This is wrong. Ridicule is necessary and enjoyable. It's necessary because it helps us distinguish between ideas that are wrong but still respectable and those that are so wrong that they naturally invite derision. If you were to read 'Robots' Rebellion' by David Icke as I did last week, you'd be laughing out loud at this guy's madness. The thinking is so outrageously unworthy of respect, one naturally laughs. That's human nature. And you know what? It's great! That's a really great part of human nature. It's full, it's honest and it's communicative. This whole 'anti-ridicule' sentiment reminds me of special ed teachers who are careful to tell every kid in the class that their drawing's are 'excellent' so as not to offend. Well, that might be exactly how to treat mentally handicapped children who are just doing the best they can. I mean, of course it is. But that's NOT how to treat sane adults who are unnecessarily delving in bullshit. If some flat earther came to visit you for a weekend and you really got talking, at some point you'd be laughing them out of the living room or at least trying to. And if you wren't, but instead were taking them seriously, someone else joining the discussion would end up laughing you both out. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 14:08:21 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hmmm... Message: Jim, I agree that ridicule can be fun and in some cases deserved, as in the flat earth argument. However, the age old questions, 'is there a god' and 'is god energy', and 'is there a unifying force in the universe' are not as clear cut or ridiculous. Nor are they resolved, as the flat earth issue is. Your argument is overdone here and Carol's point is valid. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 20:14:22 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Gerry Subject: Hmmm... Message: I agree that ridicule can be fun and in some cases deserved, as in the flat earth argument. However, the age old questions, 'is there a god' and 'is god energy', and 'is there a unifying force in the universe' are not as clear cut or ridiculous. Nor are they resolved, as the flat earth issue is. These are three different questions and each deserves its own respect or disrespect in 1998. Actually, I think the second question doesn't make sense and the third one barely does. But besides that, no, I wouldn't laugh at anyone gnawing on any of those questions. Your argument is overdone here and Carol's point is valid. What argument are you talking about? Carol said ridicule's bad and I said it isn't. I never said ALL thinking I disagree with is ridiculous. Carol said none of it is. I was arguing for 'some', she for 'none'. So what are YOU talking about? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 23:14:42 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hmmm... Message: Damn, Jim, Here I am with two hours left on my ISP hourly limit of 200 hours a month and you're making me go back and read the thread... What am I talking about? Good question. Just be a little nicer to us flat earthers and peace will rain o'er the Northwest. Or something like that. Anyway, you're personally invited to comment on the MMT thread What is New Age. You can even be critical (but be gentle, you know how sensitive I am...) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 11:28:20 (EDT)
From: hamzen Email: mc@hamzen.demon.co.uk To: Jim Subject: Hmmm... Message: ' Well, that might be exactly how to treat mentally handicapped children who are just doing the best they can'. I find that comment offensive and uninformed. Anybody who works with people with learning disabilities and has built/is building communicative contact/friendships knows that the major reason for their problems is exactly a quote like this reflecting the attitudes that surrounds them on all sides. Having a low IQ does not mean you have a low EQ. I accept that the approach of special education teachers you mention is even more patronising, I'm fighting it every day at work and in the community at large! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 01:11:33 (EDT)
From: Carol Email: None To: Sir David Subject: A sad reflection Message: You said it! Carol Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 13:04:04 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Sir David Subject: A sad reflection Message: 'When I set the Paradise forum up for premies I rather innocently expected for it to be filled with premies chattering about their experiences, their love for Maharaji and what a bunch of bozos we all are on THIS ex-premie forum. Instead, what do we get? A few tired, paranoid premies deeply suspicious and questioning motives, holding back the love and critisising all and sundry.' Sir David, I was a little surprised that anyone thought that the premie forum would be used at all! I think it was very good of you to set it up, I really do. But Mili and Harlan had a site and they were asked to shut it down. 'Students' have been asked not to talk on the internet. I have even heard that some of them have received email messages (from those EV 'readers' Gail was talking about) to stop posting once they start. I don't know why they are so paranoid if this isn't a cult. I mean look at CD. He posts all the time. Maybe some premies will use it afterall. Then again, maybe not... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 20:17:08 (EDT)
From: petebear Email: petebear@ozemail.com.au To: Everyone Subject: The truth is obvious - Duh! Message: As I read through this forum I am struck by the robust nature of debate, discussion, argument, collaboration, dialogue, criticism and various other forms of communication taking place. I work with organisations and groups of people and have found the following useful in thinking through my beliefs/responses. It reminds me that I choose what I notice and therefore what sense I make of the world which in turn effects what I notice. ' Our beliefs are the truth The truth is obvious Our beliefs are based on real data The data we select are the real data ' or to put it in first person ' My beliefs are the truth The truth is obvious My beliefs are based on real data The data I select is the real data ' This is taken from 'The fifth dscipline fieldbook' by Peter Senge et al p.242 It is part of a body of work on the 'Ladder of Inference' which you can find heaps about by doing an internet search on. But basically it suggests 1) Out of all the observable data there is, I choose what to observe. 2) I add meanings to what I have chosen to observe 3) I make assumptions about it 4) I draw conclusions from it 5) I adopt beliefs about myself and the universe( upon which I act) and which take me back to step 1 and effects what I choose to observe. This can be called a self-fulfilling loop. For example: 1) While listening to BM live I have a lot of emotion and I notice that BM smiles 2) I add the meaning that this is significant 3) I assume that there must be a powerful personal link 4) I conclude that I am linked to the Lord directly 5) I believe I am becoming one with the Universe and with the Lord what I see tends to fulfill this belief because I don't notice conflicting data. This type of thing happened many many many times in my premie life - that is applying meaing, assumptions and drawing conclusions from observable date. In other cultures these are called omens. I got it from the radio, the paper - it went on and on. Another axample: 1) While daydreaming about BM I notice a white dove settle nearbye me in the park 2) White doves signify peace 3) I must be in tune with peace and be helping it to come to earth 4) I conclude that I am part of a world wide peace movement and feel really good 5) World peace is coming soon etc When I feel sad I notice things that make me feel sad, when I feel happy I pay attention to things that reinforce my happy view of life etc. when I am in love with BM everything he says is blissful. When I am out of love and pissed off, those same things are pathetic, puerile and clearly suspicious.etc Hope this is useful to some of you. It helps me to remember that people are doing the best they can, all the time and when I remember this I can feel compassion for them. Which at this time in my life is a useful way to feel. At other times it has been more useful to be angry etc. This process is how we make sense of the world and how we even survive - without it we would be constantly overwhelmed by the amount of data available to chose from. Cheers for now - apols for the length Peter Howie Brisbane Australia Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 20:35:15 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: petebear Subject: The truth is obvious - Duh! Message: people are doing the best they can, all the time Pete, You really believe this? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 22:12:37 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: The truth is obvious - Duh! Message: people are doing the best they can, all the time The rest of this is, 'with the resource they have available at the time.'' Jim, This is a presuppostition found in NLP theory. It's a belief that some people find useful to adopt. ( Mostly therapists trying to make sense out of peoples' behavior). It doesn't necessarily make it true and it's not supposed to be accepted as ''gospel truth.'' At least that's my understanding. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 19:07:00 (EDT)
From: petebear Email: petebear@ozemail.com.au To: Jim Subject: The truth is obvious - Duh! Message: 'people are doing the best they can, all the time ' I'm working on it - it is a working hypothesis. Otherwise my own 'natural' inclinations - well learned from my family and school life - is to work from values that I consciously choose to try and reject - such as belief in evil, irredeemably bad people, the world is shit as are all in it. It is somewhat supported by my own experience - (Though after my previous post it leaves room for other interpretations) - When I work with people that are very angry and create fear around them - violent men and women - I notice that they themselves are often scared shitless and feel that their response makes sense because they see the world as a dangerous place. As I consider your question further I think that my motivation in choosing to work with the above hypothesis is so that I can develop a grander, more 'me' freindly universe to live in. As I begin to think about some of the absolute arseholes that I have worked with,known (BM would fit in here), in this way - I am able to generate some campassion - which in turn releases my spontaneity and I can generally find a more adequate response to myself and to them. By adequate I mean it works for me and my life progresses and I don't get so hooked up in their disabled approach to life. Long winded - possibly some defensiveness - however a good question Cheers Peter Howie Brisbane Australia Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 10:43:58 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: petebear Subject: The truth is obvious - Duh! Message: I'm working on it - it is a working hypothesis. Well, it's a dumb one, Pete. It flies in the face of human nature. You could 'work' away on it all you want but it's a nonstarter. Stillborn. Otherwise my own 'natural' inclinations - well learned from my family and school life - is to work from values that I consciously choose to try and reject - such as belief in evil, irredeemably bad people, the world is shit as are all in it. That's stupid too. We've evolved with a moral sense. It's aprt of beign the social animals that we are. Read The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. It is somewhat supported by my own experience - (Though after my previous post it leaves room for other interpretations) - When I work with people that are very angry and create fear around them - violent men and women - I notice that they themselves are often scared shitless and feel that their response makes sense because they see the world as a dangerous place. So? What does that prove? Certainly not your hypothesis. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 19:50:33 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: HOLY WAR ON CD!!!! Message: Okay, brothers and sisters, the time has come to declare war on Chris Dickey!! In a thread below he answered Laura's question below as follows: Laura: Are you saying we shouldn't hold gm accountable for the FACT that he said things like follow me i am your god? |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 19:56:27 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: funny mistake Message: Sorry, that last line about Chris being a worm was mine, not Maharaji's. Maharaji probably doesn't know Chris as well as we do. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 13:37:00 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Jim Subject: Holy misunderstandings, Laura! Message: Laura, You didn't have any misunderstandings about this as I am sure you know. When confronted with the truth and backed into a corner, people will often attack. It is a common theme here. You are going to get called 'negative' or told that you are the one at fault for everything-never Maharaji. It is just another tactic aimed at evading the issue. So I guess we all just misunderstood that goomradji was the lord of the universe? Give me a break! That is such bullshit. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 18:29:31 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Everyone Subject: How to deal with bastard Message: I've spent a few hours today with a premie friend, the guy in fact has been one of my best friends for more than 25 years, and I guess he's not a premie anymore. I think I gave the last stroke to his wavering faith, telling him my feelings regarding Mr Rawat's close collaborators molesting children, assaulting and raping women, and specially 2 of my friends. We tried to imagine what he (my friend) would do if anybody would do, or try to do anything like this to one of his children. That was very clear: he would have killed the instructor! whatever the consequences. My friend is a perfectect regular responsible father, not a criminal. He is a good father, working for his family, and his children are very well taken care of and receive an excellent education. At least some premies took a good care of their children. I explained him that these case have been reported to Rawat, and that He didn't do anything ANY normal responsible person would have been doing in such cases. We've discussed the causes of rawat's behavior in lenght, they are perfectly explainable, but He is still responsible, and will remain responsible. Now I also understand a bit more about what I call MY violent attitude towards rawat, and also some others' here, that some people find tough. Rawat is a bastard and I won't change my mind regarding him. Now my attitude towards the bastard might evolve, but bastards have to be treated like bastards, at least by me because I know he's one, and I've been shocked by what he did to my friends. There is absolutely NO doubt He knows some of his instructors are bastards, and he never did anything about it. How should HE be considered? I'd like to have an answer from himself! in person. He has my email and my phone #.... and a checkbook to send me my money back. What's funny is that premies understand this language, at least those whom I spoke to. It just so happens that I met some, and they listened to me! BTW: we also spoke about what he heard rawat mentioned in some programs where he spoke about his enemies. Premies are talking a lot about it, it looks like! WE ARE HIS ENEMIES (ex-premies saying mean things about him). He said He has more friends than enemies, and seems satisfied by this. I just hope his henchmen are not after us, mean exes .... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 20:07:13 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Jean-Michel Subject: How to deal with bastard Message: Dear Jean-Michel, What good news! Your good long standing friend seeing his way out! I am so happy for you, and him. My oldest daughter is coming here soon and she speaks French, could you post or email me your French site's address? Thank you, JM. Love, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 22:15:03 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: For Gail and Jean Michel Message: 'I just hope his henchmen are not after us, mean exes ....' Jean Michel, Is this another joke? I always fall for this stuff when you post it because I consider you to be very reliable source. I'm sure it is just me, but are you just joking around? Do they really have a picture of Jim? One of M's followers put a hammer through someone's head for a pie in the face. Some people here have done much worse than a pie in the face. P.S.If you come to my house will you give me a real knowledge session so that I can get CD off of my back about it? Just kidding! ;-) Gail, What do they do with the names of us wretched 'enemies' once they have them? Have you heard? I heard that they send email messages to any premies posting here to tell them to STOP! (Naughty premies.) I wonder if anyone here has gotten one of these messages. VP Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 17:37:49 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Everyone Subject: Astrology xperiment: results Message: Ok, this will be my last thread on this (or any) subject for a while. Thanks everyone for taking part in the experiment. The emails are down to a trickle now, and I have reasonable sample group, though I'll keep adding-in new data if people want to send it. But I doubt the overall pattern will change much. If you hadn't already guessed, you were being asked to compare two horoscopes only one of which was your own 'real' horoscope, the other being borrowed from a totally unrelated sun-sign. (If you just want to know the outcome, you can skip the 'rationale and method' section that follows, and find where it says 'Results'.) Rationale and method for the experiment: Astrology textbooks express a number of fundamental beliefs regarding sun-sign characteristics: (1) People whose birth signs share the same gender (male/positive or female/negative) will be subject to certain shared astrological influences, and will share some personal attributes. Air and fire signs are male; earth and water female. (2) People whose signs share the same element (air, fire, earth or water) will be subject to certain shared astrological influences, and will share some personal attributes. (3) People whose signs share the same quality (cardinal, fixed or mutable) will be subject to certain shared astrological influences etc... (4) People whose signs have opposite polarity (ie, they are offset six steps around the zodiac from one another) will be affected by influences operating in their opposite sign. (5) People born on the cusp of two signs may be subject to astrological influences affecting people from both those signs. (6) The transit of the sun, the moon or any of the five closest planets through a solar chart will have certain effects on people born under that sign. (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, apparently, do not qualify here.) In order to find combinations of signs that would avoid shared or complementary influences arising from factors (1) to (5), I paired each sun-sign with another sign from five or seven signs around the zodiac such that Sagittarius, for example, (male / mutable / fire) was matched with Cancer (female / cardinal / water) avoiding as far as possible any pairing of signs indicating a common transit by one of the heavenly bodies listed under (6). In effect, I have tried to pair each sun-sign with another sign with which it holds least in common, according to astrological theory. Here are the pairings and the 'true' horoscope for each sign shown in bold: Described as 'Aries' (a) Aries (b) Virgo Described as 'Taurus' (a) Taurus (b) Libra Described as 'Gemini' (a) Gemini (b) Scorpio Described as 'Cancer' (a) Cancer (b) Sagittarius Described as 'Leo' (a) Leo (b) Capricorn Described as 'Virgo' (a) Virgo (b) Aquarius Described as 'Libra' (a) Aries (b) Libra Described as 'Scorpio' (a) Taurus (b) Scorpio Described as 'Sagittarius' (a) Gemini (b) Sagittarius Described as 'Capricorn' (a) Cancer (b) Capricorn Described as 'Aquarius' (a) Leo (b) Aquarius Described as 'Pisces' (a) Libra (b) Pisces ********************** If horscopes contain anything of merit (and these were extracts from serious in-depth horoscopes from a specialist magazine), we should see a (maybe small) but significant tendency for people to find greater truth in the horoscope for their genuine sun-sign than for the disguised, unrelated sign. Otherwise chance alone would predict 50% 'correct' responses, and 50% 'incorrect' responses. Results: I have 32 scores, approximately half from the Internet, half from real life. The number of choices where the 'true' horoscope was the better match with real life: 15 The number of choices where the 'disguised' horoscope was the better match with real life: 17 (One participant asked for his data to be removed afterwards. Had this score been left in, the outcome would have been 17 - 16.) Conclusion: Draw your own. Cheers, Nigel Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 17:43:29 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Cretin. Message: Don't be so bloody stupid, Nigel. Why on earth invite people to keep sending in data, now you've revealed which were the true horoscopes...? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 19:18:26 (EDT)
From: Selena Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Astrology xperiment: results Message: MEANIE!!! Just kidding. but Leo, geez my ex husband was a Leo. Have a little heart. Does this mean I am not really boring after all? Good luck with your experiement Nigel. REally I am ok. I gave up on a lot of that stuff even before I gave up on M. Still ... (feeling dumb now) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 20:01:02 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Nigel Subject: No fucking way! Message: Ok, this will be my last thread on this (or any) subject for a while Nigel, There's no way you're splitting without first answering Bill on Dawkins. Come on, man, you agreed that if I answered your stupid survey question (and yes, you can keep my 'data', if it means that much to you) you'd answer at least one stupid post of my choice. Come on, Nigel, fair is fair. Nigel? Nigel? You there? Hey Nige? NIII-GELLLLL!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 01:46:24 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: Jim Subject: Sagittarius rising. Message: Ok, Ok... I hear ya. I didn't really want your data anyway - it would have just made the astrologers have a better score. your stupid survey question You mean 'stupid survey', or 'stupid question?' It seemed a sensible question for the task at hand. If you mean 'stupid survey'... well, probably. But - who knows - it might make our ex-lord think twice before visiting his astrological counsellor again. For anyone who missed Mark's post on this, Maharaji sought guidance from a star-gazing crank when he was having some kind of identitiy crisis back in the eighties. And to think I have sat on a cushion in satsang singing: 'Who can make the planets spin, and dance in circles round the sun? Maharaj Ji can with his light and love...' Bill on Dawkins? I'll check it out. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:26:10 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Everyone Subject: The Annual Party Message: Did you know that MJ hosts an annual party for all the premies who work in his business such as Amtext. He feeds them and hands out gold trinkets in appreciation. Of course, these people are grossly underpaid. One poor schmuck from Montreal has been working for Amtext for years. He stays with premies in town while visiting The University of Western Ontario campus. He went in December, 1996, but he couldn't afford it last year. Yup. You heard it right, folks. Flying to Malibu from wherever you are in the world. MJ will feed you, and personally hand you a gold trinket for your underpaid efforts. Of course, the big payoff is the fact the MJ is the Lord of the Universe. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:59:45 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: heller@bc1.com To: Gail Subject: The Annual Party Message: One poor schmuck from Montreal has been working for Amtext for years. He stays with premies in town while visiting The University of Western Ontario campus. He went in December, 1996, but he couldn't afford it last year. Who's that? Maybe I know him. Gail, we should talk some time. I bet you know a bunch of people I do. It'd be fun to ask you about some of them. Care to email me your phone number? My email is above. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 14:59:22 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Jim in the Krisna Costume Message: What do you think of us all planning to attend a program in the near future. If all of the EXs went, there would be more folks on the outside of the hall than inside. We could make a stage for Jim, with big pictures of MJ, too. We could all sing the old favourites such as THE LORD OF THE UNIVERSE, ARTI, PLEASE TEACH ME DEVOTION, and LEAVING YOUR LOTUS FEET. The new premies would recognize the tune as these songs are being recycled as instumentals. The new guests would be appalled. What fun it would be. We would probably get higher than we ever have before. Of course, the only problem is that we aren't willing to drop everything and spend our cash to go to the next venue of the LORD OF THE UNIVERSE. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:18:15 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: lotuspower@aol.com To: Gail Subject: Jim in the hot seat Message: Well, that would be fun but getting together is really a good idea. Having an ex-premie festival conference would probably be a good thing for the world and us. It'd be hard to do and we're all burnt out from deleting our bank accounts for quick trips. However, there may be a location that is central to alot of the online exes. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 17:54:52 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Runamok Subject: Ex-premie reunion Message: VP has volunteered to host the ex-premie re-union, somewhere east of the Mississippi in the US - seriously. (However, the Brian-gopi contingent may object to Jim being crowned Satuguru). Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 18:38:52 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Katie Subject: Ex-premie reunion Message: I thought that was a secret! Now we'll have EV' security looking for us! are you crazy or something revealing all our secrets? Are you some EV's mole? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 21:26:15 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Ex-premie reunion Message: Of course I'm not! VP has posted about the reunion on here before, but you likely didn't notice. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 21:28:24 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: JM Subject: To JM Message: Jean-Michel, you should apologize to me for even suggesting such a thing! Regards from Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 21:51:22 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Katie Subject: Ex-premie reunion Message: I do think we should keep the date and exact location of the reunion a secret. I do have a family and there are some nuts in this world and on the internet. Not just BM's henchmen, Jean Michel (heh heh!) It is true you never can be too careful with a cult. Some people will hear about it via email as we get closer. VP Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 23:01:45 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: VP Subject: Ex-premie reunion Message: Veep - I believe that what you say is true (e.g. keep it secret), but I still don't think JW should have asked me if I was working for EV - otherwise, what am I doing here? He may have been trying to be funny, but I didn't think it was humorous. Regards, Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 23:22:22 (EDT)
From: Robyn Email: sundogs@hotmail.com To: Katie Subject: Ex-premie reunion Message: Dear Katie, Poor JW, you sited him in your post and I think you meant JM. I will leave it to JM to come clean with you. Love you, Robyn Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:02:52 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Robyn Subject: Oops! Message: Sorry, I mean JM, not JW (thanks, Robyn). I just got off the phone talking to JW, so maybe he was on my mind. Anyway, JM, if you were joking, I'd appreciate if if you'd clarify it. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 03:27:49 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Katie Subject: I DO apologize Message: Hi Katie, I'm really sorry, we definitely don't understand each other's humor sometimes! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 12:02:10 (EDT)
From: Katie Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Me too Message: Dear JM - Thanks - I was sure that you didn't mean it after I thought about it for a while (after all, we have 'known' each other for a while), but I wanted to make sure that no one else took it the wrong way. People get scared of that kind of stuff. I appreciate the clarification. Also, I have found that sometimes it's hard to understand jokes on the Internet. I don't like to use those little smile faces - :) - but I have started to because that's the only way some people (like me) know that I'm making a joke... Fond regards from Katie Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:04:08 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Gail Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: I think a reunion is a good idea, but here is something I'd like to see. I'd like to see a one or two-day conference of ex-premies and other invitees on the subject of Maharaj Ji and his cult. I would envision things like: 1. A panel of ex-premies talking about experiences in leaving the cult -- workshops on coping with premie-family members, etc., 2. A panel or presentations by the authors of The Guru Papers, and maybe including Margaret Singer from Berkeley, one of the international experts on cults; 3. A panel on the inside workings of DLM and EV with people like KK MIchael Donner, Bill Patterson, other former DLM bureaucrats, ex-initiators and any ex-residence slave. This would cover what 'really' was going on in the cult and with M, the finances, etc., with lots of time for questions and answers. If we could get Claudia to show up, great!!! 4. A video presentation of M from the 70s, including those films, who is GMJ?, Satguru Has Come, LOTU, The Power of Love (THAT was an Australian film, TD, ever seen it? It has about a 20-minute section of a darshan line. Etc.] 5. Copies of old Divine Times, etc, with lots of pictures of crowns, etc.., also, current stuff with discussion of how M is hiding his past. 6. A panel discussion on the ashram, DECA, some of the other businesses, COLL, and other places where premies were poor and celibate for years in dedication to M and the effects it had on people's subsequent lives. 7. A presentation on how M has changed the immutable truth over the years comparing what he has said over his time in the west. 8. A presentation on sexual abuse/assault/molestation in M's cult. 8. We should invite the press. I'd love to see a program like that. I would even help organize it if we could. You know CAN might sponsor something like that! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:18:09 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: JW Subject: That sounds great, JW Message: That convention idea is really good. It is a little too ambitious for me at this time. I was thinking more along the lines of some drinks, music and conversation:) Just for fun, not for profit. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 00:35:06 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: lotuspower@aol.com To: VP & all Subject: meeting/party Message: Probably a little of both. There are a few other possible activities. There are various possible legal actions to discuss as well as other group actions- like a group book or aforementioned interaction with the press. If we could manage not to argue we could talk about whether those are things we want to do... Panels are a bit too formal.. I don't need to study my own suffering, at least not so formally. The spectre of retaliation by the cult is realistic in my opinion, but the chances are greatly reduced from 10 years ago or more. Having events as a group is what makes it safer. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 16:30:35 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: VP Subject: That sounds great, JW Message: VP, I wasn't expecting you to do anything like what I suggested. I just was kind of putting out something I would like to see happen sometime. The presentations, I think, would be really important. They would give more credibility to ex-premies and help explain what happened to us in a more scholarly context. But a party is a good idea too! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 19:23:52 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: JW Subject: Re-birth day party, JW Message: JW, I think it is going to be a 're-birth' day party to celebrate the rest of our lives. (Even if you got out long ago, we can still celebrate it now.) Selene(a) and I will be closing in on a year, which will be cause enough to celebrate!! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 19:50:43 (EDT)
From: Nigel Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk To: VP Subject: 'Insider Knowledge' session Message: I like this idea. We sit on cushions while Mr Ex spills all the beans for a few hours (The Insider Knowledge Session). We then - instead of the carpet-chewing pranam - stand up one at a time and renounce our Knowledge vows in a loud voice and the most obscene language we feel comfortable with. Mr Ex then de-installs the techniques.... etc. Yes, I could get into this. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 11:12:50 (EDT)
From: Mr Ex Email: None To: Nigel Subject: No beans spilling! Message: You'll have to publicly admit you've been a fool believing in such a crap: THERE IS NOTHING LIKE : Maharaji's knowledge perfect master divine light divine harmony holy name nectar m's grace agya master's power what else have you ? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 11:48:08 (EDT)
From: Runamok Email: lotuspower@aol,com To: Mr Ex Subject: Sound of One Ex Farting Message: Maybe but... it ain't M's! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 13:11:00 (EDT)
From: x Email: None To: JW Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: I really like this idea a lot, JW. I'm not much at organising, but I would love to attend something like this. We could call it an anti-event, or the 'real millenium', How about 'fake guru, puja' x Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 15:38:52 (EDT)
From: Bill Cooper Email: None To: x Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: And how about a video of the event ? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 23:41:23 (EDT)
From: Big M Email: None To: Everyone Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: How about this? Why don't I pick you all up in the Gulfstream, one by one, wherever you all live, we nick down to one of my residences, get some grog, some dancing girl-premies, do a bit of partner-swapping, get down and boogie to some righteous arti and then do doughnuts on the front lawn in one of my Ferrari's... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Tues, Aug 11, 1998 at 23:56:19 (EDT)
From: Durga Ji Email: None To: Big M Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: Think so, huh? Is that horrible Monica Lewis going to be there? I thought so. Are you going to humiliate me once again, in front of all those people, displaying your mistress for the world to see? After all I've done for you, hanging around your disgusting form in my million-dollar wardrobe. You know how much I threw up everytime I gave those sickening satsangs! But the premies LOVED it, didn't they? But are you grateful? No! This is the thanks I get. You fuck around with every bimbo in town! Premie dancing girls? All blonde I bet! You Hindu-jerks with your obsession with blonde western godesses. Forbidden fruit, no doubt! Have you talked to your therapist about this? God, you make me sick. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 19:21:13 (EDT)
From: GMJ Email: None To: Durga Ji Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: Listen Marolyn, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times 'DO NOT use the title Durga Ji in public!' You may have been a tigress with me when you were young, but once I met that Monica....grrrrr! But are you grateful? Who do you think you are? My equal? My partner? Sometimes I think you're the one who lacks gratitude, Marolyn! I gave you Knowledge, riches and the devotion of thousands, but still that wasn't enough, was it? No, I had to cough up more cash for a university allowance so you could 'better yourself'. Why am I forced to tolerant such insolence, and to make matters worse, from a defrocked tigress! Your S&M Master, Big M PS. Will you stop leaving your leg wax in my bathroom! The fumes interfere with the sliding doors... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 22:58:53 (EDT)
From: Mom Email: None To: GMJ Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: Listen Marolyn, if I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times 'DO NOT use the title Durga Ji in public! Oh get real!! What name do you want me to use, MOM? Will you stop leaving your leg wax in my bathroom! The fumes interfere with the sliding doors... Which bathroom, you little twit. We've GOT 19 in this theme park masquerading as a house you conned the premies into building! Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 14:34:05 (EDT)
From: VP Email: None To: Big M Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: Sorry, Dude. You are not invited. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Wed, Aug 12, 1998 at 19:33:43 (EDT)
From: LOTU Email: None To: VP Subject: What I'd Like To See Message: Sorry, Dude. You are not invited. What is it with you exes and this whole exclusivity and secrecy thing....?? Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 10:23:11 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Everyone Subject: To Lena and other EV readers!! Message: Are you deprogrammed yet? I was just thinking about you. How's the reading coming along? Are you starting to feel that sick, queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach yet? For those of you who don't know, Lena has been given the service of reading this forum and reporting back to EV. Think of it. There are at least one or two (maybe lots more) people in each country, where the net might be a threat to continued financial support, reading this stuff. Then, they have the task of trying to determine who the traitors are. It's quite the service, isn't it? If my VISIONS are right, Lena's going to need a replacement soon. Otherwise, she's brain-dead. How can you read this stuff and not be jolted back to reality. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 12:46:21 (EDT)
From: Gerry Email: None To: Gail Subject: Premies are stiffies Message: I've been hanging out at the premie forum a little. I don't want to say much--don't want to scare 'em away, but my general impression is they are a very repressed and suspicious bunch. No big revelation here, but my experience with premies is limited and it's pretty amazing to me. Nothing like of the robust, brash free-for- all we have here. ( Whoops I guess I'm being a hypocrite and a weinie here, but I can't help it--Nadeen made me do it). Also, just the low level of activity really surprises me. I though they would be just busting to sing the praises of the inane bore they slavishly bow to. But then GooGoo did say the internet was naughty... PS I know some of you guys HATE the idea of another forum that doesn't meet your expectations. How about this for a compromise? I won't advertise it anywhere but here, and won't register it with any search engines. For the time being, anyway. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:20:08 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Jim Subject: The cash in suitcases Message: Dear Jim: Did you ever help to send suitcases of cash to Malibu? This activity has been rumoured on numerous occasions. Who were the chosen ones that took the cash. I know that Claude Bourgeois told us about one such incident. Everytime there is a program, much cash is donated. Does it actually filter through the books? I think not. Imagine the chosen premie, humming to him/herself while boarding the plane. California here I come. 'Cause that's where the Lord is from. I'm going. I'm lucky. I'm toting the cash. He's waiting. He's gloating. He needs to buy hash. Oh, ya, well........ California here I come. That's because my brain's gone numb. Open up those rezzy gates. He wants more cash, and I've got some. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:39:05 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: Gail Subject: Nope, not me Message: Gail, I didn't do it because I was, at best (worst?) a lowly community treasurer. Yes, it's commonplace that it was done. I've talked to someone who did this (sorry, Rick, can't say who. Agreed to not disclose.) Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 18:06:19 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: Gail Subject: I Did Message: But not to Malibu, to Miami Beach. This was cash for the plane M wanted so badly and then got bored with before it was even finished. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in suitcases (really more like briefcases) brought in from all over the country. We counted it at the Alton Road headquarters of DLM and the we deposited it in banks in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid the required reporting under US Treasury laws. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 18:35:45 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: JW Subject: I Did too! Message: We used to bring 10,000 (maximum allowed from abroad I guess) each one of us, then give to money back to the guy in charge, and that was it! I remember once I had myself about 100,000 with me, that was in the ashram time ... Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 07:10:47 (EDT)
From: seymour Email: None To: Jim,Nigel & Everyone Subject: Godzilla Message: Whaddya mean Jim? 'Godzilla sucked. But maybe you've already left. Well, it wasn't THAT bad.... no, it was. SIC' You're just saying that because there is a 'God' in Godzilla. Although I admit that it was hardly inspiring and any scenes without monsters could have been left out, I went along with very low expectations and I quite enjoyed it especially once the eggs turned up. Anyhow, enjoyed your Saturday Posts... 'One of the biggest hurdles facing anyone arguing with a premie is this concept of 'experience' as if, calling something one takes it beyond the realm of close examination.' This does seem to be the case, and I often try to put myself in their place or remember what it was like when I used my 'experience' as the foundation of my logic rather than the more existential perspective I try to adopt these days. The thing is, I can't remember anyone challenging me with a reasonable argument. There were the usual jibes about wasting time following GM who was only in it for the money etc. by people who were wasting their own time on watching T.V., following some career for a company that was greedily destroying all in it's path to make a profit, following some other cultish beliefs, or just lazing about doing very little. Maybe it's that the times have changed and the age of enlightenment that started in the 18th century is finally getting through to us plebians. Anyhow I think I would have welcomed any discussion about my experience of 'knowledge' ( although I think that I would not entertain any disrespect for my Lord and Master) and cannot understand why it is frowned upon - I suppose it is believed that rational discourse comes from the dreaded 'mind'. If only these 'believers' would consider that although it may be o.k. to start out with sensory perception - as when we thought the sun was a fairly small sphere that came up and went down, or that the earth was flat - but we should be open to review our initial impressions when new evidence is uncovered to give a truer perspective. Surely we have learnt by now that experience isn't everything and that we can be easily fooled by what our senses ( even our sixth, seventh etc. if we believe in them) tell us. However I think we do have a natural ability to 'know' how to behave towards one another and IMHO that is what we should be seeking rather than all this self centered 'experience'. Nigel, thanks for the info on the mythical 10% - wasn't that also started by Aldous Huxley in the Doors of Perception. For whatever reason it is certainly regarded as 'common knowledge' by many. Whatever the facts I agree with you when you say 'we're better off leaving our neurons alone to do their stuff when they want to, instead of trying to marshall them via drugs or eyeball squeezing into providing paranormal entertainment. Still, if there's nothing much on telly...' Have a good week - and a good life. Seymour Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:40:22 (EDT)
From: Gail Email: None To: Seymour Subject: Criticizing MJ Message: 'I think that I would not [have] entertain[ed] any disrespect for my Lord and Master.' How do you suppose this came about? Really? Criticism and ridicule of MJ were the hardest things for me to read when I first started reading here. What part of the brainwash was it that prohibited questioning or criticism of MJ? When he came out with that four-petaled daisy for $35 unframed, I said that I didn't like it. There was a gasp from the crowd. One person piped up and said, 'Well, I like it because MJ made it.' I replied that I wouldn't like it on my wall. Obviously, even being an art critic was unacceptable when it came to the big MJ. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:45:58 (EDT)
From: seymour Email: None To: Gail Subject: Criticizing MJ Message: Hi Gail, I know what you mean. I got slammed for criticising his poetry - maybe I'm just a philistine. Does anyone have any examples of these so that we can get another opinion? Seymour. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Sun, Aug 09, 1998 at 15:54:33 (EDT)
From: Jim Email: None To: seymour Subject: Godfilla Message: Seymour, I had a nice 'experience' watching the movie (we were stuck in a small town up island with nothing to do waiting for a ferry the next morning.) But I've since had an opportunity to reflect on that 'experience' and I realize it was bullshit. No, I just thought it was kind of sterile, dumb and too predictable. Don't mean to flame Matthew Broderick or anything but, well, ... But your point about not being confronted 'properly' in the past -- yes, that's it exactly. I can't say how much I would have compromised logic to defend my beliefs. Probably, just like all these other premies do today, I imagine. But we never were really tested like that. Honestly, I'd like to think that I would have SOME integrity. You know, like if I said I'd discuss it rationally, I would. Not a single premie has been able to do that here yet. Not one. The only semi-honourable way for a premie to avoid dealing with the facts is for them to say, honestly, that they refuse to discuss Maharaji rationally. One or two have done that. The problem, though, is that the cult isn't as intense as it once was. Maharji no longer preaches that kind of austere anti-rationalism. That used to be our stated agenda -- don't get into your mind, period! Now it's just an old bit of software premies use for one purpose only, to avoid fair discussions about Maharaji. You know, as I think of it, I DO know how I would have responded back then. Just as I said, I would have blatantly refused to discuss Maharaji and Knowledge with 'The Mind'. That would have clearly put me on the board as a cult member (in the eyes of a rational person at least). But there WAS a certain consistency to it all. what these guys do here, pretending to be rational and all, is just disgusting. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 at 16:50:03 (EDT)
From: JW Email: None To: seymour Subject: Arguing About Experience Message: I also used 'my experience' as the last protective wall of defense when I couldn't really support my being a premie with anything rational. And I don't think there is any point in arguing with premies about whether they have and 'experience' or not. Instead, I think you can give a premie the benefit of the doubt and concede that the experience they are having might be profound and real (at least once in a while it might be), but that it's something they personally own and it has nothing to do with Maharaji. If you were revealed knowledge in a knowledge session and have a profound experience as a result, why are you bound to focus your whole life externally on another human being to the extent Maharaji compels people to do? I think this is the area that gets premies to start thinking for themselves again. Attacking their experience won't do that; they're too fearful and defensive. The other thing people 'experience,' that they hold on to, is supposedly when they are around Maharaji, like at a program. I say, that to the extent this is not due to the 'group high' it is just some sort of charisma, that mainly comes from wanting to believe in him so badly. Lots of people have charisma -- people say Bill Clinton has lots of 'charisma' and people are dazzled when they are with him. I have heard this from people I respect enormously. But, so what? How far does that get you and is it worth all the bullshit you have to put up with in order to be around him? These are the points I think premies might have the most difficult time addressing and reconciling. That, and the shitty stuff M does in his personal life, and his obvious, money-grubbing nature, and his revisionism over the years regarding supposedly immutable, ultimate truths. Return to Index -:- Top of Index |