Forum IV: The Ex-Premie Forum
Archive: 10
From: Wed, Nov 03, 1999 To: Sun, Nov 14, 1999 Page: 3 Of: 5


Mel Boune -:- Revisionist post revised.... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:02:23 (EST)
__ Cynthia G. -:- Re: Revisionist post revised.... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:28:19 (EST)
__ __ Mili -:- Re: Revisionist post revised.... -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 07:22:02 (EST)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Revised statistics, Mili -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 16:15:34 (EST)
__ JW -:- That's Stupid, Mel -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:25:46 (EST)
__ Jim -:- One of your premises is right but that just makes you look even dumber, Mel -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:11:03 (EST)
__ Susan -:- Re: Revisionist post revised.... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 10:16:41 (EST)
__ __ Jean-Michel -:- It's still happening today! -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 10:48:37 (EST)
__ JHB -:- Re: Revisionist post revised.... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 09:14:25 (EST)
__ Nigel -:- No case to answer... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 07:31:40 (EST)
__ Mili -:- Re: Revisionist post revised.... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:45:28 (EST)
__ __ Nigel -:- For God's sake put your brain into gear before opening your mouth, Mil -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:24:19 (EST)
__ __ __ Mili -:- Re: For God's sake put your brain into gear before opening your mouth, Mil -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 18:23:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ nigel -:- Yes of course... nice is nice. -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 22:12:00 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- Re: Yes of course... nice is nice. -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 07:36:03 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Stupid is stupid -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 15:57:48 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- Re: Stupid is stupid -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 18:11:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You want respect? Earn it! (and quit whining) -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 11:38:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Quit whining? Jim you been whining for 19 fucking years! (nt) -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 22:49:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- Re: You want respect? Earn it! (and quit whining) -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 14:20:00 (EST)
__ __ Jim -:- You're as stupid as ever, Mili -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:05:14 (EST)
__ __ __ Mili -:- Re: You're as stupid as ever, Mili -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:35:45 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- You can have That experience without Maharaji -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 14:43:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- Really? -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 14:54:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Hold it right there, Mili -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:00:24 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Mili -:- What is this, a stickup? -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:59:04 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Re: What is this, a stickup? -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 22:15:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- And by the way... -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 23:02:54 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Yes, really! -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:08:08 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Roger - My experience with TM and Knowledge -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 20:48:59 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Oh Father I have sinned -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 04:40:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Re: Oh Father I have sinned -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 09:11:25 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: Oh Father I have sinned -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 11:03:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- gerry - good comments & my responses -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 22:38:28 (EST)
__ Roger eDrek -:- Re: Revisionist post revised.... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:19:25 (EST)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- He did more than alude to it -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:30:23 (EST)

Charles -:- Maharaji Sings -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 00:27:53 (EST)
__ Thick as a plank -:- There's nothing in the above post -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:21:23 (EST)
__ Roger eDrek -:- Ok, but where's the beef, show me the money. BRAINSTORM! -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:19:00 (EST)
__ __ Enough -:- Re:THAT GOLDEN VOICE -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:28:11 (EST)
__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Sat Pal's voice sounds ok -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:55:37 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Enough -:- Re: Sat Pal's voice sounds ok -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:05:05 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Enough -:- An interesting test -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:18:06 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Re: An interesting test -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:23:49 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- to Roger and Enough -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 23:54:33 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: An interesting test -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:17:32 (EST)

Joey -:- To Forum Admin and all (ot) -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 22:22:45 (EST)
__ Ben Lurking -:- Re: To Forum Admin and all (ot) -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 03:23:14 (EST)

Roger eDrek -:- Are we being too harsh? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 17:39:26 (EST)
__ JW -:- The Aspirant Process is Nothing New, Just Slicker -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:53:54 (EST)
__ JW -:- Re: Are we being too harsh? -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:53:26 (EST)
__ Joey -:- Re: Are we being too harsh? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 22:50:45 (EST)
__ __ Roger eDrek -:- So for something that is so simple and natural... -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:10:16 (EST)
__ Augustina -:- Re: Are we being too harsh? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 18:17:18 (EST)
__ __ Augustina -:- Re: Are we being too harsh? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 18:35:13 (EST)
__ __ __ Joey -:- Welcome Augustina! -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 21:50:19 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Augustina -:- Re: Welcome Augustina! -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:48:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Re: Welcome Augustina! -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 23:41:17 (EST)
__ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Here's what one ex-aspirant said -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:07:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- **** Roger - Best of please! **** -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:35:56 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- ***Best of Forum*** -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 21:59:22 (EST)
__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Here's what one ex-aspirant said -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:15:01 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Re: Here's what one ex-aspirant said -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:28:38 (EST)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Welcome -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 19:24:45 (EST)

Katie -:- UVA Religious Movements Site -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:35:42 (EST)
__ Gordon -:- Re: UVA Religious Movements Site -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:26:49 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- Balance is good! -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:33:21 (EST)
__ __ Mili -:- Re: UVA Religious Movements Site -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:01:30 (EST)

Katie -:- To Australian friend (& Joni M.fan) -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 11:35:00 (EST)

AnOccasionalObserver -:- HEY SHP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 10:21:56 (EST)
__ Shp -:- Hey there AOO, I ain't deaf, just been away. -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 21:08:31 (EST)
__ Marianne -:- Re: HEY SHP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 13:15:31 (EST)

Mel Bourne -:- 'Revisionism' - just an ex slogan? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:22:05 (EST)
__ Nigel -:- So was I just sloganeering? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:25:41 (EST)
__ Joey -:- I give credit and thanks to my brother Nil! -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:00:00 (EST)
__ Roger Recent Ex-Premie eDrek -:- The worshipping reality still continues -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:52:38 (EST)
__ Runamok -:- Re: 'Revisionism' - just an ex slogan? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:53:09 (EST)
__ Jim -:- Poor Mel, you obviously don't understand what the word means -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:40:18 (EST)
__ __ Runamok -:- Sorry Jim, you're wrong -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 14:51:38 (EST)
__ __ __ JW -:- No -- Wrong Context -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:05:40 (EST)
__ __ __ Susan -:- How I see the term generally used... -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:27:22 (EST)
__ __ __ Jim -:- No, Run, YOU'RE wrong -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:04:15 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Your emphasised definition, Jim -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:41:10 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You concede this? Good, game over -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:20:47 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Wait a cotton picking minute! -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:13:09 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Miss PC -:- Good Point, But Offensive Term -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:15:26 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Sorry. At least I didn't use that C-Word. (nt) -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:42:53 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- I've got a big dictionary, too -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 22:33:32 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Quit making a fool of yourself, Run -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 00:11:52 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- Do I owe you something? -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 02:33:02 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- WILL YOU QUIT OBSESSING OVER ME?????? -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 10:57:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- OBSESSING OVER SOMEONE?????? -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 11:51:34 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Runamok -:- It's about respecting other people -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 14:42:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ One thing Jim's wrong about... -:- Alien commuter traffic over McCleary. -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 17:13:42 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: WILL YOU QUIT OBSESSING OVER ME?????? -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:37:58 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- WILL I QUIT OBSESSING OVER ME?????? -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 13:05:17 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Nittany Lions -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 19:59:40 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Re: Nittany Lions -:- Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 20:43:12 (EST)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- And gerry called ME a fruitcake? Whoa! (nt) -:- Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 17:19:33 (EST)
__ __ Susan -:- well said as usual Jim (nt) -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 13:38:30 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- Re: 'Revisionism' - just an ex slogan? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 08:13:29 (EST)
__ Enough -:- 'The fish in the water... -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 07:25:37 (EST)
__ JHB -:- He used to be God -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:56:41 (EST)
__ __ gerry -:- What he said -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 11:46:45 (EST)

Mel Bourne -:- Jim's evasion - 3rd attempt! -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:03:02 (EST)
__ JHB -:- Shit Answer, Mel -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 06:10:53 (EST)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Shit Answer, Mel -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:00:19 (EST)
__ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Shit Answer, Mel -:- Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:09:57 (EST)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Shit Answer, Mel -:- Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 21:27:52 (EST)
__ __ JHB -:- What's going on here?? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 06:25:33 (EST)
__ __ __ Joey -:- Re: What's going on here?? -:- Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:19:40 (EST)


Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:02:23 (EST)
From: Mel Boune
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: All
Subject: Revisionist post revised....
Message:
Hi all again,

I refer to my first 'revisionist' post below, and as usual, I am amazed at how exes actually avoid answering the real issue made in the post! (and they say premies evade the issues !!)

I said....

In my view there seems to be an implication that when ex's were premies there was some kind of doctrinal purity about whatever they were doing at that time and that current premies are somehow lacking because this paradigm no longer applies. I find this quite bizarre because there seems to be an element of contradiction here. On one hand, exes rejected Maharaji because of the old paradigm and on the other, appear to take some kind of great pride in their former adherence to it and contemptuously denigrate current premies as 'revisionists'. Maybe there is a bit of jealousy about how much easier things seem to be these days, you know, the 'it was hard for me so I think it should be as hard for others' attitude.

But this statement has not elicited any comment whatsoever, (instead the definition of the word 'revisionist' has been debated rigourously).

Would any exes (or premies) like to enlighten me as to the apparent contradiction alluded to in the statement I have pasted?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:28:19 (EST)
From: Cynthia G.
Email: cynthia@madriver.com
To: Mel Boune
Subject: Re: Revisionist post revised....
Message:
First of all Mel, if you were a true practicing premie you wouldn't think everything was so easy these days. Recently I tried to go back, and was shocked by the tiny number of premies. Perhaps you're smart and just don't go to video eventss--avoid those donation boxes and special requests for cash. When maharaji speaks about participation these days, it really means money. These days, with the shortage of U.S. premies to foot the bill for renting halls, buying Visions community video subscriptions, maintaining contact with EV, going to special meetings for community contacts, not to mention the cost of travel to see him, it's just as hard, if not more difficult, as before. The package has changed and the older premies keep up the front.

This may not seem to relate to the conversation, but it does. You see, the cult-speak/look has changed, but in many cases, in many communities it is the older premies who are keeping things going, the real true believers. And they do not hold back about their belief/feelings about who m is to them--The lord while in private,

For christ sakes, I was just reading m's satsang from a binder I have from the 70's which I titled: 'satsang specials,' (I collected satsangs in which m was very heavy about devotion and referring to the divinity of Guru Maharaj Ji). While I was perusing that binder I noticed that he ended his satsang with 'My blessings to all the premies.' Who's blessings, Mel?

What about that Mel? I just looked it up again. He did say MY blessings. He doesn't say Knowledge's blessings, or GMJ's blessings. MY BLESSINGS, Mel, get it? M doesn't SAY that anymore, but he certainly does hold his arms up, palms out, pushing forward, which has always been known to be Guru Maharaj Ji, the lord, giving his blessings. So a lot of revisionism has taken place, however, 'wink, wink' he's still the lord for a lot of premies. Even though he denies ever having said it, which he has, I heard him with my own ears.

So, easy or difficult, it's still a cult. Whatever facelifts or 'revisionism' that have been made along the way still point to him as a fraud, whom many worship as lord. I don't feel contempt for the premies who lie for m, I feel pity for them, because I was there once, and I understand. There is no excuse for it, though, because it is maharaji who is orchestrating the deception, the 'revisionism.'

Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 07:22:02 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Cynthia G.
Subject: Re: Revisionist post revised....
Message:
Cynthia,

Have you looked at the page view stats on Maharaji's site lately? That counter is blowin' it's cork, I tell you! I really appreciate that website - it's the kind of personal contact I was wishing for. My guess is that a lot of people are just like me, meditate in private when they feel the need for it and check in with Maharaji whenever they want or feel the need for it, too. So, he's available in as many ways you want - via Knowledge, via a website, by satellite, at video events or at a program, whatever. It's never been this easy before.

Obviously, things happen more where Maharaji gives more of his attention to - like in India, for instance. Five years ago (if I got that right), when the land was purchased and Shri Sant Yogashram was beginning to be built, there were a couple of thousand premies in Delhi. Now there were something like 70,000 there on the grounds celebrating Hans Jayanti. That's a pretty big turnover, by any count.

I don't think you have to worry about the numbers and whether other people are practicing and participating, or not. Take a look at yourself and see how well are YOU doing?

There are six billion people on the planet now. All of us share the common experience of being born, surviving and having to kick the bucket one day. Life itself has a way of teaching its lessons, whether you believe it's got anything to do with Maharaji or not. To me, Knowledge is definitely an advantage and I am glad I have it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 16:15:34 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Revised statistics, Mili
Message:
Five years ago (if I got that right), when the land was purchased and Shri Sant Yogashram was beginning to be built, there were a couple of thousand premies in Delhi. Now there were something like 70,000 there on the grounds celebrating Hans Jayanti. That's a pretty big turnover, by any count

Not that I'm going to www.maharaji.org to check out the statistic because Maharaji himself doesn't believe in statistics, but your statistics warrant some examination because you are making it sound like the Delhi premie population has grown from 2,000 to 70,000 in five years. While this might be possible in India with a population of what, a billion people many who have numerous gurus.

However, I suspect that the 70,000 in attendance were from all over India, neighboring countries, and the West and not from Delhi alone.

I also believe that Maharaji's own statistics might bear this out in terms of the number of people who have received Knowledge in the last five years.

Basically, Maharaji's game in the West is over even if he resorts to showing pleasant introductory videos, has a website, and beams his image down from satellites. The number of people receiving Knowledge in the West is miniscule. Too bad because First World premies have more disposable income to throw away on his Holiness. Maharaji probably needs to have at least 1000 Indian premies to match donations for just one Western premie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:25:46 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Mel Boune
Subject: That's Stupid, Mel
Message:
On one hand, exes rejected Maharaji because of the old paradigm and on the other, appear to take some kind of great pride in their former adherence to it and contemptuously denigrate current premies as 'revisionists'.

You miss the point completely. The point is that premies are lying about the past and are revisionists because they do so. The general good or bad qualities of what actually happened, or, in contrast, is now happening is an entirely different discussion.

I think the ex-premies have been completely consistent in this regard. Most of us say what happened in the past was really stupid, false and damaging. We call premies revisionist when they lie and say it didn't happen.

As for what is happening now in Maharaji's cult, I believe his 'changes' are tacit admissions that he was a failure in the past, but just won't admit it or take responsibility for it. On the other hand, other than the names things are called, and his dropping of 'guru' one wonders how much really HAS changed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:11:03 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Boune
Subject: One of your premises is right but that just makes you look even dumber, Mel
Message:
In my view there seems to be an implication that when ex's were premies there was some kind of doctrinal purity about whatever they were doing at that time and that current premies are somehow lacking because this paradigm no longer applies. I find this quite bizarre because there seems to be an element of contradiction here. On one hand, exes rejected Maharaji because of the old paradigm and on the other, appear to take some kind of great pride in their former adherence to it and contemptuously denigrate current premies as 'revisionists'. Maybe there is a bit of jealousy about how much easier things seem to be these days, you know, the 'it was hard for me so I think it should be as hard for others' attitude.

This is a very, very VERY dumb approach, Mel. Here's why. You're right, I beleive, that one of the things we complain of is that there used to be a 'doctrinal purity' that your cult leader has since abandoned. Yes, of course there was. Hans Yog Prakesh spells it all out, doesn't it? The 'eternal truth' and all that. Remember?

But you're an absolute idiot to infer that ex's are bemoaning the abandonment of that 'paradigm'. Instead, dummy, they see it as proof that the whole ball of wax was fake from the start. Get it???????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 10:16:41 (EST)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Mel Boune
Subject: Re: Revisionist post revised....
Message:
I read this part of your post but I truly did not see it as the central issue.

I think what you see is sometimes a simple nostalgia ( even if it was a wierd experience it was something many of us shared ) I do not think we old time ex's feel PROUD or PURE we got to kiss his feet, say bhole shri, and see the mala dance, and live in ashrams. I frankly am so embarrassed about it I never discuss it outside of the net and my closest family and friends. But if you percieve sometimes we are enjoying recalling these events it is simply, for me at least, I did not think about those days at all until I found the site. It is just interesting to remember them.

But you miss how I think most of us feel about today vs then. The way it is described, the videos and sattelites, it seems very impersonal. It also sounds weird, contrived, controlled and paranoid. But, I think most of us would agree it is GOOD people are no longer encouraged to quit jobs and educations and live in ashrams. My problem, is that unless I missed something, the guru never apologized for letting everyone worship him as the Messiah. He never apologized to the ashram premies who felt they were dedicating their lives to the living lord, he never said, for anyone with a lingering doubt, I am not GOD. You just cannot decide to stop playing God one day and expect a thinking person to not comment and expect an explanation. It sounds to me, from the posts of you premies who post here, that there really is still left a lingering hope that he is the Messiah, it is just unspoken now, so as not to appear too strange.

Anytime I use the word revisionist in context to DLM EV it is not to insult them for changing from the past, it is because they seem to be pretending the past never happened.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 10:48:37 (EST)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: It's still happening today!
Message:
Do you have any doubt they don't sing arti these days in India ? Ever been there ?

It's Hans Jayanti !!

'Jay Gurudev Maharaji,
You glory fills the world....'

They're only into trying to hide it from newbies.
I guess this is not about 'revisionism', this is about
lying and pretending this is not a devotional cult.

Let's see how they get away with that one!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 09:14:25 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Mel Boune
Subject: Re: Revisionist post revised....
Message:
In my view there seems to be an implication that when ex's were premies there was some kind of doctrinal purity about whatever they were doing at that time and that current premies are somehow lacking because this paradigm no longer applies.

No, there was never any doctrinal purity. In fact there tons of doctrinal holes, but because we thought he was the Lord, we just glossed over them all. Why on earth do you believe we believe there was 'doctrinal purity'?????????

Anyway I was a premie less than a year ago. Has anything changed since then???

John the amazed Mel comes up with these tangential points while ignoring the central issues.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 07:31:40 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mel Boune
Subject: No case to answer...
Message:
Mel, the statement you accuse everybody of evading ran as follows:

In my view there seems to be an implication that when ex's were premies there was some kind of doctrinal purity about whatever they were doing at that time and that current premies are somehow lacking because this paradigm no longer applies.

This statement requires no response as it is a generalised assertion containing no specific examples. It is your job, not ours, to show where an ex has presented an argument of the kind you are describing. Do this, and I am sure you will get the discussion you are looking for. It makes a whole lot of sense to give people something to evade before making the accusation of evasion, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:45:28 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: Revisionist post revised....
Message:
Well, the way I see it - anyone who followed Maharaji because of their ideas ('because he is the Lord' or 'because all my friends and ashram mates do', or even 'to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to this Earth') is bound to reach the limit of their concepts at one point or the other. It's like Maharaji said, 'There are two gods - one is the real God, and the other is the god that people make for themselves'. And the Kingdom of Heaven is within. When you feel that peace in your soul, you can also see it reflected and permeating the whole universe. Otherwise, the whole universe is a reflection of the turmoil of your own mind.

So, if you hang on to your ideas of what he should be: Lord, Master, fraud, whatever - you're bound to be disappointed sooner or later. Better to be open and not have any idea or expectation at all.

The thing is, the experience of Knowledge has always been a total surprise for me. Nothing could have prepared me for it, it was certainly like nothing I could ever imagine. And yet on retrospect it's been just wonderful, and absolutely familiar and intimate. And Maharaji's been there for me, before, during and after that experience - smiling and talking about it like it were the most natural thing in the world.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:24:19 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mili
Subject: For God's sake put your brain into gear before opening your mouth, Mil
Message:
Mili, you wrote:

Well, the way I see it - anyone who followed Maharaji because of their ideas ('because he is the Lord' or 'because all my friends and ashram mates do', or even 'to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to this Earth') is bound to reach the limit of their concepts at one point or the other. It's like Maharaji said, 'There are two gods - one is the real God, and the other is the god that people make for themselves'. And the Kingdom of Heaven is within. When you feel that peace in your soul, you can also see it reflected and permeating the whole universe. Otherwise, the whole universe is a reflection of the turmoil of your own mind.

How many times does someone have to spell it out to you? The one thing that turns your meditation experience into an experience of 'Knowledge' is A CONCEPT. The idea that Maharaji has anything to do with your meditation experience is another CONCEPT. Got that? It is an IDEA, a BELIEF, a CONCEPT. Shall I spell it out for you...c...o... n..- .t...r...i...c...k..)

What on earth gives you the idea that you don't follow Maharaji 'because of your ideas' - as you put it?

In your 'Lives' entry on the ELK site, you concluded thus:

He simply wants me to practice the Knowledge - if I want to. And if and when I do, the only ones who know about it are HIM and ME.

This isn't just a concept, or an idea, Mili. It is the concept as big as the bloody Ritz. Magical thinking of the most twisted, damaging variety. Do you honestly believe that when you meditate, Maharaji knows about it? I mean, really?

To use your own expression: Maharaji is the god that you have made for yourself, from a bundle of ideas and associations that have been fed and reinforced from day one of your cult involvement. Believe me, you really have to distance yourself from the whole thing to even begin to see the sheer absurdity of it all. To imagine that ideas and concepts do not apply to your own experience looks like a bad, bad case of self-delusion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 18:23:22 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Nigel
Subject: Re: For God's sake put your brain into gear before opening your mouth, Mil
Message:
Gosh, Nigel - thanks for your concern. But I'm OK, really. Yeah, maybe I just like to think that Maharaji somehow knows that I'm having a nice experience. Or maybe he is sensitive to it somehow. Doesn't matter, really. He'll know about it the next time I show up for darshan, at least. Whichever way you slice it, it's nice. Shall I spell it for you? N-I-C-E.

Thanks anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 22:12:00 (EST)
From: nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.,demon.co.uk
To: Mili
Subject: Yes of course... nice is nice.
Message:
I almost forgot.

Very nice reply, MIli, but you are ignoring the point that YOU raised. You accused exes of having ideas and concepts in place of real experiences. I called you and said you are full of crap. You said, 'maybe so, but it's nice...'

At least that is what I think you said. Correct me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 07:36:03 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: nigel
Subject: Re: Yes of course... nice is nice.
Message:
Nigel, I wasn't ignoring it - you just alerted me to the fact that I might be having some concepts about it, too. Like Maharaji somehow knowing that I was getting through in my meditation, for instance. Well, the fact seems to be that I am the one who knows most about it and Maharaji might know about it if I tell him about it, or do something based on that experience - like show up at a satsang program for instance. So, I guess it was a concept and thanks for pointing it out to me.

As for your other contentions, I wish you weren't so full of bile so we could discuss it in a more relaxed way. But then again, you view Maharaji as a priori 'evil' and premies as stupid and deluded. That's really lopsided, contmptuous and condescending, and it's very difficult to have a balanced, calm discussion with you guys if that fundamental mutual respect is missing.

So, each to their own, I guess.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 15:57:48 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Stupid is stupid
Message:
But then again, you view Maharaji as a priori 'evil' and premies as stupid and deluded. That's really lopsided, contmptuous and condescending, and it's very difficult to have a balanced, calm discussion with you guys if that fundamental mutual respect is missing.

Wow! Unbelievable, completely unbelievable after you first admit that maybe you might be having some concepts about Knowledge like Maharaji personally knowing when YOU were meditating. If Maharaji knows when you are good and when you are bad then it says that he has some special god-like power. If Maharaji doesn't have that ability it means that you are very deluded in thinking that Maharaji knows when you are meditating.

And then you back off saying that maybe you have a concept.

Well, I'm sure that you are not the only to have this concept because that concept was and is part of the the mass hysteria devotional trip that surrounds Maharaji.

So, what is it?

And then you complain that you cannot have calm reasonable discussions on this Forum because we view Maharaji as a priori 'evil' and premies as stupid and deluded.

You've made it pretty clear that premies are stupid and deluded. And I don't believe for one minute that you have discarded that concept of Maharaji's knowing. You've most likely held that belief for a long, long time. You are insulting our intelligence if you believe that we are going to buy your story saying that you are free of that concept after a 5 minute discussion here.

Finally, Maharaji is evil if he allows premies to believe stuff like this. But, if it suits his purposes of amassing a fortune as a private investor then so be it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 18:11:42 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re: Stupid is stupid
Message:
Wow, Drek - some analysis! You're obviously trying hard and you're getting better and better...

Ok, now answer this one for me - if the West is so much more lucrative, then why is Maharaji bothering with those poor, ol' Indian premies so much at all? Hm?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 11:38:09 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: You want respect? Earn it! (and quit whining)
Message:
Mili,

You say the most superficial things imaginable. How can anyone with a little more depth take you seriously? For example, calling Maharaji's web site a satisfying, personal connection? That's sheer madness. You deserve all the ridicule you get.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 22:49:47 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Quit whining? Jim you been whining for 19 fucking years! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 14:20:00 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: You want respect? Earn it! (and quit whining)
Message:
Well, just how much personal contact do you want, Jim - you want to kiss his feet again, or something?

Boy, it must be some fun being you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:05:14 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: You're as stupid as ever, Mili
Message:
Mili,

All this time, all this voluminous documentary evidence, all these many first-hand accounts and you still are thick as a brick. There's no talking with you idiots, is there?

I just keep coming back to this hope that one of you cult members would have the guts to bring one of your non-involved friends over one day. Let me present the case for Maharaji being a nasty, venal fraud to them. See how long it takes them to get it. Ha, what a joke! It might take all of 15 minutes for them to say 'Shit, I don't know what to tell you about Mili. He's my friend and all and I don't want to criticize him, but yes, the point's obvious enough: this guru's got a lot to answer for.'

The only ones who might not agree would be some new age tossers but then none of them can think straight anyway. Any other regular, informed person would necessarily concede what you cult members are afraid to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:35:45 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Jim
Subject: Re: You're as stupid as ever, Mili
Message:
Thanks, Jim.

You know, the day you begin calling me anything less than 'an idiot' is when I'll know I am straying off course.

Maharaji promised me an experience, and that's the promise he kept.

Compared to that, your 'voluminous evidence' is a load of horseshit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 14:43:09 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: You can have That experience without Maharaji
Message:
I mentioned about receiving my TM mantra and having a profound experience and I did not have to understand anything on an intellectual basis (how awful the world was, etc.)

And Augustina's recent post about leaving Maharaji but keeping the meditation techniques and her own experience within herself.

Also, keep in mind that we have Maharaji's techniques posted online at www.ex-premie.org. It would be interesting to find a stranger off of the streets, give him or her the techniques and see what happens.

If Maharaji is no longer God and has no mystical powers then it should be very possible to have a beautiful experience without him.

Also, if Maharaji is only a Master without mystical powers to enlighten people by his presence or grace then what is his purpose and why do people need to stay in touch as much as they do?

The way I see it is that the Master imparts his stunted philosophy to his students until they are nearly crippled in terms of dealing with real life. They become slaves to him needing his grace. And they send him money. Pretty clever if this guy is no longer the magic man.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 14:54:26 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Really?
Message:
I don't doubt that you experienced something with TM, Roger. Well, if that's good enough for you, stick with it!

As for your hypothesis about people getting something out of the techniques from this website - well, there was a guinea pig, remember? Veep. Didn't seem to do him much good.

It takes a burning candle to light another candle, you know.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:00:24 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mili
Subject: Hold it right there, Mili
Message:
What do you know about VP's meditation experiences?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:59:04 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: None
To: Nigel
Subject: What is this, a stickup?
Message:
Jus' what he told the assembly at the Forum, Nige. No more, no less.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 22:15:10 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mili
Subject: Re: What is this, a stickup?
Message:
You reply proves you know nothing. You certainly don't know VP.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 23:02:54 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Nigel
Subject: And by the way...
Message:
Most people who ever received 'Knowledge' - even Maharaji's version of it - also found it didn't so much for them. Satisfied customers of M are in a serious minority, Mili. Most premies are exes. Divide the number of people worldwide who enjoy some form of meditation by the number who watch M's videos thrice a week and you are probably talking six figures.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:08:08 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Mili
Subject: Yes, really!
Message:
It takes a burning candle to light another candle, you know.

This implies that Maharaji has some special power, doesn't it.
And I'm not sure what you are talking about with Veep.

Oh, don't forget to diss any other meditation like TM as being false.

Nevertheless, I experienced something completely inside myself when I did TM. Before TM I had picked up a little Yoga booklet that had some technique that I did and had excellent results as well. While I will not dispute that Maharaji's techniques, like they are really his in the first place, can provide an experience, I believe from my own experience that many meditation techniques can quiet the mind and provide an experience. You'll have to trust me on this as I have used other techniques.

Sure, you'll ask why I gave up the other techniques and the answer is that the rumor was that Maharaji could instantly and forever put one in the state of nirvana or whatever. One thing common to all the techniques is that sometimes you have a good meditation and sometimes you don't. And it's easy to slack off when it would appear that nothing is happening. Like anything practice makes perfect.

And one point is that I had great difficulty doing Maharaji's techniques because of all the hype involved and all the expectations and all the bullshit like seeing Maharaji in the light.

Finally, how about the revision of the Light technique. In my Knowledge session I asked for more light and the Mahatma returned to me and really pressed very, very hard on my eyeballs which triggers only optic nerve activity. Today, thankfully, that technique has been changed. What kind of teacher would allow such poor teaching by one of his most trusted Mahatamas, Charanand?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 20:48:59 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Roger - My experience with TM and Knowledge
Message:
-
Roger,

Like you, I also did TM before Knowledge, and I also found it valuable. I stopped doing it though because I prefer Knowledge.

There were a few things you said in your post that puzzled me though. You say you had difficulty with Knowledge because of all the hype and the expectations. And you were also told that you would see Maharaji in the light? Who told you this? Because it's a crock. You've been done a great disservice, my man.

I was told to just see what I saw. I was told to just see what is there. Laissez faire all the way. Knowledge is so powerful it doesn't need help from our imagination.

So if you've been looking for things that SHOULD happen, no wonder you've been disappointed. I suggest you throw out all the hype, and expectations, and what you were told you should experience, and just take what you get. Throw all the hype and concepts surrounding K into the garbage where they belong. Wipe the slate clean, try the techniques again, and see what happens. No hype, no expectations, no shoulds, no 'this is the way it's supposed to be.' Just let happen what happens. That's the way I practice. Meditate and trust your OWN experience.

The true men of old
Had no mind to fight Tao.
They did not try by their own contriving
To help Tao along.

Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 04:40:09 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Oh Father I have sinned
Message:
As soon as you go to poetry or that fancy shmancy religious is when you lose me.

Maybe you weren't around then when we all saw Maharaji in the Light. Too bad, pretty spectacular. Also, at the same time the light was brighter than a million suns. Don't know what Light you're seeing these days, but the Light was really good back then.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 09:11:25 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re: Oh Father I have sinned
Message:
Rog,

You prefer my off the wall zany stuff, but Katie likes my Shakespare stuff. Hey, can't please everyone.

I don't know if the light has changed. I think I would have remembered that.

Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 11:03:49 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Re: Oh Father I have sinned
Message:
I'm gonna tell ya plain and simple now, the techniques DON'T work for everyone.

Sometimes the techniques 'work' for people completely apart from any ideology or 'gratitude' for the person who taught them the techniques.

There are thousands of people around the world experiencing the 'inner world' through various techniques of meditation.

What you got going Dep, is a devotional religious thing, along with meditation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 22:38:28 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: gerry - good comments & my responses
Message:
-
What you got going Dep, is a devotional religious thing, along with meditation.

What I got going gerry, is a meditation thing, and when I need help or inspiration it's there.

Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:19:25 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Mel Boune
Subject: Re: Revisionist post revised....
Message:
I just posted the following to one of your messages below and I'm not even bothering to read this current post in it's entirety because... Because I don't have to.

Would you listen to yourself and put it into context with the basic fact that Maharaji really, really used to claim that he was God, the Lord of Universe and now he no longer claims that. That's no small item of revision like changing the color of one's hair. I'd call that pretty substantial.

I could see some teacher who merely claimed himself as just a humble servant of God later claim that he had become God, but Maharaji has gone the other way and stepped down from being God. And now he and all the premies deny that he ever said (ok, very strongly alluded to it and allowed premies to call him that and acted like a God, etc.) that he was Lord of the Universe.

I'd call that pretty bogus. And I think that any reasonable person who is not under the influence of a cult would see it as rather strange and even unacceptable.

So, please when talking about the term revisionism put it into the proper perspective as to what has been revised.

Ok, to answer your doctrine of purity I'd have to ask how current premies who were premies from the past glory days of the Lord of the Universe can so easily discard what is essentially a monumental revision. It's absolutely HUGE! What is not bigger than God or Lord of the Universe? (Please Shp now is not the time.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:30:23 (EST)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: He did more than alude to it
Message:
He did more than alude to it. Sometime during the late seventies, early eighties, he went through a phase of actually saying he was God. Don't you remember those satsangs where he kept telling us how fortunate we were to have the greatest opportunity which was beyond liberation (a mythical Indian concept) and was to serve him who was God on this Earth?

For a while, he talked about this in every satsang he gave and I've even got some of it on tape and in an old magazine. He would talk about himself as being that God, (what else?) and how it was our great good fortune to be able to serve him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 00:27:53 (EST)
From: Charles
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Maharaji Sings
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:21:23 (EST)
From: Thick as a plank
Email: None
To: Charles
Subject: There's nothing in the above post
Message:
There is nothing in your above post, Charles. It's totally empty.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:19:00 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Charles
Subject: Ok, but where's the beef, show me the money. BRAINSTORM!
Message:
Ok, ok, ok!

Now, I hope that my pre-announcement doesn't blow the record deal, but WE need to get a hold of that video tape or audio tape and excerpt it and put it online. Of course this would be done under the Fair Use doctrine for educational purposes.

I just pray to my Guru Maharaji that Maharaji took some voice lessons. Does any recent ex-premie remember how screechy his voice used to be? I mean, Holy Christ, there you are watching/listening to the same video for the 23rd time as he rambles on and on for a good solid hour that seems like four hours.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:28:11 (EST)
From: Enough
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re:THAT GOLDEN VOICE
Message:
I always had a really hard time listening to him, especially in person. Videos were somewhat easier. The explanation I was given always centered around 'the mind always freaks around the light' bullshit. I bought it.

Can't wait until the mailman brings me the Visions offer to hear THAT VOICE. What do you think they'll want? $50?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:55:37 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Enough
Subject: Sat Pal's voice sounds ok
Message:
I'm listening and watching Sat Pal in a Real Video presentation titled Maharaj Ji's Answer (Part 1) at Manavdharam.

You know, Sat Pal grew out of that skinny dawky kid that he was and looks way cooler than Prem Pal. I don't know what he is saying since it's Hindi, but his voice is better than Prem Pal's as well.

Is it possible that we'd be better off if we had gone with Sat Pal?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:05:05 (EST)
From: Enough
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re: Sat Pal's voice sounds ok
Message:
Thanks-Satpal does appear to be a more serious dude. Maybe when we go through the ultimate blue tunnel, he'll be there. Wouldn't that be the ultimate joke?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:18:06 (EST)
From: Enough
Email: None
To: Roger/All
Subject: An interesting test
Message:
Isn't there something that exists called a voice analyzer?
It functions similar to a lie detector. If we could get someone to put a sample of M's stuff to this test, we could determine if he buys his own crap or not.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:23:49 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Enough
Subject: Re: An interesting test
Message:
Yes, there is some alleged voice analyzer. Comes out of Israel.

There's also something called reverse speech.

Listen up. You might have a valid point that in our ultimate journey down the blue tunnel after our sphincter lets go we just might come face to face with Sat Pal. That's why I'm trying to be cool about the guy as I straddle my bet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 23:54:33 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: to Roger and Enough
Message:
I will run as fast as I can in the opposite direction if I meet EITHER Sat Pal OR Maharaji in the blue tunnel. Yow! Give me a break! Everyone in my family lives until they're at least 95 - now it looks like I'll have to do that too :).

P.S. My actual thinking on this is that WE give the face to the person/people we meet in the blue tunnel. Which is why so many people meet their parents and relatives. (I'm still hoping to meet Jerry Garcia.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:17:32 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: glyng@techline.com
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re: An interesting test
Message:
I tried analysing Goober using reversespeech.com protocals. I've a bit of experience doing this now and found some interesting reversals in my own speech. I use Goldwave sound editor and a microphone of course. It's easy to do but a tad tedious.

The problem with analysing Goob is his unnatural speech patterns, with those contrived, long pauses and his repetion. Also, it may be difficult because English is not his native tongue. If you could get a casual conversation recording instead of his scripted rehearsed speel I might be able to find something in that.

And now it's time for our sponsors...

Folks, you can send me your digital audio clips of your spouses, bosses, friends, Monica Lewinski or anyone and I will analyse them for the low, low price of $19.95 (US$) per each two minute file. Learn what they're REALLY trying to tell you!!

Also for a limited time only, I will vet your new friend, lover, spouse, children on any issue over the phone with fast confidential results for only $49 per 15 minute interview and analysis. Take advantage of these limited time offers at these special prices by e-mailing me now!
Don't lie to me!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 22:22:45 (EST)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: All
Subject: To Forum Admin and all (ot)
Message:
I'm unable to access the post by Ben Lurking entitled 'M is a Sorry Sap Sucker'(posted Sun. Nov.07 at 06:24) in the thread 'A slightly edited post from below'.

Every time I attempt to open the above post I end up with Sir Dave's post 'Re:'Revisionism'-just an ex slogan?'(Sun. Nov.07, 08:13) in the completely different thread of that title.
Weird!

Just wanting to let you know.
If in the meantime, someone can open the Ben Lurking post, and bring it up here so I can read it, that would really be appreciated.

Thanks,

Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 03:23:14 (EST)
From: Ben Lurking
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Re: To Forum Admin and all (ot)
Message:
Thats wierd, to answer your question that was my post- I forget therest of the message, I composed it online.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 17:39:26 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Are we being too harsh?
Message:
One of the many purposes that ex-premies have when they post on the Ex-Premie Forum is to warn potential aspirants of the dangers that are inherent in Maharaji's cult. Many of the ex-premies have been away from the cult for many years and are personally aware of only the hardship and brutality that was so prevalent then.

Being here and now, Maharaji has changed the way things work. The World of Knowledge is a kinder and gentler place or is it?

Looking at the aspirant process we see that a newbie is invited to a special introductory video. The video hall is immaculate. Premies are all in place well rehearsed with their service and every premie knows that now is not the time for any Bhole Shri's or any behavior that might appear to be devotional. The premies are virtually cautioned to keep their mouths shut and tell newbies only to keep coming back to the videos and get their answers from Maharaji himself.

The next step is another course of more advanced videos for People Wanting to Learn More About Knowledge or whatever it's called. Often the general premie community is disinvited to these special videos to help the newbies feel more at ease.

At some point the newbie is urged to attend general videos. However, the newbies are not allowed to attend the videos especially geared for Persons With Knowledge Only (PWK.)

And all the while the newbie is carefully monitored by a premie who has been assigned that specific service. After months and months of religiously attending videos the newbie might have the opportunity to be further screened by the travelling appointed and anointed person. Apparently (please help me here) there are many requirements. I believe that a newbie cannot have another religion, cannot be pregnant, maybe even cannot have very young children, maybe cannot be in a relationship with a non-premie. Basically all sorts of little things.

So, is this the kinder and gentler World of Knowledge?

Ok, I can understand that such a rigorous weeding and seeding process might increase Maharaji's success rate in retaining new premies, but let's consider what a trap this is.

The newbie is slowly sucked into very short innocuous videos with poems and pretty pictures. And then a little more and a little more like the carrot in front of the cart. Then the commitment kicks in and the newbie is required to attend, what, six months of videos followed by a very intense final exam.

It's pretty slick alright. Before the newbie knows it they've been sucked into the cult and maybe, just maybe they will figure out the really deep, deep dark secret that Maharaji is not just a Master, but the notorious Lord of the Universe himself. How will the newbie pick up on this? Even the most clueless newbie should easily understand this through the entire context of the situation or maybe some old premie will slip it to them.

The bottom line is that not much has really changed. Maharaji is still the Lord and he wants a total commitment. If you are not prepared to give it then you don't get Knowledge. And, again, the entire process is such that the newbie has committed much time, effort, and money that they very well might stick around to see it through. Ultimately, however, it would appear that few newbies stick around more than a year or two.

The process for receiving Knowledge has been revised. It would appear to be a more reasonable process where one is not asked to cut off their head and renounce their evil mind. Still the similarity to the past remains where very little is really said up front as to what is really going on. Much remains as a mystical secret which acts as an incentive for the newbie to follow through.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:53:54 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: The Aspirant Process is Nothing New, Just Slicker
Message:
Except for the first few years Guru Maharaj Ji was in the West, there has always been an attempt to lure people into joining the cult by not telling them everything up front. Hence, we began having 'introductory programs' and 'follow-up programs' and 'aspirant satsang' back in the mid-70s. I remember around 1976 somebody in Denver (who seems to have been an education major in college presented a new aspirant program saying that people went through certain 'stages' in the aspirant process (based on the educational process) and that's how we should run aspirant programs. It had Maharaji's approval. Around that time, Maharaji said that the aspirant process had to be like a person walking into a store and there should be a suit of clothes exactly tailored to his or her size when he or she gets there.

I remember one tactic was to do a 'survey' on 'meditation.' Premies would go up to people and ask questions about meditation and then sort of segway into satsang. It was basically deceitful. It wasn't a 'survey' at all, just a ruse to propogate to people. Of course, that's back when knowledge was about meditation. That whole program had to be canned when Maharaji changed what knowledge was about from meditation and 'experience' to devotion, devotion, devotion and worship of and service to himself.

During Maharaji's dark, megalomiacal, devotional period (circa 1977-1982) when that was the ideology, there hardly were any aspirants. And those that were had to wait months and years to get knowledge and they had to show total dedication to Maharsji to even get knowledge. Maharaji was behaving in the most cult-like manner imaginable during that time, so the vast majority of people were turned off and wanted nothing to do with what was an obvious bizarre, devotional, personality cult.

Now, I understand Maharaji has returned to using meditation as the lure to enter the cult, and has returned to very deceptive practices in not telling people what his cult is really about. They just watch videos, don't hear anything from the premies, but the premies keep notes on them, judge their level of 'understanding' and report on them to the 'instructors.' But from what I have heard, someone has to demonstrate they are really hooked and that they understand the special place the 'master' holds, or they won't get knowledge. As you can imagine, the number of people actually receiving knowledge, at least in the West is tiny with this kind of process. I think Maharaji may want fewer devotees, but devotees that are thoroughly indoctrinated, so he can keep his low profile and hold on to the wealth he has accumulated. Also, that way, he can not talk about the fact that he believes he is god, but the premies actually believe it and he does things like have people line up to kiss his feet and nobody mentions the contradictions. Wink, wink.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 12:53:26 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re: Are we being too harsh?
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 22:50:45 (EST)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re: Are we being too harsh?
Message:
After months and months of religiously attending videos the newbie might have the opportunity to be further screened by the travelling appointed and anointed person. Apparently (please help me here) there are many requirements. I believe that a newbie cannot have another religion, cannot be pregnant, maybe even cannot have very young children, maybe cannot be in a relationship with a non-premie. Basically all sorts of little things.

Rog,

I had an opportunity to witness a 'knowledge Pre-Selection' session conducted by Charanand with aspirants in Toronto, Oct.96.

Basically , some of the questions aspirants had to answer were as follows:

-Do you now, or have you in the past ever followed another teacher, and how do you feel about that other teacher now?

-Are you gainfully employed?

-Do you have too much money or too little?(Charanand explained that those with too little money would feel frustrated when their hearts would cry out to give to m or travel to an event, but they just wouldn't have the money to do so.
If you had too much money, experience has shown m that the very rich don't make good 'students'. They have their money on their minds. (Personally I feel that m is worried about some rich people receiving k, and then leaving the cult embittered and with enough money to tie his ass up in court a bit).

-Do you have any medical problems? Psychiatric problems?

-Are you pregnant?

-Do you have family members or loved ones with whom you live who are opposed to your receiving k?

Those are a few of the more interesting ones that I can remember.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:10:16 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: So for something that is so simple and natural...
Message:
if you live any kind of complicated life you are not eligible for the Special K.

And how about 'Do you have family members or loved ones with whom you live who are opposed to your receiving k? Any person who has a normal family relationship and has told their family members and those family members spent 10 minutes investigating Maharaji's cult would surely have objections. Kinda rules out a lot of people except orphans.

Yes, I had heard the list and there are some more items.

I would ask does Are you gainfully employed? apply to Maharaji? Maybe his singing is better than his poetry???

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 18:17:18 (EST)
From: Augustina
Email: not given
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Re: Are we being too harsh?
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 18:35:13 (EST)
From: Augustina
Email: not given
To: Forum IV
Subject: Re: Are we being too harsh?
Message:
I've been involved for 25 plus years with the Maharaji experience and have just recently left it, but was one of those special premies you're talking about. Maharaji, I have to say, repeatedly states he doesn't care about religion, life style, etc., he just wants you to pursue Knowledge...to follow your heart, to feel. The premies subtlely talk about Maharaji as if he is the Lord of the Universe and cater to his every wish, in the inner circle of those doing the local video events, etc. no question as to why he wants this or that done, just to do it. It scares me the lack of critical thinking with myself and others who have devoted their lives. It is a path of devotion, and we were told that this was the ONLY path. I was a devotee all the way for years and years. I can't begin to tell you the layers that peel away when I stop saying Maharaji with every breath and just feel me. The practice of Knowledge is still very dear to me, I've never been one to practice day and night, but that light, music, etc., is divine but it is mine! It is my experience, not his. I have totally lost my love, devotion and respect for this man who will not address the child sex abuse issues, etc., etc., that happened under his nose, with his knowledge, evidently. Well, FUCK all that BULLSHIT. He has no ethics or integrity if he cannot come forward for one child, now adult, it sickens me. This is my personal story. I do respect others who find something in him. I know all too well what that something is, but it is mine, not his. He should be telling people that he is a teacher and to encourage people to examine this and not just feel it. That mystery is too tricky to know what you're into until maybe you've had a bit of your own soul ripped off.

That all for now. Thanks for the forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 21:50:19 (EST)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Augustina
Subject: Welcome Augustina!
Message:
That all for now. Thanks for the forum.

And thank you for joining us here Augustina.

I think its great that you were able to leave m and the cult behind, and yet still be able to enjoy your practice of meditation knowing that the experience is YOURS and NOT his.

Not all of us are so lucky. Personally speaking, my very negative feelings for m have really tainted my view of ANYTHING that has to do with him...even the techniques that he showed me. Theoretically I can understand that the experience is my own and not his, but practically the thought of m really gets in the way.
OH well, we'll let nature take its course.
In the meantime it was great hearing from you, and please feel welcomed to share some more whenever you're willing.

All the best,

Joey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 16:48:09 (EST)
From: Augustina
Email: not given
To: Joey and JHB
Subject: Re: Welcome Augustina!
Message:
Joey and JHB and all,

Thank you for the encouragement. I'm in a bit of an awkward position due to my daughter's strong involvement with M and my husband's continuing believe in M, as Lord and Savior. Thank God my hubbie is very understanding about my conflicting feelings and is very supportive. It's very ironic that I was the one in our relationship to stay involved with M., especially in the last 4 years or so. Hubbie has always kept a picture of M by his bedside but hasn't gone to videos events or programs without a lot of urging from me. I've taken down all my pictures, put the music tapes away, etc., etc. I'm very saddened about the whole thing, so many years of my life dedicated to the Truth, the Way, the Light (Ha! Ha!)....my weird sense of humor has saved me many a time. I feel I have to be anonymous presently, mostly due to my daughter. I can't come to the point yet as to discuss this with her, she has only recently found a settled sense of happiness, within M's world, but also just in life. With her being in California, I have a distance that is making it easier to let me get through the worst of this abrupt change in my life and not lay trips on her. She keeps trying to convince me to go to Amaroo next spring! So very ironic, also!

I have a very good friend who left M and knowledge years ago, she is a great soundingboard. She now feels freer to discuss her experiences with me in a more open way.

Well, it's fun getting to know myself in a different light. Thanks, again, for this forum.

Here's some sense of the community that was lost in the 80's.

Augustina.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 23:41:17 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Augustina
Subject: Re: Welcome Augustina!
Message:
Augustina, welcome.

I'm a relatively recent ex-premie myself being out for less than two years.

You're fortunate that you can get some benefit from meditating. I haven't tried it yet since I've left because I'm afraid of the strong association with Maharaji. I believe that it does have value.

Hearing you talk about meditation being your own has given rise to a number of ideas in me as to what the Maharaji trip is about. I'll mention again that when I received my TM mantra with no indoctrination at all that I had a very pleasant inner experience. Of course in Maharaji's world rites, rituals, and mantras will get one nowhere.

Anyway, let's assume that one can derive a satisfying experience with meditation (no particular brand) without indoctrination. Then what is Maharaji's trip all about. First it currently starts with months of indoctrination that includes his personal philosophy on life. Well, for someone who is so pampered that he will not consider sitting down on the grass in a public park because he thinks it's dirty I'm not sure that he can offer anything of great relevance to the masses. In fact, I believe that his constant putting down of normal living (being married or having a partner, having a satisfying career, a nice place to live, taking vacations, having a retirement plan) is negative and damaging. In the end the ultimate purpose might be to make the premie more and more dependent on Maharaji.

Again, if premies can take Maharaji's meditation and leave him and his philosophy behind they might be better off.

So, if one really takes Maharaji's words at face value their life might not be as good as it should because in their heart they really don't care enough to make the effort necessary to achieve some worldly success. And, if this is the case and their life is not going so good maybe they will further dedicate more effort towards Maharaji in hopes of some reward. For example, they might increase their monthly donation or attend more festivals when maybe they should be saving their money to buy a house or retire.

This pretty much happened to me and maybe I was the only one to be that confused.

Yes, I remember friends pressuring me to spend all my money for a trip to Amaroo. It's hard not to get sucked into the hype.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:07:52 (EST)
From: Sir Dave
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Augustina
Subject: Here's what one ex-aspirant said
Message:
The following is a post from someone who waited a long time for knowledge but was refused it. According to her, it was specifically stated that she must have no other religious beliefs if she was to receive knowledge.

Here is her story:

It was an astonishing experience for me today to attend a Maharaji aspirant meeting in order to request being granted the privilege of gaining 'knowledge'.

I have had the satisfaction of attending meetings and watching Maharaji's videos. No demands were ever made and I did find a new ability to calm my mind. In the very beginning Maharaji said that what he has to offer is not a religion and does not conflict with any religion. I had never felt any pressure -- only a gentle promise.

That all changed today. Many hopeful aspirants had come long distances (including airplane flights) to gain this wonderful offering. But we had to endure moving from room to room as we were weeded out for not being dedicated or deserving enough. I was told that 'nobody' knew me -- which translates into I had not been excited enough to talk to people and offer my time/effort. While it *felt* like a demeaning and cruel experience, we were constantly reassured that it is the 'journey' that counts and not to take it as 'rejection,' even though some people had spent hundreds of dollars on airplane tickets and were clearly emotionally crushed.

Not rejection? Bull. More like CALCULATED rejection. What is interesting is that I always wondered why ex-premies should be so angry. As for myself, I found Maharaji's message of the heart being wise and providing fulfillment -- as opposed to the machinations of mind and a materialistic world -- extremely valid. Especially so when Maharaji skillfully invites you to go within and find your own brand of happiness which is like nobody elses. Ancient masters and wise men have said it for ages, 'Know thyself.' It frees the heart.

Unfortunately, Maharaji's freedom lasts only until you realize that Maharaji's real goal is that you give HIM total allegiance. The carrot he uses is granting 'knowledge.' Although today his instructors were suddenly saying it's a life-long process of which 'knowledge' is only a part. Maharaji is more important than knowledge they told us today. Personally, I have never thought the messenger should be greater than the message, but that's exactly what you must agree to in order to receive knowledge. Knowledge is the carrot of freedom, except at the same time you're gaining freedom, you're also losing it.

In the meeting the instructor made an absolute point to have all of us repeatedly insist that we had no other religion or spirituality - explaining that that would conflict with our dedication to Maharaji. I found this to be a very important lie, because obviously many people would not have been interested if Maharaji had made it clear up front that he would accept no competing religions or affiliations. In the beginning he claimed otherwise.

Frankly, while Maharaji has always said to listen to your heart and not your mind, it wasn't my mind that objected today, but my heart. There was a distinct feeling of betrayal. This truly looks like an insidious agenda to browbeat people into a servile enough submission to 'earn' the gift of knowledge by promising nothing less than total service to Maharaji.

And to top it off, you are reminded that knowledge will not make the world a better place, or give you happier relationships, or improve your health -- it merely provides a wonderful experience. (Like alcohol or drugs without the side effects)

There was other stuff I found objectionable, but I think this covers my thoughts best.

Oh, by the way, my husband pointed out that I did, after all, get knowledge today -- just not the kind I expected.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:35:56 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: **** Roger - Best of please! ****
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 21:59:22 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: ***Best of Forum***
Message:
***Best of Forum***

Yes, this is very important to keep in mind that the on the surface Maharaji has made everything so simple and easy, but in the final analysis little has changed.

Thanks Augustina for sharing your story. I agree that meditation is a good thing. Before I got the Big K I was doing Transcendtal Meditation where the initiation process was bring a small gift like a piece of fruit and $35. I got my mantra and had a very profound experience without knowing anything about Eastern philosophy or the Maharishi. How simple is the experience that we have within ourselves.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:15:01 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: Here's what one ex-aspirant said
Message:
Dave,

This is superb. When and where was this posted?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:28:38 (EST)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Here's what one ex-aspirant said
Message:
This was posted a couple of years ago on the alt.cult.maharaji newsgroup. I then posted it on the forum of the time and I believe it may be on ex-premie.org as well. I'd have to look into the DejaNews archives to find the original. I'm not sure if they archive that far back.

Actually, I've just remembered, I've got the original on my old computer, together with some email correspondence I had with this aspirant at the time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 19:24:45 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Augustina
Subject: Welcome
Message:
Augustina,

Welcome. I too have had 'divine' experiences with meditation, and also believe Maharaji is at best a very poor teacher. I hope you stick around for a while:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:35:42 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: All
Subject: UVA Religious Movements Site
Message:
I thought I'd post the following link to the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital page on the University of Virginia Religious Movements site, in case anyone is interested. They quote from Ex-Premie.org, and from Journeys entries from Helen (extensively), TD, and AJW. The whole site is very interesting. Thanks to Enough for finding this link, BTW

Univ. of VA DLM/EV Page

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:26:49 (EST)
From: Gordon
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: UVA Religious Movements Site
Message:
Dear Katie

In the interests of balanced discussion, people might also like to view this page on Cults and Sects, which explains that Virginia University is not endorsing the views of Forum Four, but rather allowing its students to explore the world of alternate religious movements and enter their findings as a page on their Religious Movement site, nor are they branding Knowledge and Maharaji as a 'cult' to impose negative connotations. You should also read in context their Religious Freedom pages. EV/DLM is just one of many such offerings, whose slightly negative bias was a result of its author being an ex-premie (I speculate).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 20:33:21 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Gordon
Subject: Balance is good!
Message:
Gordon,

Indeed, a balanced view is all us exes want. There are links on all the main exes sites to the pro maharaji sites so that readers can have a balanced view. From what I read on the UVA site it also seems fair and balanced.

John

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:01:30 (EST)
From: Mili
Email: mili@cheerful.com
To: Gordon
Subject: Re: UVA Religious Movements Site
Message:
Hey, I'm happy to be lumped into da same boat wit dem Rastafarians any day now. ;o)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 11:35:00 (EST)
From: Katie
Email: mishkat@gateway.net
To: All
Subject: To Australian friend (& Joni M.fan)
Message:
Hi - you know who you are if you're reading this. Brian and I received your e-mail and were very glad to hear from you. I still have your snail mail address, so will try and drop you a line that way. Glad you're doing well -
Lots of love,
Katie
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 10:21:56 (EST)
From: AnOccasionalObserver
Email: None
To: SHP
Subject: HEY SHP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
I remember some months ago you were very concerned about Jagdeo( a (former) senior employee of Maharaji) and the allegations against him of interfering with children.

You said that you had emailed M and would inform us of any reply. Maybe I missed it, but you don't appear have come back with anything.

Did I miss something?
What reply, if any, did you get?

ACO

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 21:08:31 (EST)
From: Shp
Email: None
To: AnOccasionalObserver
Subject: Hey there AOO, I ain't deaf, just been away.
Message:
I wrote to Maharaji and to EV. Got no response from Maharaji and got a letter from Linda Gross, president of EV. She said they have no knowledge of any incidents involving Jagdeo and no one has filed an official or unofficial complaint with her office. I forwarded the information to Anth Ginn since he is acting on behalf of Susan, Abi and other victims.

By the way, who are you? why don't you ask me out front in your own name? What are you hiding from? If you really feel the need to be anonymous, I can respect your right to that, but why do you feel that you must hide like this?

Shp

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 13:15:31 (EST)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: AnOccasionalObserver
Subject: Re: HEY SHP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message:
AOO: Shp got no reply from M or anyone else connected with him. We did try to do a little self help with this though. Jim posted M's phone number and we began calling him to ask for ourselves what M intended to do about Jagdeo. We either got voicemail or his secretary. No one could get through, but many messages were left.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:22:05 (EST)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: mbvictoria@hotmail.com
To: All
Subject: 'Revisionism' - just an ex slogan?
Message:
I am intrigued by the use of the term 'revisionism' used by ex-premies.

Is there something of substance in the use of this term or is it just a 'ex' slogan?

In my view there seems to be an implication that when ex's were premies there was some kind of doctrinal purity about whatever they were doing at that time and that current premies are somehow lacking because this paradigm no longer applies. I find this quite bizarre because there seems to be an element of contradiction here. On one hand, exes rejected Maharaji because of the old paradigm and on the other, appear to take some kind of great pride in their former adherence to it and contemptuously denigrate current premies as 'revisionists'. Maybe there is a bit of jealousy about how much easier things seem to be these days, you know, the 'it was hard for me so I think it should be as hard for others' attitude.

There is also the clear implication that there is something wrong with 'revisionism', but what, exactly? It's generally accepted that it's quite natural for things to change, and, in my view, the promotion of Knowledge and the enviroment conducive to it's practice should be no exception to this. If this process can be descibed as 'revisionism', well, long live revisionism.

Any comments, justifications, whatever?

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:25:41 (EST)
From: Nigel
Email: nigel@redcrow.demon.co.uk
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: So was I just sloganeering?
Message:
Mel, you wrote:

I am intrigued by the use of the term 'revisionism' used by ex-premies.
Is there something of substance in the use of this term or is it just a 'ex' slogan?

Immediately prior to your starting this thread you and I were having a discussion lower down ('Mel & SHP - crucial issue'). I used the term revisionism in reference to your thoughts on 'realisation'. That could be one reason for this new thread. I would be interested to know whether anyone else reading our previous conversation would accuse me of mere sloganeering. I think I explained myself pretty clearly.

(BTW I don't see revisionism as always dishonest, even when it results in deception. I think selective memory plays a big part in weeding out uncomfortable and embarrassing episodes from the early years of the cult.)

Anyway, it started when you wrote:

I would define the term 'realised soul' as some one who has simply realised the value of knowledge in their life. I think that many premies are 'realised souls' within this narrow definition, hopefully myself included. Certainly Maharaji would qualify using this definition.

I replied:

It was in this part of your post, Mel, that I caught a strong whiff of revisionism... ...Bluntly, that bears no resemblance to the concept of realisation as it was once taught. 'Realising Knowledge' was the big prize up around the corner, always just out of sight. The ultimate goal, the place to get to, our final resting place. Forget everything else, our one purpose in life is to realise this Knowledge. Realisation happened through surrender to M's Grace, and nothing in this world mattered but pursuing that goal, and nowhere else would you find it. Surely you remember that kind of realisation...?

People would not abandon careers, leave their families to enter ashrams - ostensibly for life - if they had not already 'realised the value of Knowledge in their lives', as you put it. To suggest otherwise might be seen as insulting, IMO.

To which you replied:

To be honest, I never knew what the term 'realised soul' meant when premies used to talk about it. I guess I imagined that it was some exalted 'spiritual' state that some lucky people may experience. Maybe you're right in in describing my definition as revisionism, but this is my personal perspective which has been arrived at by my own consideration. It's not been predefined by a particular 'party' line. Actually I'm sure many premies would probably disagree with my definition.

(I am sorry I ever mentioned the word 'revisionism' because it actually diverted the discussion from the real substance of my reply to your answer. But since that diversion has happened I don't mind talking about it further.)

You seem on the one hand to say 'I may be right' to describe your definition as revisionism but are now calling the word 'just a slogan'. The thing is, Mel, 'realisation' wasn't just a word that premies picked up from reading too many yoga books; they got it from Maharaji himself. I doubt there was one satsang of M's given between 1977 and 1981 (and I heard the lot), when he didn't refer to 'realising Knowledge' and how we should all make 'more effort' so we would one day achieve that goal.

It may be true that you never understood what other premies meant by 'realisation'. After all, they probably didn't know themselves what it meant - as it referred to a hypothetical state of being that none of us had reached. But there can be no denying that M claimed to have reached such a state. In the mid-seventies, Divine Times or And it is Divine carried an interview with Maharaji from the days when he still talked to the press.

A reporter asked him: 'Are you in a permanent state of God-consciousness?'

M replied: 'Yes. I am in a permanent state of God consciousness.'

And that was where our practice of Knowledge was supposed to be leading us. Why else were we expected to practice the third and fourth techniques 'constantly' while about our daily business - a practice no longer espoused by M?

To downgrade the concept of realisation to match the drastically reduced meditation schedule of the EV years still looks like revisionism to me - even if it doesn't feel that way to you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:00:00 (EST)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: I give credit and thanks to my brother Nil!
Message:
I am intrigued by the use of the term 'revisionism' used by ex-premies.

Is there something of substance in the use of this term or is it just a 'ex' slogan?

Just FYI, the very first person whom I can remember using the word 'revisionist' was a premie and not an ex...I'm referring to Nil. Of course he was using it to characterize 'ex' viewpoints as revisionist, but it soom became clear that if anyone had a right to use this word, it was not premies in relation to exes... but exes in relation to premies.
To this day I really can't thank Nil enough for 'giving' us that word...revisionist.
What a beautiful brother! May his URLY-PEARLY glow, shine on forever....somewhere...very far away from us:::))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:52:38 (EST)
From: Roger Recent Ex-Premie eDrek
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: The worshipping reality still continues
Message:
The cult revisionism by whatever definition is superficial and while the World of Knowledge might be kinder and gentler the essence of Guru worship as the Supreme Being remains.

Tell me, Mel Bourne, that such is not true. Ok, maybe the newbies that come into it via the EZ-Brainwash video course will be kept out of the loop that the older premies are in, but eventually if the newbie has any brains at all they will either be let in on the little secret or they will realize that something has been omitted.

From my experience this duality within the cult membership is quite unnerving where the hardcore premies go out of their way to avoid newbies and speak in very cloaked terms versus talking in glowing Lordship terms to other hardcore premies.

It revisionism with a twist.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:53:09 (EST)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: 'Revisionism' - just an ex slogan?
Message:
I don't respond to premies much online (and even when you asked me specifically to some time ago) but your question here is fair enough. I do see some nostalgia combined with disdain by exes here. 'Revisionism' is a loaded word but there are two separate issues. One is the 'state' of the premies now (what makes them tick, etc) and the other is old Mirage's responsibility to his disciples (including past ones).

Yeah, IF he changed his tune (which is doubtful) to a looser and more liberal attitude for his students, then good for you. If you are no longer obsessed with your purpose in life as it relates to this person (as we were) and what your obligation to him is (as we were) then you may be more sane than we were. It's a big 'if' and that's another question that I won't go into.

I really don't buy that much has changed. I see some limited elements of it. He still has a way of holding you by the balls and forcing you to corrupt your personal integrity.

With that goes another sub-issue. We asked ourselves some kind of ultimate questions (i.e., would we die for the world's salvation and all kinds of related stuff). That's probably why people feel superior about their past commitment. I doubt this stuff is still around (would you cut your head off if he ordered it). How real this stuff ever was, I can't say (was it somehow a question my character). That it was a bad thing for me, I'm quite sure.

Which leads to the second point, which is why can't the dude take some responsibilty? It's ridiculous to hide behind excuses (everybody else did it but me), and it is surely a sign of bad character. Any man, in the sense of human would at LEAST say I'm sorry (and that's just as true for a man who was a boy). But there has always been and will always be abuse that accompanies following this dude.

It was Krishnamurti who left his guruship before it had started. He still taught meditation afterwards. It didn't stop him from dedicating his life to the same stated purpose, but did reveal a humble person who wasn't after opulence like Rawatt is.

Mel Bourne, you hang out here as much as I do. I'm sure you are at least open to the idea that your guru is a fraud otherwise you wouldnt' be here so constantly. I don't think this is always the best environment to discuss it in. I would mostly rather agree to disagree with you as a person who is here a lot. But I'm really not here to run with premies. I don't consider you all to be as avoidable as, say, heroin addicts by an ex-addict. You're not a danger to me in that sense. I want some of the sense of community I had, and I don't want Mirage smuggled into it.

I don't like him. I don't want to tolerate him and in that sense I don't always like you or what you have to say. But if there is supposed to be some sort of dialog (and certainly it's between us and has nothing to do with Mirage), constantly slugging it out is not where it's at for me. This is what I am thinking a lot but not posting it to you.

Later

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:40:18 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Poor Mel, you obviously don't understand what the word means
Message:
This is hilarious. Mel shoots his mouth off in another burst of idiocy ... but THIS time makes an even bigger fool of himself than usual, if you can imagine that.

Mel, a revisionist is someone:

attempting to reevaluate and restate the past based on newly acquired standards.

It's a derogatory term by definition, stupid. It's all about lying, not 'change'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 14:51:38 (EST)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Sorry Jim, you're wrong
Message:
Sorry, Jim. A revisionist is a person who advocates change to a doctrine. A negative connotation might be from Marxism where the term has gotten a lot of use (although is probably quite dated). Marxists would use revisionism as a catch-all phrase for people who had defiled the 'purist' ethic of Marxism.

Revisionism is only negative in a cult or similar situation where ideology is considered sacred.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 16:05:40 (EST)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: No -- Wrong Context
Message:
Revisionism is the act of making a new version of something. It depends on what you are 'revising' and that's where Mel is confused.

In the Marxist sense, or how it was often used in that context, was that people were accused of revisionism in sense that they were accused of making a new version of Marxism, and not continuing the 'pure' tenents of Marxism in the PRESENT. So in that sense, 'revisionism' was used because people were changing the ideology, not in the sensse that they were making a 'new version' of historical events.

What premies have done on this website with great regularity is that they try to explain away things Maharaji actually did and said in the past by saying they never happened, that they didn't happen that way, or to spin that stuff in some form or whitewash, etc. They are 'making a new version' of the PAST, to try to 'revise' actual, historical events. That is indeed revisionism. Historians are sometimes accused of revisionism by those who claim they are altering historical events.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:27:22 (EST)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: How I see the term generally used...
Message:
As in 'revisionist history' in which one presents history in an inaccurate way that is more true to a current politcal correctness than to the facts.

I think revisionist is a perfect term for the appparent editing out of the stranger things that went on with DLM in the '70s. Attempting to pretend that the mala dance, the Krishna crown, and Arti did not happen, editing the Guru from his name, saying that DLM and EV have no connection whatsoever, all those things seem to be refect examples of revisionism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 15:04:15 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: No, Run, YOU'RE wrong
Message:
Yes, Run, I'm sorry too.

Revisionism, in the sense its used here, means just what the internet dictionary quoted above says it does. Or here's Oxford:

often derogatory 1) a policy of revision or modification, esp. of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than revolutionary) or pluralist principles. 2) the thoery or practice of revising one's attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view.

Obviously, its the latter definition that applies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:41:10 (EST)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Your emphasised definition, Jim
Message:
Jim,

2) the thoery or practice of revising one's attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view.

I agree with the definition that you have emphasised, but
is there really something wrong with this? (Although it's often derogatory). In my view it seems quite a healthy and natural process in the growth of understanding. Scientists are always revising their theories and ideas, our technology is based on it, so I can hardly see that 'revisionism' in this context would not be acceptable.

BTW, my puny dictionary didn't have a definition

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:20:47 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: You concede this? Good, game over
Message:
Mel,

Must I do your thinking for you? Can't you connect a few dots even once in a while? Mel, if the doctrine that was earlier accepted as true is revised the proponent should now:

1) admit the revision
2) explain the purpose of the revision and how he or she once believed the earlier beliefs in light of the current ones
3) apologize for any 'inconvenience' the process might have cost any one

So, in this case, Maharaji should:

1) admit how he's changed his doctrine (without whitewashing, minimizing or scapegoating others)
2) explain why (this goes to the essential question of how he supposedly knows any of which he claims to. 'Benefit of the doubt' no longer applies when we're at this stage.)
3) apologize accordingly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:13:09 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Wait a cotton picking minute!
Message:
Would you listen to yourself and put it into context with the basic fact that Maharaji really, really used to claim that he was God, the Lord of Universe and now he no longer claims that. That's no small item of revision like changing the color of one's hair. I'd call that pretty substantial.

I could see some teacher who merely claimed himself as just a humble servant of God later claim that he had become God, but Maharaji has gone the other way and stepped down from being God. And now he and all the premies deny that he ever said (ok, very strongly alluded to it and allowed premies to call him that and acted like a God, etc.) that he was Lord of the Universe.

I'd call that pretty bogus. And I think that any reasonable person who is not under the influence of a cult would see it as rather strange and even unacceptable.

So, please when talking about the term revisionism put it into the proper perspective as to what has been revised.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:15:26 (EST)
From: Miss PC
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Good Point, But Offensive Term
Message:
The term 'cotton picking' (used as an adjective) is offensive to many African American people, because of the way it was used historically. How about: 'Wait a DAMN minute' instead?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 15:42:53 (EST)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: None
To: Miss PC
Subject: Sorry. At least I didn't use that C-Word. (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 22:33:32 (EST)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: I've got a big dictionary, too
Message:
Often is not equivalent to mostly. Yes it can be derogeratory but there is no problem with the unencumbered,
straight use of the word.

webster's-
revisionism:
1. advocacy of revisision (as of an original doctrine or treaty): the theory or practice of a revisionist
2. a movement among socialists to modify Marxist socialism es;. so as to be evolutionary rather than revoutionary in spirit

revisionist:
1. an advocate of revision (as of a court decision or an accepted attitude or point of view)
2 REVISER
3. an advocate of revisionism
revisionist (adj)
1. advocating revision or revisionism esp: seeking to reanalyze and re-present historical data in light of subsequent knowledge

Looks like there's a good case for the conversation without the rhetorical challenge to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 00:11:52 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: Quit making a fool of yourself, Run
Message:
Run,

How long are you going to do this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 02:33:02 (EST)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Do I owe you something?
Message:
Substance is more important than rhetoric, don't you think?

Remember the joy when leaving the cult meant you didn't have to argue with people to prove your point of view? I didn't have to argue with premies. It was going my way. Anyone could see that ol' Mirage was full of shit.

Miragey's revisionism is a negative, granted. He's lying about his past and blaming everyone but himself. But you are the guy who has gone on about how today's premies just don't have any spirit or however the hell you phrase it, and you've done it on several occasions. It's a natural enough question to ask, why say that premies now lack spirit? I'm not asking for an answer. This is a recap.

These premies hang here so much. Do you really think that arguing with them has to take place for their good? I think they do respect our point of view or else they wouldn't read it like the daily news. Do you read JW papers as often as you can find them? Well maybe you do read Mirage's bs but I sure don't.

I could just post a weekly qualifier: The opinions of Jim Heller are not necessarily mine. But, I think this is a public forum for expremies. You have assured me on numerous occasions that you are not a 'leader'.

Are you just looking to pick a fight in a non-physical environment (paradoxically) or do you just like to incite, provoke, harass, abuse? If this were a bar, hotel, park or campus and you talked to me the way you do, I would assume you wanted a fight. I don't, but I learned the hard way there's a limit to how much peace is worth.

It's been said to me that people put up with your shit because they are so used to Miragey, they can't live without some kind of abusive authority figure.

George Washington wasn't my father, Miragey isn't the Lord, and you didn't have anything to do with me leaving the cult. In fact, I discussed Miragey online (as an ex) as early as 1989.

Do I owe you something?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 10:57:34 (EST)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: WILL YOU QUIT OBSESSING OVER ME??????
Message:
Run,

You're making an absolute fool of yourself. I'm not even going to get into it with you other than to say it's time you gave up this constant nipping at my heels. Makes you look extremely weird. Trust me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 11:51:34 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: OBSESSING OVER SOMEONE??????
Message:
Jim,

Please leave Run alone! You are right. Ony a complete asshole would constantly obsess over someone. Constantly nipping at someone's heels is definitely weird. It's something only a fool would do.

In my opinion all you can do with people like this is leave them alone. They are sick and twisted individuals, and they need our sympathy and understanding, not our anger.

Your are right. Don't get into it with him. Just send him loving, positive energy.

Sincerely yours,

Dep

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 14:42:42 (EST)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: It's about respecting other people
Message:
It's really not about you at all. So you're not a leader, you say? Gee, who else says that?

Meanwhile, here's Gerry following close at your heels. There's someone drooling at your feet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 17:13:42 (EST)
From: One thing Jim's wrong about...
Email: proofthey'rehere@bongo.com
To: Runamok
Subject: Alien commuter traffic over McCleary.
Message:
www.sightings.com/splashscreens/invasionsplash.jpg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:37:58 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: WILL YOU QUIT OBSESSING OVER ME??????
Message:
My first room mate at Penn State in the summer of '71 was a kid from one of the podunk coal towns around Scranton. His father had died when he was younger and he had a big fat mom. They looked poor.

On the second day he walks into the room about ten minutes after I finished a joint. He wheels around and runs straight down to the Resident Assistant and rats me out.

Later he told me that in his senior year in high school he helped the cops bust a big end of year kegger in the woods, at which all his school mates were whooping it up.

I swear to god I can't remember his name but I recall my buddy Mark and I referred to him as 'cunt-narc.' I don't know what triggered this particular memory...oh yeah, Runamock...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 13:05:17 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: notestomyself@bongo.com
To: gerry
Subject: WILL I QUIT OBSESSING OVER ME??????
Message:
My first room mate at Penn State in the summer of '71 was a kid from one of the podunk coal towns around Scranton. His father had died when he was younger and he had a big fat mom. They looked poor.

On the second day he walks into the room about ten minutes after I finished a joint. He wheels around and runs straight down to the Resident Assistant and rats me out.

Later he told me that in his senior year in high school he helped the cops bust a big end of year kegger in the woods, at which all his school mates were whooping it up.

I swear to god I can't remember his name but I recall my buddy Mark and I referred to him as 'cunt-narc.' I don't know what triggered this particular memory...

My second roomate was Phillip Wentzel from suburban Philadelphia. Pre-med, he had all eight o'clock classes. Of course, mine didn't start until past noon and he made a hell of a racket early in the morning.

I finally asked him what his trip was and he replied, 'well, I figure if I gotta get up, then you should too.'

One blustery friday night in fall, the future doctor decided to be brave and experiment with beer. Ooooooooo! He drank his first two bud's ever and took off on his bicycle pedalling like a maniac.

When he came back to the dorm, he was racing up and down the hall and finally threw himself into a pile on the elevator floor. He wouldn't let anybody touch him and would flinch and jerk if you did.

Somebody finally managed to get him to bed and called the ambulance. But he wouldn't let go of the bed rails and the medics left in disgust. A few minutes later he rolled towards the wall and spray painted it with some well shaken, slightly used budweiser. I spent the rest weekend in the empty room next door.

Saturday morning, asshole acts like nothing happened and the girls in the dorm (first coed dorm in Penn State history) give me shit for 'not taking care of my room-mate.' Go figure...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 19:59:40 (EST)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: Nittany Lions
Message:
Gerry: A bunch of my cousins went to Penn State. They are diehard Joe Paterno fans and never miss a game on tv & still even go to Penn State for games sometimes. When Rafael and I were touring the east coast a couple of years ago, we saw what was billed as the last football game between the Nittany Lions and Syracuse. Quite rowdy!

So, did you know any Burkes when you were there?

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 20:43:12 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Re: Nittany Lions
Message:
Marianne,

I was the worst Penn State fan ever. I could have gone to every home game for free the one year I was there but DIDN'T GO TO A SINGLE ONE.

And that was the year they had Franko Harris and whatsihis name who also played in the NFL. Funny, the guy I can't remember was the college star but Franko was better in the pro's.

I was a bit too anti-establishment for football, a disaffected youth, ripe for the gooroo.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Nov 09, 1999 at 17:19:33 (EST)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: gerry
Subject: And gerry called ME a fruitcake? Whoa! (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 13:38:30 (EST)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: well said as usual Jim (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 08:13:29 (EST)
From: Sir Dave
Email: david@xyzx.freeserve.co.uk
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Re: 'Revisionism' - just an ex slogan?
Message:
Dear Melbourne; I am amazed that people want to be premies these days. It was easier when Maharaji was the Lord of the Universe and when there were satsang meetings etc with other ordinary premies. You see, I never really cared to listen to Maharaji that much and evening satsang with other premies was preferable to watching a Maharaji video, for me anyway.

I remained a premie from 1972 to 1983 because I truly was convinced that Maharaji was the Lord. Sure I'd had some experiences from meditation. But it was 'The Mission' and all the people in it together with satsang which kept me being an active premie.

If I'd known back in the early seventies that Maharaji wasn't the Lord, I would have carried on doing meditation but wouldn't have got involved with Divine Light Mission and my 'Lord' would have been God and not a fat Indian man.

These days I don't feel the need to be an ex-premie or anything. I'm just me and I'm sure that if I met the people here there would be some premies I'd like and dislike and some ex-premies I'd like and dislike, because the pigeon holes of premie and ex-premie are not real anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 07:25:37 (EST)
From: Enough
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: 'The fish in the water...
Message:
is thirsty and everytime I hear it, it makes me laugh.'

Please take this hypnotic suggestion to heart.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:56:41 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: He used to be God
Message:
Mel,

A very simple example. M used to claim to be God, now he doesn't, and won't even admit or make any comment on the fact that he used to. And because he won't comment on this, neither will a single premie.

That's revisionism.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 11:46:45 (EST)
From: gerry
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: What he said
Message:
John is correct and to reiterate: the revisionism is in the hiding of the cult's past, which was the reason for the book burning and tape and photo recalls.

The trip is and always has been focused on Maharaji. That part never changed. He's changed the packaging a few times to make it more palatable but, like you guys are so fond of saying, ' the message stays the same.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 05:03:02 (EST)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Jim/JHB
Subject: Jim's evasion - 3rd attempt!
Message:
Hi Jim

You still haven't responded to my question regarding the scenario I proposed of you being a totalitarian leader and whether you would persecute Maharaji and premies in a similar way to the Chinese government persecuting the Falun Gong movement. Is it possible for you to reply to this and give details on your views of the matter? I'm sorry if I appear persistant, but I (and possibly others) would be quite interested to hear your views direct.

True, JHB claims that you already responded by agreeing to a comment that he made on the matter, but as you have generally strong opinions on most things, I would be happy to hear a direct reply with more substance. ....and please don't play the old "Answer my questions first" routine, it's an obviously unmasterly evasion technique that doesn't flatter your credibility at all! Don't let the various diversionary tactics of other ex's who have attempted to answer for you impede your response either! Just answer the question yourself, man!

>>>>>To JHB

John

In response to your posts on the matter addressed to Jim....

You comment.....The exes here appear to stand for openness and freedom of speech. This is obviously now a defunct argument with the setting up of Sir Dave's 'haven' for exes site. Premies are not allowed to post under threat of complete deletion and blocking as I understand it. It appears that Sir Dave has inadvertently undermined your 'moral high ground', sorry!

As you are accusing Jim of evasion, perhaps you could prove that you do not practise evasion by answering this question?

My answer herewith, John

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 06:10:53 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Shit Answer, Mel
Message:
Mel,

The existence of David's forum is irrelevant to the argument. The ex-premie information sites have links to the pro-maharaji sites so that neutral observers can see both sides, but the pro-maharaji sites have no links to the ex- sites.

You have failed to comment on this. If exes had something to hide, we would not be so open. Premies do have something to hide, don't they?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:00:19 (EST)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Shit Answer, Mel
Message:
John

The existence of David's forum is irrelevant to the argument.

This is your opinion, but in my view it's relevant.


Why would the pro-Maharaji sites have links to what appear to be 'hate' sites. Afterall, pro-Maharaji sites are trying to promote Knowledge, not obstruct people from it, so there would be no sense in having the links you suggest, now would there?

Premies do have something to hide, don't they?

Only links to sites that are generally abusive to them, quite understandable and reasonable under the circumstances, don't you think? Nothing else, though, as far as I can see.

Any way, John, I would appreciate it if you could please stop distracting the issue and let Jim answer his question for himself.

Thanks

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 05:09:57 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Mell Bourne
Subject: Re: Shit Answer, Mel
Message:
Mel,

You were obliquely trying to paint ex-premies as somehow totalitarian. So I pointed out how open we are, and used the example of the ex sites having links to the pro sites. That kind of openness of information is not associated with totalitarian groups.

Regarding your crusade with Jim, I honestly don't believe he will answer, because he believes, as I and most others here do, that it really is a stupid question. What if he said he would wipe out the cult (which I doubt)? That would just be his opinion. Just one voice amongst the many here. Why don't you ask us all?

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 21:27:52 (EST)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: Shit Answer, Mel
Message:
Actually, John, the question was designed for Jim to take stock of his anti-Maharaji prejudices and to compare them with the prejudices shown against the Falun Gong group.

Despite, my persistance on the matter, I didn't really expect a reply, just hoped for some exes (Jim, in this case)would see a possible example of the logical extension of their hatred.

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 06:25:33 (EST)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: All
Subject: What's going on here??
Message:
The subject of my last message was 'Shit answer, Mel', and still is when the message is opened, but in the message list it's 'Shit answer, JHB'.

Anyone understand this??

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 12:19:40 (EST)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: Re: What's going on here??
Message:
No I don't...but I certainly would like to understand. I once had typed the name 'Maharaji' in a post which when opened, you could clearly see that 'Maharaji' appeared in the quoted message, but not in the actual printed message itself. It changed the entire meaning of my post.

So yes, JHB, it would be nice to know what's going on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index