Ex-Premie.Org

Forum III Archive # 48

From: May 21, 1999

To: May 30, 1999

Page: 2 Of: 5



Way -:- guru/disciple path? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 12:19:51 (EDT)
__Gail -:- Rob-The above's for you (nt) -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 13:14:33 (EDT)
____Way -:- Thanks, Gail (nt) -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 13:20:24 (EDT)
__Rob -:- guru/disciple path? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:09:28 (EDT)
__Liz -:- What game shall we play today? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:52:05 (EDT)
____Helen -:- What game shall we play today? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:17:09 (EDT)
____Gail -:- This isn't a game, Liz. -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 22:51:22 (EDT)
__Rob -:- guru/disciple path? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 23:57:46 (EDT)
____Way -:- guru/disciple path? -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:08:50 (EDT)
______Jim -:- Hey, Way.... -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:37:04 (EDT)
______Rob -:- guru/disciple path? -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:08:46 (EDT)
______Liz -:- guru/disciple path? -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 16:03:32 (EDT)
________Rob -:- Shouldn't that be Wew, not Way -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 17:34:25 (EDT)
____Jim -:- Come on, Rob -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:42:24 (EDT)
______Rob -:- Cracks appear -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:16:48 (EDT)
________Jim -:- In yo' head, boy -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:19:25 (EDT)
______Rob -:- Defender of the faith -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:08:46 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Really? -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 11:30:12 (EDT)
____Mike -:- guru/disciple path? -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:50:44 (EDT)
______Rob -:- Truth -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:49:37 (EDT)
________Mike -:- LOTU -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 10:46:37 (EDT)

Brian and Katie -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:48:30 (EDT)
__Mike -:- A hearty - WELL DONE! -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:22:17 (EDT)
__Mickey the Pharisee -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:38:41 (EDT)
__barney -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:41:37 (EDT)
____Marianne -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 15:37:48 (EDT)
____Jerry -:- Good luck, Barney -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:14:57 (EDT)
______Mike -:- Good luck, Barney -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 17:15:38 (EDT)
______Roger E. Drek -:- Drek lives! -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 04:47:20 (EDT)
__Jerry -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:10:41 (EDT)
__RT -:- Former Premies’ Posting Heart -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:41:48 (EDT)
____Gail -:- To RT-the amazing song writer -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:51:44 (EDT)
______Liz -:- To RT-the amazing song writer -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 16:19:08 (EDT)
__Gail -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:48:33 (EDT)
____Little Yiddish Grandma -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 17:01:19 (EDT)
__Contrary Mary -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 18:31:25 (EDT)
__Diz -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 20:07:52 (EDT)
____Liz -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:57:56 (EDT)
__Biff -:- Thank You Brian and Katie (nt) -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 20:20:08 (EDT)
____Katie -:- Biff - Fear and Loathing (OT) -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:29:33 (EDT)
______biff -:- Biff - Fear and Loathing (OT) -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 15:07:40 (EDT)
________Katie -:- Biff - Fear and Loathing (OT) -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:21:38 (EDT)
__Robyn -:- New Management -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:19:12 (EDT)
__TD -:- New Management -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 06:19:49 (EDT)
____Katie -:- Y'all are very welcome! -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:11:31 (EDT)
______Katie -:- P.S. - New e-mail address! -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:18:14 (EDT)
________KB -:- P.S. - New e-mail address! -:- Sat, May 29, 1999 at 09:24:44 (EDT)
__VP -:- New Management -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:17:46 (EDT)
____Happy -:- New Management -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:24:45 (EDT)
__G's mom -:- New Management -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 14:05:41 (EDT)

Rob -:- DLM & Scientology -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:55:07 (EDT)
__Victoria -:- DLM & Scientology -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 09:20:31 (EDT)
____barney -:- DLM & Scientology -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:22:39 (EDT)
______Rob -:- DLM & Scientology -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:05:32 (EDT)

Jim -:- Premies and science -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:56:16 (EDT)
__Nil -:- Premies and science -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:20:58 (EDT)
____Rob -:- Premies and science -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:41:19 (EDT)
______Jim -:- No. Who said that? -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:17:02 (EDT)
________Rob -:- No. Who said that? -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:34:34 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- Nice try, Rob, but no and ..no -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:49:30 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- Nice try, Rob, but no and ..no -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:14:39 (EDT)
______________Jim -:- I wish I could say yes -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:28:51 (EDT)
________________Rob -:- more baggage. -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:43:41 (EDT)
__________________Jim -:- Sure and -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:45:09 (EDT)
__________D_Thomas -:- 'Enlightenment' Thinking -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:57:35 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- 'Enlightenment' Thinking -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:13:33 (EDT)
______Liz -:- God & Science -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:14:56 (EDT)
________Jim -:- You, too, Liz -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:30:34 (EDT)
________Rob -:- Clear as mud -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:32:12 (EDT)
____Jim -:- No, no, no -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:12:11 (EDT)
______right here -:- no clear discussion parameters -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:22:22 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Is it clarity you want? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:35:04 (EDT)
__________here -:- Is it clarity you want? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:59:12 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- 'Pet theory' is right -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:04:59 (EDT)
______________here -:- 'Pet theory' is right -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:37:56 (EDT)
______________Fartbrain -:- 'Pet theory' is right -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:48:58 (EDT)
____________Victoria -:- To here -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 09:37:39 (EDT)
________Mike -:- no clear discussion parameters -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 10:54:33 (EDT)
______Nil -:- No, no, no -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:17:27 (EDT)
________Jim -:- No, no, no -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:32:49 (EDT)
________D_Thomas -:- Unprovable Truths -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 08:35:33 (EDT)
__________Mike -:- Unprovable Truths -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 14:21:12 (EDT)
____________D_Thomas -:- Unprovable Truths -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 14:51:28 (EDT)
______________Mike -:- Unprovable Truths -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 15:19:21 (EDT)
__fred -:- Premies and science -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:56:06 (EDT)
__Mel Bourne -:- Jim, Premies, science , etc... -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:53:17 (EDT)
____Mel Bourne -:- sorry, Jim, a correction -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:00:45 (EDT)
____Mike -:- Jim, Premies, science , etc... -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:02:24 (EDT)
______Mel Bourne -:- God and science , etc... -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 06:32:13 (EDT)
________Mike -:- God and science , etc... -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:19:15 (EDT)
__________Mel Bourne -:- God and science , etc... -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 07:31:03 (EDT)
______CD -:- Jim, Premies, science , etc... -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 02:00:43 (EDT)
________Nigel -:- Name them! -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 05:19:31 (EDT)
____Jim -:- The generalization's fair -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:21:54 (EDT)
______Mike -:- The NRA -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:01:43 (EDT)
______D_Thomas -:- Self-Experimentation -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:20:10 (EDT)
______Mel Bourne -:- The generalization's fair? -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 07:07:16 (EDT)
________Catweasel -:- The generalization's fair? -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 10:11:59 (EDT)
________Jim -:- You have zip credibility -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:34:20 (EDT)
__________Catweasel -:- You have zip Flair and Low IQ -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:24:04 (EDT)
__________Mel Bourne -:- Whose credibility? -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:43:25 (EDT)
____________Gail -:- The Net -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 11:16:17 (EDT)
____________gerry -:- Time for a little abuse... -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 16:43:58 (EDT)
______________cp -:- go gerry nt... -:- Sat, May 29, 1999 at 00:06:46 (EDT)

Jim -:- Hey, Nil -- up here -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:28:00 (EDT)
__Nil -:- Hey, Nil -- up here -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:30:50 (EDT)
____Jim -:- Interesting answers -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:27:30 (EDT)
______Nil -:- Interesting answers -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:29:56 (EDT)
________Jim -:- Pot to kettle? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:52:01 (EDT)

Rob -:- What part does God -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:21:57 (EDT)
__Gail -:- God is gone -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:29:17 (EDT)
____Rob -:- God is gone? -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:05:24 (EDT)
______Jim -:- Yes, Gail, try to be human -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:31:16 (EDT)
________Rob -:- Yes, Gail, try to be human -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:45:04 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- Sorry, you're right -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:52:18 (EDT)
____________Liz -:- Sorry, you're right -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:05:06 (EDT)
______________Jim -:- Sorry, you're right -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:14:08 (EDT)
________________Liz -:- Sorry, you're right -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:20:04 (EDT)
__Jim -:- God's out -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:31:32 (EDT)
____Rob -:- God -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:38:00 (EDT)
______Jim -:- God -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:40:49 (EDT)
________Rob -:- God evolves! -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:04:22 (EDT)
__________Liz -:- Rational discussion -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:08:56 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- Rational discussion -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:20:42 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- How do you think I feel? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:11:42 (EDT)
____________Victoria -:- Good Books -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:24:27 (EDT)
__________Gail -:- Premie sites make me PeWK. -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 17:12:13 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- Premie sites make me PeWK. -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:34:44 (EDT)
______________Liz -:- Theetie Weetie -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:05:38 (EDT)
________________Rob -:- Theetie Weetie -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:36:37 (EDT)
__________________Liz -:- Sweetness & Light (Pewk) -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 23:51:34 (EDT)
____________________Rob -:- Sweetness & Light (Pewk) -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 00:41:21 (EDT)
____________________Bobby -:- Sweetness & Light (Pewk) -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 19:44:00 (EDT)
______________________Liz -:- I.S.B. -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 01:33:36 (EDT)
______________Gail -:- Premie sites make me PeWK. -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:20:47 (EDT)
________________Rob -:- Beliefs -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 01:04:55 (EDT)
__________________Jim -:- Have you really considered... -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:02:33 (EDT)
____________________Rob -:- Influences -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:28:50 (EDT)
______________Jean-Michel -:- P's sites make the cult? -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 09:13:47 (EDT)
________________Rob -:- P's sites make the cult? -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:38:29 (EDT)
____________Jim -:- Roger's got the stories -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 23:01:08 (EDT)
__fred -:- What part does God -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 02:21:52 (EDT)
____Rob -:- What part does God -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:40:42 (EDT)
______Jerry -:- What part does God -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 10:28:54 (EDT)
______fred -:- What part does God -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:32:20 (EDT)
______Jean-Michel -:- If so, then what's the use of -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:40:39 (EDT)
__Jerry -:- What part does God -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:48:25 (EDT)
____Rob -:- What part does God -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:58:30 (EDT)
______Jim -:- Cut to the chase, please -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:03:53 (EDT)
________Rob -:- the chase -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:21:18 (EDT)
__________Jim -:- the chase -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:45:09 (EDT)
____________UC -:- the chase -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:21:02 (EDT)
______________Jim -:- A very naive view -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 17:45:10 (EDT)
________________UC -:- A very naive view -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 18:20:51 (EDT)
__________________Jim -:- So sorry -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 21:16:53 (EDT)
____________Rob -:- the chase -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:52:34 (EDT)
______Jerry -:- What part does God -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 05:49:33 (EDT)
__Jean-Michel -:- God's part? -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 13:35:35 (EDT)
____Rob -:- God's part? -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 01:42:41 (EDT)
______Jean-Michel -:- OK I apologize -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 06:16:00 (EDT)
________Rob -:- Likewise -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 21:28:22 (EDT)
__________Jean-Michel -:- Likewise -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 03:27:47 (EDT)

RT -:- RT sings Dire Straights -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 19:49:19 (EDT)
__Mary M -:- Bravo! -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 19:59:07 (EDT)
____Zac -:- These lyrics are great -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 20:53:51 (EDT)
____RT -:- Bothered in harms... -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 10:46:03 (EDT)
______Mary M -:- Bothered in harms... -:- Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 20:37:42 (EDT)
__Robyn -:- RT & Gail... :) (nt) -:- Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:07:27 (EDT)
__RT -:- RT sings Gail plays God claps -:- Wed, May 26, 1999 at 10:53:57 (EDT)
__ohio -:- RT sings Dire Straights -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 05:19:10 (EDT)
____RT -:- RT The Ancient MARINer? -:- Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:24:10 (EDT)


Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 12:19:51 (EDT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: guru/disciple path?
Message:
During the year or two that I have been aware of this forum, no current follower of Maharaji has ever entered into a worthy discussion here. You are the first that I have noticed. All other premie posts have either been vitriolic nonscence (Catweisel) or hopeless stupidity (Nil below). I appreciate many of your comments, particularly your compassionate remarks to Gail who is in obvious despair. I do understand your reluctance to attempt a defense of Maharaji, because Rawat has presumably not appointed you his on-line defender and you would be doing so on your own volition in probable conflict with his wishes. I personally am a long-time friend with a PAM who has nearly daily contact with Rawat and this person completely refuses to speak for Rawat in any fashion, which I find perfectly understandable. I therefore am intrigued that you would post here at all and can only assume that you do not really consider yourself under any real devotional obligation to the Master. What is your current attitude in regard to the guru/disciple relationship? This aspect of Maharaji's path is the one that I find most vague in the current world of Knowledge. Do you participate in propagation? Do you contribute actively to your Master by giving of your time, energy and money? Are you aware of all the other gurus currently active in the world today, and do you find Maharaji superior to them? I ask you these questions because I really don't understand why any intelligent, thoughtful, and kind person would continue to subjugate themselves to Rawat. I personally find it much more authentic to act from my own will and my own understanding instead of maintaining the pretence of following the guru, which is really nothing but a game. I would appreciate any sincere comments you might have.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 13:14:33 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Rob-The above's for you (nt)
Message:
(nt)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 13:20:24 (EDT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Thanks, Gail (nt)
Message:
no text
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:09:28 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: guru/disciple path?
Message:
Just got home from work and saw your lengthy post. That's going to take some time and thought to give it the reply it deserves, so I'll probably work on it offline.
Thanks, Rob
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:52:05 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: What game shall we play today?
Message:
Hi Way,

Sorry to butt in but 'it's only a game' caught my attention. When I was involved with Scientology playing games was a pretty 'high tone' thing to do. There was even a great song by Chick Corea (another Scientologist) called 'What Game Shall We Play Today' that had quite a positive effect on me. Much better than taking things very s e r i o u s l y. I still agree with that.

I suppose it could be as simple as some still enjoy playing Maharaji's game and some prefer to play another game or games.

Food for thought.

Bye for now,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:17:09 (EDT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: What game shall we play today?
Message:
That is interesting. I don't know much about Scientology, but this game business would be a turn off to me. The Game of Life, The Game of Tennis etc. And hearing that Chick Corea is a Scientologist is quite dismaying.. I am curious though to hear more stories about it (Scientology)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 22:51:22 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: freedom@gtn.net
To: Liz
Subject: This isn't a game, Liz.
Message:
Life is not a game to me. A game implies that your outcome depends upon the other players. As far as I know, I only get this one kick at the cat (wheezle). I don't want to be MJ's pawn anymore. This is my life. I want to live it as a free person. Nobody knows anything for sure, so why waste time living my life according to someone else's recipe? I'd rather make my own food.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 23:57:46 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: guru/disciple path?
Message:
Thank you for your kind remarks. I don't know if I can cover all the points you raised, but there is one which I do need to address, and I'm glad you brought it up.

All the views expressed in my postings are entirely my own. I do not represent Maharaji or his work in any way, and I do not consider myself qualified or authorised to speak on his behalf.

The fact that you think a premie with 'devotional obligation' should not or would not post here is really not very flattering to the main contingent of contributors. Are they to be looked on as outcasts, to be shunned by those who choose to remain a student of Maharaji? Why?

I am primarily a human being. If the words I write brings even slight comfort to a person who is suffering, then I truly have been of service. If just one reader questions a misconception they have about someone who chooses to practice Knowledge, then that questioning may lead them eventually to the truth.

Maharaji is not my guru, he may be that to other people, but I can only speak for myself. I neither know nor care what the majority of people with Knowledge see as their relationship with him, nor who they 'think he is'. There has always been only two people involved in my particular 'thread' - Maharaji and myself. I accept him as my teacher because he fulfills my need for guidance on many levels. If he did not, I would not contiue on as his student. I practice the techniques of Knowledge because I enjoy it. No mystery involved.

I don't actively propogate, simply because I not comfortable sharing my feelings and beliefs 'face to face'. This is just a personal inhibition, and doesn't devalue Knowledge in any way. I do contribute time, energy and money. I have plenty of each and I am free to do with it as I please.

I'm not aware of all the gurus in the world (are you?), but perhaps some of them. They really don't interest me. I'm not from India, and have no desire to embrace another country's culture, although I'm not critisising it either.

Although I haven't been able perhaps to give a total overview of my life, I fail to see what would make you conclude that I am subjugating myself to Maharaji? Everything I do in my life is of my own free will (paying tax & visiting the mother-in-law excepted). Perhaps I could close with a question in return. Why is it that you wish to understand me?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:08:50 (EDT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: guru/disciple path?
Message:
Wow, an honest attempt at communication! I have not been able to discuss Maharaji to any depth with my old friends from the 70's who still follow him. The main reason for this is that I don't want to insult them and they are not interested in being insulted. One old friend sent me a tape of 'satsang' in which he sang a few songs and then extemporaneously spoke just like the good old days. I wrote him a long letter back, but then did not send it because I think it is for each person to disillusion themselves, not others. So this leaves me not really understanding where premies from the seventies who still follow Rawat are coming from and I am curious. I would like to get to the core difference between currents and exes, so to speak. Of course you are a single person and there would be no way to generalize from your example, but you do seem to be a good specimen for analysis, if you don't mind. I take it you have been around since the 70's and that brings up the most obvious question of how you have managed to stay 'in the flow' when the flow has meandered from one extreme to another. But before I bring up fresh issues, let me respond to your response of late Wednesday night. I see you have struck out on your own, to some extent, allowing yourself your own views and identity apart from Rawat. We used to say things like 'I am a premie first.' In fact, an old ashram friend of mine, female, recently dated a person high in the hierarchy of Eckankar. She told me that there were conflicts between them because 'I am a premie first.' I said 'no, you're not, you're a human being first, and a premie somewhere down the line, and if you are going to have a successful relationship with somebody other than another premie, you are going to have to reclaim your humaness.' So, I am glad to see that you have done that reclaiming. As I understand Maharaji's approach, only an independent person would post on this forum, and any 'devotee' would follow Maharahi's example of ignoring 'the mind,' and go watch a video instead. Yes, definitely, Maharaji expects exes to 'walk' with no further engagement. I very much doubt that you are pleasing Rawat by your presence here, but since you state clearly that he is not your guru, so be it! However, you do say that in your practice of Knowledge there has always been only two people involved, you and Maharaji. This strikes me as an idealized fantasy. For one thing, in the years around 1977-79, one of Maharaji's buzz words was 'community.' I know for myself, much of my inspiration to practice Knowledge was from initiators and other premies, whose satsangs I always preferred to Rawat's rather boring monologues in large halls. And another thing, as far as Maharaji being inside myself along with me and my soul, he does still make the attempt to get himself into that picture as evidenced by the new way he describes holy name technique to new initiates - 'imagine your breath going up and down as the Master swinging you on a swing.' No, no, no! Rawat is not inside me, thank god! The two involved here are me and my higher self, and anything else is make-believe. This misrepresentation is egregious and Maharaji should stop it. The guru/disciple path is a sham, and if anyone is going to reach his or her own highest potential they are simply going to have to do it on their own without empowering some other finite human being. You say Rawat 'fulfills your need for guidance on many levels.' Well, another guru figure of this century, Krishnamurti, would very quickly point out that you thereby are not seeking truth, but just seeking help. How long do you expect Maharaji to hold you hand on the path to your own soul? Be authentic, be real, be the one who you are from birth to death. If you must be a student, well - graduate for heaven's sake! You also say that you practice the techniques of Knowledge because you enjoy it, and that is no mystery. Well, so do I (sort of - the hand postures are a distraction), so you're right, that does not mystify me. Yes, I am personally aware of about twenty other gurus active today in the USA. I am the author of 'Unbounded Light,' published by Nicolas-Hays and a selection of the Book of the Month Club in 1994-95. I have long researched the subject matter. Absolutely nothing about Rawat is unique to him, including the four techniques which are identical to those taught currently in Siddha Yoga. As far as I can tell, the outright frauds far outnumber the sincere teachers. The Dalai Lama is the only person I personally give any credence to. He has said, 'my religion is simple, my religion is kindness.' On that note, I will close in hopes that my rudeness above will not insult you personally but further the discussion.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:37:04 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Hey, Way....
Message:
Do you have any idea how hard it is to read a post like that without any paragraphs in it?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:08:46 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: guru/disciple path?
Message:
That is an excellent answer Way, and I will have to reread it a few times to do justice to it in my response. But thank you for the considerable time it must have taken you to write it. I would be interested to read your book, too, I'll see if amazon has it.

Let me get back to you in a day or two, as I have a heavy workload right now and can only manage short answers.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 16:03:32 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: guru/disciple path?
Message:
Hi Way,

What's your book 'Unbounded Light' about?

Does it have paragraphs? Just kidding!

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 17:34:25 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Way
Subject: Shouldn't that be Wew, not Way
Message:
As in William E Williams. Why use a pseudonym here and give us the title of your book? Or was that also a pseudonym? Just curious, Bill.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:42:24 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Come on, Rob
Message:
Maharaji is not my guru, he may be that to other people, but I can only speak for myself. I neither know nor care what the majority of people with Knowledge see as their relationship with him, nor who they 'think he is'. There has always been only two people involved in my particular 'thread' - Maharaji and myself. I accept him as my teacher because he fulfills my need for guidance on many levels. If he did not, I would not contiue on as his student. I practice the techniques of Knowledge because I enjoy it. No mystery involved.

Okay, I see how you've made your nest. Underground. You're just bunkered in under a 'see-no-evil, hear-no-evil- canopy. Worked yourself up to a point where you think you can say things like Maharaji's not your 'guru', just your 'teacher' and that that meaningless distinction frees you from having to deal with some of the thornier, messier issues surrounding him.

No, Rob, this doesn't cut it. Whatever Maharaji is to you, he, too, is a 'human being', just like you. You're associated with him and if you don't have the guts to judge him as you'd judge any other friend, you're hiding more than your identity here.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:16:48 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Cracks appear
Message:
Whatever Maharaji is to you, he, too, is a 'human being', just like you. You're associated with him and if you don't have the guts to judge him as you'd judge any other friend

Looks like you're starting to defend Maharaji, Jim. Now I'm confused.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:19:25 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: In yo' head, boy
Message:
Looks like you're starting to defend Maharaji, Jim. Now I'm confused.

???

Explain yourself, please. Look, I'm the first to say Maharaji's only human. But that's not in any way excusing him for being a cowardly cult leader. What in the world...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:08:46 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Defender of the faith
Message:
Oh OK, I was coming at you from left field, just seeing if you're awake!

Okay, I see how you've made your nest. Underground. You're just bunkered in under a 'see-no-evil, hear-no-evil- canopy.
If that were true, I'd definately steer clear of this site, by which I mean I would not want to expose myself to all the unpleasant things being said about Maharaji.

Worked yourself up to a point where you think you can say things like Maharaji's not your 'guru', just your 'teacher' and that that meaningless distinction frees you from having to deal with some of the thornier, messier issues surrounding him.
cf my answer to Mike.

if you don't have the guts to judge him as you'd judge any other friend, you're hiding more than your identity here.
I don't judge my friends, I support them regardless. That's what friends do for each other. What does my identity matter? You've already made assumptions about my personality, dedication, intentions, integrity, motivation, spiritual awareness and nesting habits, why spoil your comic book impression of me with the real thing?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 11:30:12 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Really?
Message:
I don't judge my friends, I support them regardless. That's what friends do for each other.

You sure about this, Rob? Think about it. Your friend tells you he defrauded someone, that, infact, he's got a whole plan underway by which he's continuing to defraud people. How much support you gonna give him, Robbie ol' pal? Robbie, ol' buddy?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:50:44 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: guru/disciple path?
Message:
Rob: 'Maharaji is not my guru, he may be that to other people, but I can only speak for myself.'

Rob, if truth is truth, then it should be the same for EVERYONE, right? Either he is LOTU or he isn't. Either he is a perfect master or he isn't. Either he is a meditation teacher or he isn't. If ANY of it were really TRUE, it would be TRUE universally and, by the way, the story wouldn't change (because it's the TRUTH!).

If a prosecutor had him in court (on ANY charge) and he changed his story in court as many times and in as many ways as he has with us, he would be found guilty by default. They would KNOW that he was lying. His credibility would be totally shot. As it currently is with the EX's. Truth is truth.....for everyone!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 23:49:37 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Truth
Message:
Mike,

Truth is truth, and it's the same for everyone, yes. Everyone perceives truth in the same way, no. You are overcomplicating what was a very simple statement on my part, but don't worry, you're not the first.

I'll quote myself...Maharaji is not my guru, he may be that to other people....

Maharaji is my teacher. He stopped calling himself Guru Maharaji many years ago, so I stopped calling him Guru. Some people have not stopped calling him Guru.

So, Maharaji is not my guru.....simple enough?

Either he is LOTU or he isn't Correct. Now, do me a favour, describe to me what a 'Lord of the Universe' is. Then tell me where and when you heard him say 'I am the Lord of the Universe'

...and, by the way, the story wouldn't change (because it's the TRUTH!)

Think of the novel the Lord of the Rings. It's a really long story, right? Lots of things happen to the characters in it, they come and go, they go through changes, transformations etc. The dynamics and the politics ebb and flow. The story changes as it progresses. But look at it another way. I've read it eleven times since I was a kid. The story doesn't change! I can say that because I've reached its conclusion many times, I can look at the whole picture and say, it doesn't change.

This story of Maharaji is ongoing. It hasn't reached its conclusion yet, so yes, the story is changing. The way the truth is taught, the infrastructure, the assumptions and misinterpretations of premies...the politics, the ebb and flow.

The first time I read LOTR, I nearly threw the book away when Gandalf fell into the Balrog's pit. I was really pissed off, I couldn't see how the story would be worth reading after that. But I plodded on, and am really glad I did, because it turned out to be an excellent read in the end.

You, on the other hand, would probably have sued Tolkein.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 10:46:37 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: LOTU
Message:
Rob: Look at Jean-Michels site, he has ALL of those quotes and the dates/places. However, I will describe to you one, in particular: 'Guru is GREATER than God, because he reveals God.' That about says it all, doesn't it? As to the term: Lord of the Universe....well, it seems to be pretty self-explanatory, but my definition is GOD, you know....the Lord of Hosts, the Almighty, the Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent One, you know....GOD!

Rob, there are plenty of quotes, over on Jean-Michels site, that are very clear on this issue. I was there when he said many of those things, the quotes are accurate and there is no 'mistake.' He said what he said and he meant for us to believe what he said. But there's one little problem.....He's NOT the LOTU and he's NOT the PM and I don't think he is much of a meditation teacher either due to the simple fact that he doesn't spend any time dealing with the problems that his followers have with it. Teachers teach and they don't stop teaching until YOU get it right. He isn't 'teaching' anything. He just sits on a stage and mumbles on and on about THAT PLACE that no one has, apparently, attained. Once again, I say that there isn't a single example of ANYONE becoming 'liberated' (a promise he made) in over a quarter of a century! If there were a college professor that had not successfully taught someone for that period of time, he would be fired, don't you think? What college professors teach is 'difficult to master,' too. M says that his is the easiest thing to master....and yet....no one has mastered it....funny....

PLEASE go over and read from Jean-Michel's site. It's a superb site! The old and new quotes, history and other things of interest are all there.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:48:30 (EDT)
From: Brian and Katie
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: New Management
Message:
As of June 1st, Barney will be taking over as Webmaster. You can email him starting now at barney@ex-premie.org.

We've been doing this since January of 1998, so it's time for a change. The experience has been very rewarding sometimes, frustrating at other times, but mainly it's afforded us a chance to work out our personal issues about Maharajism and to get to know a lot of you very well.

We'll still be around here. Brian will still be working on the forum scripts. Features to come will include the ability to password-protect your user name so that nobody else can post under it.

Katie won't be moderating the forum anymore, but will still be posting. Brian might even post once in a while too... [snicker]

Thanks to everyone who has given us their help and support, and thanks to Barney for being willing to take on the job. We both hope that he'll have the support of the people who use this forum and who benefit from this site.

And a special thankyou to Jean-Michel for his efforts on the French pages and Le Forum, and for being so nice to work with.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:22:17 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: A hearty - WELL DONE!
Message:
WELL DONE, indeed!!!!!!!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:38:41 (EDT)
From: Mickey the Pharisee
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
I want to thank both of you for all the effort and work you have put into this site. I enjoyed the old Scott Perry site, but you two have really improved this place. I also want to thank you for your patience with people here and for not censoring people, even those with whom I disagree (and they are legion). You have done a fine job for a long time, and I really appreciate all you two have done. Thank you, once again!
Michael
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:41:37 (EDT)
From: barney
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Indeed, well done and thanks for making www.ex-premie.org what it is.

And I am thankful that I found this site about two years ago and finally left Maharaji's cult 17 months ago after a nearly 25 years of involvement. I had been fence sitting and this site made the difference. Although, I must say that the disgusting commercialization as seen in the Trinket Hall at my last Long Beach '97 was one of my final drips.

Moving quickly to important matters:
  • There will be little change in the Forum and the website as we know and love it.

  • Because I'm doing this alone and due to the enormous effort involved in deleting Off Topic posts before archiving the archives will contain Off Topic posts.

  • Please email me at barney@ex-premie.org to report any posting abuse.

  • Ok, let's all try to get along.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 15:37:48 (EDT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Katie & Brian
Subject: New Management
Message:
Great job you two. And good luck, Barney.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:14:57 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: Good luck, Barney
Message:
I have every confidence that you're going to do an excellent job. Does this mean the end of Roger Drek or can we expect some kind of merger between him and Ex-premie.org?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 17:15:38 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Good luck, Barney
Message:
Barney: To echo Jerry's sentiments, you are goin' to need all the luck you can get....with a motley crew like this one!!! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 04:47:20 (EDT)
From: Roger E. Drek
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Drek lives!
Message:
What do you mean by asking this impertinent question?

I kowtow to no one. I am my own man.

Besides, I'm working a deal with Amazon.com to place an ad. Soon I'll be rich, but first more of you guys need to go to the House of Maharaji Drek to boost the hit count. Hell, it's all your fault that I'm not rich.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:10:41 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
To Brian and Katie,

Thanks much. This website has been a life saver. You've really done a tremendous service and should feel especially good about yourselves for having done so.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:41:48 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: omm
To: Brian and Katie Hurray
Subject: Former Premies’ Posting Heart
Message:
Former Premies’ Posting Hearts Club Band

It was 16 months ago today,
Brian’s web site taught the X to say
He’s been doing ever since in style
that is guaranteed to raise M’s bile
So let me congratulate to you
the one and only Brian! Cheers!
Former Premies’ Posting Hearts Club Band!

+

What you would do if I sang RT’s tune
Would you stand up and walk out on HE?
Lend me your fears and I’ll tell you of wrongs
And you’ll buy not a mug from EV.

Oh, I let fly with a little help from my friends
Oh, I get sighs from a little help from my friends
Oh, I’m gonna spy with a little help from my friends.

What you would do if: Rawat is no Sage
Does it worry you to use the phone ~
What did you learn at the end of the page?
Are you sad because you’re on your own?

Oh, I let fly with a little help from my friends
Oh, I get wry from a little help from my friends
Oh, I’m gonna try with a little help from my friends.
+

Woke up...stood on my head...dragged the phone across my bed
On the way downstairs I booted up
and looking up, I noticed posts were great....

Grabbed a page, and printed that.
Sent the site in seconds flat.....

+

I read the views today, oh joy
about a Web-master who made the grade
and tho’ the guy was rather glad
The thanks were all relayed
We want to know how many bucks it takes to keep the Server paid?
We’d love to keep this on...

Good luck, (which is self-created) to Barney!

RT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:51:44 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: To RT-the amazing song writer
Message:
You did it again!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 16:19:08 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: R.T.
Subject: To RT-the amazing song writer
Message:
Congratulations on your rendition of Sgt. Peeper.

Excellent!

Peeper was a typo but I decided to keep it!

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 16:48:33 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Thanks for everything.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 17:01:19 (EDT)
From: Little Yiddish Grandma
Email: None
To: Brian,Katie, RT
Subject: New Management
Message:
Katie you have the patience of Rebekah, you are blessed among women, worth more than diamonds and rubies. Your style reminds me of what my Stanley used to say 'You can catch more flies with honey than with stinky month old gefilte fish.' Well, maybe not, I remember one year after passover , the trash collectors were on strike and the garbage was covered with flies! Oy! Anyway where was I?

Brian, you are a nice boy too. You're a little on the skinny side, I would like to fatten you up with some of my cooking. You work too hard, so I hope this means you'll be taking some time off to enjoy life.

Mazeltov to both of you fine people (are you sure you're not Jewish?)

Love
LYG, old but not senile yet!
P.S.--RT, you're a clever boy! Love your music. Was that a song by those cute Beegees or those Grasshoppers? Beautiful job!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 18:31:25 (EDT)
From: Contrary Mary
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Brian & Katie,

Thanks to both of you for the hard work and effort you've put into maintaining this site. Through tears and laughter I believe much healing has taken place for those of us willing to begin the journey - out.

I'd send you both a jar of vintage Soul Rush Apple Butter but I think they went in the 'Citronella Oil Soaked' burn pile of the

MAHARAJI/
DLM/EV
/AMTEXT
/DIVINE ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
/SHRI HANS PRODUCTION
/PREM MARK
/RAINBOW GROCERY/VISIONSINTERNATIONAL
/ICHANGE
/ENJOYINGLIFE/GRATITUDE
/MR CLEAN
/SEVA CORPORATION OF AMERICA
/ANACAPA VIEW ESTATES
/WAHADAMAR
/DOGMA
..

trinkets.

In fact, I recall them exploding in the fire!

Love,
Mary M
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 20:07:52 (EDT)
From: Diz
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Dear Brian and Katie

Wish I had RT's talent. I really want to thank you for the incredible amount of work you've put into the site. When I found it just under 12 months ago it was such a relief - OTHER PEOPLE were actually thinking MJ wasn't perfect! Ex-premies are very lucky to have this site to turn to - exes from other cults may not all be so fortunate.

I've appreciated the wise and even-handed way you've managed the site. You've brought both intelligence and compassion to the job, and it shows. I do hope you'll both continue to post here, as you both give quality input. I also hope you're going to do something great with all the spare time you'll have!

Good luck as new manager, Barney. Thank you for taking on the job - it's no small ask, I know.

Diz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:57:56 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Katie & Brian
Subject: New Management
Message:
Thanks for the opportunity to communicate our feelings. This must be the only place a premie or ex can really express how they feel.

Hope you keep posting,

Love,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 20:20:08 (EDT)
From: Biff
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: Thank You Brian and Katie (nt)
Message:
muchos gracias
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:29:33 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Biff
Subject: Biff - Fear and Loathing (OT)
Message:
Hi Biff - I don't know if you're still around, but I did want to tell you that I finally watched 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas'. I liked some parts of it a lot: the voice-overs, which I assume came from the book? (I really liked the quotes about the 60's (the wave breaking over the west coast, and the tide line stopping at Las Vegas, and about the fallacy of 'someone tending the light at the end of the tunnel' - I think Selene put this on the forum once.), the 60's flashbacks, and some of the road scenes. I did NOT like the long drugged hotel room scenes - they were pretty excruciating to watch - maybe they brought back too many bad memories :)? Anyway thanks for the recommendation - it was an interesting movie.

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

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 15:07:40 (EDT)
From: biff
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Biff - Fear and Loathing (OT)
Message:
Hey, glad you liked it. Sorry for not warning you about the 'difficult' scenes though. I guess debauchery doesn't phase me like it used to :-) I don't know 100% if the voice overs were straight from the book or not but I had the same feeling as you. I really liked the first half hour or so and then it became a bit drawn out but still I found enough redeeming about the rest of it that overall I liked it a lot.

I found the opening hitch hiker scene hilarious and especially the check in at the hotel. The hotel check in was probably my favorite part of the film and the one where I was smiling the most.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see that your still going to be around these here parts, albeit as a 'civilian' :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 12:21:38 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: biff
Subject: Biff - Fear and Loathing (OT)
Message:
Hi Biff -
The nice thing about being a 'civilian' is that you can post off-topic without worrying about deleting them later :).

I have to say that the druggie hotel room scenes bothered me because I've been there, done that (albeit a long time ago). Also, as you said, some of them seemed never-ending. I did think the hotel check-in scenes (which one did you think was funny?) were good, but when the flowers started coming up off the carpet, I got kind of sick (post-traumatic stress syndrome?).

My favorite scene was the 60's flashback when he sees himself (really funny), and then he spills the acid on his sleeve in the men's room. (At least I THINK these were in the same scene.) I also liked the scene where he drives directly to the airport. Both of these made me laugh, and I usually don't laugh in movies. Anyway, I want to read the book now.

Hey, are you still going to be around here too?

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

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:19:12 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Dear Brian, Katie, and Barney,
Well I was never at the forum that it wasn't in Brian and Katie's hands. I thank you both for the massive amount of work and time and sometimes hassels that you have given and endured.

I am glad to be able to call each of you my friends.

Good luck Barney, at least you have a good idea of what you are facing! :)
I think it was Mike who said something about our unruly group! :) What a challenge!
Love,
Robyn
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 06:19:49 (EDT)
From: TD
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Just want to add my thanks to everyone elses to you Brian and Katie for all you've done and the great job you did managing the website. If it hadn't been for your work as following on from Scott's, I dread to think what kind of premie nightmare I'd still be living in, by not having this website to turn to, and hence get me out of premiedom. Thanks again.

Having checked out a number of other forums on the Net, I think the layout and ease of use of this one is second to none. Thanks for making it such an easy and readable one to get around.

And good on you Barney for taking over the job! Thanks for offering to do that, as it is, as Diz pointed out, a big one!

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

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:11:31 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: all
Subject: Y'all are very welcome!
Message:
Thanks to everyone (on behalf of Brian, too) for the nice things you've said about the forum and site in general, and me and Brian in particular. I've really enjoyed helping Brian with the forum and site, and am looking forward to participating as a 'civilian' (so to speak). I know Brian is too - our posting capacity (especially Brian's) has been somewhat limited by our status as webmasters.

I've really learned and grown a lot from doing this job:
- I've learned to respect other people's beliefs even if I don't agree with them.
- I have become more assertive and less of a people-pleaser (finally!), although I've also learned that there are at least two sides to every question.
- I've learned to try and take it easy, to try not worry about things so much, and that some problems solve themselves, given enough time.
- I've learned that some people are not going to like me, no matter what, and that that is all right.
- Although we all have many things in common, I've learned that all ex-premies are different AND that premies are all different too
- I've become pretty bored with Maharaji himself. I guess you can say that I've 'gotten neutral' on him, although I still care very much about the ex-premies (and others) who post here.
- I've gotten to meet and correspond with many wonderful people, and have even gotten to meet some of them in 'the real world'. I really believe that there is a common bond between most of the people who post on here, and that it has more to do with the kind of people we are than being 'ex-premies'. The people on the forum have acted a real community/family group for me, at a time in my life when I very much needed them. Thanks so much to everyone for that.
- I feel like I've fufilled the promise that I made to my beloved friend Sam after his death.

Thanks very much to Barney for taking on the job of webmaster. I hope you get as much out of it as Brian and I did. And thanks to all of you who participate in the forum and have helped with the site. This forum reflects the people who participate in it - no amount of moderation or software changes can affect that very much. I think that the people who post here have really made it a place where healing can happen - I've seen that in others and have experienced it personally.

Take care, and thanks again to everyone,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:18:14 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: all
Subject: P.S. - New e-mail address!
Message:
I hate to inflict yet another new e-mail address on everyone, but although Barney has kindly consented to let me use the katie@ex-premie.org e-mail address for a while, I would prefer if anyone who e-mails me could use my personal address, which is
'mishkat@gateway.net'.
Please change your address books if you have me in them.

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

Date: Sat, May 29, 1999 at 09:24:44 (EDT)
From: KB
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: P.S. - New e-mail address!
Message:
Thank you Katie and Brian
and JM and Sir David, and Drekman, and The David's,
and Scott and now the great Barney.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:17:46 (EDT)
From: VP
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Dear Katie and Brian,

Thanks for helping me (and countless others) dispell the myth of Maharaji as The Perfect Master!

Good luck to the new webmaster. I'm sure he will do a great job with this important responsibility.

I may see everyone around here from time to time, but frankly I don't feel the need to read or to post here anymore. Alleluia--I'm healed!

VP
Maharaji is a bore in '99
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:24:45 (EDT)
From: Happy
Email: None
To: Brian & Kathy
Subject: New Management
Message:
Thanks Brian and Katie for your trully fantastic work (can't put it strong enough), and good luck to you Barney!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 14:05:41 (EDT)
From: G's mom
Email: None
To: Brian and Katie
Subject: New Management
Message:
Just a thank you for a job well done and I can understand needing a well deserved rest from the stress of being the moderators of this very diverse group. Good luck Barney too!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:55:07 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: DLM & Scientology
Message:
Liz,

Thanks for your reply. How sweet!

I wonder if there's an ex-scientology site? I would definately have something to say there.

Didn't intend to start a new thread, it's just you lose track of who's replying to you when the threads are like 5 feet long!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 09:20:31 (EDT)
From: Victoria
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: DLM & Scientology
Message:
interesting anti-scientology site
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:22:39 (EDT)
From: barney
Email: None
To: Victoria
Subject: DLM & Scientology
Message:
Yes, indeed! We might think that we had it rough, but you look at $cientology and you know that it is/was bad, really bad. The Clearwater, Florida incident in which a woman died at a so-called retreat is really scary. Also, the tactics that $cientology uses to stifle critics is way ahead of Maharaji.

You can try and check out the Anti-Scientology newsgroups at alt.regligion.scientology and alt.religion.scientology.xenu, but these newsgroups are so heavily spammed by Scientologist supporters that they are practically worthless.

Which brings up the fact that I will be the Forum Webmaster. Hopefully Brian will soon have the ability to provide Forum users with protected posting handles to ensure that there is no confusion as to the identity of a known poster. In the event that things get really bad like the Scientology newsgroup it can be taken a step further.

Below is the FAQ from alt.religion.scientology.xenu:

This is the *quick* FAQ, the one to give people first up. The succour of the confused and overloaded lurker. Suggestions are welcomed. The idea is to keep it no more than a page (66 lines) in length (between the lines) and 78 (pref.75) characters in width.

http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/links/ufaq.txt

==========================================

a.r.s. Short FAQ for Newcomers version 0.12

0. If you want detail, IT'S ALL ON WEB PAGES. Ours are all accessible from http://www.modemac.com/cos , theirs are all accessible from http://www.scientology.org/ . Dive in and read till your brain overflows.

1. Many excellent critical books written over the years are listed at (and available via) http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/books.htm - in particular, you should read 'Bare-Faced Messiah' and 'The Road to Xenu' - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/bfm/ and
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/

2. Yes, all the stuff about Xenu and volcanoes and clams is true. Bwahaha! And that only costs you US$160k out of US$360k or more total. Eek.

3. A killfile is necessary to read a.r.s, due to both Co$ spam-bombings and juvenile crossposting twits. (Feel free to write to the latter asking them not to post off-topic noise.) Windows: Agent (http://www.forteinc.com) is popular. Unix: tin, trn or slrn. Macintosh: YA/MT-NewsWatcher.

4. Yes, it is a cult.

5. No, even though they stare like that they probably won't hurt you.

6. Yes, there are ex-scientologists who still believe that Hubbard's stuff works - the 'free zone'. http://www.clearing.org/.

Mostly quite nice people.

7. Yes, the e-meter is basically a 'lie detector'. For full info, seehttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter

8. No, you aren't supposed to understand Koos. He was too crazy even for the Co$. Amusement or killfile. A 'Koos FAQ' is posted regularly.

9. Yes, it appears that many different $cientologist posters use the same accounts, probably in violation of the agreements they have with their ISP.

10. Yes, the Co$ really has harassed critics. Most have survived, though.

11. Yes, they will threaten to sue you for posting Fair Use extracts of their sEkRiT sKrIpToOrS. No, they haven't managed to make it stick.

12. No, there is no organized conspiracy to bring the 'Church' to its knees. If we were organized we'd have already done it and would be working on the people who enacted the CDA.

13. Yes, a $cientologist who makes sense, rationally argues their view and refrains from constant personal attacks does show up now and then. But they either blow the cult, get thrown into RPF indefinitely or disappear until the next all-hands-on-a.r.s alert. (Whippersnapper may or may not be officialdom, but serves mostly for amusement value only.)

14. No, randomly answering personality tests won't confuse them any more than they are already confused.

15. If you haven't read the Web pages, go and do so *NOW*. Before you post.

16. No, Scientology doesn't really matter very much at all; it's small and getting smaller. It's who tries this *next* that we have to worry about.

=========================================

--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/
http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~gerard/ (European mirror)
http://www.prysm.net/cuthulu/fun/ (US mirror - fast!)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:05:32 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: barney
Subject: DLM & Scientology
Message:
Thanks much for the info, something for me to get into when I have some time. Right now I've got a humongous post to reply to from 'Way'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:56:16 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Premies and science
Message:
I wonder if there are any premies who don't bristle at the scientific explanations for the world around us. I mean, can premies ever really afford to respect science knowing, as they do, that, at a certain point, they're supposed to feign severe simplicity and play dumb? How can that attitude support real curiosity?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:20:58 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Premies and science
Message:
Jim, speaking of blanket statements... In my acquaintences with premies they don't 'bristle' at scientific explanations. They just realize that a theory is just that... a theory. Which means that it is not proven. They don't worship the field of science like some un-named ex-premie lawyers I know of. I personally find scientific thought to be quite valid and stimulating. But don't try to use it to disprove something I have already proven...to myself...through non-scientific means.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:41:19 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: Premies and science
Message:
Isn't science just a way of discovering how the Creator makes things work?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:17:02 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: No. Who said that?
Message:
Isn't science just a way of discovering how the Creator makes things work?

No, Rob, I don't think so. Science doesn't presuppose any such 'creator'. In fact, science doesn't leave room for one, at least not in the story of how life developed. Did you think it did? Tell me about it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:34:34 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No. Who said that?
Message:
It's just a pet theory of mine. Came up with it way back when I was at school, actually. It goes something like this:

All the chemical, nuclear, physical reactions and interplay - all that 'stuff' which science discovers, are the mechanics by which the Creator makes the world happen & grow. Take evolution (of which I know little, admittedly). The process by which everything evolves was itself created to begin with, then monitored and developed as necessary by some super brainy being.

I know, its a hokey theory, but its got as much chance of being right as all the others.

Actually, if science doesn't leave any room for a 'creator', isn't that itself rather unscientific? Discounting a possible explanation because of personal belief?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:49:30 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Nice try, Rob, but no and ..no
Message:
The process by which everything evolves was itself created to begin with, then monitored and developed as necessary by some super brainy being.

Well, that's what's so amazing about evolution. There's no evidence or even room for any such 'monitoring'. No 'super brainy being'. Just the power of natural selection and time.

I know, its a hokey theory, but its got as much chance of being right as all the others.

No it doesn't! We're not talking democracy, Rob, we're talking viability based on observation and compliance with other known facts. Your theory, bless its soul, has nothing going for it. It explains nothing, I'm afraid. Indeed, it shows a real ... well, I don't want to be rude. Time for you to do a little reading, I'm afraid.

Actually, if science doesn't leave any room for a 'creator', isn't that itself rather unscientific? Discounting a possible explanation because of personal belief?

Science can't 'rule out' the possibility of Baby Jesus and the Blessed Virgin sitting up there somewhere in Shpland running the whole show. There just isn't any evidence that he's there. None. Beliefs, 'personal' or otherwise (?), aren't sacred. Where'd they come from? Test them if you can. No?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:14:39 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Nice try, Rob, but no and ..no
Message:
Bummer.

Hey, did you ever see that cartoon, where this kid goes up to the wise man on the mountain and asks him what the meaning of life is? The old man answers something like: 'The meaning of life is 'a fish'' To which the kid goes: 'No. it's not, dumbass!' And the wise man looks shocked, and says. 'It's not? Oh shit!'

That's how I feel. Well maybe not. I think I was 14 when I came up with my theory, and I guess I haven't given it enough thought since.

Science can't 'rule out' the possibility of Baby Jesus and the Blessed Virgin .... Of course, but instead of looking for evidence of the archetypal conception of God, do any scientists include the possibility of some kindof cosmic consciousness, of unknown form or structure?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:28:51 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: I wish I could say yes
Message:
instead of looking for evidence of the archetypal conception of God, do any scientists include the possibility of some kindof cosmic consciousness, of unknown form or structure?

and I guess I can. There appear to be lots of scientists who believe in god, especially -- and this is just my very lay opinion -- outside biology. But these scientists all acknowledge that god, if he exists, isn't needed for any of the processes they're aware of. If he existed, he'd be just a big fifth wheel and science doesn't have much respect for those.

Ever hear of the principle of Occam's Razor? It's the generally accepted idea that where two theories explain a phenomenon equally well, go with the simpler. Here, evolution explains the development of life perfectly well without some higher consciousness shepherding the process. Adding God is just adding an unnecessary layer of complexity that adds nothing to the explanation. Not to mention, of course, the probelm of explaining how God got there anyway. Evolved? See? It's a very unhelpful loop.

Better bet, I think, is to consider where our beliefs in god came from in the first place. I don't think the idea would ever get the legs it's had if it sprang up in modern times. Sure, there's a lot of momentum to preserve faith now that we've got it, but I don't think it could have ever established the beachhead it did were it to try all over again in this day and age. It's baggage, old, musty, sometimes colorful, baggage.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:43:41 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: more baggage.
Message:
Forgot to end the italic there, wasn't meant to be such a dramatic sentence, sorry.

Boy, sounds like God's definitely a victim of evolutionary downsizing. Poor bugger. What will he do now? Can just picture him bumming quarters off people in the cinema queue 'I used to be the Creator, you know, until that asshole Darwin came along. Should have made him evolve into a lizard.'

There's plenty more meat left in this discussion, Jim, I'm just pooped for now, so I'm going to turn in. Thanks for your time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:45:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Sure and
Message:
happy birthday by the way.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:57:35 (EDT)
From: D_Thomas
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: 'Enlightenment' Thinking
Message:
Actually, Rob, your idea is not too much different than that of 'Enlightenment' thinkers late 1600s-1700s in Europe. This is not to put you down by saying you're not an original thinker. I just want to say, it's just as valid a philosophy as many others.

Europe had just come out of the Reformation period with its religious controversies, religious wars, persecutions, dogma and bigotry. People were flaming each other (literally, at the stake).

Modern science was just developing and people were just starting to see that there was order and logic in the natural universe. In retrospect, the religious wars seemed to have to do more with the failings of men. God, didn't seem to care two hoots over which side won. The idea of a detached and aloof God, who set up the world upon logical lines and then retired to watch, came into being. However, I think that few of the 'Enlightenment' thinkers went so far as to declare aetheism (at least publicly), which would have been socially unacceptable at the time.

Regards D
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:13:33 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: D_Thomas
Subject: 'Enlightenment' Thinking
Message:
Cool, perhaps I'm a reincarnation of Voltaire?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:14:56 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: God & Science
Message:
Although I'm not experiencing much pure consciouness these days due to the fact that I've stopped practicing k I still say 'Way to Go Rob!'

Just like to add I hadn't been experiencing much clarity BEFORE I stopped practicing either (Just so I don't get thrown off!) This is the truth. What's wrong with me???

Love,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:30:34 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: You, too, Liz
Message:
What's wrong with me???

Maybe you should also join one of those Human classes. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:32:12 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Clear as mud
Message:
Nothing wrong with you at all. It's bloody difficult! Well, for me anyway. My wife sits down to practice and WHOOF, she has some mega experience in 30 seconds. I sit there for an hour usually doing everything from tomorrow's grocery list to having sex with Claudia Schiffer! I ask her - how'd you dothat?

You know what she says? 'I just sit and do the technques like I was shown' Grrrr!

But I keep trying, because like they say in Oklahoma - 'when the corn is good, the corn is GOOD!'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:12:11 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: No, no, no
Message:
Nil,

It's getting hard to find subject lines. Anyway, you say:

They just realize that a theory is just that... a theory. Which means that it is not proven.

What are you talking about? What theory's not proven?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:22:22 (EDT)
From: right here
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: no clear discussion parameters
Message:
Lets hear it from ex premmies that bristle at scientific theories and use intuition to sort out the truth of certain matters in combination with observable facts.

Unless one assumes that we can/do have faculties beyond what science can prove, its a dead arguement.

And for the record I am a non-fenceline ex. who deplores premmie lifestyle and cult hype. But I do see the value in some form of meditation in combination with real life struggles and givng.

Does this Jim put any credence in the non visible world?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:35:04 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: right here
Subject: Is it clarity you want?
Message:
Does this Jim put any credence in the non visible world?

I have to wonder if its clarity you wnat so much as just to be left alone with whatever feels comfortable. You know, a little this, a little that. Hell, I understand that feeling. Sometimes, frankly, I wish I was still there. Dennet wrote a big modern Darwinism book called Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Sometimes I hate the fact that I don't believe in ghosts anymore. On the other hand, I wouldn't turn back into what I believe was relative confusion and ignorance. Well, maybe I would but I can't so what's the point?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:59:12 (EDT)
From: here
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is it clarity you want?
Message:
Does credence mean clarity?
I was asking if you put credence in the non visible world.

And I endeavor to make sure that I do not do just what is comfortable when I am investigationg something.

I have never been in a discussion with you Jim, In fact I am one of your fans. But..

Do you realize you are attributing a feeling to me 'left alone, whatever feels comfortable ' I just noticed that when I read your posts. (please be aware that I do not have the faculty to look at my own message while I am answering you and this may have a bearing on discussion)

Would you believe in ghosts if you saw one?

Isnt it a rather big jump from the state of 'confustion and ignorance' to now when you faculties are trained?
Now there is no threat to your mental function, so maybe it is safe ground to dust off the intuition and instincts and blend them in . Or do you think they have absolutely no place in life?

I guess I am saying that there is no possibliity for me to go back to the lazy hazy days of feeling good- but there is also never a possililty to revert to opionions formed solely on scientific proof.

Now dont jump all over me if my vocabulary doesnt line up with what I want to express.
I reserve the right to retract, and rephrase whenever I like.

I dont like the Darwin theory myself. I like the theory that the animals are a result of the humans when they were still in a more gaseous state.

That theory goes something like the animals are really components of us that have become more isolated and then developed into species.

No, no scientific stuff to prove that. But certain findings can be seen to support the concept.
Dont ask me for specifics on that, but I will try to dig some up.

Which brings me to my own pet theory- that its time to look at things inside out if we are going to get any where. Becuse every other line of logic seems to exhaust itself.

And I have been keeping a log for the past year and can provide data.

But later with that.
What would you think if you saw a ghost?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:04:59 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: here
Subject: 'Pet theory' is right
Message:
Here,

I didn't mean to slag you. Please forgive the impression. Let's cut to the chase:

I dont like the Darwin theory myself. I like the theory that the animals are a result of the humans when they were still in a more gaseous state.

That theory goes something like the animals are really components of us that have become more isolated and then developed into species.


What the fuck???

No, no scientific stuff to prove that. But certain findings can be seen to support the concept.

Look forward to it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:37:56 (EDT)
From: here
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'Pet theory' is right
Message:
So does this mean I am dismissed?
I guess you never heard of that theory.
It would be too exhausting to educate you on it Jim. I am surprised you have not run into it by now. Maybe you are too fixed.

For me the chase was what you would think if you saw a ghost
and do you have experience of the invisible or do you put credence in it.

I hope you are not glomming scintific based theories with bieng and ex?

Are you just an atheist ex?
If I assume that you are, do you see that sometimes you generalize about what constitutes an ex and a premie for that matter.

By your logic, a premie believes in ghosts.

From my experience, Magaret's teachings definitly deny any biengs on the spiritual plane besides himself and or god.

To me that is wacky cause it leaves no room for angels.
Now you can dismiss me.

As I reread this , I see that it is easy to fall into a questioning mode with you in an effort to stall your bulldozerness.

Maybe one of the others can enlighten you on the theory, I am offended by you language and will take some time to recover.

Thank you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:48:58 (EDT)
From: Fartbrain
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: 'Pet theory' is right
Message:
Obviously, Here is stating that when humans originally passed gas, animals were formed. That doesn't happen anymore though, so its difficult to prove that one time, way back when, it did.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 09:37:39 (EDT)
From: Victoria
Email: None
To: here
Subject: To here
Message:
Dear here,

please be aware that I do not have the faculty to look at my own message while I am answering you

Go to file, open new window, type the url you want. If you are using aol, then minimize the window (click on the minus sign top right of screen), then type the url you want. Oh, the joys of multi-tasking!

Intuition is a big bugaboo for me personally since my husband seems to think he has the corner on the market. There's no arguing with what he feels is right. I just have to tell him, he's wrong. And he just doesn't believe me, because he trusts his intuition more than the facts, more than anything I could tell him. Sure, when you're talking about the existence of God, you can intuit all you want...but when these intuitions cross over into real life...like I've just been to see my boyfriend and he can tell because he knows what his feelings are. Here, I don't have a boyfriend. I'm married!

Sincerely,
Victoria
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 10:54:33 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: right here
Subject: no clear discussion parameters
Message:
RH: 'Unless one assumes that we can/do have faculties beyond what science can prove, its a dead arguement.'

What makes you 'assume' that you DO have those faculties? There is no proof, whatsoever, that they exist. None, Zero, Nada, Zilch. So what would be so intelligent about assuming they exist at all?

There IS proof of evolution. There IS proof that stimulating portions of the brain (a very physical thing) can provide so-called 'spiritual' experiences. Is there more than this? Don't know 'cause there's no EVIDENCE, much less PROOF. See what I mean?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:17:27 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: No, no, no
Message:
There are proven theories and there are unproven theories, and then there are theories that are proven to some and not to others. Please don't mistake me... I didn't imply that ALL of science is unproven. But clearly some scientific thought is a 'work in process'. Now, the stuff you read by Dawkins... how much is undisputed and how much is still a work in process?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:32:49 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: No, no, no
Message:
But clearly some scientific thought is a 'work in process'. Now, the stuff you read by Dawkins... how much is undisputed and how much is still a work in process?

Nil,

A few things. First, I think it's fair to say that a lot of scientific thought is 'work in progress' in that it's constantly being refined, sharpened, corrected (even in small degrees)and put in larger, changing contexts. As for Dawkins, I think most of what he writes about describing the essentials of evolutionary theory is non-controversial amongst real scientists, although a few christian 'creation scientists' try -- quite unpersuasively -- to dispute it all. The evidence for evolution's overwhelming, unfortunately for them. No serious scientist says otherwise.

Having said that, it appears that there are some squabbles within the scientific community about some functions of evolution. These don't go to the heart of the theory, though. Then there's Dawkins' speculation about 'memes', the term he coined for self-replicating thoughts. That's controversial for sure and he'd be the first to admit it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 08:35:33 (EDT)
From: D_Thomas
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: Unprovable Truths
Message:
In the latest Scientific American there is an article on the mathematician Goedel. He mathematically proved that there can be true statements which cannot be proven. This boggles my mind.

I don't understand his reasoning, of course. I don't see how you can prove that a statement is unprovable without first trying to prove it. Even then there might be some proof you over-looked.

This might have religious ramifications. Religionists have been telling us for years, there are truths out there that can never be proven but we just have to take on faith. Personally, I never believed them. I still demand proof.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 14:21:12 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: D_Thomas
Subject: Unprovable Truths
Message:
D: If there are no proofs or even evidence, then why would anyone be expected to 'believe' something that they were just 'told.' That's a really silly thing to expect a thinking/reasoning organism to do, no?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 14:51:28 (EDT)
From: D_Thomas
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Unprovable Truths
Message:
Mike: You got to understand that Goedel was a mathematician and mathematicians are not like the rest of us. They start from a set of commonly accepted truths called axioms and then proceed to use strict mathematical logic to arrive at other true mathematical statements. Somehow, they developed the ability to prove that statements were either provable or non-provable without exactly specifying what the statements were or what the proof might be.

Mathematicians rarely perform experiments, but rely almost exclusively on logical proofs. For the rest of us 'seeing is believing'. If we can experience it first hand then it is true.

D.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 15:19:21 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: D_Thomas
Subject: Unprovable Truths
Message:
D: I understand the principles of mathematics, it was your relating it to 'religions' and 'god' that got me. I've been struck alot, lately, with the very simple (and blatant) truth that there really isn't the slightest evidence of anything called 'god.' We were brainwashed at a young age to believe in something and it 'stuck.' What 'reason' do we have to believe in a god? Where's the evidence? Were our parents, their parents and their parents-parents just 'told' that such a thing exists and they carried on the tradition? See where I'm coming from?

It's a simple question....WHY should I believe in a superior power in person (or distant)? There isn't anything that I've seen that would indicate a magical hand at work. Why should I believe in one? Why should I believe that 'I' am 'eternal?' There isn't any indication of that, either. That's what I was talking about D. Hope this straightened it out a bit...:-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:56:06 (EDT)
From: fred
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Premies and science
Message:
I am an engineer and actually the scientific explanations for the physical world make sense to me because they work. I didn't really feign simplicity (when I was a practicing premie) because knowledge seemed to me to be something simple: just _being_ and feeling whatever I was feeling, and trying to exist in the present moment. Logical reasoning applies in physics and math, but I was trying to have a 'disciple-master relationship', where anything not logical is explained because the master created the logic. It can do whatever it wants. Knowledge and the master have nothing to do with science.
You're right about curiosity, though. My curiosity about why I couldn't see Maharaji as anything more than a human being eventually became too strong, and I began to look for other people to be around. So much for the disciple-master relationship. It reminds me of the 'relationship' that some people have with Jesus. I thought that since Maharaji is alive and he is supposed to be all-knowing, eventually we would meet and I would see my master in him. We met - the master thing didn't happen. The relationship is all imagination.
So, I haven't been around the premie world for 10 years or so. Are they supposed to feign severe simplicity any more now than we did in the ashram?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 07:53:17 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, Premies, science , etc...
Message:
hi Jim

I wonder if there are any premies who don't bristle at the scientific explanations for the world around us.

Of course there are, why shouldn't there be?

I mean, can premies ever really afford to respect science knowing, as they do, that, at a certain point, they're supposed to feign severe simplicity and play dumb?

Why shouldn't they have a respect for science if they want to, respect for science does not necessarilly imply disrespect for Maharaji (or vice-versa)....

and who says (apart from you and, possibly, other exes) that at any point, they're are supposed to 'feign severe simplicity and play dumb'.

Feign severe simplicity...about what?

Play dumb...about what?

How can that attitude support real curiosity?

I agree, Jim, such an attitude can't... but I don't see evidence of such an attitude in the premies that I know.

OH.. I get it, you are yet again trying to generalise about premies according to your own preconception (or, more probably, some 'ashram' conditioned preconception) of how a 'true premie' should be...ie; as some kind of brain dead, inarticulate, unintelligent zombie. Come on, the fact is that there are probably many premies who are far brighter, more articulate, more curious and open minded about the world around them than you are in both 'scientific' and 'spiritual' ways.

How boring it must be just to be an atheist, is it a really grey existance for you having to cope with such an overwhelming paradigm? Imagine having to put up with such a confining view about 'reality', no room to question or discover, just the same old dogmatic nihilistic crap. How intellectually stifling, and how you must 'bristle' at the curiosity and explorative ideas of innocents!

Really Jim, your expose yourself as the pompous and unbelievably pretentious ass that you are in this effort to generalise about premies. You are so transparent, Jim, it's laughable, and you are certainly far less open minded and objective than you think you are!

Mel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:00:45 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: sorry, Jim, a correction
Message:
I said..

... How intellectually stifling, and how you must 'bristle' at the curiosity and explorative ideas of innocents!

I meant to say..

.... How intellectually stifling, and how you do 'bristle' at the curiosity and explorative ideas of innocents!

I hope you will forgive me the error

Mel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:02:24 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Jim, Premies, science , etc...
Message:
Mel: 'Imagine having to put up with such a confining view about 'reality', no room to question or discover, just the same old dogmatic nihilistic crap. How intellectually stifling,....'

The same can, has and almost certainly WILL be said about every religion and cult in the world today (INCLUDING M's). Religion and 'beliefs' leave absolutely NO ROOM for discovery OR questions. Just the sam old dogmatic crap. I've said this before and I'll say it again: For every single scientific 'discovery,' God's domain shrinks just a bit more. If you don't understand that statement, Mel, then YOU are the one whose head is filled with dogmatism and 'static' thinking (if it can be called thinking).

You, and many others, have said that science needs to prove that god doesn't exist. Well, science HAS done the next best thing....It's a FACT that god doesn't HAVE TO EXIST for ANY of this to happen. God isn't required....THAT, my friend, IS a FACT!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 06:32:13 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: Mike
Subject: God and science , etc...
Message:
Hi Mike

For every single scientific 'discovery,' God's domain shrinks just a bit more. If you don't understand that statement, Mel, then YOU are the one whose head is filled with dogmatism and 'static' thinking (if it can be called thinking).

I am really surprised by the bias in your above statement, mainly the first sentence (I'm used to the personal jibes!). Mike you are caught in the duality of 'God versus Science'. Why should it be this way? Why can't it be 'God and Science'? I suppose it really depends on your definition of God, doesn't it? You should really try the more dynamic and open minded 'both and' view point rather than the 'either or' one.

Why should faith (I avoid the word 'belief') in God undermine a healthy scientific curiosity about the 'creation'. I see no conflict.

It's a FACT that god doesn't HAVE TO EXIST for ANY of this to happen. God isn't required....THAT, my friend, IS a FACT!

No Mike, it's not a FACT, it's merely your opinion that you have exalted to some form of Absolute Truth by your use of capitals.

Actually, for me the jury is stillout on the issue, and anyway, 'Reality' isn't beholden to any of our opinions, belief or delusion whatever they may be.

Nice to argue with you again Mike, this time on topics not so personal, eh?

Regards

Mel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:19:15 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: God and science , etc...
Message:
Mel: It is a fact! God wasn't 'needed' to create anything. Simple astrophysical principles explain the existence of the entire universe. Additionally, 'evolution' is an extremely plausible (and proven) explanation for the existence of life (and its growth and diversification) on this planet. Modern genetic sciences have verified virtually everything that evolutionary science has said all along. Nothing complicated at all. NO, god wasn't needed anywhere in this simplest of explanations for 'existence' and the universe. God hasn't left a single 'fingerprint' to indicate his/her presence or activity in this region, either. So why, tell me, WHY should I even consider the existence of god? Why? There isn't the slightest bit of evidence that he/she exists (and there is less with every new scientific discovery...that's what I meant by shrinking domain). However, we are moving away from the original discussion..... DOGMATISM!

Show me a single example, just one, where ANY religion or spiritual organization hasn't had to be dragged into science as opposed to 'leading' it. NO, sorry bud, there aren't any. You are expected to believe that 100,000 angels can dance on the head of a pin without ANY proof whatsoever. If you then express a doubt as to the mere existence of 'angels' (or any other spirit being), much less the non-fact that they can dance on the head of a pin, you are burned at the stake.....YEAH, there's some free-thinking and encouragement for scientific examination. This even applies to 'old' cultures.....go ahead, dispute the need or methods used by a medicine-man....go ahead!

Mel, name a single example of a religion leading the way in science. That's my challenge. Show me any religion that has led the way FIRST, not after the fact.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 07:31:03 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: Mike
Subject: God and science , etc...
Message:
Mike

I completely agree with you on the issue of DOGMATISM, and I don't believe that a faith in God is necessarily dogmatic although it often can be. Indeed, people can be dogmatic about anything at all, including nihilism!

Rigidly held beliefs no matter how well reasoned in logic, or how how passionately felt can be extremely dangerous, and I don't think we disagree about that.

What I am contending is that faith in God does not undermine a curiosity of our existance and the desire to explore and understand it, which, in my view, is essentially what Science does.

As for your 'challenge', I'm not interested in taking it up, because it really has nothing to do with the point that I've been trying to make. I'm no great apologist for Religion.

Regards

Mel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 02:00:43 (EDT)
From: CD
Email: None
To: Mike
Subject: Jim, Premies, science , etc...
Message:
>I've said this before and I'll say it again: For every single scientific 'discovery,' God's domain shrinks just a bit more. If you don't understand that statement, Mel, then YOU are the one whose head is filled with dogmatism and 'static' thinking

For the greatest scientists there is just the opposite. The more they learn the more they are in awe of the endless beauty of the creation.

CD
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 05:19:31 (EDT)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: CD
Subject: Name them!
Message:
For the greatest scientists there is just the opposite. The more they learn the more they are in awe of the endless beauty of the creation.

So who are these great creationists?

Or did you mean to say 'in awe of the endless beauty of nature?' (a sentiment I can wholeheartedly endorse without recourse to spiritual explanations or guru trips).
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 11:21:54 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: The generalization's fair
Message:
Mel,

Most NRA members like guns, I'd say. All? Okay, all. Am I sure? No, better make that most. How about almost all? Okay, that works for me.

Most premies are afraid of trying to understand the world through science for they know that science doesn't acknowledge the realm of Appreciation, Gratitude and Understanding, i.e. the den of the Master. All premies? Yeah, I think so. I think that's a completely fair generalization. Are there any exceptions? Well, I've never met one.

Have you, Mel? Show me a premie who says he wants to understand the scientific basis for Knowledge and the Master and who won't tkae no for an answer. Show me the premie who insists on talking to Maharaji about this or who'll talk about the question openly around other premies.

You can't, Mel, and you know it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:01:43 (EDT)
From: Mike
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: The NRA
Message:
Jim: THANK YOU for recognizing that the NRA isn't just a lobby group, but an organization that has 3 million members. I can state categorically.....ALL NRA members like guns! So you generalization is VERY fair...he he he :-)

NRA Life Member since wellllllll.... I won't say 'cause it gives away my age....let's just say a really long time! :-)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 14:20:10 (EDT)
From: D_Thomas
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Self-Experimentation
Message:
Jim, as you know, the foundation of the Scientific Method is the experiment. As my old chemistry professor said whenever confronted with students telling him they thought they did the experiment wrong: 'The experiment is always right! The only thing that could be wrong is your interpretation of the experiment.'

We have all performed an experiment, using ourselves as Guinea pigs. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about it. Maybe because our own psyches and deepest emotions were involved, it's hard to step back and be completely unbiased and disinterested as the Scientific Method requires us to be. But, I see no other valid way to examine this phenomenon called 'Knowledge' other than to just do it for yourself.

Originally, I thought I could just walk in and ask to receive Knowledge, receive it the next day and then decide for myself whether it was real or not. I did not realize I was putting my own psyche and deepest emotions into play.

I never had an experience that told me M was the lord of the universe. I have had an experience of meditation that feels good and helps me be more satisfied and at peace with myself. However, that meditation experience conveys no factual information. I have had a very few other experiences that seem to suggest that something out of the ordinary was happening. I am still trying to fit things together, to try to understand what had happended.

I am interested in this forum because, you have been through the same process as I. You must have had some experience that made you want to join DLM/EV, in many cases even the ashram. Then you had some experience that made you want to quit. What are these experiences? How do they compare with the experiences that I had?

This is a puzzle to me. I have some of my own data, but it is not enough. I read the 'Journeys' but maybe I should read them again. Maybe if I can gather more data, I can unravel this puzzle.

D
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 07:07:16 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: The generalization's fair?
Message:
Is it really Jim? I don't think most of what you say about premies could be classified as 'fair'.

Most premies are afraid of trying to understand the world through science for they know that science doesn't acknowledge the realm of Appreciation, Gratitude and Understanding...

May be 'Science' doesn't acknowledge such a realm, but I believe that there are probably a lot of scientists who might. In fact, I would be willing to wager that 'Appreciation, Gratitude and Understanding' might even have been an inspiration for them to become scientists in the first place!

Have you, Mel? Show me a premie who says he wants to understand the scientific basis for Knowledge and the Master and who won't tkae no for an answer. Show me the premie who insists on talking to Maharaji about this or who'll talk about the question openly around other premies.

Ah Jim, you once again cleverly twisted the original and more generalised topic of premies 'bristling' about science to one of your favourite hobby horses regarding the scientific basis for 'Knowledge' and Maharaji alleged 'hostility' to it.

Personally, I see no harm in wanting to know the scientific basis for happiness, but it's a pretty big ask? Of course I can't show any premies who 'insists on talking about it to Maharaji' because I am not close to Maharaji so I can't ask him about the nature of his personal conversations with premies. Having said that, I have no reason to believe that such topics may not have been discussed by him? Who knows and why not?

You can't, Mel, and you know it.

Of course I can't, Jim, but not for the implied meanings that you are trying to convey (ie 'it's taboo' or 'such premies don't exist'), but because I really don't have the time, resources, energy or interest to prove it!

Jim, you and other exes have been proven wrong about Maharaji's hostility to the internet and resoundingly so. You may even eventually be proven wrong about this too...a possibility that even you would have to concede!

Regards

Mel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 10:11:59 (EDT)
From: Catweasel
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: The generalization's fair?
Message:
Whats got me stumped is Jims earlier claim.....See Raja Ji thread
...HE'S A LAWYER???????? What's his speciality?With his flexibility,he'd more than likely be a CRIMINAL Lawyer,or maybe just a criminal????
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:34:20 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: You have zip credibility
Message:
Jim, you and other exes have been proven wrong about Maharaji's hostility to the internet and resoundingly so.

Oh, you're such a creep! You really have no credibility with me, Mel. None. You know damn well that Maharaji reversed himself with respect to the internet.

None of your other 'points' are even worth responding to. You're the epitome of disingenuous. The height of insincerity.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:24:04 (EDT)
From: Catweasel
Email: Roll over!Play Dead!
To: Jim
Subject: You have zip Flair and Low IQ
Message:
A big aggressive nothing!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:43:25 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: Jim
Subject: Whose credibility?
Message:
..You know damn well that Maharaji reversed himself with respect to the internet.

Plenty of speculation on this site about that, Jim, but no hard evidence.

...Oh, you're such a creep! You really have no credibility with me, Mel. None....None of your other 'points' are even worth responding to. You're the epitome of disingenuous. The height of insincerity.

You must be loosing the argument again, Jim, to relapse into your typical 'personal abuse' mode. I couldn't give two hoots as to whether I have credibility with you or not, your comments about my 'disingenousness' and 'insincerity' also fail to have the desired effect.

You fail to respond to my other points simply because they're pertinent and to the point and (whisper)...you suspect there may even be some truth in them. More importantly, you cannot possibly be seen to be conceding any points to me (an alleged premie) at any cost.

Come on, Jim, loosen up, I'm not really your enemy, I just know how to get under your skin in exactly the same way as you like to get under 'premie' skins.

You really take yourself too seriously, you know.

Mel
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 11:16:17 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: The Net
Message:
I know that MJ mentioned the net in May, 1998. He told us not to bother going out there (he meant here, to this site).

I started peeking at this place on June 9, 1998. I was so upset about what I was reading that I called Lynn Devine.

Me: Oh, it's unbelievable what this people are saying about MJ. How can they lie like that.

Lynn: Well, Gail. You heard MJ yourself. He said not to go out there. You didn't write anything did you.

Me: Yes, I did. There's a spot at the front where you can send MJ messages. I wrote, 'I love you, Maharaji.' G. Mac.

Lynn: Well, don't go out there again. You know what Simon says about that place. It's all trash.

By June 11, 1998, I had a terrible, sickening feeling that my fairy-tale life was over. I convinced Lynn to show the 1979 Holi video if aspirants or the one new premie didn't come to the show. I put it on. I pointed out that MJ's message had sure changed from 1979. She and C. both turned to me simultaneously and said, 'No it hasn't.'

That was my last video. It doesn't take long to deprogramme if you are truly open to the universe. Of course, Mel, if your livlihood depends upon believing this stuff ... well! BTW, has MJ ever manifested in your kitchen out of the blue?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 16:43:58 (EDT)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Mel Boring
Subject: Time for a little abuse...
Message:
well, that is what you come here for isn't Mr. Snoremaker? You came here initially under false pretense (remember your opening line about your fear we my be sued for libel and wouldn't it be better for us if we all shut up?) and have continued upon your lying, sneaky, odious manner since then.

Now you say ''alleged premie.'' So what is it, Mr Boringfuck? Are you a premie or not?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, May 29, 1999 at 00:06:46 (EDT)
From: cp
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: go gerry nt...
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:28:00 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Hey, Nil -- up here
Message:
Me: Are you sure that Maharaji's never hurt anyone in any way doing anything?

Nil: I don't believe Maharaji would do anything that was not in the best interest of the person.

Well how about answering my question please? Are you sure or not? For example, say some now-disgruntled PAM has a story to tell about him being an asshole. Are you sure it's not true? Maybe that's not fair, in that my assumption's just that, hypothetical. So let me ask you straight up, do you know of any stories from apparently reliable sources that, if true, would throw Maharaji's character into question? Honestly, Nil, do you?

That doesn't mean people don't get hurt… he cannot be accountable for a person's expectations or for where a person is coming from.

And that's another blanket statement? You know, as a lawyer, I've got to be very careful what I promise people. Not only would it be unethical for me to promise a client he'll be acquitted, I could be in a lot of shit with the Law Society if I made that kind of false assurance, the client got convicted and then complained. And that's just how it should be, don't you think?

Now Maharaji made a lot of promises. How about the time he swore on a bible that he would establish peace in the world in his lifetime? That was in the DUO film I believe. You can't possibly say that he can't be held accountable for anyone's expectations upon hearing shit like that, can you?

Based upon the scope of the job he has undertaken, he has chosen to offer help in a certain manner. Do you know this scope? And do you know whether or not he has the energy left over to offer more?

No I don't know the scope. Care to tell us? I know what it used to be, save the planet. But what is it now?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:30:50 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey, Nil -- up here
Message:
For example, say some now-disgruntled PAM has a story to tell about him being an asshole.
I've got stories that could paint him that light myself. That doesn't detract from his value as my Master, nor the experience I have of Knowledge. Besides I learned something on those occasions.

...do you know of any stories from apparently reliable sources that, if true, would throw Maharaji's character into question?
How reliable is the source, and who's doing the judging.

Now Maharaji made a lot of promises. How about the time he swore on a bible that he would establish peace in the world in his lifetime?
His lifetime ain't over yet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:27:30 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: Interesting answers
Message:
1) I'd asked:

For example, say some now-disgruntled PAM has a story to tell about him being an asshole.

And you said:

I've got stories that could paint him that light myself. That doesn't detract from his value as my Master, nor the experience I have of Knowledge. Besides I learned something on those occasions.

So you now concede that he can be an asshole. He just makes up for it by teaching something on each occasion. In any event, nothing shitty can outweigh his great contribution as a Master.

I dunno, Nil. Sounds pretty much like classic indiscriminate rationalizing. Plus, I think you have to ask yourself why you denied he could do hurt someone in the first place. You're now saying that he can -- but there's always a lesson in it --or that it doesn't matter compared to what he gives you. You're shifting.

2)The I asked:

...do you know of any stories from apparently reliable sources that, if true, would throw Maharaji's character into question?

And you sidestep the question pretty unsatisifyingly:

How reliable is the source, and who's doing the judging.

Obviously I was inviting you to qualify the source and do your own judging. What say you then?

3) Finally, I asked:

Now Maharaji made a lot of promises. How about the time he swore on a bible that he would establish peace in the world in his lifetime?

And you answered:

His lifetime ain't over yet.

Well, Nil, you're absolutely right. Still, it sure doesn't look like he's headed that way. And when was the last time he confirmed this promise? You know, something to the efecct of 'hey, premies, I know it's been a while but don't think I've forgotten.....' Maharaji obviously avoids any mention of such grandiose empty promises. He hardly looks like a credible candidate to deliver. Be reasonable.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:29:56 (EDT)
From: Nil
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Interesting answers
Message:
Plus, I think you have to ask yourself why you denied he could do hurt someone in the first place. You're now saying that he can -- but there's always a lesson in it --or that it doesn't matter compared to what he gives you.
I said no such thing... stop extrapolating. I said it could have been interpreted as him being an asshole. He was treating me coldly. Of course you must ask, does that imply he was acting like an asshole?? I didn't get my nose out of joint because I trusted him as a teacher, and voila... I learned something. The ones who DID get their nose out of joint now contribute regular doses of smut to this forum under an assumed name. So fucking what!!!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:52:01 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Nil
Subject: Pot to kettle?
Message:
I said no such thing... stop extrapolating.

You make 'extrapolating' sound like something negative. Better look it up before you use it again.

I said it could have been interpreted as him being an asshole. He was treating me coldly. Of course you must ask, does that imply he was acting like an asshole?? I didn't get my nose out of joint because I trusted him as a teacher, and voila... I learned something. The ones who DID get their nose out of joint now contribute regular doses of smut to this forum under an assumed name. So fucking what!!!

Well, the anonymous or assumed name bit is a bit of a joke coming from you. Did you mean it as such?

But on the other issue, yes, Nil, I have to concede you've got a point here. It's entirely possible that Maharaji is never an asshole, although he can certainly act like one.

That was your point, wasn't it? Just checking.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:21:57 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: What part does God
Message:
play in your life now, if any?

Do you feel you have a relationship with a Creator, and does he/she/it listen when you try to communicate?

All comments welcomed. Thanks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:29:17 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: God is gone
Message:
Somehow I got god mixed up with K. When I stopped believing that K was the ultimate experience of god, I was left in the cold. Even if god exists, what does it want with me? I'm rather small in the whole scheme of things. My days of looking for god are over. I have no heart or soul--I'm just a physical unit. There is no ultimate purpose or destination. Things are random.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:05:24 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: God is gone?
Message:
Don't worry about God, he can take care of himself.

Right now, I'm feeling that you need to rediscover love. Doesn't matter whether it's for a person, a deity, an animal...start with the basics again. Try to discover what it is to be a human being, the god thing can wait.

You are not as far away from your feelings as you may think. There is a caring and a sensitivity about the way you write which is very appealing. Why not just continue the thread on your own? If you have a penchant for writing, explore it, write things down, write about what you see around you, be the beauty, the ugliness - write about yourself, the ones you love, the ones you hate. Keep a balance between the positive and the negative.

Perhaps Knowledge isn't for you, but life definately is, and life has so much within it worth discovering. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:31:16 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Yes, Gail, try to be human
Message:
Rob,

I'm glad you broached the subject with Gail because someone had to. She just hasn't been too human recently. I think that point's obvious to all who know her. Good advice, I'm sure. Maybe she could join a club or something, huh? The Human club or something. I know they've got a few human groups at the Y here in Victoria. There must be something in London. Gail, I think he's on to something.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:45:04 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Yes, Gail, try to be human
Message:
Jim, if you're going to paraphrase me, at least do me the honour of staying within the spirit of what I'm trying to communicate.

In her posting, Gail said: I have no heart or soul--I'm just a physical unit.

My reply was meant to inspire her to discover that she is much more than that, that all humans are much more than that, not to imply that I don't consider her to be human. Come on, you knew that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:52:18 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Sorry, you're right
Message:
Sorry Rob, you're right entirely here. I was just a little rash. You obviously meant well. Sorry again.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:05:06 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry, you're right
Message:
How come you're so rash?

You're ready to pounce on the next 'victim' all the time. Thanks for not pouncing on me though. Appreciate it - don't know if I could take it.

Bet you make a good lawyer though.

Hope you get to relax lots - sounds like you do.

Don't want you to get ulcers.

Best wishes,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:14:08 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Sorry, you're right
Message:
We're all a little rash, Liz. We read things, think we got it and post away. Almost like a conversation at times. Sometimes we're wrong, that's all.

Thanks for your speculative compliment and concern. Some months are better than others.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:20:04 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry, you're right
Message:
Hi Jim,

It's a great asset to be able to admit you're wrong. I shoudn't have pounced on you seeing as how you'd just done that. I think some premies have a problem with being wrong. I know I did.

Regards,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:31:32 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: God's out
Message:
God's gone as far as I'm concerned. No evidence for and lots of evidence for our likely tendency to imagine him in the first place. That's enough for me.

And you? What do you believe?

By the way, Rob, why are you here (on the site, I mean)?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 22:38:00 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: God
Message:
Strange as it may seem, my awareness of God is the same now as it was years before I got Knowledge (76). Soppy as it may sound, I had always felt a connection with something much greater than myself. A very protective kind of feeling, like there was really something present in this whole shabang that knew about me and cared. I seriously doubt that I can put forward a convincing argument for the existance of God, I just don't have the necessary brain power. Yet no matter how much I question my feelings (and I do) and no matter how many discussions against the premise I read, I keep coming back to the same conclusion. I cannot deny what I know to be true from a very deep point within me.

It was that solid feeling which made me realise, when I first encountered him, that Maharaji is not God. Best way I can describe it is that I recognised that Maharaji had his own connection with the Creator, but he was not 'it'. Considering the rhetoric circulating at the time, I felt it prudent to keep my thoughts to myself. I still do, for the most part. When I have an experience of Knowledge, I find that old feeling intensifies immensly. Granted, that doesn't happen all the time. I wish! I still struggle with it after 23 years, but the reality of it when it does happen is more than enough to keep me trying.

As to why I am here on this site? I genuinely enjoy (most) of the discussions going on. As you've probably gathered by now, I'm somewhat of a recluse - I don't socialise easily, and I am uncomfortable sharing such personal feelings 'IRL', which is why I never mingle with the Gopi set. Most of the premies I've known, have made me feel uncomfortable, because of their narrow views on life and seeming inability to talk about 'mundane' stuff - the grit and grist of being human, I call it. Being involved in a forum is an excellent way for people with my degree of shyness to express themselves, to 'join in' and (sadly, perhaps) I find there is far less judgement going on here, among 'ex's' than out there, among 'currents'.

Long answer to a short question! Sorry...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 23:40:49 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: God
Message:
I seriously doubt that I can put forward a convincing argument for the existance of God, I just don't have the necessary brain power. Yet no matter how much I question my feelings (and I do) and no matter how many discussions against the premise I read, I keep coming back to the same conclusion.

Rob,

The most startling discovery for me in this area was evolutionary theory. You say you've had 'many discussions' and have questioned your feelings on the matter. I bet that none of that would challenge your belief in god as much as a real look at evolution. If you like I can turn you on to some sources. I'm a big fan of Richard Dawkins who wrote The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker among others. He's good but there are others too. What's kind of confusing here is that everyone has a thumbnail understanding of evolution; the real interesting stuff happens when you take a closer look.

As for your being here, Rob, you seem like a nice guy and a particularly candid one here given that this is an ex site and you're (still?) a premie. I'd love to see you have respectful, mutually satisfying discussions with people here. Honestly. I have to warn you, though, when push comes to shove no premie has been able to rationally discuss Maharaji to any length. Maybe you already understand that about yourself. I don't know, I just thought I'd mention it.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:04:22 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: God evolves!
Message:
Maybe not, but catchy header, n'est ce pas?

Hey I'm a bookworm, I'm prepared to read any recomendations. In fact I just nipped to amazon.com and ordered those 2 books.

Yes I'm (still) a premie! Or a Person With Knowledge, to be more current. I'm glad your not offended by my joining in your Forum, too. Have you seen the alternatives, for premies only? Make me want to PeWK.

As for rationally discussing Maharaji, I probably won't go there. I've read the threads that attempt that, and usually they degenerate into insults - you reading this, Catweasel?

Discussions are very healthy, I'm all for it. After all, I've got the rest of my life to get the picture right, even if I then discover it was wrong!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:08:56 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Rational discussion
Message:
'As for rationally discussing M - I won't go there' Why not? People will shoot you down but some of us will be interested.

Best Regards,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:20:42 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Rational discussion
Message:
Maybe I'll give it go then, but not tonight - I'm in true EDT so it's waaay past my bedtime.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:11:42 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: How do you think I feel?
Message:
Rob,

I can't help but be touched that you'd act so quickly at my suggestion. I look forward to discussing those two books with you when you've read them. (I'd also probably reccomend Dawkins' latest on evolution, Climbing Mount Improbable as well as the potent Guru Papers by Joe Whalen ... no, not him. I get confused. Try Joel Kramer and Dianne Alstad. It's something else, I tell you.)

As for discussing Maharaji, good luck not doing so here. But all things in due course, right?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 00:24:27 (EDT)
From: Victoria
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good Books
Message:
Hey Jim,

Had a really good time reading the jacket copy on Dawkins, but couldn't get through the rest of it, myself. Love the titles.

The Guru Papers was a great read cover-to-cover and still looking for the sequel...anyone found it yet?

Love,
Victoria
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 17:12:13 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Premie sites make me PeWK.
Message:
Why do you suppose that those sites make you feel that way, Rob. Could it be that there is very little honesty going on there. In case you didn't know, Jim and a few others wrote fake stories and sent them to Enjoyinglife.org. Their stories were severely edited to ensure political correctness for ELAN VITAL, 1999.

Why don't they have a chat room--because it cannot be edited. They used to promise that there would be one; this has since been removed from the menu. Did you know that videos are now introduced with a script?

Nope, there is not much to the premie life anymore. Drive to video; watch video; avoid conversation; practice the meditation (oops Knowledge) techniques; send money; travel to see Maharaji; do serve-us at the programs to appear like a plugged-in, happy premie; wonder why you wish your life were over.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:34:44 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Premie sites make me PeWK.
Message:
Why do you suppose that those sites make you feel that way, Rob. Could it be that there is very little honesty

That's an interesting way of putting it...I'm not sure whether it's a lack of honesty coming across or not. Basically, I find their kind of flowery sugarplum language a bit embarrassing. To be frank with you, if that really is a true rendition of their everyday experience of life, then who am I to pass judgement on it. But it seems so far away from my reality, which I think is a lot more grounded, that it makes me wonder how much is true expression and how much is overly imaginative, or worse, 'writing to impress'.

Why don't they have a chat room--because it cannot be edited Nope. It's because you lot would go in mercilessly and shake them up! They're not all as comfortable at having their beliefs challenged as perhaps I am.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:05:38 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Theetie Weetie
Message:
Hi Rob,

How much Scientology do you know? Remember this one? Isn't it a great definition of Pewk? There was another one more well known to the general public - I want to say airy-fairy but it was something else. Do you remember what it was?

It's even better communicating with an ex-Scientologist than it is with an ex-premie. Must be because we did the Communication Course!

Are you British? You have such good manners. I was a bit worried that people were going to be rude to you but so far so good.

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:36:37 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Theetie Weetie
Message:
No, Scottish. Not worried about rudeness, have a hide like a rhinocerous.

Don't remember that one, it's been 26 years since I escaped their clutches. I remember Stable Datums, Com-lag, OT1,2 etc and all that stuff, no doubt some other tidbits will come back to me when I visit their ex-sites.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 23:51:34 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Sweetness & Light (Pewk)
Message:
That's the phrase I was trying to think of.

Scottish is British or did Scotland become independent while I wasn't looking. I'm from Scotland too.

I did Scientology in Edinburgh & lived in the borders with The Incredible String Band - more Scientologists - remember them?

Do you live in the U.S. now or still in Scotland?

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 00:41:21 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Liz
Subject: Sweetness & Light (Pewk)
Message:
Oh no, don't tell me I've created another xp buzz word (PeWK) That's really bad karma!

Didn't know the ISB were Scientologists, hmm, let me go destroy all their LPs.

I'm in the 'Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 19:44:00 (EDT)
From: Bobby
Email: bobby2mindspring.com
To: Liz
Subject: Sweetness & Light (Pewk)
Message:
Hello Liz,

Cool that you hung out with the ISP. I was really, really into them circa 68-69.

Did you guys all live in a commune as depicted on the cover of Hangman's Beautiful Daughter.

I'm interested to know how far the band members took scientology. Was all the band into it?

Email me privately if you wish.

Thanks,

Bobby
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 01:33:36 (EDT)
From: Liz
Email: None
To: Bobby
Subject: I.S.B.
Message:
Hi Bobby,

Yes I did live on that commune as depicted on 'Hangmans Beautiful Daughter.' We lived in two different places, Kilmanoyad in Wales and Glen Row (Glen Estate) Innerliethen, Peebleshire.

There is and I.S.B. website called Be Glad with magazine of same name. I have ordered the mags and will send you some copies if you are interested.

Glad you are feeling better,

Much Love,

Liz
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:20:47 (EDT)
From: Gail
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Premie sites make me PeWK.
Message:
You said: 'They're not all as comfortable at having their beliefs challenged as perhaps I am.'

At last, we are getting to the bottom of it. Where do the beliefs fit in? I thought MJ showed an inner experience that was beyond all belief. He tells aspirants they can maintain their own religion after K. Pleeeeeze! That is an out-and-out lie. Soon after receiving K, people no longer feel the need to go back to their own religion. MJ's ideas become more compelling.

K was supposed to be the true religion. Have you seen Bubba Free John's site? Check it out. It will remind you of 1976 DLM all over again. Which guru offers the true religion?

I used to feel guilty exponging the past and telling lies. I stopped promoting the whole thing except to people whom I wished to get rid of. Instead of being honest, I would just let MJ bore them away. The videos were good for that.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 01:04:55 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Beliefs
Message:
Here's my experience on this:

Maharaji has shown me the way to achieve an inner experience which does not require me to believe in its existence. That is why it's called an 'experience'. It is an actual, tangible feeling, an event, a moment in time when I am aware of something occuring inside of me. I don't need to believe in it at that moment because I am witnessing its existance for myself.

Unfortunately, when I'm going about my daily business, I am no longer aware of that experience because my attention is elsewhere. I may or may not be remembering the feeling I had, but sooner or later that memory dissipates, flooded out by the tremendous influx of external stimuli & thoughts which are the nitty gritty of my day. At that point, it have to fall back on my belief that the experience is there in order to motivate my ass back on the chair to go discover it again. That is my personal understanding of belief. Now the longer I go before I touch on that feeling again, the more reliant I am on my beliefs and they, by their very nature, are vulnerable. You can prod and poke at my beliefs until they begin to crack, and then I will doubt end up doubting myself.

I have never personally followed any religion, even though Scientology describes itself as 'an Applied Religious Philosophy', whatever that is. So if you need input on that aspect of your question, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Haven't had chance to check out Buba Free's site yet. DLM in 1976? Should be interesting. Do you think they will have progressed by 2022?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:02:33 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Have you really considered...
Message:
Maharaji has shown me the way to achieve an inner experience which does not require me to believe in its existence. That is why it's called an 'experience'. It is an actual, tangible feeling, an event, a moment in time when I am aware of something occuring inside of me. I don't need to believe in it at that moment because I am witnessing its existance for myself.

Rob,

Can you honestly say that none of what Maharaji's ever said about your 'experience', none of your presumptions about life, god or whatever, affect -- or even govern -- that 'experience'? Can you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:28:50 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Influences
Message:
Yes, I can honestly say that none of those things affect or govern my experience.

However, I can also honestly say that all of the above do influence my expectations concerning the experience. They can inspire me to try harder when I'm not doing too well, they can remind me of what I know the experience to be like and yes, they can sometimes get in the way when I focus on my expectations instead of the techniques. In that respect I can also add that they can affect my ability to attain the experience.

I do know the difference between my imagination and the experience, if that is what you were asking.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 09:13:47 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: P's sites make the cult?
Message:
They're not all as comfortable at having their beliefs challenged as perhaps I am.

Is this what you actually think of most of the premies?????? Who's decided premies should not have a forum? It's very easy to avoid spamming and attacks. I know what they fear! Cultish speak and cultish talk exposed. Don't you agree? Why do they have this problem if this is not a cult????? What makes it a cult if (?) this is not one????????? Is there any way to avoid it? YOUR opinion?

Don't YOU think there is a bit of some influence of something for them to be that way?

There are 1000s of forums on the net, and I've never seen anything like this! Of course I haven't visited all of them, but I've been into it for more than 10 years now, including BBS before all this net business.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:38:29 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: P's sites make the cult?
Message:
It's not a strong opinion, no. More of a possible explanation. Maybe they just got better things to do with their time. You need to ask 'them'.

No, this is not a cult, IMHO. I've been in cults. I'd rather be in jail with Bubba. And that's not Bubba Free John, either.

By the way, is your ???????????? button sticking, or something?

C'est apres minuit, et je suis fatigue. Bon soir, mon ami.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 23:01:08 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Gail
Subject: Roger's got the stories
Message:
Rob,

If you haven't already, you should take a look at the stories Gail's talking about. Roger's got them on his s.... no, he doesn't, Brian... I mean, Barney does. (Well, now I guess that does mean Roger does!). Anyway, they're all here. It was Nigel's genius and he did the lion's share. But take a look. Pretty funny, if I do say. (Some of Nigel's are a scream.)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 02:21:52 (EDT)
From: fred
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: What part does God
Message:
I think that we try so hard to understand what is beyond the physical world that we put 'God' in human form to make it understandable. I feel like God is a spark in my consiousness that I can follow. It's always changing and can never be controlled. I never know from one minute to the next what form it will take.
Does it listen? Does it have ears? I can have a 'relationship' with my family and friends, that's all I know.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:40:42 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: fred
Subject: What part does God
Message:
It really is whatever is true for you. That is the crux of the whole affair - you can only know and believe in that which is tangible to you in your every day life. No one is compelled to investigate God any further than they already have.

If you do feel like God is a spark in my consiousness that I can follow then that is the relationship you have with God! Enjoy!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 10:28:54 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: What part does God
Message:
No one is compelled to investigate God any further than they already have.

I think you mean 'obliged' here, Rob. As for 'compelled', I myself do feel compelled to investigate God further. If I don't my only alternative is to settle for ignorance.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 11:32:20 (EDT)
From: fred
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: What part does God
Message:
No one is compelled to investigate God any further than they already have.

Are you saying that I'm satisfied with my explaination and have given up investigating God any further? Not the case.

If you do 'feel like God is a spark in my consiousness that I can follow' then that is the relationship you have with God! Enjoy!

Sorry, Rob, I know you have good intentions, but it feels like you're patronising me here. I don't want a 'relationship' with God. I hate that word when it has to do with such a personal thing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 12:40:39 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: If so, then what's the use of
Message:
practising k, watching the videos, doing pran.... (oops) paying 'respect' to the 'master', etc?

- you can only know and believe in that which is tangible to you in your every day life. No one is compelled to investigate God any further than they already have.

What is the use of maharaji then? Didn't we all want to go much further and experience the ultimate? Did you forget m's own words?

Do we really have to remind them? Did you read those pages of quotes I have on my website? Did he say this, yes or no? Did you ever believe in what he says?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 08:48:25 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: What part does God
Message:
I no longer believe in God. I've had some pretty powerful experiences of a 'being', or a presense of a being, I would call God, but in light of what I've learned about evolution and neuroscience, I attribute those experiences to brain chemistry. I know that sounds so lifeless and mundane to look at it that way, so void of human sensibilities, but its not really. Studying yourself from the perspective of what science has discovered I find much more stimulating and revealing than trying to find a creator who for some obscure reason seems to enjoy playing hide and seek. What's up with that?

I still think of my core being where my deepest and most human feelings are as my 'soul', and I do believe that my soul can be touched and moved by infinity. I just doubt that my soul is separate from my body and will survive it when its gone. The two are inseparable from each other.

I agree with you that M has had his experiences of a 'creator'. He once mentioned an experience he had 'as if something had brushed by him', and I knew exactly what he was talking about. I've had that experience, also. It was quite beautiful, and at the time, was all the proof I needed that there is a God. I've since re-evaluated the experience and no longer think of it as being in the presense of my creator. The beauty of that experience, though, has not diminished because of the new light I see it in. I must confess, though, that I'm still not 100% sure that it wasn't an experience of God. It's just that the more educated I become, the less likely it seems to me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 21:58:30 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: What part does God
Message:
It sounds like the only trouble you are having with God is using that name as a label for your experiences. I mean, in a few short paragraphs, you've managed to describe experiences and feelings that are anything but mundane.

I do believe that my soul can be touched and moved by infinity doesn't sound like brain chemistry to me! And if it is, just be thankful for the existence of Chemistry.

The problem lies in our package-deal description of God. To question whether an experience is an encounter with God, requires a preconcieved idea of what God is, in the sense that we proceed to judge whether the experience fits the possible realm of activity we suppose God to engage in. It all gets impossibly complex, because our lack of absolute knowledge about the creator forces us fabricate something that fits the bill, a model which we throw at our expriences of life to see if any part of it sticks.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:03:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Cut to the chase, please
Message:
The problem lies in our package-deal description of God. To question whether an experience is an encounter with God, requires a preconcieved idea of what God is, in the sense that we proceed to judge whether the experience fits the possible realm of activity we suppose God to engage in. It all gets impossibly complex, because our lack of absolute knowledge about the creator forces us fabricate something that fits the bill, a model which we throw at our expriences of life to see if any part of it sticks.

Oy vey! So complicated! Rob, it's this simple: either you believe there's a higher consciousness overseeing our existence or you don't. If it's there, you got your God. If not, you don't.

Personally, I'm impressed by the fact that there's no evidence of any such consciousness anywhere. And you?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:21:18 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: the chase
Message:
Well of course you are right, but I wanted to give Fred a decent amount of wordage, seeing how he put so much into his post.

I was trying to make the point that it doesn't have to affect your enjoyment of the kind of experiences he was describing. If you've figured out its God, then fine, if not, just leave a [blank] in the descriptive passages.

For myself, I have experienced enough interaction with my creator to accept it as evidence of his existance, going way back into my childhood. Can I put it on the table and have it evaluated by others? Nope, because it's all internal. Can you prove you have a headache? Can you prove your nose itches? Can you prove you feel love for someone (not demonstrate, prove that feeling is going on inside you)

Some things are, at least currently, out of the reach of scientific analysis.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 22:45:09 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: the chase
Message:
For myself, I have experienced enough interaction with my creator to accept it as evidence of his existance, going way back into my childhood. Can I put it on the table and have it evaluated by others? Nope, because it's all internal.

Rob,

Let's consider this carefully. Imagine you were raised by atheists in an atheistic society.

Yeah, I know. It's pretty hard isn't it. Not that it's hard to imagine anyone being an atheist; that's simple. It's just that our society -- pretty well all societies - -are so steeped in religion of soem kind or another, it's pretty hard to conceive of life without that cultural influence. So 'all internal'? No, I donna tink so.

Here's another way to think of it. Say, for argument's sake, that there really is no God. Would your sense of his presence be otherwise explanable? Sure, I say. We're completely mystified by the wonder of our consciousness and the senselessness of our lives. These two combined are a potent brew to foster any spiritual belief.

Years ago, when we really had no science standing in the way, most every culture we're aware of worshipped our deceased parents and ancestors. That's where it all started, I'm lead to believe. We now know that's silly jsut like we know that most other bases for religious belief is. Science has pushed religion further and further out of our lives. Unfortunately, it can only push so far. People can always say that God's still lurking out there somewhere even though he plays no part in our lives, never created us (evolution did that) and controls neither eclipses or rainfall.

Can you prove you have a headache?

Yes, by definition. If my head hurts it's a headache.

Can you prove your nose itches?

Ditto.

Can you prove you feel love for someone (not demonstrate, prove that feeling is going on inside you)

No, not really. That's why people get so confused about this subject, isn't it? Love's ephemeral and, once again, religion's done nothing mut misguide us in understanding it. Science is jsut beginning to get a grasp on our emotions. I'm pretty sure that, say, two hundred years from now, we're going to know a lot more about the brain's function, including how it deal with the love bug.

Some things are, at least currently, out of the reach of scientific analysis.

Yeah and some things have no basis for credibility except tradition, habit and wishful thinking.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 16:21:02 (EDT)
From: UC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: the chase
Message:
Jim, can you prove you love your girlfriend? Can you prove you love your Mother? Can you prove anything at all in the realm of emotion and personal feelings? That's where your entire theory falls apart. You can make fun of 'the heart' and 'that place' etc. all you like (easy targets) but science and linear thinking pack up and leave the building where love is concerned.

And that's a fact.

Could you analyze your girlfriend or Mother's perceived or imagined flaws, magnify them 'til they distort like a Blue Cheer record, opt for the worst-case point of view of their intentions and motivations and doubt your way right out of loving them? You certainly could. It happens all the time.

And that's a fact.

By the way, my ISP appears to be blocked from here most of the time so if I don't respond to any of you, that's the reason, not rudeness.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 17:45:10 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: UC
Subject: A very naive view
Message:
Jim, can you prove you love your girlfriend? Can you prove you love your Mother? Can you prove anything at all in the realm of emotion and personal feelings? That's where your entire theory falls apart. You can make fun of 'the heart' and 'that place' etc. all you like (easy targets) but science and linear thinking pack up and leave the building where love is concerned.

Where've you been, UC? Certianly nowhere near the science page of your local newspaper, that's for sure. You just don't know where science is digging its nerdy little nose into, do you? Why not read a little on the subject?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 18:20:51 (EDT)
From: UC
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: A very naive view
Message:
Hi Jim,

To quote your favorite mantra, 'You didn't answer my questions.' I'll ask you one of them again.

Could you analyze your girlfriend or Mother's perceived or imagined flaws, magnify them 'til they distort like a Blue Cheer record, opt for the worst-case point of view of their intentions and motivations and doubt your way right out of loving them? You certainly could. It happens all the time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 21:16:53 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: UC
Subject: So sorry
Message:
Could you analyze your girlfriend or Mother's perceived or imagined flaws, magnify them 'til they distort like a Blue Cheer record, opt for the worst-case point of view of their intentions and motivations and doubt your way right out of loving them? You certainly could. It happens all the time.

I'm not sure how to understand your question, let alone answer it. But I think I know what you're trying to say. Beauty, love, feelings, are ineffable. Something like that, right? UC, this is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about why we have such feelings to being with. And I say that it looks like science is making some headway in unravelling that mystery.

Look, we can map all sorts of brain areas for their respective, sometimes amazingly discrete, function. We can tweak our feelings with all sorts of electrical or chemical stimulation. And we can begin to put together some evolutionary theories of how our minds have developed which many find persuasive if not compelling. Yes, I think that two hundred years from now we're going to have a much clearer picture of how it all works. And it won't have anything to do wit that love, that Gratitude, that Appreciation, or even that Master. Cults like this will be an embarrasing atavistic blip in the history of the twentieth century.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 00:52:34 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: the chase
Message:
Can you prove you have a headache?
Yes, by definition. If my head hurts it's a headache.
Can you prove your nose itches?
Ditto.
Can you prove you feel love for someone


You glossed over that too quickly. I meant, of course, can you prove to others that your head hurts or your nose itches etc? They were meant to be simple, everyday examples of how we can be having an internal experience of some kind and yet be completely unable to convince anyone else that it is really happening.

That's precisely the problem I am facing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 05:49:33 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: What part does God
Message:
It sounds like the only trouble you are having with God is using that name as a label for your experiences.

That's right. People high on DMT and epileptics label their experiences as 'God', too. What's obvious is that the chemistry of their brains has been changed. Why do we relate to such experiences as being in God's presense? You, yourself answer the question when you say this:

To question whether an experience is an encounter with God, requires a preconcieved idea of what God is, in the sense that we proceed to judge whether the experience fits the possible realm of activity we suppose God to engage in.

My experience was one of love and mercy, infinite in proportion. I also felt as if I was in the presense of an Almighty Father, all-knowing and all-wise. This is exactly what I was taught God is. I have never had an experience of a 'creator' that was outside the realm of my preconceived notions. I doubt anyone has.

'I do believe that my soul can be touched and moved by infinity' doesn't sound like brain chemistry to me!

This is just my poetic way of saying that, as a human being, I can feel very deeply, so deeply in fact, that it seems like infinity. The right chemistry is a remarkable thing.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 13:35:35 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: God's part?
Message:
Do you feel you have a relationship with a Creator, and does he/she/it listen when you try to communicate?

Hi Rob,

Your question somehow implies that there 'must' be some kind of 'relationship' with ..... whatever you call it. Maybe you're also the type of premie thinking that m is a medium with that supposed 'power' ....? Right? Otherwise, how could you (still?) be a premie!

This is where the problem lies with Rawat and most new-age philosophies: find a medium with God, and if possible 'experience' it within you. My opinion now is that this is pure BS. This is where the trap lies, and you're setting one with your question. And this is what got me in the trap in the very beginning, like so many people genuinely interested in knowing more about themselves.

I also have genuine questions, and I'm not against the idea of God. But I've finally understood that Mr Rawat's (and usually other gurus') answers stink.

Rawat's theories (unless you've forgotten everything he said, and is usually edited in the videos, I've witnessed it many times) are not worth anything. And 'his knowledge' doesn't exist as a matter of fact.

There is no need to have a 'relationship' with Rawat (except for his family and relatives)/God/the Creator/etc.

Not the kind of relationship Rawat is talking about anyway.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 01:42:41 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: God's part?
Message:
I don't think there's anything unusual in starting a discussion with a premise - those joining in are perfectly at liberty to dispute the idea or expound on it. I seriously doubt anyone was trapped by my question, and I know you weren't because you excercised your personal freedom and went on to disagree with me.

I've already made it clear elsewhere that I'm not Maharaji's spokesperson, defence attorney or self-appointed champion, so I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion about what he does, who people think he is or what he's about.

My own experience has been entirely different from yours, if you'll forgive any assumptions I may be making by saying that. I'm more than happy to continue the thread along the lines of my own beliefs and experiences and listen to yours, but I've no interest in countering generalised insults and the usual tired variations on his name.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 06:16:00 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: jmkahn@club-internet.fr
To: Rob
Subject: OK I apologize
Message:
and I'll be civil....

I don't think there's anything unusual in starting a discussion with a premise

I agree. But don't you think this is very revealing? I won't say you intentionnaly tried to 'trap' anybody with your question. What I'd say, in other words, is that asking that very question is typical when you start what I'd call a 'knowldege introduction' brainwashing.

And I'd add this is SO typical you might not even realize it yourself! WHY ask that question? What do YOU want to prove?

I say this is an extremely biased way to start a discussion on the God issue.

Why not plain say: 'What is God?' or 'Don't you think that M's Knowledge is a good way to establish a relationship with God inside yourself?', I mean, there are lots of ways to start a discussion on this issue!

The problem with m's 'teaching', and that's been a very bad influence on my 'spiritual' questioning, is that he (the 'master') offers himself as the only medium to God. Maybe he doesn't say this anymore, but he did for years, and this is also strongly implied today in his videos and litterature. Maybe you're one of the persons 'helping' to publish all this?

I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion about what he does, who people think he is or what he's about.

Don't YOU have some personnal opinions on all this? You claim having such a personal relationship with your 'master', how come you don't want to discuss him?

I've no interest in countering generalised insults and the usual tired variations on his name.

I don't either, that's why I usually don't reply to insults. The problem is that I've read a lots of your posts, and beside defending you 'master' 'on your own behalf' (which I seriously doubt), I don't see what you're doing posting here! Such a denial on your part (not wanting to address some issues reg m) is one of the things that I take as an insult. And I have extremely good reasons for this. I've been trusting Mr Rawat for almost 24 years, and finally discovered that he was not worthy of it. And for serious reasons. And I still have a difficult time not loosing my temper with people defending him (like I did myself for decades). I guess I'll become more civil after some time. There are lots of things that piss me 'in this world', and charlatans is one of them. I'm sorry, but this is the way I am.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 21:28:22 (EDT)
From: Rob
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Likewise
Message:
I see I was a little harsh in my reply to you, entirely my own fault for staying up into the wee hours when I should be getting my beauty sleep. Sorry for being grumpy.

Now you've put your point across in a slightly different way, I can see how my question caused the reaction it did in you. It was never intended as a sneaky lead up to Knowledge, nor as a trap. It really was simply an invitation to start an interesting and lively discussion in a new thread, which in part answers your later question as to why I post here. I enjoy stimulating and challenging interaction online. I also enjoy idle chit-chat and bandying humour about. I enjoy the opportunity to offer compassion and advice where I see another soul crying out for it.

I am really sorry you feel insulted by me not addressing some issues concerning Maharaji. Don't you think that if I were an officially appointed ambassador, as some other postings today seem to suggest, I would make a point of addressing all negative issues? Surely it would have been part of my 'brief'. No, I am not trying to do a PR job on ex-premies, I am doing precisely what I have said I am doing. If I avoid addressing certain issues it's simply because I don't have an answer to give.

Please let me know if I didn't answer your questions satisfactorily, and I'll try again next time.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 03:27:47 (EDT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Rob
Subject: Likewise
Message:
Please let me know if I didn't answer your questions satisfactorily, and I'll try again next time.

Thank you for your answer. Believe it or not, I don't expect more than what you said from a premie. I've already spent lots of time having 'live' conversations with premies, and I know what to expect! I'm busy enough, and I don't intend to spend more time on this. I've been working a lot for having information freely available for anybody interested. I think that is extremely useful, it has been anyway for numbers of people.

One has to decide from his own feelings to start questioning what m's & 'knowledge' conditioning told you not to question. You can't convince anybody to do this. I know it from my experience, and from people I've talked to.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 19:49:19 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: RT sings Dire Straights
Message:
This sat-song is dedicated to all the parents of very young children: Just Play Keep Away - From The Programs!

MONEY FROM VISIONS ™ - AND THE CHECK’S FOR SHRI.

I WANT MY.. I WANT MY.. I WANT MY… SANITY
I WANT MY.. I WANT MY.. I WANT MY…FRIENDS TO SEE:

Well, look those Premies, that’s the Way: Guru - it
He plays their heartstrings when they watch TV
Oh, that ain’t working’, that’s the Way: Guru - it.
Money for airplane and your cult is free.

Now, that ain’t working, that’s the Way: Guru - it
Let me tell ya, honey, this guy ain’t dumb
Shri Han’s Knowledge once was freely spoken
Want Rawat videos? Go buy some!

We got to install microphone, brother
Multi-media delivery!
We got to groove these new Meditators
We got to move these Elan Vital Tees.

The little master with his products and that markup
Yes, Krishna, that’s his own fare
The little master’s got his own jet airplane
The little master: Swiss millionaire.

We got to install microphone, brother
Multi-media delivery!
We got to move these new Meditators
We got to film the swaying premies

We got to film these new Meditators
(We got to edit out those Ex-premies)

He could earn dough if he’d sell just one car
All I learned is to place this thumb.
Look it the stage band, singing to the empty chair
God, do you think they look really dumb!?

Oh who’s that up there? What’s that? - Hear crying noises!
Banging their emotions for the next CD
Oh, that’s ain’t working. That’s just how they Serve-Us
Money from Visions™ - get the checks for He.

We got to install microphone, speakers
Multi-media delivery!
We got to brainwash these Meditators
We got to move these Hindi CD’s

Listen here- That ain’t working - that what he calls Longing:
You quote Saint Kabir and they watch TV.

That ain’t working - that the Way: Guru -it
Money for Airplane and yer Cult’s for Free.

Money from Premies and the Cult’s for Free.
Money for Airplane and the Checks for Free.

I want my…I want my…I want my Sanity.
Money for Airplane and the Cult’s for Free.
Money for Jet fuel and the Cult’s for Free.
I WANT MY…I WANT MY… I WANT MY SANITY
Easy easy Money from Knowledge and the Check’s for Shri.

THIS AIN’T WORKING!

HOME, HOME ON THE HILL

by Gail MacDougall
July 10, 1998

Oh, let's give him a home
Staffed with sweet premie clones
So our Lord
And his children can play.

Where dedication is seen--
Every detail pristine.
And the dear premies
Serve-us and pray.

Home, home on the hill.
I hear God lives there still.
Where surrender's not heard.
Gratitude's the new word.
Show yours
Send a cheque today.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 19:59:07 (EDT)
From: Mary M
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: Bravo!
Message:
RT,

How bout a ballad set to 'Brothers in Arms' (Dire Straits)?

Luv ya,
Mary
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 20:53:51 (EDT)
From: Zac
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: These lyrics are great
Message:
Jim: Can your band record some of these? You could send a tape to Maharji and he could listen while cruising in his jet.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 10:46:03 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: omm
To: Mary M
Subject: Bothered in harms...
Message:
ok.. I will process...accessing....accessing...pun count to 23...
processing...input verbs...input 12 nouns. reboot.

c:
c:\dos
c:\dos run
run dos run

mem low
ram.
krishna.
buddha.

sorry, I've run out of memory! Lyrics. Wait for: tape from cardboard box under bed retrieval / playback. msg ends.

RT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, May 27, 1999 at 20:37:42 (EDT)
From: Mary M
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: Bothered in harms...
Message:
Hey RT,

Your memory banks will certainly pull out of this Dire Strait!

xo,
Mare
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, May 25, 1999 at 21:07:27 (EDT)
From: Robyn
Email: sundogs@hotmail.com
To: RT & Gail
Subject: RT & Gail... :) (nt)
Message:
fjp0w3485y]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 10:53:57 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: om: sound of one HAN clapping
To: Gail
Subject: RT sings Gail plays God claps
Message:
how nice, we are a duet! Thanks for pulling the song up from last summer!

RT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 05:19:10 (EDT)
From: ohio
Email: None
To: RT
Subject: RT sings Dire Straights
Message:
RT- Did you used to live in Marin County?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, May 28, 1999 at 08:24:10 (EDT)
From: RT
Email: omm
To: ohio person
Subject: RT The Ancient MARINer?
Message:
I am not a mariner, I am a scuba diver. No, just visit California
for the spectacle of it all.

RT
Return to Index -:- Top of Index