Shroomananda -:- Hypothetical questions... -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:32:32 (GMT)

__ ex-mug -:- Hypothetical questions... -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:25:32 (GMT)

__ Shroomananda -:- Thanks for all your thoughtful responses. When -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:44:40 (GMT)

__ Helen -:- Hypothetical questions... -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 20:43:46 (GMT)

__ G -:- Hypothetical indeed -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:47:06 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- Very nicely said, G -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:25:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- the nature of consciousness -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 18:40:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Is this a zen quiz? -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 18:58:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ G -:- Here we go -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 20:03:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- This way ? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 20:40:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- I don't think so. -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 21:45:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Purpose and nature -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 13:50:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Purpose and nature -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:56:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- If you try really hard, you might squeeze God in -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:20:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Who said anything about God? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:39:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- You go too deep -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 21:27:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- too deep? -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 21:52:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- I think so -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 03:08:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- What about qualia? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 04:40:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What about it? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 17:32:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- What about it? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 18:08:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What about it? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 21:14:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- What about it? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 22:26:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ hamzen -:- What about it? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:03:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- What about it? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:29:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What about it? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 06:48:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- What about it? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:10:06 (GMT)

__ __ Elaine -:- Hypothetical indeed -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:04:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ JohnT -:- Hypothetical indeed -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 13:14:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- ellipses -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:01:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Hypothetical indeed -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 22:52:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- Brainwashed (nt) -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:55:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Judgemental,hurtful,unkind,impatient - Why start ? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 14:52:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB monster -:- Judgemental,hurtful,unkind,impatient ? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:27:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Judgemental,hurtful,unkind,impatient ? -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:58:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ SB -:- You are a fucking disturbed bitch -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:15:34 (GMT)

__ __ Hal -:- WOW ! EXCELLENT POST G nt -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 21:57:40 (GMT)

__ __ Helen -:- Great post, G (nt) -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 20:35:27 (GMT)

__ Michael -:- Hypothetical questions... -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:36:01 (GMT)

__ Gregg -:- Listen carefully; I'm only going to say this once: -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 15:45:43 (GMT)

__ Salam -:- Shut up Shrrooom. You have already posted -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 11:21:17 (GMT)

__ Hal -:- Hypothetical questions... -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 10:43:28 (GMT)

__ SB -:- YES!!! YES, YES, YES, YES, YES............ -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 09:17:07 (GMT)

__ __ Salam -:- YES!!! YES, YES, YES, give Shroomi more...nt -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 11:27:50 (GMT)

__ Oliver -:- Hypothetical blob of bovine excrement. -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 08:45:21 (GMT)

__ Selene -:- paragraph breaks shroom! -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:35:08 (GMT)

Mel Bourne -:- Joe - very late response (OK Nigel?) -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 06:14:18 (GMT)

__ Joe -:- You didn't answer my question.... -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:57:20 (GMT)

__ __ Mel Bourne -:- You didn't answer my question...Sorry. -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:47:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joe -:- It's isn't ambiguous -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 19:00:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- It's isn't ambiguous -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 23:29:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- It's isn't ambiguous - Bravo for coming clean! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 13:21:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ cq -:- You didn't answer my question...Sorry. -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 17:42:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ Nigel -:- Unbelievable!!! -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 17:25:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ JohnT -:- Mel Bourne - fool or whore for Rawat's fraud? -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:48:47 (GMT)

__ Joe -:- Joe - very late response (OK Nigel?) -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:46:40 (GMT)

__ Jerry -:- You amaze me! -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 05:45:49 (GMT)

__ JohnT -:- Mel Bourne admits delusion! -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 17:25:27 (GMT)

__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Mel Bourne admits delusion! Really? -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:46:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ JohnT -:- Really. -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:16:28 (GMT)

__ Selene -:- what about the thread regarding soliciting funds? -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 06:19:19 (GMT)

__ __ Mel Bourne -:- ... about the thread regarding soliciting funds -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 10:18:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- soliciting funds -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 22:52:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joey -:- In response to Mel -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 16:38:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ gerry -:- great post, Joey, but I don't see the correction.. -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:15:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Oliver -:- Great Link Gerry (nt) -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 00:10:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Thanks gerry ! -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:31:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joey -:- CORRECTION -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 17:12:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- PS re:CORRECTION -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 17:28:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- could it be solar interference? -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 10:59:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- could it be solar interference? -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:47:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- the satellites would be most prone to interference -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 17:52:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- I could see how this could happen -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:55:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ Consider this..... -:- ... about the thread regarding soliciting funds -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 16:32:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ G -:- Association for Self-Knowledge -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:15:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ G -:- Assn for Spirit. Dev. and Research ? -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:32:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Hal -:- ... about the thread regarding soliciting funds -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 22:12:45 (GMT)

Larkin -:- Muddlebrain Fair -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:30:06 (GMT)

__ sid -:- Muddlebrain Fair -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:37:42 (GMT)

__ Shroomananda -:- Who's Tom Pearce? Never heard of him. (NT) -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:47:17 (GMT)

__ __ Larkin -:- English folk song: Widdecombe Fair -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:56:37 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- That's great! (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:31:48 (GMT)

Jim -:- FA's -- what's with the software glitch? -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:02:09 (GMT)

__ Forum Admin -:- FA's -- what's with the software glitch? -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:22:21 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Actually, it's been happening a fair bit -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:25:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ Forum Admin -:- Actually, it's been happening a fair bit -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:31:34 (GMT)

__ __ Selene -:- there is one right below here -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:25:20 (GMT)

Jim -:- Premies are getting funnier all the time -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 18:54:07 (GMT)

__ tonette -:- So true- LMAO! nt -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 04:40:33 (GMT)

__ Kjarne -:- Premies are getting funnier all the time -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 01:32:42 (GMT)

__ __ hamzen -:- Kjarne, just for a minute forget you're a premie, -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 03:18:32 (GMT)

Jim -:- Come on, premies -- deal with THIS! -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 17:52:23 (GMT)

__ Elaine -:- Come on, premies -- deal with THIS! -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 23:06:58 (GMT)

__ __ O -:- Come on Elaine it's only logical -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 01:07:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ Hal -:- Grade A + for creative reasoning O nt -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 09:25:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Oh my God! (Or should I say 'O, my God'?) -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 03:29:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ O -:- Oh my God! (Or should I say 'O, my God'?) -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 19:04:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 00:31:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ Elaine -:- Alright. alright,alright -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:01:41 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Jesus, Elaine! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:09:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Shit! -- FA's? I lost another one -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:26:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- LOL! 1st time I'm happy to find a blank post! nt -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:16:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh yeah? When you read it you'll weep, Stonor (nt -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:01:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Preparez vos mouchoirs! A tear-jerker!!! (nt) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:09:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Shit Jim-'n I got all my favourite hankies out! nt -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:01:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You said 'nt' ... but you 't'd'...why? (nt) -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:18:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Alright. alright,alright -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:45:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Elaine -:- Thanks, Stonor... -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 14:46:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Stonor -:- Thank G for that link's info! -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 22:52:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- 'I probably don't have a clue of where you are at' -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:48:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- Stay out of it, Mushroom-person -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:16:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What?!? Maharaji's a pilot???! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:20:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Michael -:- What?!? Maharaji's a pilot???! -:- Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:33:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Thanks for that Stonora - much of a muchness nt -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 09:30:13 (GMT)

__ O -:- Stop the rpesses --the answer at last! -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 19:51:39 (GMT)

__ The doubter -:- Come on, premies -- deal with THIS! -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:35:23 (GMT)

__ Shroomananda -:- What's your point, Jim? That Knowledge doesn't -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 18:52:45 (GMT)

__ __ Sir Dave -:- You've missed a vital point Mr Mushroom -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 00:30:15 (GMT)

__ __ Jerry -:- A hypothetical question? -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 23:17:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I paid for my computer, Jerry, and I would gladly -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:49:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Shroom, stop! -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 19:59:00 (GMT)

__ __ Sir Dave -:- Why don't you answer these questions? -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:26:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- The only thing that I believe at this point about -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 22:12:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- There's nothing evil happening here -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 00:04:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ SB -:- There's nothing evil happening here -:- Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 14:13:03 (GMT)

__ __ Ben Lurking -:- What's your point, Jim? That Knowledge doesn't -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:18:51 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Wait, I spoke too soon! -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:00:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- Sure, Jim. Just as soon as you prove to me that -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:25:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- You're being evasive -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:29:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- It's your issue, Jim. Not mine. I'm not at all -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:44:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ EV -:- We have your IP NT -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 22:37:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Of course, it's my issue, bird brain! Like duh... -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:06:39 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- What's my point? You've got be kidding -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 18:56:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ Shroomananda -:- We've gone through this before. But here goes... -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:09:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Sir Dave -:- We've gone through this before. But here goes... -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 00:49:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Gregg -:- Masters of the Universe -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:35:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Shroomananda -:- I'll keep it, thank you, and I'll continue to -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 22:08:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Gregg -:- One Question: -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 23:14:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Funny how you keep shooting yourself in the foot -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:21:40 (GMT)

Jean-Michel -:- still working for EV !!!!!! -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 07:19:57 (GMT)

__ Ben Lurking -:- So are they NASTY? -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:56:25 (GMT)

__ __ G -:- Synchronized Team and the military -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 22:01:24 (GMT)

__ __ G -:- there's also the SCIPT -:- Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 01:01:24 (GMT)

__ Joe -:- Ted Levitt -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 16:37:48 (GMT)

__ __ Roger eDrek -:- Joe, you don't understand about Andrea -:- Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:06:03 (GMT)

__ JTF -:- NAm Synch Team needs a fight song-BARF (NT) -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 13:23:38 (GMT)

__ Loaf -:- MEMO Re: management structures -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 07:44:22 (GMT)

__ __ ZELDEX.COM -:- MEMO MEMO Re: management structures subsidiary -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 09:49:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ Selene -:- I subscribe to roger's adage -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 16:26:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ Loaf -:- do i get a swipe card ? (nt) -:- Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 14:43:42 (GMT)

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:32:32 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Hypothetical questions... Message:

It seems to me that most of you posting here are at the very least disappointed at Maharaji for misleading you into believing that he was the Lord or an incarnation of God, some for years and some for decades. He accepted and solicited money from you, let you worship him and basically allowed you to 'waste' years of your life doing satsang, service and meditation. Now I still enjoy listening to him and practicing Knowledge when I can. And I support him in his effort to make it available to others around the world. What I would like to know from those of you who wish to respond is do you wish that you had never heard of Maharaji and Knowledge? Do you think that you would be better off never having heard about him and his Knowledge? Countless millions around the world have never even heard of him. I'm sure that there have been people that have been born and passed on just during the time that he has been a Master that never even heard about him. Did he make a mistake by offering you Knowledge and accepting you as his students? Or have you benefitted in some way as a human being by your practice of Knowledge and listening to him? Or do you think that he should just close up shop and not offer Knowledge to anyone else so that future students don't get burned like you did? I'd be interested in your responses.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:25:32 (GMT) From: ex-mug Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Hypothetical questions... Message:

yes, I would have been better off if I'd never heard of him

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:44:40 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Thanks for all your thoughtful responses. When Message:

I listened to the satellite broadcast today, I tried to listen to him with some of the concerns and criticisms that I've seen here. I am empathetic to your points of view. The event today was a question and answer session from the recent Alexandria event. But you know, he made a lot of sense to me. If he's simply a con artist and getting rich off of all us poor fools who still support him and those that did in the past, then I got to hand it to him. He's an expert. But what I saw today was someone who really cares. Someone with a unique and unflinching perspective on life. Someone who really values the most fundamental aspects of beingness. I like the man. Con artist or Master? I don't care. He brings a smile to my face and joy to my heart. I wish you all well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 20:43:46 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Hypothetical questions... Message:

Everyone on this thread said it very plainly, Shroom. Like G said, You are asking the wrong questions , IMO, because your questions still imply that we are being ingrates by dissing the beautiful 'gift' M gave us. But it's just a bunch a techniques which can be helpful. But quite honestly, all the other junk wasn't worth it, and for all the blood sweat and tears I dished out to get knowledge, frankly, I could have spent my time much better in a good therapist's office! I DO NOT think that 'knowledge', as groovy a meditation technique as it is, is the 'key to happiness.' It's hard for me to deal with questions like this because like Michael, I do think that following M did teach me to have a very tuned in bullshit detector, and I am glad I am where I am today. I spent a great deal of my life in a trance, a self-destructive trance, and M was part of that whole period. It would have been far better not to have gone through the pain of surrendering my life to another human being more screwed up than myself, but since I did, I have tried to learn form it. I also try to be vocal here and warn others against falling for all the hype. Hope that answers your questions.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:47:06 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Hypothetical indeed Message:

It seems to me that most of you posting here are at the very least disappointed at Maharaji for misleading you into believing that he was the Lord or an incarnation of God, some for years and some for decades. He accepted and solicited money from you, let you worship him and basically allowed you to 'waste' years of your life doing satsang, service and meditation. So you agree with some of what we are saying. I would add that he didn't just 'let' us worship him, he ordered us and manipulated us into worshiping him. Where satsang involved praising him, yes, it was a waste. Where service involved serving him, yes, it was a waste. Where meditation involved hyped-up expectations or thinking he was the cause of a nice feeling, yes, it was a waste. And I support him in his effort to make it available to others around the world. Rather than make it easily available, he is putting up roadblocks. It's very difficult to 'receive Knowledge'. I think the money you give is wasted on his 'lifestyle'. ... he has been a Master ... He is not a 'Master'. Did he make a mistake by offering you Knowledge and accepting you as his students? That is not a meaningful question. He didn't 'offer' me 'Knowledge' because the techniques are not his to 'give'. I didn't even learn them from him. He didn't accept me as his student, he wasn't even aware that I 'received Knowledge'. It also suggests that some mumbo jumbo relationship was going on. It wasn't. He said in the mid '80s about darshan: 'Do you know why it worked? Because you thought it would work.' In other words, none of it came from him. But now he's 'giving darshan' again. Go figure. Or do you think that he should just close up shop and not offer Knowledge to anyone else so that future students don't get burned like you did? You're trying to make it sound like he is helping to 'spread Knowledge' (old terminology). He isn't, he's only getting in the way by telling people not to tell anyone the techniques, by making people jump through hoops, and by making people submit to him by becoming a 'student' of his (i.e. a cult member). And they have to do all this even before learning the techniques. They have to spend loads of money, some of which ends up in his pocket, travel long distances, and listen to a bunch of horse shit. Even then, they are often told they are not 'ready'. Who the hell does he think he is to tell someone they are not 'ready'? 'Ready' only means that he wants them to grovel more, to engage in more 'adulation', to give him more money. I think that the meditation techniques should be freely available to people, as they are at this web site. This means no conditions attached. People would decide for themselves whether and how they wanted to learn the techniques and practice them on their own. If he is unwilling to step aside and allow that to happen, than he should close up shop.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:25:42 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: Very nicely said, G Message:

Too bad you're not as clear about the nature of consciousness. Oops! Maybe we'd better not go there. Heh, heh. But seriously, you nailed it. Nice job.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 18:40:05 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: the nature of consciousness Message:

I don't think anyone is clear about the nature of consciousness. What is the color red?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 18:58:41 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: Is this a zen quiz? Message:

The color red is a frequency of light interacting with the eyes and the neurological pathways that interact with that. That's a simplistic answer, I know, but I really don't know all the mechanics involved. I just know that mechanics ARE involved, and when they're not there, neither is the color red. Here we go.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 20:03:38 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Here we go Message:

No, this is not a zen quiz, it is a serious question that nobody knows the answer to. So nobody can claim to be clear about the nature of consciousness. By 'the color red', I am not referring to the wavelengths of light that the experience of red represents, nor to the neurological pathways involved in triggering the experience, nor to any physical mechanics involved in triggering it. I'm not talking about how the experience is used by the mind/brain to represent red wavelengths of light. Consider that some people experience the color red without it being triggered by red wavelengths. I'm asking what is it? Can you define it in material terms? If so, what evidence do you have for your definition? Note that some physicists believe that qualia such as red are 'physical' in a sense, but not material. But that's not much of an explanation. I consider material monism to be a very suspect philosophy. The fact that I am simultaneously aware of so much (or of anything) appears incompatable with the philosophy that everything is made of material wave/particles. The only ways I can imagine this could be are 1) a wave/particle could be aware of another wave/particle via an 'awareness' wave/particle or 2) quantum coherence. I don't know of any theories about an 'awareness' particle and quantum brain theory has its problems and still wouldn't explain things. I'm certainly no expert, but then, neither is anyone else, and that's my point. This philosophy also does not account for qualitative experiences in general, not just the color red.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 20:40:26 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: G Subject: This way ? Message:

No one asks about the nature of the liver. It's much more useful to think in terms of what is does - what it's for. Minds are for choosing with - and conscious minds are for making a real difference in the world. No, I've no idea as to the actual mechanism, but that's pretty much what's going on, I think. Julian Huxley:- The world is not only stranger than we suppose, it is stranger than we can suppose.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 21:45:15 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: JohnT Subject: I don't think so. Message:

No one asks about the nature of the liver. It's much more useful to think in terms of what is does - what it's for. I don't agree, and that's just an evasion. The liver is composed of material particles and people ask about the nature of particles. It's also a poor analogy, consciousness is not a utilitarian device. The nature of consciousness is relevant to its function and to the philosophy of material monism. Minds are for choosing with - and conscious minds are for making a real difference in the world. I agree, but there is more to awareness, consciousness, and minds than that. No, I've no idea as to the actual mechanism, but that's pretty much what's going on, I think. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why do you think that? Don't you have any doubts about this at all? Julian Huxley:- The world is not only stranger than we suppose, it is stranger than we can suppose. I agree.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 13:50:27 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: G Subject: Purpose and nature Message:

JohnT wrote: No one asks about the nature of the liver. It's much more useful to think in terms of what is does - what it's for. G replied: I don't agree, and that's just an evasion. The liver is composed of material particles and people ask about the nature of particles. It's also a poor analogy, consciousness is not a utilitarian device. The nature of consciousness is relevant to its function and to the philosophy of material monism. I understand the topic is important to you. Let me assure you then, that I have no interest in evasion. The point is only to ask questions that are useful. Oftimes, when thinking about systems, it proves useful to think 'why does this part do this - and how?' rather than 'what is the nature of this thing?' A biologist or doctor, for example, may feel it more useful to ask what the liver does - its purpose, so to speak - rather than to focus on the nature of the liver. Where I'm coming from on this is that minds are part of the natural world. From that angle, it's reasonable to enquire as to the purpose or the function of the phenomenom, at least for the organism involved. What it does may throw some light on what it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:56:52 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Purpose and nature Message:

'...only to ask questions that are useful.' It is only your opinion that the questions I raised are useless. I was responding to the theory that consciousness is solely material in nature, and my questions are useful in that regard. You're stating the obvious about the usefulness of asking what a system does. I agree that it is very useful to study the brain. Minds are part of the natural world, but I think that the natural world is far greater than we know. The purpose of awareness is more than just the utilitarian function of the brain.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:20:11 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: G Subject: If you try really hard, you might squeeze God in Message:

Q: What's the colour red? A: Well, shucks, hm, let me see now ... Q: And you're telling me there's no God? Come now!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:39:04 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: Who said anything about God? Message:

That is an entirely different subject. I'm challenging your material monism. Don't evade the issue with a diversion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 21:27:52 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: You go too deep Message:

Do we really have to go into the wave/particle realm when discussing consciousness? After all, the wave/particle phenomena, itself, is part of consciousness, as is everything we know of. But what, exactly, makes consciousness happen, you're right, nobody knows. They haven't figured it out, yet. But they're working on it. Someday, they'll know. And so will we. I have a feeling a lot of people are not going to like what they discover. It will cause a controversy as great as Darwin's theory of evolution. Our whole concept of who we are, once again, is on the brink of being shattered.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 21:52:58 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: too deep? Message:

Do we really have to go into the wave/particle realm when discussing consciousness? If you're going to claim that consciousness is material, yes. After all, the wave/particle phenomena, itself, is part of consciousness, as is everything we know of. So are you saying that everything is made of consciousness? But what, exactly, makes consciousness happen, you're right, nobody knows. They haven't figured it out, yet. That proves my point. No one is clear about consciousness. So why the comment about how it's too bad that I'm not clear about consciousness? Neither are you. But they're working on it. Yes, they are, sort of. Someday, they'll know. And so will we. Maybe, maybe not. I have a feeling a lot of people are not going to like what they discover. You have a feeling? It could be you that won't like what they discover. They may discover that consciousness is not material. It will cause a controversy as great as Darwin's theory of evolution. Our whole concept of who we are, once again, is on the brink of being shattered. I would hardly consider your soothsaying to be a rational argument for your position. It could be that if they make this discovery, it might be challenging to all belief systems. Your belief system might be shattered.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 03:08:19 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: I think so Message:

G, I don't think it's necessary to go into quantum theory to investigate consciousness. It's incredibly obvious that it's located in the brain somewhere. Drugs, a konk on the head, there's a number of ways to alter or remove consciousness, and they all have to do with damage to the brain, or an altering of it's chemistry. Wouldn't that suggest that consciousness resides somewhere in the brain? So are you saying that everything is made of consciousness? No, I'm not saying that, just that consciousness is our window to the universe. Let's just say that the universe evolved consciousness, in us, and now observes itself through that very same consciousness. No one is clear about consciousness. So why the comment about how it's too bad that I'm not clear about consciousness? That was just a good natured poke at you in reference to all the times we've discussed this subject. It was meant in fun; I was amused by it. Sorry if you weren't. What do you mean they're sort of working on the problem of consciousness? The nineties was the 'decade of the brain', G. It was declared that by President Bush. Since then, funds have been pouring into the study of human consciousness. There are scientists and philosophers who have made a career out of studying it. That's a little more than 'sort of'. It could be you that won't like what they discover. They may discover that consciousness is not material. That wouldn't bother me at all, G. But I don't know of any evidence that's pointed in that direction, short of magical thinking. Any concrete evidence all seems to point in the other direction, that consciousness, if not material itself, relies upon a material brain to exist. I would hardly consider your soothsaying to be a rational argument for your position. It could be that if they make this discovery, it might be challenging to all belief systems. Your belief system might be shattered. You say if. I think it's more like when. Call me a soothsayer, but I see no reason to believe that the mystery of consciousness is going to remain that for very long, especially with all the buzz about it in the scientific community, and how optimistic they are that they're closing in on it's secrets.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 04:40:20 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: What about qualia? Message:

I asked for a definition in material terms that you have evidence for. You didn't even provide an explicit definition, so why should I believe this theory? It's fine for you to believe what you do, but don't claim that your belief is scientific without providing evidence. Your belief is no more scientific than mine. You're also evading facing the mentioned problems that your theory has. I don't think it's necessary to go into quantum theory to investigate consciousness. It's incredibly obvious that it's located in the brain somewhere. Drugs, a konk on the head, there's a number of ways to alter or remove consciousness, and they all have to do with damage to the brain, or an altering of it's chemistry. Wouldn't that suggest that consciousness resides somewhere in the brain? You're not facing the problem of simultaneous experience of a vast amount of qualia, how can that be explained with the computational viewpoint? The even bigger problem is qualia, how do you account for the qualitative nature of our experience? What ARE the experiences of sweet, love, pain, middle C, etc.? You can't just hand wave and say they are neurons firing or talk about what these experiences represent. The neurons just trigger the experiences, and there may be far more involved than just neurons firing in triggering them. Then the biggest problem is awareness itself. Regarding consciousness being 'in' the brain, I'm not sure what your point is. Naturally, the subjective experience of the body seems to surround consciousness and consciousness seems to reside in the brain, since our brain is our window to the material world. The subjective experience of where my conscious is is right where it should be. It would be very confusing otherwise and would not be good for survival. I certainly wouldn't want to have an out-of-body experience all the time. But so what? That doesn't mean that consciousness is material nor that it's solely within space and time. Also note that our experiences of time and space are qualitative experiences themselves. Yes, the state of our brain affects our state of mind, but again, how does this show that consciousness is material? No, I'm not saying that, just that consciousness is our window to the universe. Let's just say that the universe evolved consciousness, in us, and now observes itself through that very same consciousness. I would agree that the experience of being human is our window to the material world and that it evolved. I don't believe that awareness itself evolved nor that it is the material world observing itself. That was just a good natured poke at you in reference to all the times we've discussed this subject. It was meant in fun; I was amused by it. Sorry if you weren't. That's the problem with the internet, sometimes it's hard to tell. I did sense it a little. What do you mean they're sort of working on the problem ... I wasn't belittling what they are doing, I just wanted to point out that this field is in its infancy and that there is more to consciousness than just brain mechanics. The mechanics have much to do with it, but it's not the whole story. Hopefully in the future, people will be able to study consciousness in ways we can't imagine and they will look back and say that we were 'sort of' studying consciousness. But I don't know of any evidence that's pointed in that direction, short of magical thinking. Any concrete evidence all seems to point in the other direction, that consciousness, if not material itself, relies upon a material brain to exist. I see it quite the opposite, that there is no evidence that human consciousness is material. My observations and reasoning about my subjective experiences are my evidence, not magical thinking. Human consciousness relies on a human brain, but that does not mean that awareness does or that consciousness cannot exist after death. The problem with your reasoning is that it is a tautology that living people all have brains. Being a living human relies upon a brain. How is your theory falsifiable? How can you prove that awareness cannot exist outside a brain or that consciousness ends at death? You say if. I think it's more like when. Call me a soothsayer, but I see no reason to believe that the mystery of consciousness is going to remain that for very long, especially with all the buzz about it in the scientific community, and how optimistic they are that they're closing in on it's secrets. You don't know that it is a when, it might be, but you don't know. You're just playing fortune-teller. Besides, you miss my point. Predicting that your theory will be validated is not a rational argument for your theory.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 17:32:38 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: What about it? Message:

It hasn't been figured out just yet, G. I'm not disagreeing with you on this. I don't know why you insist I am. All I'm saying is that it looks like the answers lie in the mechanics of the brain. If it's not, then why are all these scientists looking for it there?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 18:08:31 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: What about it? Message:

It hasn't been figured out just yet, G. I'm not disagreeing with you on this. I don't know why you insist I am. I'm not saying that you think that qualia are figured out. I'm saying that qualia cast doubt on the validity of material monism. All I'm saying is that it looks like the answers lie in the mechanics of the brain. You seem to be implying that the answers lie solely in the mechanics of the brain. 'looks like' is not a good argument. It 'looks' that way to you only because you assume that's the way it is. If it's not, then why are all these scientists looking for it there? Scientists study the material world. What they are doing is looking at brain mechanics, the material aspect of the mind/brain system. What else would they do? Our brain is the link between consciousness and the material world. You can't conclude from that that human consciousness is solely material.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 21:14:58 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: What about it? Message:

G, Qualia has a way of being conditional. A person on a cup of coffee is going to have a whole different experience of the world than somebody on a fifth of vodka, or 3 tabs of acid. Wouldn't that indicate to you that everything we experience, all that qualia, is dependent on particular brain states? If there's something else involved, beyond that, who knows what it is? What evidence exists that there is? You give a determined argument that there is, but, so far, you haven't so much as even offered a possibility to what else might be involved. Not one thing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 22:26:13 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: What about it? Message:

Qualia has a way of being conditional. A person on a cup of coffee is going to have a whole different experience of the world than somebody on a fifth of vodka, or 3 tabs of acid. Wouldn't that indicate to you that everything we experience, all that qualia, is dependent on particular brain states? No, I wouldn't go that far, I see no basis for you saying an extreme statement like that. The fact that brain states condition mental states does not imply that they are the sole producer or conditioner of mental states. Triggering and producing are different. Also, I see no reason to think that consciousness is made of matter, and if it isn't matter, how could matter produce it? The mind effects the brain, it's a two-way street. If there's something else involved, beyond that, who knows what it is? What evidence exists that there is? You give a determined argument that there is, but, so far, you haven't so much as even offered a possibility to what else might be involved. Not one thing. The evidence is staring you in the face, and you're still evading the issues I've brought up. The fact that we can be aware of a vast amount of qualia simultaneously is evidence, their qualitative nature is evidence. How do you get the color red from a set of wave/particles? It's obvious there more going on than matter. I don't need physical evidence nor need to know the details to see that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:03:18 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: G Subject: What about it? Message:

I don't believe that awareness itself evolved nor that it is the material world observing itself. Why do you have this belief g? G when are you going to read up on emergent systems, there are loads of systems where the combinations produce completely different results than the inputs, sometime more, sometimes less, but the point is that there are loads of systems that do it, c'mon any chaos theory? network theory? systems theory in general?, all the criticisms you are throwing up are not fresh, the cybernetic community has been debating them for decades. At the moment there is a major series on the brain, on tv at the moment here. Susan Greenfield, pretty mainstream, yet the whole sreies has been heavily systems influenced, and I suspect they don't even know about a lot of research in that territory. You can't put it off forever g.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:29:25 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: hamzen Subject: What about it? Message:

Don't bold your text to me, young man. I can read normal text perfectly fine. I'm not intimidated by your emphasis nor wording such as 'You can't put it off forever g.' The question isn't why I have this belief, I expressed a lack of belief. I asked for a model supported by evidence. None was provided. So why should I believe this very vague theory? You mention that the cybernetic community has been debating my criticisms. Fine, what answers do you have for me? Chaos theory, network theory, and systems theory can help with understanding brain mechanics, but how do they address these criticisms? Give me a detailed model supported by evidence. As to systems producing different outputs than inputs, so? Computer systems do that and they are not aware.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 06:48:03 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: What about it? Message:

The fact that we can be aware of a vast amount of qualia simultaneously is evidence, their qualitative nature is evidence. How do you figure this? The fact that we can be aware of vast amount of qualia simultaneously could be due to the fact that the brain is a multiple processor. Billions of neurons communicate with each other at one time. Being aware of all that qualia, simultaneously, is not proof that there's other mechanics involved. And if there are, just what ARE those mecahnics, G? Any ideas?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 19:10:06 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jerry Subject: What about it? Message:

The multiprocessing is a necessary but insufficient condition. It's a very different situation than a computer, because a computer is not aware. What exactly do you think is happening, what is aware of what? Do you think there is a single aware particle zipping around, picking up information? How would it pick up and store the information? If awareness is composed of more than one particle, than those particles must be aware of each other. How? There are no known mechanics that can account for this. There must be nonlocality at least or something totally unknown. I consider this to be evidence, if not proof that there's other mechanics involved. I think is reasonable to assume that we are not anywhere close to understanding everything. People thought that 100 years ago, they were wrong. I would speculate that there is a process that occurs in a multi-dimensional space that includes space/time but 'larger' than space/time and that nonlocality is involved. What about the qualitative aspects, how could red be made of material particles? What would the mechanics be? Any ideas?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:04:38 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: G Subject: Hypothetical indeed Message:

I think that the med techs should be freely available to people,as they are on this website. BTW, I agree. I'm thankful that I learned them in the early '70's.No one was showing them to anyone back then that I know of. But, if they were being written about - say in 'Be Here Now' or something - I would probably not have gotten involved w/ DLM. Mind you, I don't have any regrets - bec as I've said - I didn't give alot of money - I didn't get abused in the ashram - I met great friends. It was fun for me all around. I even learned to be alittle disciplined. Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 13:14:49 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Elaine Subject: Hypothetical indeed Message:

Elaine, That's fine for you - it worked out OK for you. But do you not have any regrets for others - those it didn't work out for? Not that you seem to have been deeply involved in the promoting or promulgating the fraud. But you were involved in it, and just that fact must have lent it some credence in others' eyes. You were involved in, and to at least that extent supported a heartless scam which did plenty of damage. Does your sense of ethics remain silent on that? Is your sense of spirituality not offended by such egregious abuse? If you were not harmed by Rawat's business model, then I am happy for you, just I would be happy if you enjoyed Lucky Strikes without contracting lung disease. But just that fact gives you a great responsibility not to minimise the corruption of the cult; the harm its uncritical apologists have done; and the delusions they seek to continue to perpetuate. I hope you take this as kindly meant. Sometimes you seem bewildered that people react angrily to your posts. It may be that folk feel you are minimising and making light of the destruction Rawat and his minions have caused. PS Just for G, this is an ellipses free post! Sorry for any previous offence, G.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:01:41 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: JohnT Subject: ellipses Message:

PS Just for G, this is an ellipses free post! Sorry for any previous offence, G. Well, I'll forgive you, ;-) although if I remember right it wasn't you I complained to. Are you referring....to my rant.....about using '.....' as punctuation? Well....ellipses (…) are ok ..... when properly used ... and in moderation. But .... are weird .... when used .... to mimic someone else's ..... speech patterns.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 22:52:42 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Hypothetical indeed Message:

Thank you JohnT - I took your post as sincere communication. I liked the Lucky Strike analogy - and your explaining why people get mad sometimes at my posts. You asked big questions - I'd have to think about them before answering. I'm building a house - buying a house and generally so busy - my mind is not into thinking about spiritual offenses at the moment. I do have a problem with sentences like ' Maharaji made us do such and such' or 'Maharaji virtually forced us to worship him and join the ashram.' I am a believer in taking responsibility. Like that new poster above 'Former Aspirant' -he/she got out pronto - I really respect that. Blaming others is something I don't care to do and have done plenty of it - let me tell you. It's not healthy behavior. Owning our shit (part) is where I'm at. I'm sorry if that seems minimising. When I've been REALLY upset about something somebody did and a friend acts all - 'well, what's the big deal' - It's infuriated me more bec of the minimising. Like I need them to share my outrage. Well, those calm friends have helped me tremendously to stop blaming others. I feel much more balanced and healthy. Anyway, thanks for your level-headed reply, Regards, Elaine

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:55:11 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Elaine Subject: Brainwashed (nt) Message:

Scram, lier!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 14:52:15 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: SB Subject: Judgemental,hurtful,unkind,impatient - Why start ? Message:

I told you once before -liar, not lier. And 'nt' - means - No Text.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:27:29 (GMT) From: SB monster Email: None To: Elaine Subject: Judgemental,hurtful,unkind,impatient ? Message:

You know what I ment. This is not English 101. Who in the hell wants to hear your crap. Make your own forum and take all the idiots with you, please. I did noticed you have gotten better. Good for you, 'Dizzy'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 14:58:40 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: SB monster Subject: Judgemental,hurtful,unkind,impatient ? Message:

Well, you know something,Sylvia,don't ever for even a second think that if I may 'come around' in ex-premie terms it ever had even one thing to do with anything you ever said. You are more of a deterent in my change of thinking than anyone here. If I would ever 'come around' and think Maharaji as 'Lard' for instance -not my style,BTW -you and I would never be 'Cyber-friends'. You are still a nasty piece of work, in my opinion - the likes of which - I would avoid as I do a smelly garbage can as I walk by. It is what it is,I 'try' not to judge.Even smelly garbage cans have their place - but,I chose to walk away from them -

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 22:15:34 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Elaine Subject: You are a fucking disturbed bitch Message:

Kiss my ass you, stupid, stupid person! Who gives a shit about what you have to say? But if you get personal as you just did, stand the insults because you deserve them. Where did you get my name you piece of shit??? Shame on you. How are your nightmares at night? Getting any better?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 21:57:40 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: G Subject: WOW ! EXCELLENT POST G nt Message:

gfh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 20:35:27 (GMT) From: Helen Email: None To: G Subject: Great post, G (nt) Message:

well said

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:36:01 (GMT) From: Michael Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Hypothetical questions... Message:

I have a problem with your calling him a master, as I don't think he is master of anything. Also, when I was initiated, he was not called a teacher, so he didn't accept me as a student; he was the guru and I was his devotee, there was no teaching involved. I would have been better off if I had never heard of him or his techniques. I did meet some good people, and I like many of the folks I have met here, but, overall, the only real benefit I received in his cult is the fact that now my 'cult radar' is on 24/7 and I am very aware of those who try to deny me my intellectual and spiritual freedom. I think that he should close up shop, but I also think that he should come clean first and admit that he is not a master, he is a materialist, and that he and his cult ruined the lives of many thousands of people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 15:45:43 (GMT) From: Gregg Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Listen carefully; I'm only going to say this once: Message:

He is NOT a 'Master;' he is a cult leader. The groovy experiences you have, and we exes all had ourselves, have nothing to do with Prem Pal Rawat, only with qualities you project on the Man in the video, the Man on stage, the Man in your mind. Remember, we have all been there, and we have moved on. God willing, you will one day move on, too. But this guy who calls himself Great King (that's what Maharaji means, of course) is more interested in living a life of luxury than in the difficult business of spiritual work. That's why he is a cult leader, not a Master. Shroomananda, if you truly value your God-given powers of reason and discrimination, which are as fine and beautiful as your 'heart,' then take an honest look at who this Great King really is. And while you're in this openminded state, drink deeply from real spiritual teachers, past and present. There is much to learn, but it's up to you. In thrall to a fraud, you will be forever emotionally and spiritually stunted. Oh, and as far as your question goes, if I could go back in time and choose a more authentic path, I would, but, on the whole, I don't regret my involvement with the cult. Unlike some on this site, I was only involved for a few years, during which time my worldly life pretty much stayed on course (except for 6 months in an ashram). And I had enough 'spiritual' experiences to get me interested in getting serious about the Path after I graduated from Guru Maharaj Ji's spiritual kindergarten. (See my Journey entry for more info.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 11:21:17 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Shut up Shrrooom. You have already posted Message:

this question before. If no body answered it,, here it is. Yes I would have been better not seeing the ass hole. Yes I would have been happier if I never heared of him. True you are still the biggest idiot I keep seeing around here. I just wish you stay here, your stupidity does not help your case. Even Mel thinks that your are an orthodox. What else can I add to that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 10:43:28 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Hypothetical questions... Message:

Absofuckinlutely, I wish I'd never heard of him and his fake nollidge. It may have been a fun trip for a short while in my late teens but I wasted so much time in not sorting out areas of my life which are definitely important to me. For example I never bothered with an education as I was led to believe that the only real priority in life was 'THE BIG TRUTH' . I last night was remembering spending a whole six months without payment or health insurance contributions, looking after Maha's cars. They were the cars which he only used in the Uk and they were stored in a warehouse. 3 of us sat there for 8 hrs at a time , day and night just watching them. For those interested there was a huge motorhome ,2 ferraris, a Lambourghini, BMW etc etc. Yes Shroo , I wasted so much of my precious life on that unfulfilled dream. I never achieved 'that joy' with any real constancy. I didn't find any great depth in meditation , it went so far and then no farther for me , until at the point where I decided I'd had enough , it had become little more than a time in the morning where I organised my day. I'm with SB on this YES; YES; YES YES; YES YES; to all your questions... Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 09:17:07 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: YES!!! YES, YES, YES, YES, YES............ Message:

I wish I never, NEVER met the stupid guy, NEVER!!!! I hate him with passion for having taken so much from me, for having made fun of me, for having abused the trust I put on him. I hurt my mother, brothers, sister, friends, husbands, children, career, health, pocket book, and MY FUTURE is marked forever because I met the son of a bitch!! The midget ruined so many areas of my existance that I would never, never forget what he did to me. He took advantage of me and so many others. How many people committed suicide because they were not good enough at loving 'GOD'? I took care of a premie for several weeks that came close three times to killing himself. What kind of despersonalization a person goes through during the years of endoctrination that prompt them to want to end their lives? Why so many premies show severe signs of neurosis and what keeps them sick? Why premies have such a hard time having close relationships? Oh, I know, guru says that's caliyuga fault. Bullshit. If I eat poison I would die. Death would be the consequence, as it's that K affects many people's lives in many negative ways; underneath the bliss factor premies are confused and brainwashed in a regular basis listening to Lard's bullshit over, and over again. Isn't shroom incredible that Lard does it deliberatly, knowingly, he plays 'master' simply because for him is bussiness, and incredibly, he doesn't fucking care, AT ALL if people go nuts or not!! If he had compassion for his fellow human beings would he be selling his master story? But of course, what are your possibilities now? Can you reason? I doubt it. You have no problem with 'HIM'. hmmmm....why is it that you don't have any problem with him? YOU DEPEND ON HIM FOR HIS FRICKING GRACE because he sold you the idea that without it you can't do. How convinient was for him to fool us, isn't it? I hate the fricking guru because he has no morals, no decency, honesty. He's evil.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 11:27:50 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: SB Subject: YES!!! YES, YES, YES, give Shroomi more...nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 08:45:21 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Hypothetical blob of bovine excrement. Message:

What kind of bullshit post is this Shroo? You have been around here long enough, and copped enough flak to know what kind of responses to expect. So why start a new thread in this manner if not just to be a waster of time and space? If your serious, I'm speechless.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:35:08 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: paragraph breaks shroom! Message:

I'm looking at conference posts and stats and up late working. can't read your post. ever hear of the Enter key?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 06:14:18 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Joe - very late response (OK Nigel?) Message:

Hi Joe Sorry for the late response to your post of 20th July in relation to the thread entitled “Revisionism and Jim’s nostalgia”. As a few people here are aware, I travel for my job quite extensively so am unable to respond to some posts as quickly as many ex’s would like (particularly Nigel, it seems). There is, of course, the additional fact that with a post as challenging as yours a bit of time is required to consider the points you’ve raised and then make a coherent attempt to respond to them You said ” ..Your nifty use of the passive voice makes it appear that nobody is responsible for presenting Maharaji as 'god', it just sort of 'happened.'It's very clear that Maharaji presented HIMSELF as God, as the Superior Power in Person, at least for the first 12 years in the West, until at least 1983 when I left the cult, and maybe beyond that. Maharaji, personally, is responsible for that, and he has NEVER accepted any responsibility whatsoever. I disagree with you that it is very clear that Maharaji presented himself as God. My point is that he came from a cultural background and spiritual tradition that proclaimed the Satguru’s divinity but that your assertion implies that Maharaji was the sole author of this claim. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth, the language and “theology” at that time clearly indicate the Rhadasoami influence. As for Maharaji accepting responsibility, well, as they say, “actions speak louder than words”. Maharaji often commented that the whole DLM thing could turn into a religion and that was NOT what he wanted. So he changed it, and why? So that people who wanted to receive Knowledge wouldn’t be burdened with the same kind of baggage that you and others here are still trying to so desperately come to terms with. ' Who caused the hurt, Mel? Was it just an 'unfortunate thing' like an earthquake, or a windstorm, or did Maharaji acutally cause, contribute to, and refrain from taking responsibility for, the hurt? Much of the interaction I had with other premies (particularly ashram premies) were a source of great hurt to me, but I saw that it was MY responsibility to avoid the situations that were needlessly painful. Yes, Maharaji presided over some very turbulent times in DLM and people got hurt, and as I have said, it is now clearly evident that he has changed the situation so people DON’T have to experience the kind of hurt that we all experienced at the time. I didn’t (and don’t) hold Maharaji responsible for some fanatical nut case of an ashram house father laying his trip on me, and I certainly can’t blame him (Maharaji) if I didn’t have enough nouce to change my situation. I used a bit of common sense and judgement and took my own action. However, I didn’t “throw the baby out with the bath water” and continued to value and practice Knowledge. Your view suggests that anyone who is in charge should accept full responsibility for any action that a “subordinate” does and I know that is quite acceptable in corporate society, bit is it realistic? People have to accept responsibility for their own actions, that’s what Nuremberg was all about, wasn’t it. Who else but Maharaji was claiming to be the Lord of the Universe and telling us we would go to hell if we didn't devote our lives to him (when he was 22 years old, and not 8 (see Christmas, 1979 satsang as quoted by Pauline Premie, below.) Hmmm… Let me see, now….1979 is what? 21 years ago, isn’t it? Joe, at least stay up with the times, please. . But 'revisionism' means 'revising the past.' It means lying about what happened in the past, which is what Maharaji and Elan Vital are currently doing You make it seem as though we have a whole communist state or something trying to rewrite history to cover up the slaughter of millions of dissidents and now trying to present a fair face to the world. Who’s that English historian guy that has been banned from Australia and other countries because he written that the holocaust didn’t happen and that it’s really all Jewish and “Allied” anti Nazi propaganda conspiracy. Now that’s what I call “revisionism”. The fact that a relatively minor group and their “leader” have tried to improve their public image and presentation hardly constitutes “revisionism”; at the most it would constitute a PR change and even that reflects substantial and genuine changes within the “belief” system of the group.The fact that the group leader has been accused of being a liar and has denied it is simply that – a denial - not “revisionism”. Really, Joe let’s keep things in perspective ! Please don’t exaggerate just to make your (political) point. You also mentioned accountability, and I agree with you about it's importance, but in my view accountability in relation to social justice generally is used to catalyse change and lead to improvement in a situation. Clearly considerable change and improvement has already happened in the context of Maharaji’s work. Of course, further improvement is important, and, from my understanding, this seems to be becoming more a feature within the current EV culture Joe, you left in 1983, that’s 17 years ago and the only mental photograph you have of things stems from that time. There have been huge changes as you are undoubtedly aware but you haven’t been part of them and because you haven’t been involved in them it is impossible for you to believe that, in reality, things have changed at all. You project your old image onto what you think is currently happening. For example, you and others here who left at a similar time cannot conceive that it is possible to practice and experience Knowledge without a fundamental belief that Maharaji is God, you still struggle with the old DLM ideology and assume that all current premies SHOULD be as well.. Mel, I really think you are the one who is deluded. A deluded person is one who subscribes to a mistaken belief or idea or , in the psychiatric sense, one who in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is resistant to all reason. Am I correct about this? Joe, I’m sorry, I do not believe that I am subject to any mistaken beliefs or ideas. The fact that I value the experience of Knowledge and acknowledge Maharaji as the person who was involved in the process of me learning the techniques is NOT delusionary (is there such a word?), it is merely contrary to your experience and opinion. The fact that other people have a positive experience from this is not delusionary either. The only delusion associated with this matter is your own intractable belief that it is not possible for people actually have any kind of positive experience from being associated with Maharaji and Knowledge. You are, in fact, quite wrong. There is room for all kinds of valid view points and experiences in this world as you well know, and people who genuinely enjoy the practice of Knowledge and support Maharaji in the promotion of it, should be accorded the benefit of the doubt and respect that any human being is entitled to. (Using the passive voice….)This is not an unreasonable proposition, really, is it? Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:57:20 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: You didn't answer my question.... Message:

I asked if you didn't agree that, as you admit Maharaji claimed to be god, whether how 'Clear' it was seems to be the only issue with you, that either he was deluded, or he was lying, or he was god [those are the only alternatives} then isn't it true that Maharaji is currently lying about all three, whichever is the case? He has never admitted either delusion or lying, and he is currently saying he never claimed to be God. So, which is it. Your only excuse for him is that he used to lie, but stopped doing it at some point, for which we should all be very grateful. We should be grateful that he stopped lying. This is sick.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:47:16 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Joe Subject: You didn't answer my question...Sorry. Message:

Joe How can I possibly answer your question, I’m not privy to Maharaji’s thoughts on the matter nor do I have any kind of particular insights on it . Maharaji is the only one who could provide any kind of answer, all I can do is give my own personal opinion which may not correspond to the reality of the situation at all. In my opinion… 1. Is Maharaji God? No, and he has gone to great lengths to reject any such claims. 2 Is Maharaji deluded? Not as far as I am aware. 3 Is Maharaji lying? Again, no, not to my knowledge. I reject your simplistic formula of “is Maharaji God, deluded or lying” - at best, it is a superficial summary of the issue, or - at worst, it is a spurious logic designed to ensnare someone like me with intent to ridicule. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the latter is not your intention. So, why do I regard it as superficial? Because you insist that Maharaji ALONE is responsible for the claims and conveniently disregard any suggestion to the contrary. I can understand your view in the context of the negative experiences that you may have had, but I can only describe your views as narrow and obsessive. If you look at the context and background, you will realise that what you and others have stated as irrefutable evidence that Maharaji claimed he was God can only be regarded as ambiguous at the very least. The ambiguity stems from the Rhadasoami tradition in which the recognition of the Perfect Master, Satguru , or Guru Maharaji Ji is as a title, or “office”, and not necessarily as a particular personality. Indeed, Maharaji generally used the term Guru Maharaj Ji in the third person, even referring to his father as “my Guru Maharaji Ji”. Yes, within the tradition, these positions were venerated and divine qualities attributed to them and these beliefs carried over to DLM when Maharaji first came. He was also viewed as the “messiah” by many and attributed the appropriate divine qualities by many western followers at the time. Although there was a predominant fixation that Maharaji was “Lord of the Universe”, and many, including his closest followers claimed divinity for him and his family, BUT Maharaji quotes claiming unambiguous divinity do not exist. In case anyone doubts where he stands on the matter, these days you can view for yourself where he categorically states on his web site that he is NOT God. So much for the claims of good ol’ blasphemy and now onto the personal business... You can accept or reject my opinion as you wish as I do yours, but I find your accusation of delusion for suggesting an alternative perspective as disappointing. I had expected a more of a fair minded approach from you , Joe Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 19:00:02 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: It's isn't ambiguous Message:

Mel, get a clue. Ambiguous? Aside from the 'greater than God' business, how about these, just for example that Maharaji said: Divine Times, 1973: There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him. 1974: That depends on me what gear I want you to work. Everything depends on me. Not even a leaf moves a millimetre without my wish. 1978: Look it's beyond liberation. It's beyond all those things. Beyond all concepts. In this lifetime, we have the opportunity to realize, to be with GURU MAHARAJ JI. Be it not GURU MAHARAJ JI - You know maybe they didn't call him GURU MAHARAJ JI - Maybe they called him Lord, anything to be with that power. To be with that thing. To be not infinite. And yet to be with the infinite. To be here as individuals. And yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything, GURU MAHARAJ JI. The Lord all powerful. It's been said that Guru Maharaj Ji comes, or God comes into the world, when there is a decline in religion. God comes, Guru Maharaj Ji comes, and helps the world.(Denver, Colorado; October 12, 1974.) And there are many more, and this doesn't even get into the ACTIONS Maharaji took to reinforce that he was God. Mel, your statements don't pass the laugh test and neither do Maharaji's.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 23:29:24 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Joe Subject: It's isn't ambiguous Message:

Joe It seems I stand corrected. My apologies for wasting your time! Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 13:21:12 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: It's isn't ambiguous - Bravo for coming clean! Message:

Mel wrote: Joe It seems I stand corrected. My apologies for wasting your time! Mel Well done for that. But crumbs, you are hard work! I think Joe must be some kinda saint for sticking so with you so doggedly and politely.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 17:42:00 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: You didn't answer my question...Sorry. Message:

You say: '. Is Maharaji God? No, and he has gone to great lengths to reject any such claims.' So tell me, just WHO was it that claimed to be quote 'the supremest Lord in person'? Whichever way you look at it, inciting people to call him 'Lord of the Universe' canNOT be called going to 'great lengths to reject any such claims'. A pretty perverse way of saying he's not God, isn't it? Something fishy's going on, Mel. I suggest it's your (and M's) attempts at revisionism.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 17:25:27 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Mel Bourne Subject: Unbelievable!!! Message:

(from anyone else but a premie). I reject your simplistic formula of “is Maharaji God, deluded or lying” - at best, it is a superficial summary of the issue, or - at worst, it is a spurious logic designed to ensnare someone like me with intent to ridicule. How can this possibly be 'spurious' logic? Would you care to explain what real logic looks like..? Perhaps you're better qualified than the Scots philosopher David Hume who first applied exactly the same process to evaluate extravagent claims, and came up with the same three-alternative formula. Fact: man claims to be God. (Many times over.) Alternatives: (1) he is God (always was and still is...) (2) he is deluded (and was for a long time...) (3) he is lying (and lied many, many times over...) Forget Maharaji for a moment and explain what process YOU would use if the man making the claim was anyone other than Maharaji... And then tell us you're not in a cult. Like I said: Unbelievable!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:48:47 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel Bourne - fool or whore for Rawat's fraud? Message:

Mel wrote: I disagree with you that it is very clear that Maharaji presented himself as God. Also Mel wrote: ... Maharaji ... has gone to great lengths to reject any such claims (that he is God). From The DLM / EV Papers, collected by JM and found elsewhere on this site: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Mel also wrote: A deluded person is one who subscribes to a mistaken belief or idea ... It is abundantly clear from the quote above that Rawat claimed divinity. There are many other similar examples on this site. It is also clear from your posts that you close your eyes and mind to that evidence. In this area, for whatever reason, it pleases you to lie to yourself, and to attempt to deceive others. Mel, you are a fraud. Are you paid to post here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:46:40 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Joe - very late response (OK Nigel?) Message:

Mel, one of the characteristics of delusion is that the delusional party doesn't think he or she is deluded. It's the same process as with many addictions and, of course, cults. I disagree with you that it is very clear that Maharaji presented himself as God. This is clearly deslusional, or else you weren't around during the time I was. The evidence of Maharaji presenting himself as God is overwhelming, and has been stated repeatedly, but I think you just filter it out, Mel. That is delusion. Crowns, thrones, Arti, Lord of the Universe, kissing feet, as well as the NUMEROUS times he directly claimed it. Go on over to J-M's site and read a few of those things. True, he was saying it until 1983 when I left, but according to the quotes on J-M's site at least in India, he was saying it well into the 90s. You lose this one Mel, except in your own head. Maharaji may have changed things, but he has an obligation to explain, clearly, that what he said and did was wrong and accept responsibility for it. And since he hasn't done so, it is a clear piece of information people should have about whether you would want to be involved with somebody like that. I think most people wouldn't want to. Your view suggests that anyone who is in charge should accept full responsibility for any action that a “subordinate” does and I know that is quite acceptable in corporate society, bit is it realistic? People have to accept responsibility for their own actions, that’s what Nuremberg was all about, wasn’t it. No, that ISN'T my view. My view is that Maharji should accept full responsibility for his OWN actions. But, in reality, most of the awful things his 'subordinates' did were a direct result either of what Maharaji wanted or what he preached. So, he is also in many ways responsible for those actions as well. David Smith, for example, the notorious ashram-Nazi, used Maharaji's words and directions for him to carry out his sadistic campaign on premies. Plus, Maharaji is responsible for the fact that he didn't care enough to find out what was really going on with the people who were dedicating their lives to him. He has responsibility for that, too. The fact that a relatively minor group and their “leader” have tried to improve their public image and presentation hardly constitutes “revisionism”; at the most it would constitute a PR change and even that reflects substantial and genuine changes within the “belief” system of the group. You should go to work for the republican party. Taxes aren't taxes, they are 'revenue enhancements.' What bullshit, Mel, Elan Vital is revising the past, they are also lying blatantly in doing so. To suggest that Maharaji's claims to be god and his endless demands for total dedication and surrender, until at least 1983 when he was 24 years old, and not 13, was due to some cultural misunderstanding of a young child does not past the laugh test for anyone who was around for that, and it is pure revisionism to lie about the past like that, whether it's a PR campaign or whatever. And you are right, to the vast majority of people, Maharaji is a two-bit relic from the 70s desperately trying to hold the fortune he has amassed. But to some of us, who actually lived it, it does matter. It also causes a lot of suspiscion, when somebody is supposedly a spiritual 'master' but is so afraid of admitting error or even acknowledging the past. Again, it says a lot about him that people should know about, so that also makes Maharaji's lies and revisionism important. If you like the experience of meditation, good for you. You are also free to believe whatever you like, but your attempts to argue this are laughable so you are probably better off not doing it. The basis of your argument is, well, yes, Maharaji did claim to be god, and a lot of people got hurt, and he is now promoting a PR campaign to hide that, bit it's okay because although he used to claim to be god, he stopped doing that a number of years ago. It's this ridiculous: MEL: 'It isn't clear he claimed to be God, and Elan Vital says he NEVER claimed it, and besides, he doesn't do it anymore.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 05:45:49 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: You amaze me! Message:

Joe said: Who else but Maharaji was claiming to be the Lord of the Universe and telling us we would go to hell if we didn't devote our lives to him (when he was 22 years old, and not 8 (see Christmas, 1979 satsang as quoted by Pauline Premie, below.) To which Mel replied: Hmmm… Let me see, now….1979 is what? 21 years ago, isn’t it? Joe, at least stay up with the times, please. As if it was okay that Maharaji EVER claimed to be LOTU. You're blind, Mel, fucking blind. And that 'Hindu baggage' excuse has got such a loophole in it you could drive a truck right through it. Really. You're all but saying that Maharaji was deluded because of his Radhasoami background, and I'm certain that's not what you mean to say. But that is what you're saying, Mel. If Maharaji ISN'T a divine incarnation, than he is deluded, or at least was, thanks to all those Hindu traditions. Mel, if Maharaji had never come to the west, I doubt he would have ever stopped playing the God game. But, now that he's in the west, he's got to stop playing, and we're all, suddenly, supposed to take him seriously in his new role as a humble meditation teacher. As if it's okay that he was once claiming to have more power than ever before. He was just being a silly Hindu all those years. Of course, that's it. He was just being a clown in that Krishna costume, carrying around that flute. But he's okay now. At least he didn't paint himself blue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 17:25:27 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel Bourne admits delusion! Message:

Mel wrote: I disagree with you that it is very clear that Maharaji presented himself as God. From The DLM / EV Papers, collected by JM and found elsewhere on this site: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Mel also wrote: A deluded person is one who subscribes to a mistaken belief or idea or, in the psychiatric sense, one who in the face of all evidence to the contrary, is resistant to all reason. Am I correct about this? YES! Mel, you are clearly deluded. I used to think you were a fictitious character, like 49, basically a con, writing lines you didn't believe, just to hurt people who have rejected your God/Lord/Guru/Teacher/Guy. Then I considered that you might be a fictitious character like a character in a novel. A capable writer has been hired, I thought, to pen your sententious drivel for money. But the world is crueller that I supposed... Mel, I misjudged you. Sorry, it seems you really are a cult victim. We can tell, you know ... so many here have been through what you are going through ... There will be multiple layers of denial to be dealt with - what's above is just for starters. Then ANGER and lots of it. Because after the biggie above there really is nowhere to go, is there? Rawat has made a prat of you. That is going to hurt a lot as you realise the ramifications. You will twist and turn in a kind of wierd bargaining process, almost pleading that Rawat (and hence your devotion to him and his 'work') be allowed some shred of authenticity, of dignity. If such quarter could be given, I've no doubt it would. People who fell for Rawat's chat-up lines are kind, open-hearted and generous. They even care about you, Mel, which is more than Rawat ever did, or will. But Rawat falsely claimed divinity and on that basis took people's money and lives. That ain't half bad, Mel. It's simply evil. Sorrow. Deep, deep, gut wrenching horrible falling sorrow at the unwanted death of so much you've help dear and secret in your heart. That's coming for you now, Mel. Sorrow for the lies you fell for; for the lies you supported. Sorrow for the sneers you directed at 'non-believers'. Sorrow for luring others into the same honey-trap. Sorrow for the hurts your misplaced faith has caused. Sorrow for wasting you life and your mind and your heart on a heartless and cruel hoax based on techniques you could have got from a book... Time heals. Your turbulence and bewilderment will ebb and flow. Thoughts of hope; of revenge; of resignation; of ANGER will follow you. Eventually you will achieve a kind of acceptance of the evil that has been done to you, and of your role in similarly abusing others. Then, you will be moved to destroy the evil that once used you and seeks still to feed its maw with trusting hearts. You've come to the right place, Mel. This is where you get to rejoin the human race.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:46:16 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: JohnT Subject: Mel Bourne admits delusion! Really? Message:

John Are you really that serious? Do you think (or wish) that I'm gonna suffer in the way that you suggest? Do you really think that you can intimidate me with such drivel? Look mate, I've had a very fulfilling career, a happy family life, good children (and hopefully, soon, grand children). I'm looking forward to a relaxing retirement in a year or two. I have good friends (premie, but predominantly non premie). In short, I am quite a worldly middle aged guy and not the fearful and pimply faced teenage 'cult member' that your patronising post would seem to suggest. The issues that are raised here actually have very little effect or influence on my day to day life, and nor should they. More important to me are the people who are severely disadvantaged through no fault of their own, who have major personal and social problems that they need assistance with, and which, fortunately (for me)is my job to provide. To me what ex-premies have to say about their former 'cult' leader is totally insignificant compared to the problems that many people have to face in their lives day after day. The fact is that I enjoy Knowledge and feel positively prediposed towards Maharaji irrespective of the allegations made here, and, despite your carping to the contrary, do not regard this as delusion. I deal in the real world far more than you can possibly imagine. To give you the benefit of the doubt, though, I can only assume that you are relating what you have experienced in the process of your own disillusionment. If this is the case, then I'm profoundly sorry that you have had to go through it. Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:16:28 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Really. Message:

Mel, It is abundantly clear from the post I put to you that Rawat claimed divinity. It is also clear from your posts that you close your eyes and mind to that evidence. In this area, for whatever reason, it pleases you to lie to yourself, and to attempt to deceive others. Why, Mel? What is the real payoff for you? Are you paid to post here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 06:19:19 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: what about the thread regarding soliciting funds? Message:

we want to hear about your views.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 10:18:40 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Selene Subject: ... about the thread regarding soliciting funds Message:

Fair enough Selene Firstly I objected to Joey's post because I thought that he was basically using a dishonest tactic in making his point, ie he was being selective in his quote from the EV Canada report to validate his view that that organisation (EV Canada) was deliberatly soliciting funds for Maharaji's personal use. EV Canada never stated that and so such a manipulation of the report was grossly unfair. A technical point if you like. In relation to Joe's and Hal's response, at least they were honest in their context and did not resort to Joey's misrepresentation and trickery. I have commented before on the the issue of an organisation requesting donations to survive and further their aims. Elan Vital is no different from any other organisation and such requests cannot be considered illegal, immoral or wrong, indeed how could they survive if they didn't. The issue of EV personnel being asked to solicit donations on behalf of Maharaji cannot be refuted. However the issues seem to be: 1. Was there any demonstrable coercion involved? 2. Was that coercion at the request of Maharaji? 3. Did any funds raised go through EV books direct to Maharaji? If the answer is 'yes' to any three of these then certainly there MAY be a question as to the legality of the activity. If the EV people requested donations without coercion and but the funds did not go through EV books, then there is really only the issue of the poor judgement of the EV officials involved, rather than a huge 'misappropriation' activity in Maharaji's favour implied by the allegations appearing here. As to the issue of whether it's illegal for premies to make financial gifts to Maharaji directly, irrespective of how they've been solicited, of course it's not. People are entitled to give gifts to whomever they please. Personally I have always followed my own inclination as to how and when I make a contribution and I can say that I have never been coerced. Basically the onus is on ex's to prove their allegations of financial malpractice especially in the light of EV documented disclosure of it's financial activities to the relevant tax authorities world wide. Considering the meticulousness and 'high' standards required in 'service' to Maharaji, I would be extremely surprised if similar rigourous standards were not applied to the crucial issue surrounding EV's financial affairs. Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 22:52:48 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: soliciting funds Message:

The issue of EV personnel being asked to solicit donations on behalf of Maharaji cannot be refuted. ... If the EV people requested donations without coercion and but the funds did not go through EV books, then there is really only the issue of the poor judgement of the EV officials involved, rather than a huge 'misappropriation' activity in Maharaji's favour implied by the allegations appearing here. Yes indeed, EV personnel did solicit donations on behalf of Maharaji, for Maharaji, and at Maharaji's direction. They did use psychological coercion, but even without coercion what has happened is illegal, in that Elan Vital is registered as a tax-exempt charity and church and is therefore not to benefit an individual. As to whether funds go through EV books direct to Maharaji, I doubt it, they instead go indirectly to him. Of course it's not illegal for premies to make financial gifts to Maharaji directly, who's saying that? How do you define 'coerced', you mean nobody put a gun to your head? No, that would be armed robbery, not a con job. Con men don't operate like that. Basically the onus is on ex's to prove their allegations of financial malpractice especially in the light of EV documented disclosure of it's financial activities to the relevant tax authorities world wide. What documented disclosure? Show me the documentation. Why would you know something about this?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 16:38:15 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: In response to Mel Message:

Firstly I objected to Joey's post because I thought that he was basically using a dishonest tactic in making his point, ie he was being selective in his quote from the EV Canada report to validate his view that that organisation (EV Canada) was deliberatly soliciting funds for Maharaji's personal use. Mel, In response to your accusation that I was employing 'a dishonest tactic' in my contribution to this discussion of the solicitation of funds in Maharaji's world, I think it's only fair to examine the context in which it took place. Simply put, I was responding to O's statement in which he ridiculuously claimed the following: Get your facts straight Joe, money for Maharaji is never solicited, period! It was O who was being deliberately dishonest by implying that there is absolutely no solicitation of funds in Maharaji's world. THAT is what I was responding to in bringing forward the most relevant, applicable quote from EV Canada's 'registered charity information return,' which clearly demolishes the totally absurd implications in O's statement. You then entered the discussion and made the distinction necessary to turn the focus towards where it is now - that is, the solicitation of money for 'Maharaji's personal use.' Of course, if what you're saying is that EV officials are not involved in the solicitations of funds for Maharaji personal use, then your claim to that effect has already been effectively countered by the responses of Hal,SB, Selene, Jerry and in a very powerful manner by Joe speaking as a former employee of Elan Vital. In fact their responses were so effective,that you've now been forced into what for a cult apologist like yourself, amounts to nothing short of defacto confession. If the EV people requested donations without coercion and but the funds did not go through EV books, then there is really only the issue of the poor judgement of the EV officials involved, rather than a huge 'misappropriation' activity in Maharaji's favour implied by the allegations appearing here. No kidding Sherlock - what's your next clue? Mel, there IS beyond any shadow of a doubt a 'huge misappropriation activity in Maharaji's favour' which is an essential feature of EV's fundraising techniques and the testimonies I've referred to make that abundantly clear. Thus you're left with no choice but to close off your defenceless defence of these fundraising techniques in 'Maharaji's favour' with the following statement. Basically the onus is on ex's to prove their allegations of financial malpractice especially in the light of EV documented disclosure of it's financial activities to the relevant tax authorities world wide. Considering the meticulousness and 'high' standards required in 'service' to Maharaji, I would be extremely surprised if similar rigourous standards were not applied to the crucial issue surrounding EV's financial affairs. As such, you're really seeking to make this an issue of legality. Yet the question that I'd like to submit for your consideration is the following. What about ethical considerations, Mel? And by that I mean this. If the goal of Elan Vital in the US as a public charity, is as pure and noble as spreading Maharaji's message to all people interested in the US and throughout the world in order to enhance their quality of being-then why cannot EV-US apply rigorous standards of disclosure to the PUBLIC at large, and not only to the relevant tax authotity, namely the IRS. As you know Mel, as a religious organization EV does not have to file any annual returns to the IRS, it just has to keep its books in order in the enventuality of IRS inspection. Nor is it obligated to file a Form 990 for public scrutiny. However if EV wanted to, it could VOLUNTARILY file a FORM 990, and do you know Mel that there are in fact organizations in the US under NO LEGAL obligation to file a FORM 990, and yet they do so anyways, because they consider it an ethical imperative for them to demonstrate the transparency in their financial affairs to the public? Could it be Mel, that EV is afraid that the public might find out that while EV's financial affairs are on the surface legally in order, the transparency befitting an organization with such seemingly pure and noble objectives just doesn't exist? Why is it Mel, that it always comes down to a matter of 'legality' for you guys? Why is it that you seem to be impervious to ethical considerations?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:15:10 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Joey Subject: great post, Joey, but I don't see the correction.. Message:

or rather, I don't see the incorrect part which you say reads However if EV wanted to, it could VOLUNTARILY file a FORM 990, and do yoexist? on your original post. Check Shields up and close that open port which may be allowing other people to mess with your computer. It's easy to do and the website explains how to do it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 00:10:27 (GMT) From: Oliver Email: None To: gerry Subject: Great Link Gerry (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 18:31:03 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: gerry Subject: Thanks gerry ! Message:

gerry, Here's part of an email that I just sent Brian. I hope it explains the situation. 'I posted a response to Mel in his latest thread. I took my time with it, checked it over thoroughly to make sure there were no mistakes. When it was posted I checked it over again and there were no mistakes. Then I checked it again and a whole chunk was missing, leaving only one senetence of one paragraph with a rather twisted ending. I was working online all the time and so then I switched to offline to post a 'correction' post reconstructing the missing part as best I could from memory, and a further post to explain the correction post. They appeared correctly, but then when I checked the original post 'In response to Mel,' the missing chunk REAPPEARED.' Thanks for the compliment on the post. Much appreciated. And also for the 'Shields ' link. I'll DEFINITELY be checking it out.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 17:12:04 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Joey Subject: CORRECTION Message:

A section of my post was tampered with. Lets see what happens here when I'm working offline as opposed to online. However if EV wanted to, it could VOLUNTARILY file a FORM 990, and do yoexist? should read 'However if EV wanted to, it could VOLUNTARILY file a FORM 990 in an effort to demonstrate to the public the transparency in its financial affairs. Do you know Mel, that there are charities under no obligation to file a FORM 990 and yet they do precisely that because they consider it ethically imperative for them to do so?' Why is it Mel, that it always comes down to a matter of 'legality' for you guys? Why is it that you seem to be impervious to ethical considerations?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 17:28:31 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Joey Subject: PS re:CORRECTION Message:

Because I have an unlimited time plan with my server I tend to compose my posts online. Believe me, I did not post this. However if EV wanted to, it could VOLUNTARILY file a FORM 990, and do yoexist? I took great care in my response to Mel and again, this is what I posted. 'However if EV wanted to, it could VOLUNTARILY file a FORM 990 in an effort to demonstrate to the public the transparency in its financial affairs. Do you know Mel, that there are charities under no obligation to file a FORM 990 and yet they do precisely that because they consider it ethically imperative for them to do so?' I really have no doubt that the assholes are into my computer.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 10:59:52 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Joey Subject: could it be solar interference? Message:

apparently a few days ago the sun gave a massive electromagnetic burp. Could have affected one of the 'packets' that your message was sent in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:47:16 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Joey Subject: could it be solar interference? Message:

Joey, cq could be right. As machines get smaller they get more prone to interference. And manufacturers actually put less shielding in their boxes these days. However, I was also composing online at the same time as you, writing to the impossible 'Mel' person (not that he seems to care for my concern!). I was on-line for hours late yesterday afternoon and evening. Now, early drafts of that post to 'Mel' certainly ruminated about his reality. 'and do yoexist?' was probably typed by me. I was concentrating on the screen, and my hands slipped. The piece I had been typing disappeared from the 'write your reply' box, and I started over. Your piece (which now looks OK) appeared while I was still online, so I have little doubt that we were both engaged in on-line editing with our browsers pointing here at the same time. Perhaps my accident impinged on your post as it was arriving? If FAs require more details (browser, os, whatever) I'll gladly furnish same, privately.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 17:52:55 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: JohnT Subject: the satellites would be most prone to interference Message:

From the 'Guardian Unlimited' site: The sun's activity is entering the peak of its 11-year cycle this year, and scientists predict more space storms to come. In 1989, 6m people in Canada were left without electrical power when a surge caused by a solar eruption knocked out Quebec's hydro-electric system. Three years ago, a TV relay satellite, Telstar 401, died as it was beaming an episode of Star Trek down to the US. In 1998, four-fifths of all pagers in the US failed when another satellite, Galaxy 4, was overwhelmed during intense solar activity. 'The thing is a cloud of gas carrying its own magnetic field,' said Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton laboratory in Didcot, Oxfordshire. 'The earth has a magnetic field, and when you bring two magnets together you expect to see an effect.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 16:55:33 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: JohnT Subject: I could see how this could happen Message:

Odd but not entirely impossible. especiallly if the edits go into a temporary buffer area on the server before they get posted here, which they must do. Selene 'I hate computers it's Monday'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 16:32:45 (GMT) From: Consider this..... Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: ... about the thread regarding soliciting funds Message:

Elan Vital has always had a well-oiled machine for funneling money to your 'Lord of the Universe'. It has been my experience many times that methods of coercion were frequently used. For example in May/June of 1980 calls went out over the community phone trees concerning the 'wretched' state of the Malibu 'Divine Residence' and would premies please give money even if it meant pawning jewelry, selling assets, or converting savings. There were specific instructions that can be verified by Rosie Lee and Randy Prouty (Initiatiors at that time) who further delineated that the funds were not to go to Elan Vital as the PAMs were working on setting up Corporate Structures to purchase land around the 'Divine Residence' but did not want the Malibu Commission to become suspicious. I have receipts for every penny that went toward this activity. One practice during this time that I find particularly repugnant was assigning community phone tree personnel with selected premies based upon their ability to co-erce that individual and prey upon their emotional weak points. Another instance that comes to my mind was once again an 'urgent' request for funding of one of the 'Lord of the Universe's' pet projects. In our community we were told to make our checks out to the 'Association for Self-Knowledge' a corporate structure whose officers included James Barrass and Sally Sidner (Initiatior). I have cancelled checks that can verify the contributions to this association which in turn channeled the funds to the 'Lord of the Universe' or his corporate agents. At no time in the late seventies, the entire eighties, and I assume the nineties were premies informed of an entity known as SEVA Corporation of America who along with an 'Absentee Owner' were scamming the premies for obtaining land, toys, ‘what have you’ for the 'Lord of the Universe'. At no time were premies told of the inimitable powers of the likes of Robert A Jacobs, Kenneth Delaski, Michael Dettmers, Alvaro Pascotto ..... ad nauseum. We were mislead and coerced as to the 'true' identities of those pulling the strings for the 'Lord of the Universe' and his Corporate Empire. BTW - 'Divine Residence' and 'Lord of the Universe' are terms that were used by Elan Vital during each and every 'urgent' fundraising event in my community.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:15:29 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Consider this..... Subject: Association for Self-Knowledge Message:

The following is from the Florida Division of Corporations web site, the Search on Officer page. I searched on 'James Barras'. Notice that it was non-profit and that it was INVOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED. Florida Non Profit ASSOCIATION FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, INC. PRINCIPAL ADDRESS % MARTHA HILMAR-REILLY PO BOX 442 GAINESVILLE FL 32602-7442 Changed 08/11/1987 MAILING ADDRESS % MARTHA HILMAR-REILLY PO BOX 442 GAINESVILLE FL 32602-7442 Changed 08/11/1987 Document Number: N16138 FEI Number: 592696741 Date Filed: 07/30/1986 State: FL Status: INACTIVE Effective Date: NONE Last Event: INVOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED Event Date Filed: 11/04/1988 Event Effective Date: NONE Registered Agent Name & Address HILMAR-REILLY, MARTHA 322 SOUTHEAST 51ST STREET PO BOX 442 GAINESVILLE FL 32602-0442 Name Changed: 08/11/1987 Officer/Director Detail Name; Title & Address, Title WADDELL, BROOKE; PD 6811 NW 53 BOULEVARD, GAINESVILLE FL HILMAR-REILLY, MARTHA; TD 322 SE 51 STREET, GAINESVILLE FL WADDELL, TERRIE; SD 6811 NW 53 BLVD., GAINESVILLE FL BARRASS, JAMES; D 3915 NW 37 PL., GAINESVILLE FL SEGNITZ, LUKE; D 905 N.W. 40 AVENUE, GAINESVILLE FL SIDNER, SALLY; D 815 NE 10 AVENUE, GAINESVILLE FL Annual Reports Report Year, Filed Date, Intangible Tax 1987, 08/11/1987

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 23:32:34 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: all Subject: Assn for Spirit. Dev. and Research ? Message:

Here is another possibly related Inc. I say that because of the time frame, similar name and events, addresses. Were any of these people premies? Florida Non Profit ASSOCIATION FOR SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT & RESEARCH, INC. PRINCIPAL ADDRESS 270 N. CANNON DR. SUITE 1119T DRIVE,SUITE 40 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 Changed 08/05/1986 MAILING ADDRESS 270 N. CANNON DR. SUITE 1119T DRIVE,SUITE 40 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 Changed 08/05/1986 Document Number: 727397 FEI Number: 591602671 Date Filed: 09/07/1973 State: FL Status: INACTIVE Effective Date: NONE Last Event: INVOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED Event Date Filed: 11/04/1988 Event Effective Date: NONE Registered Agent Name & Address LEDERMAN, ROBERT, ESQUIRE 9040 SUNSET DRIVE SUITE 40 MIAMI FL 33173 Address Changed: 08/16/1985 Officer/Director Detail Name; Title & Address NACHMAN, ELIZABETH; P 2248 W. 243RD ST., LOMITA CA GRANDFIELD, ROBERT; T 1647 WICKLON COURT, WESTLAKE VILLAGE CA BELANGER, LINA; S 2783 VILLERAY, MONTREAL, QUEBEC DOLCE, JIM; V 1520 STEARNS, #4, LA HABRA CA NELSON,MOHAMMED; V 1900 E. OCEAN #1614, LONG BEACH CA Annual Reports Report Year, Filed Date, Intangible Tax 1985, 08/16/1985 1986, 08/05/1986 1987, 06/29/1987 Events: INVOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED 11/04/1988 REINSTATEMENT 05/02/1984 INVOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED 12/16/1981

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 22:12:45 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Consider this..... Subject: ... about the thread regarding soliciting funds Message:

Yes absolutely. I have 2 friends who consider they are in service because they track down the latest stereo music systems for fatso and his slimy brother. There are many other pwiks who's 'service' is to track down the latest car info and other material goody info for ol' greedy guts. Some premie told me that when Marolyn has a massage from a premie accupuncturist that she doesn't even say thank you to them as she considers that they are doing service. Does this suck or what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:30:06 (GMT) From: Larkin Email: temporarily none To: Everyone Subject: Muddlebrain Fair Message:

Tom Pearce, Tom Pearce - a minute to spare? All along, down along, out along lee... For I want to lure you to Muddlebrain Fair - With Harry Krishna, Harry Rama, Guru Charanand, Krishnasukanand Peter Dawson, Rennie Davis Jagdeo, Rich Neale And a load of old cobblers and all... A load of old cobblers and all. Premie Pearce, Premie Pearce, lend me your free mind All along, down along, out along lee... For I want to screw and bamboozle you blind - With Harry Krishna, Harry Rama, Guru Charanand, Krishnasukanand Yoram Weiss, Ann Johnson Bal Bagwan Ji, Shri Hans Ji With a load of old cobblers and all... A load of old cobblers and all. And when will I see again my free mind? All along, down along, out along lee... Well maybe in five, six or seven rebirths' time - With Harry Krishna, Harry Rama, Guru Char'nand, Krishnasukanand Michael Dettmers, Jon Cainer Jagdeo, Rich Neale And a load of old cobblers and all... A load of old cobblers and all. Well me mind struggled long with this fucking great load All along, down along, out along lee... But died when I kissed the small feet of a toad - With Harry Krishna, Harry Rama, Guru Char'nand, Krishnasukanand Bill Patterson, David Smith Jagdeo, Rich Neale For a load of old cobblers and all... A load of old cobblers and all. Now the ghost of my mind sometimes whispers at dawn All along, down along, out along lee... But there's no turning back now my soul is reborn - to do service, sing praises, watch videos, show gratitude salutations, donations buy trinkets, sign chequebook For a load of old cobblers and all........ (Everybody..! Sing up at the back now, Shroom...) A load of old cobblers and all..!.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 12:37:42 (GMT) From: sid Email: None To: Larkin Subject: Muddlebrain Fair Message:

Ho ho ho. Thanks for your efforts larkin. I sang it out loud and pissed myself in the process. Do some more.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:47:17 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Larkin Subject: Who's Tom Pearce? Never heard of him. (NT) Message:

zzzzzzz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:56:37 (GMT) From: Larkin Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: English folk song: Widdecombe Fair Message:

If you haven't heard it, the above parody will make little sense.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:31:48 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Larkin Subject: That's great! (nt) Message:

hhhhh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:02:09 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: FA's -- what's with the software glitch? Message:

What's going on with this thing that happens where some posts don't show up for hours sometimes?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:22:21 (GMT) From: Forum Admin Email: None To: Jim Subject: FA's -- what's with the software glitch? Message:

It's a new one on me, Jim. Can you give any more info about when or how often this has happened? (And are you sure it isn't just a case of you looking at a cached version of the page. If so, clicking 'reload' will fix it.) But is anyone else experiencing the same?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:25:32 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Forum Admin Subject: Actually, it's been happening a fair bit Message:

Can you read my post below, for example? 'Premies are getting funnier all the time'? I can't. And no, it's not a matter of refreshing. It's just this thing that happens once in a while. It happened with one of Carol's posts the other day. The one that I replied to with a subject heading along the lines of 'too bad your post finalyl showed up'. (well, you had to be there.) But, sure, it's been happening lots.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:31:34 (GMT) From: Forum Admin Email: None To: Jim Subject: Actually, it's been happening a fair bit Message:

Ok, I'll have to discuss with others more knowledgeable..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:25:20 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Forum Admin Subject: there is one right below here Message:

and one by cq that didn't come through today, where he responded to Carol.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 18:54:07 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Premies are getting funnier all the time Message:

Here's a silly and apparently unintentionally funny poem from ELK: Remembrance Being connected to the master is like rowing a boat which is at anchor Yet, to remain in that remembrance day and night fills my cup with the sweetest joy. Anna Rose Lüthi Bern, Switzerland What's next? Something like this?: Drowning Being connected to the master is like having someone push your face under water Yet, to remain in that appreciation is to finish a poem with empty religious cliches I dunno. They're funnier because they're not even trying. I mean, look at what Shroom said below. Trying to argue that there's no pressure to give money to the Hamster, he makes the point that he never gave any even when they were 'urgently' trying to make him do just that. Or Kjarne saying that Maharaji's not a fraud because he, Kjarne, doesn't think he is! I'm sorry, these guys are clowns. So let's see what else ELK has today ..... Well, there's good, ol' Ivette again: A breeze in silence Hearing the silence Breathing its message Transcending everything I know Discovering love in a breeze Sunlight melting snow into Glittering drops of love Covering me in blessings. Ivete Belfort Mattos Sao Paulo, Brazil Sorry, am I wrong to find this hilarious? Stupid, hilarious empty, meaningless and terribly, terribly confused? What IS this shit about 'silence breathing its message transcending everything I know'? Kabir should be banned. Once we got a taste of that poetic paradox thing we got so fat on it, look at what happened? And that's not even touching the other stupid, hackneyed cliched junk, the 'melting snowdrops of love'..... yech! But then maybe that's just because Ivette's a South American female premie type and we all KNOW how emotional and silly they can get, right? Let's see what a good, ol' American, male premie has to say. Surely, this will have SOME content, no? Maybe something practical or something.... Magic Life is so magical and kind that with the singing of a wild songbird, a giggling baby is found/ known. Jim Sakshaug Marblemount, USA There's something very, very disturbing about that baby, if you ask me. Maybe it's the uncertanity. Is that little fucker found or is it known? Look, I know this is magic but even magic has to make some sense, doesn't it? What, pray tell, IS this shit? And what, more importantly, has happened to Mr. Sakshaug? Okay, what else is there? Oh, how about this? A little fake John Bunyan group sex, premie-style, perhaps?: The three sisters A poem inspired by my master I danced with sisters Verity and Clarity all night. We talked just like old friends until the morning light. They told me tales of wonder, of happiness and cheer, and of their sister, Love, who lives not far from here. When I asked if they would show me the way, 'cos it was dark, they sang in unison: 'ASK YOUR HEART.' The three sisters, they tease me so, The three sisters, never let me go. The three sisters, they can do what they like, 'cos the three sisters treat me right. Robert Irwin Alexandria, USA Somehow, the Maharaji cult makes people stupid. That's all I can figure. Either that or it attracts stupid people to begin with. Oops!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 04:40:33 (GMT) From: tonette Email: None To: Jim Subject: So true- LMAO! nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 01:32:42 (GMT) From: Kjarne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Premies are getting funnier all the time Message:

So, Jim you are saying that all people who don`t agree with you are stupid? You must really be the Crown Of Creation!!!.(Or maybe just the clown of creation???.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 03:18:32 (GMT) From: hamzen Email: None To: Kjarne Subject: Kjarne, just for a minute forget you're a premie, Message:

look at those posts, now c'mon, purllease I won't tell nobody, I promise, trust me, ............... ............... long enough? Exactly, you see even you know there are limits on decency, and those poems are........nuff said I think....... right so at least we agree now that those particular posts Jim put up were a bit sad, you see premies and exes CAN communicate across the great divide!.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 17:52:23 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Come on, premies -- deal with THIS! Message:

From EV's new FAQ: Did Maharaji ever say he was God? No, Maharaji never at any time claimed to be God. From The DLM / EV Papers, collected by JM and found lesewhere on this site: Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. There are many, many more examples of Maharaji calling himself God but one will suffice. I can't imagine a simpler, yet more blatant lie. What sayest thou, premies?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 23:06:58 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: Jim Subject: Come on, premies -- deal with THIS! Message:

Thank you. I printed it out. And 'O''s reply below is ridiculous ----to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 01:07:32 (GMT) From: O Email: None To: Elaine Subject: Come on Elaine it's only logical Message:

God by definition cannot be created or destroyed so by definition,God in its entirety cannot be encapsulated within a 3dimensional entity. So whatever Guru is he cannot be God: ie,because Guru is indeed a three dimensional entity.So when it's said he's the highest manifestation of God it is to say at best he is the most reasonable facsimile of God that can be created.And you know what a facsimile is Elaine :a copy ,a replica,not the original. All of creation has been described as a manifestation of God.A slug for example is a manifestation of God.But to say a slug is God just because yuo recognize it as a manifestation of God would be ridiculous.No,a slug is just one of the many manifestations of God.But I think it can be safely said that human beings are a higher manifestation of God than slugs .Take another step and ask then what is the very highest manifestation of God possible?Answer according to the quote:Guru.But again,by definition a manifestation can only ever be a facsimile and could never be considered God him/herself. So based on logic alone the quote Jim posted does not represent Maharaji saying he is God.By saying he is a manifestation it is more an admission that he is NOT God..It's actually very clear when you think about it. Now comes the question:is he in fact the highest manifestation of God or is it say Jim,or Joey.That's where it becomes a matter of opinion.But based on what he said in the quote he certainly cannot be called a liar.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 09:25:44 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: O Subject: Grade A + for creative reasoning O nt Message:

dss

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 03:29:33 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: O Subject: Oh my God! (Or should I say 'O, my God'?) Message:

Listen, you idiot, the faster you spin your wheels, the further you're sinking. What you're saying is complete garbage. Maharaji said he was God a million times a million ways. Each one alone was enough to set up his premies with a life-long belief that -- you've got it -- he was God. And you? Look at you! You know, there is nothing so sweet for a trial lawyer like myself as the moment that a witness starts doing what you're doing. Melting down, that is. If there was a jury watching you they'd be laughing. If there were any reasonable people reading you, they'd be laughing. You're a joke. Fuck off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 19:04:16 (GMT) From: O Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oh my God! (Or should I say 'O, my God'?) Message:

You said>>>'Listen, you idiot, the faster you spin your wheels, the further you're sinking. What you're saying is complete garbage. Maharaji said he was God a million times a million ways. Each one alone was enough to set up his premies with a life-long belief that -- you've got it -- he was God. Me>>>Come on Jim, you may say the argument I outlined is splitting hairs but technically I have proven logically that by saying Guru is the highest manifestation of God he is not saying he IS God.You can make excuses till the cows come home about whether he intended us to believe one way or another but that is totally irrelevant.Bottom line is HE DIDN'T SAY HE WAS GOD, period. You said>>>'You know, there is nothing so sweet for a trial lawyer like myself as the moment that a witness starts doing what you're doing. Melting down, that is.' Me>>>How do lawyers feel when they think you've got somebody on the ropes and in their zealous gloating get nailed with an upper cut that puts them on the canvas? You said>>>'If there were any reasonable people reading you, they'd be laughing. You're a joke. Fuck off.' Me>>Well all I can say is it's a good thing there's no reasonable people reading this stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 00:31:24 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: O Subject: No! Message:

Come on Jim, you may say the argument I outlined is splitting hairs but technically I have proven logically that by saying Guru is the highest manifestation of God he is not saying he IS God. Nonsense. You've done no such thing. The only thing you proved was that premies can be total idiots. There's no talking with you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:01:41 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: O Subject: Alright. alright,alright Message:

The point is - we're sitting out in the audience, for God's sake, and M says that - you can not tell me the effect(affect?) it had on the crowd wasn't exactly what he anticipated - which was we would believe he was God.He expected worship. Jim's quote was very revealing to me. I feel you are splitting hairs. Tho I see the logic of what you are saying - it doesn't change the fact he knew it would hook us. (And in a big way.) And with all that - I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. I know I've had experiences inside that would indicate he was the Lord of the Universe. I just can't erase those. That's why I still call myself a premie. Christ or the Virgin Mary or Buddha didn't manifest inside me when the Universe was expanding and imploding in my consciousness - it was Maharaji himself. I don't know. Gotta go.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:09:34 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Elaine Subject: Jesus, Elaine! Message:

...I see the logic of what you are saying... That's insane. What O's saying isn't just splitting hairs, it's complete poppycock. Must I? -- God by definition cannot be created or destroyed so by definition,God in its entirety cannot be encapsulated within a 3dimensional entity. So whatever Guru is he cannot be God: ie,because Guru is indeed a three dimensional entity. The first dumbass thing. What O is saying, essentially, is that because it doesn't make sense that Maharaji could be God he couldn't have claimed that he was. Well, whether it makes sense or not is far from the question. The question is whether or not he made the claim. The answer, of course, is that he did. It's as plain as day. So when it's said he's the highest manifestation of God it is to say at best he is the most reasonable facsimile of God that can be created.And you know what a facsimile is Elaine :a copy ,a replica,not the original. Just as I said. What O is saying equates to this: being that Maharaji would be wrong if he claimed to be God, let's find the closest thing he might say that could possibly be right, assuming, quite stupidly, I must say, that the Hamster coudln't be wrong. That's not just dumb it's bizarre. It's just like Maharaji saying that you, Elaine, are eight years old. Maharaji would be wrong to say that, right? Of course he would. Well, O here would try to sell you some hare-brained explanation that might avoid that simple fact. And look at you, buying it! All of creation has been described as a manifestation of God.A slug for example is a manifestation of God.But to say a slug is God just because yuo recognize it as a manifestation of God would be ridiculous.No,a slug is just one of the many manifestations of God.But I think it can be safely said that human beings are a higher manifestation of God than slugs .Take another step and ask then what is the very highest manifestation of God possible?Answer according to the quote:Guru.But again,by definition a manifestation can only ever be a facsimile and could never be considered God him/herself. Well this is just more of that same stupidity. And talk about fucking with language! 'Manifestation' means exactly the opposite of what O says. It means a form of the thing itself. Here's one internet dictionary's definition (as if we needed to play these stupid games!): man·i·fes·ta·tion (mn-f-stshn) n. 1) The act of manifesting. 2) The state of being manifested. 3) An indication of the existence, reality, or presence of something: A high fever is an early manifestation of the disease. 4) One of the forms in which someone or something, such as a person, a divine being, or an idea, is revealed. The materialized form of a spirit. 5) A public demonstration, usually of a political nature. I've underlined the salient parts. But I mean really! As if any of this is necessary. We all know what the word means. Frankly, I find this whole exercise disgusting. So based on logic alone the quote Jim posted does not represent Maharaji saying he is God.By saying he is a manifestation it is more an admission that he is NOT God..It's actually very clear when you think about it. Are we laughing yet, Elaine? We should be. And, yes, we (i.e. you) should be taking a good, hard look at yourself and laughing at same. To think that you commended O on his 'logic'. Too fucking much. Now comes the question:is he in fact the highest manifestation of God or is it say Jim,or Joey.That's where it becomes a matter of opinion.But based on what he said in the quote he certainly cannot be called a liar. This is the stuff that makes cults so funny, Elaine. Isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:26:04 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: FA's Subject: Shit! -- FA's? I lost another one Message:

The post above, Jesus, Elaine! turned out blank again. This sucks. Have you guys gotten any closer to figuring out why this happens? Thanks much

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:16:12 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: LOL! 1st time I'm happy to find a blank post! nt Message:

qqqqqqqq

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:01:09 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Oh yeah? When you read it you'll weep, Stonor (nt Message:

ffffff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:09:36 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: Preparez vos mouchoirs! A tear-jerker!!! (nt) Message:

You should stop wasting good 'money' on Elaine and I - throwing good money after bad or some such thing. Hey Jim, I'd take you over Shroom any day - at least you're funny sometimes!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:01:31 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Jim Subject: Shit Jim-'n I got all my favourite hankies out! nt Message:

I didn't even laugh until I cried. :(((((

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:18:48 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Stonor Subject: You said 'nt' ... but you 't'd'...why? (nt) Message:

Not me. You.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:45:55 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Elaine Subject: Alright. alright,alright Message:

Was checking out the Sai Baba site G posted above, and thought that you might find this interesting. It's an excerpt from a text written by David Bailey, an 'ex' Sai Baba devotee. Things I blindly accepted because I had been told they were so, did not stand up in the light of close scrutiny. Even the men in power around him, although they act out a role of subservient adoration when in front of Sai Baba, play a different part away from him. On occasions I was with members of the inner circle, Mr Rao for example, in the main office. Once, I had been sent by Swami for something and the reply he gave me ended with the words “Swami doesn’t know what he is talking about” (!) Yet they perpetrate the idea that he knows everything. Over this questioning span of many months I have had my share of indoctrination procedure from those in high places. While at the ashram, my very first queries brought intense social interaction from an Indian inner circle member who, unknown and uninvited, visited Faye and me in our unit after almost every darshan for a week, to tell us of the many wonders of Swami’s miraculous powers. Only later did we understand why he did this. Once back home, when rumours were beginning to fly about our defection from the fold, I received several phone calls from long standing devotees from the VIP lines, telling me that I had a problem. I had to decide if Sai Baba was God or not. If he was God, then he could do everything he wanted to anyone, sexually, fraudulently, drugs, trickery etc, but of course if I did not accept him as God, then I had my own view of morals, and the laws of my land to follow. For me there was no choice to make. I know there are instances worldwide of people going to Prashanthi, and coming back with a new lease of life, but so do people who visit the many other gurus in India, or Mother Meera, or Lourdes, and so on. My investigations into mind power find simple explanations for this. If even only a handful of people sit quietly together to do Yoga meditation, circle work, or just to meditate, they expect and often get a lovely atmosphere, and sometimes, healing happens. Imagine the energy that might be generated by hundreds of people sitting quietly focused for an hour or two in darshan. Amongst these are probably some natural or trained psychics, and natural or trained healers, as well as many people sitting still and focused for a lengthy period, perhaps for the first time in their lives. Different experiences are bound to occur. Nothing to do with Sai Baba. I think the ‘love-connection’ people experience is simply one connecting with one’s Self. When one gets involved with Sai Baba, a very subtle brain washing commences. Sitting for hours in darshan is one of these. When one sees all around with hands in prayer position, one naturally follows suite. Once attached and involved, common sense and logic progressively disappears, until one reaches the point of attributing every small act of living to Sai Baba.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 14:46:14 (GMT) From: Elaine Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Thanks, Stonor... Message:

It's funny - but I'd read that a long time ago. Yes, I find VERY interesting the phenomenon of things happening bec of some belief system. When I was a teen and doing maybe my first LSD trip - alone in my bedroom in the country ( after a concert) - I was 'spacing out' looking at my ceiling - when all of a sudden there were scintillating sparkles up there and I was very mesmerized - when all of a sudden in a swooping way - this full Crucifix w/ Christ's body 'appeared' above me - like on a 12' X 12' ceiling. Well,you never saw a night lite go off any faster. Later, I told my sister (in College) about it - and she also said she was on the shore on Long Island w/ a boyfriend probably her first time or so on acid - when she also was having 'religious' stuff happen ---and her boyfriend Greg said it was our Catholic programming and just stuff in out subconscious. Totally, poo-pooed it. I've always wondered about it. When I was meditating as a young initiate ( only 2 months into it,I'd say) I don't feel there was enough programming - I could be wrong - I was into 'just ' meditating --- I wasn't thinking or picturing Maharaji - that I can think of...when I had a very profound and surprising experience after meditaing quit awhile. (I may have been fasting for a couple days.) That would probably be the main reason why I say -'I don't know who Maharaji is.' It was just so deeply amazing.( And there were other neat experiences also.) I was never one of those meditators that 'planned there day' while sitting there.Only bec of this Website have I even questioned those experiences,BTW. ___________ I also have an aquaintance that thinks when a person has a NDE or, for me, a vision/experience of a past life - it can be explained away as chemicals in the brain and he goes on and on. Well, 'he' didn't have any past life experiences - I did -and it is realer than anything - it's not 'just' chemicals. And I relate to what I saw happening in that past life as an experience that has formed 'me' - in this life.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 22:52:47 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Elaine Subject: Thank G for that link's info! Message:

Hi Elaine, I've spent most of my time wondering about things alone. I've never seen these questions as something to 'argue' about (in the contemporary sense of the word), and any discussion that moves into who is right or wrong about their subjective experiences is anathema to me. My life is filled with 'magical' moments and experiences which no one could ever convince me aren't real (please don't jump to conclusions, some of these are extremely everyday, or not). However they can be described or interpreted, to me they are far more real than most else in this world. I probably don't have a clue of where you are at, but I feel that there's something that I need to say here. I feel that you, like me, and apparently unlike most premies, are still searching. You rightly, IMO, are reluctant to 'trash' someone who has played such a significantly positive role in your life. Like all animal life, we look to our 'elders', and others, as 'teachers', and like those before us, we pass on their teachings to others. When we learn that someone is not to be trusted, or has been abusive, we try to both provide support/healing for the victim(s) and expose the deceitful person, or at very least to warn others. This is also part of the same chain. Although no one has taken a count that I know of, I have come to believe that the majority of exes are still very much interested in personal/'spiritual development and are still actively seeking this through various paths. Unfortunately, those most aggressively anti-'spiritual' stand out in our minds, so our 'picture' of exes can become somewhat distorted at times. I do believe that the majority are basically concerned with exposing m, warning others against him, and hopefully at least limit, if not put a complete end, to his 'teaching' - a healthy and normal response, given the content of their journeys and posts here, I'm sure you'd agree. The question on almost everyone's mind seems to be why you continue to call yourself a premie and sit on the fence given the information currently available about m, and others like him. No one is all good or bad, and if you've read some of the journeys here, you know that even some of the most aggressively 'anti-m' people here can consider m with understanding, and yes, compassion. That doesn't mean that what he has done or is doing is remotely OK, particularly for someone in his position, especially considering the claims he has repeatedly made - at least for anyone who is not a die-hard guru-groupie, which you clearly are not. Is it so difficult to understand that the issue here is not about meditation, nor even really about m himself (who IMO is at least seriously mis-guided, even if to some extent well-meaning at times - aren't we all?), but rather about what havoc the m-machine has been wreaking in many lives and why it should be stopped. Does m have any special 'power' because you had visions of him? I don't know if that's really an issue, given some of the studies that have been posted here. I think it was at least a 'manifestation' of your own desire to find a truly significant relationship with 'God'. Margaret Anderson wrote, 'Most of our troubles are caused by the inability to realize emotionally what we understand intellectually.' If we take the love someone might feel for their guru down into the everyday 'love' relationship, I'm sure this becomes more clear. Intellectually we may realize that there may be a need for some kind of change, but emotionally we are often blocked from acting on that awareness. I don't think you have any problem understanding the intellectual argument against the m-machine, but it's the personal/emotional one that keeps you calling yourself a premie. Here's a quote from Gurdjieff: It is not a question of to whom a man prays, but it is a question of his faith. Owing to faith alone there appears in a being the self-consciousness necessary for him and also the valuation of personal Being as a particle of everything existing in the universe. Faith is conscience, the foundation of which is laid in childhood. If a man changes his religion he loses his conscience, and since conscience is sustained by his faith and his faith by his religion, therefore I respect his religion and for me it would be a great sin if I should judge his religion or disillusion him in it and thereby destroy his conscience which can only be acquired in childhood.' I don't know if this post is at all of interest to you, but I hope at least some part of it tells you that I care about you, Elaine, and others here do as well. Anna

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 01:48:11 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Elaine Subject: 'I probably don't have a clue of where you are at' Message:

wrote Stonor. I hate to butt in here, Elaine, but do you know what's with this woman who calls herself Stonor? She has admitted that she's a non-anything. She doesn't have Knowledge, yet she continually tries to give her opinion about Maharaji and Knowledge like she knows what she's talking about. What's her trip? Why does she come here and try to talk about it? She doesn't know what Knowledge is or what experiences it has provided to those of us who have received it. Yet she continually comes here to express her opinion. Am I missing something here? I couldn't imagine coming to a site where the people were expressing their dissatisfaction about their teacher and then trying to join in on the discussion without ever having the Knowledge they were talking about. Her intellectualization of this topic is, to me, patently offensive. How do you feel about someone analyzing you about your experiences and lecturing you about Maharaji and Knowledge and then urging you to get off the fence when she doesn't have Knowledge? I find it pretty weird!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:16:25 (GMT) From: Michael Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Stay out of it, Mushroom-person Message:

Gee, you sure get nervous if someone starts thinking, eh? Let Elaine work through this without your meddling. Were you sent here to keep an eye on any doubting premies? Just keep saying 'I love listening to Maharaji, practising his knowledge, and knowing that he is a pilot. I love listening to Maharaji, practising his knowledge, and knowing that he is a pilot.I love listening to Maharaji, practising his knowledge, and knowing that he is a pilot.I love listening to Maharaji, practising his knowledge, and knowing that he is a pilot...'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:20:25 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Subject: What?!? Maharaji's a pilot???! Message:

What's this now, Michael? Maharaji's a pilot? Nooo!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:33:52 (GMT) From: Michael Email: None To: Jim Subject: What?!? Maharaji's a pilot???! Message:

AND he invents things and is a savvy investor, too! All this while being a humble Master. And to think that you and I have said nasty things about him and left the fold. Did we say bad things about him when he gave us his free gift? I mean, for Christ's sake, the guy's a pilot!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 09:30:13 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Stonor Subject: Thanks for that Stonora - much of a muchness nt Message:

br

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 19:51:39 (GMT) From: O Email: None To: Jim Subject: Stop the rpesses --the answer at last! Message:

I have the answer for you dear brother Jim.In the quote you posted of Maharaji he says 'The highest manifestation of God is Guru.' OK let's tear this statement apatr.First let's ask what is a 'manifestation'? Mirriam-Webster says:'something that has been materialized'. While we're at it let's also look at the definition of the verb 'to manifest'. Mirriam-Webster says:'to make evident or certain by showing or displaying'. Next ask the question what is God? God has been said by just about every religion to be something that was not created (ie, not materialized) and can never be destroyed.They also say it can't be comprehended with the mind because it its unmanifest status but that's another argument.The main point is that God by definition can NOT be materialized. So where does that leave us dear brother?Well heres the thing.By saying 'Guru is the highest manifestation of God' you are in fact saying Guru is NOT God.That is because God can never be manifested (ie, created).What you are saying is that Guru is the best representation or display of that unmanifest thing the 3 demensions have to offer. To summarize:Guru is the highest *manifestation* of God but as a mere manifestation he is not to be confused as being God himself. Hope this clears up all the confusion and you all can get on with your lives :s)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:35:23 (GMT) From: The doubter Email: None To: Jim Subject: Come on, premies -- deal with THIS! Message:

I read extracts from this speech before. To me this seems to be changed now. In my recollection it used to be 'Satguru' not 'Guru Maharaji' in this quote. Is there any difference? From my understanding, the concept of satguru, used to be understood as the spirit as well as the embodyment of that spirit that have the power to bring a person from darkness to light. Maharaji talks now about the 'Master'. It is in my understanding the 'Master' or the 'Satguru' or the 'Guru' manifests himself for the sincere student. For others, this 'rolemodel' during the history, has been a nobody. So what is your point Jim? Changing some texts, not such a big deal, huh? Who is Maharaji? Nobody knows.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 18:52:45 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jim Subject: What's your point, Jim? That Knowledge doesn't Message:

work? That I should stop practicing Knowledge and listening to him because he said that he never claimed to be God? When you were still a devotee, he claimed to be God and he also said that he wasn't God, just a humble servant of God. Didn't bother you then, did it? Why don't you tell us about Knowledge? That's what this is really all about, isn't it? It works for me and it works for a lot of others as well. It worked for you and others for years. Now he's a 'liar'. But he was a 'liar' then too. Right? Come on Jim. What's your real issue?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 00:30:15 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: You've missed a vital point Mr Mushroom Message:

It's not about 'knowledge' and it never has been. It's always been about Maharaji and that's the way he wants it. If it was about knowledge then there would still be satsang programs with ordinary people talking but no, it is only about Maharaji, nothing else. Very few people actually experience anything really good from meditation and nobody experiences anything on a constant and reliable basis. Such is the transient nature of meditation. But Maharaji is always there and devotion is always there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 23:17:55 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: A hypothetical question? Message:

The computer you use, did you buy it legitimately, or is it hot? Did some poor bastard come home one night to find his home ransacked, among the things missing, the very computer you bought from a thief at half price? Would your argument be that it doesn't matter because it still gets you on the internet? Your constant defense of M because he showed you what you were looking for sounds like that. You don't care how honest he is. All you care about is that the product works, AND you got it free. It doesn't say much about you, Shroom, or what your moral code is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 07:49:05 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jerry Subject: I paid for my computer, Jerry, and I would gladly Message:

have paid for Knowledge, too, if there had been a charge. I'm not defending him. I'm expressing my point of view. I've never met a person in my life that has not told a lie. Have you? When he came to the west, all the Eastern/Hindu baggage came with him. Now I don't claim to know why he let it continue for so long but perhaps he needed to establish a solid base of committed people to help him in his work. If God put me in charge of offering Knowledge of that Divinity within the heart of each person, I would be at a quandary. The people who were looking for God wouldn't be real impressed with some guy offering some simple meditation techniques. The people who were just looking for some simple meditation techniques might not care too much about having the God card played on them. So if I tried to offer it first to those who wanted God and then tried to present it to those who just wanted inner peace and removed the 'God' packaging, then some of those who were only interested in the God thing might get disenchanted and start crying 'foul'. I guess it's a tough tightrope to walk. If you're waiting for someone to come who has never lied, you might wait quite a long time. I don't think there is such an animal. That's why I keep coming back to the Knowledge thing. Like it was written in the Bible, 'By their fruits you will know them.' To me, the fruit here is Knowledge. To some it's everything and to others it's nothing. And there are a whole lot of people in the middle.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 19:59:00 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Shroom, stop! Message:

You make it seem as if M had to manipulate people into receiving K for their own good. To all the God lovers, he played the God game. Later when he established himself with that crew, he started playing meditation teacher to get to those wo were interested only in some meditation techniques? It's as if it would have been a crime, or something, if he'd just said 'look, I've got this thing called Knowledge, this is what it is, and this is what it does', AND STUCK TO THAT. But, no, he couldn't do that, right? He had to go through all this rigamarole so people would accept him. That's bull. You're going to extreme lengths to rationalize M's behaviour, Shroom. Give it up, already. Nobody, no rational thinking person, is going to buy it. If this Knowledge is the Knowledge of God, M should have never veered from that course, and if it isn't Knowledge of God, he never should have said it was in the first place.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:26:09 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Why don't you answer these questions? Message:

If I might interupt here; you haven't replied to any of my posts where I say that darshan and pranaming to Maharaji does make sense if he is the Lord but it is obscene if Maharaji isn't the Lord but just an ordinary person. You mentioned the song, 'My Sweet Lord' so does that mean that you believe that Maharaji is the Lord who George Harrison is singing about? He either is or he isn't. There is no grey area here. If Maharaji is the Lord then it should be shouted from the rooftops and all the world must know. Indeed, if Maharaji is the Lord I must take down my web site, The Truth about Maharaji and go and get in my car and drive to his Reigate residence here in England and do full pranam in the mud outside his house and beg for help in this matter. So why do you only hint at your belief that Maharaji is the Lord, God incarnate? If I believed him to be so, I would not drop hints to people and indeed, when I was a premie I did used to tell people that God had manifested himself in the form of Guru Maharaj Ji. After all, Maharaji said this himself. 'But God has manifested and if he had manifested after one year it would have been too late, too late.' You are talking in riddles Mushroom person. You are not calling a spade a spade. You are not speaking honestly with us.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 22:12:47 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: The only thing that I believe at this point about Message:

Maharaji is that he showed me how to access the light/spirit/soul within me. Is that light within me God? I don't know. It is nice to know. Is Maharaji the authorized representative of God on the planet? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me, however.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 00:04:01 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: There's nothing evil happening here Message:

A representitive of God is a bit of a climb down from 'Many times I have come before but this time I have come with more power than ever before' and 'God is a Father. Suppose I am a Father and I see my child crawling towards the fire and he is almost in the fire, can I stand by and just watch! If I just watched, I would have no right to call myself a Father. But no, God has manifested Himself and if he had manifested after one year it would have been too late, too late.' The above quotes are from memory and might not be precise, word for word but they are accurate for our purposes. Now I don't know about you but I followed Maharaji because I genuinely believed that he was God on Earth, like most people here used to believe. I would not have sacrificed relationships, all of my time and indeed my whole life for a mere man but for the Lord, yes. So can you see now why there is this ex-premie forum? We realise that we were misled. The truth and lies have to be unravelled. In time, everything finds its own level or to say it another way, it will all come out in the wash. You cannot silence people's thoughts and you, Elan Vital and Maharaji will have to realise that. For every action there is a reaction. If Maharaji once convinced people that he was God on Earth, he will have to accept the consequences of that action. If he pretends that he never claimed to be the Lord then he will have to accept the consequences of that attempt at deception. There is nothing evil or bad going on here. We are just people, ordinary people reacting to what has happened to us.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 14:13:03 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: There's nothing evil happening here Message:

Do you have compiled somewhere maharajichi's claims of being God? How many satsangs are there where he has said it directly or implied? If God is here EVERY newspaper needs to receive the 'good news', from his own words. All of them. Why the Press is not interested on him?!! I want to give him a hand. ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:18:51 (GMT) From: Ben Lurking Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: What's your point, Jim? That Knowledge doesn't Message:

Lets see he claimed he was god and now he isn't - just a minor mistake in the day to day - we all make mistakes , his just affect the validity of the 'product' and let there be no doubt there is a product, that product is not free, that package of ideas and old meditation techniques is not free, that you all chose to call it this 'gift', its like all the free gift offers you get in the mail, they all have a cost, just that EV/M/premies fail to disclose the cost of the gift at the time of the offer. M has no credibility, and that is the flaw with his package, that for it to work you have to buy into him as a superior being, nad if he isn't why do they still have darshan? Whats that about if not total submission. Where is that in the product disclosure? Like all cons it close to the truth, htats how the hook gets set, the rest is manipulation and destruction of our lives. M is the key figure in that destruction. Why does he need church status? where is the congregation? Who is gumaji - he is a con man, he lies, he manipulates, and he takes whatever he can get. Why is the product not spreading these days - are you not giving enough? maybe you need to contribute more to help spread this product, of course there are marketing and admin costs, its the 90% to m that skews the charity. Why did the recommend cash as gifts at d lines? Why did he hold special opportunities with the speaker last year (for 3-5,000 us)? no shroomiji k doesn't work - mechanical parts work, but the whole package didn't deliver on the promise - now the promise has changes, how long before that promise isn't delivered on? What happened to the 5 commandments - get to unwieldy, imagine how much easiar devout christians would have it if they could just drop 5 commandments to be more proactive to their market. the teacher can't teach, he is a failure at teaching - if he could teach he wouldn't have such a high failure rate. If he taught in public schools even the unions couldn't keep his job - hes that bad at what he does. By there fruits you shall know them (parapharased) His fruit stinks, he lied, thats how we know. Thats the knowledge we have, that m is a fake, we have that experience, you can't take it from us. get a life, move on, break those bonds of slavery to a porky little indian kid (PLIK). Give it up shroomiji - get free become and ex - recieve the real knowledge for free. its just a step away - you can take it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:00:33 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Wait, I spoke too soon! Message:

Shroom, I really apologize. Must be the coffee. I see that you DID answer my question. You admit that Maharaji is a liar. Now, let's get back to something else. Weren't you one of the premie idiots who said that you wouldn't be afraid to post under your real name? I dare you to post your real name now. Go on, Shroom, show us that you're not afraid of harrassment or recrimination from what we, in our dark confusion, insist on calling a 'cult'. Post your real name now, now that you've admitted that Maharaji's a liar.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:25:30 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jim Subject: Sure, Jim. Just as soon as you prove to me that Message:

Knowledge doesn't work or when the ex-premies who post anonymously start using their real names. Of course, I don't think they'll ever use their real names. Instead, why don't you sit down and practice for an hour or so and then get back to me? Then maybe you can prove to me that Knowledge doesn't work. And why peace and stillness within are not as important to a human being as the 'liar' claims they are.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:29:45 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: You're being evasive Message:

I'm not talking about whether Knowledge 'works', you fool. I'm talking about whether it's a lie that Maharaji never claimed to be God. You've already admitted that it is. The only question I have remaining is whether or not you'd ever have the guts to post your real name now that you've said as much. And no, it's got nothing to do with whether or not any one else posts their real name. That's beside the point too. Some do, some don't. The question, though, is whether you ever could now that you've said that. I say you can't. You'd be too afraid to. What would your local EV contact say knowing that you've called their new FAQ a lie?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:44:22 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jim Subject: It's your issue, Jim. Not mine. I'm not at all Message:

concerned about EV. I am concerned about some I've seen here, though. If you're so interested in my real name, ask the FA. They have it. And I've posted using it before. If I did start using my real name again, I don't particularly want EV to be bothered by your shrill cries that one of their 'cult' members called Maharaji a liar. Sorry. But like I said, that's your issue not mine. You want to contact EV and complain? Be my guest. Just leave me out of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 22:37:53 (GMT) From: EV Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: We have your IP NT Message:

NT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:06:39 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Of course, it's my issue, bird brain! Like duh... Message:

Again and again, you show how dumb you are! Yes, it's my issue. Look at the top of the thread. I started it, din't I? My question? My issue? Like, duh! The more interesting point, though, is that you answered my question. And yes, you're afraid to have EV know that you called them liars. Just like I said. Worm!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 18:56:37 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: What's my point? You've got be kidding Message:

My point is simply this: Maharaji is a liar. Now do you agree or not? He said he was God and now claims that he didn't. What could be simpler? Don't throw up a cloud of smoke like a squid, Shroom. I don't play that way. It was my question. Either you can answer it or not. But don't avoid answering it and try to throw ten of your own at me. That's a no-no.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:09:17 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Jim Subject: We've gone through this before. But here goes... Message:

When I came to Knowledge I read quotes from him saying that he was the Lord incarnate. I also read quotes from him saying that he wasn't. So I knew that either one or the other wasn't true before I even received Knowledge. And even if I believed him when he was quoted as saying that he was the Lord wouldn't mean squat without Knowledge. Since it was free and I was thirsty, I decided to receive it and judge for myself. Because I also read that he said that he wasn't God but that his Knowledge was God or that his Knowledge would show me God face to face. When I received it, that was the proof. Is God within me? Well there is something within me that Knowledge allows me to focus on. It allows me to feel peaceful. So whether or not he is a liar is immaterial to my experience of Knowledge. It's not my issue. It's yours. Now. But it didn't seem to bother you before when everything was hunky-dory, did it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 00:49:04 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: We've gone through this before. But here goes... Message:

Mushroom man wrote: 'And even if I believed him when he was quoted as saying that he was the Lord wouldn't mean squat without Knowledge' Not so my fungal friend. The fact that he used to be God is the only reason why knowledge was supposed to work. Only God can give knowledge of God. I have never seen the face of God in meditation. I have not seen God face to face and I have gone very deep into meditation at times. The free gift is four meditation techniques and they have nothing to do with Maharaji. They are not his to give. The four techniques are public domain. If I told you that I would give you a free gift of fresh air, would you not think me a little arrogant? Mad, possibly? If anyone gets anything from meditation it is because of their own desire and practise of same. Maharaji doesn't get anything out of the techniques. He prefers Cognac and flashy cars.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 20:35:27 (GMT) From: Gregg Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Masters of the Universe Message:

'Knowledge works.' Well, OK, meditation 'works' for some of us. But why cling to a 'master' who, if not an outright liar (the majority opinion on this site), has at the least demonstrated wild inconsistency and a very tenuous grasp of the basics of spiritual work. Isn't it possible, Shroomananda, that Maharaji merely instructed you in the techniques, and you went on to pick up the subtext and project omniscient benevolence etc. on the guy? That's the conclusion many of us have drawn from years of spiritual practice before, during and after our affiliation with the putative Lord of the Universe. Maharaji is a shrewd character, of course. He's still in the guru business when many of the other gurus of the seventies died or got caught fucking too many devotees. But Jesus, what a dummy in the wisdom department! Keep 'Knowledge' if that works for you, but lose the leech! Believe me, he is NOT in the driver's seat. Or pilot's seat, as he would put it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 22:08:10 (GMT) From: Shroomananda Email: None To: Gregg Subject: I'll keep it, thank you, and I'll continue to Message:

enjoy the experience it brings. And I'll continue to listen to him. He speaks about my heart from his heart. That's very enjoyable!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 23:14:30 (GMT) From: Gregg Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: One Question: Message:

Do you believe, as I once did, that rationality and spirituality are polar opposites? Your posts point in this direction: you do not respond to questions or ideas; you merely parrot the party line. I know your belief system brings you peace; it once brought me peace. But is your belief system so dear to you that you are not willing to subject it to the same questions which you would bring to the table in decisions about career, housing, transportation, food etc.? Or is the mind (the doubting machine) equivalent to the Devil in your theology?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:21:40 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Shroomananda Subject: Funny how you keep shooting yourself in the foot Message:

Shroom, That's fine. You admit that he's a liar and, bizarrely as you did below with the money thing, offer an extremely dumb argument that actually hurts Maharaji more than it helps. You say that he's always been a liar, so what's the big deal? I love that. I love how stupid you are. I just fucking love it. As for your question, by the way, there's a very simple answer. When Maharaji said he wasn't God back then, we didn't believe him. There were many, many contextual cues back then that any premie from the seventies knows in spades that suggested that Maharaji could be coy about his true identity. When he claimed that he was just a 'humble servant of God' we knew that that was just for the masses. Like his cloying 'Superman comic' shtick. But the truth was that he really was as he sometimes told us when he got a guru hard-on or whatever. So that's the answer. We believed the strongest stuff and ratrionalized the rest. He trained us to do that. But now, look at you! You call Maharaji a liar. What's your real name, Shroom?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 07:19:57 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Everyone Subject: still working for EV !!!!!! Message:

Subject: National Team Reorganization (Please distribute.) There has been a reorganization of the functional teams in North America. In order for everyone to become familiar with the teams, this is the first in series of messages that will describe the teams and how they will work together. The North American Synchronization Team (NAm Synch Team) is composed of representatives from each of these teams. Below is a list of the teams and their representatives. NAm Teams Coordinator Dave Cohen NAm Public Relations Team Contact Andrea Robins NAm Resource Team Contact David Mankoff NAm Instructor Team Contact David Smith NAm Regional Contact and National Contact for Canada Georges Legere NAm Aspirant Team Contact Kathy Scrimgeour Participation Contact Linda Pascotto National Contact for Mexico Salvador Illanes NAm Communication Team Contact Steve Rush NAm Event Team Contact Ted Levitt Manager of Visions International Tom Hagan In the coming weeks and months, more detailed information about the teams and their projects will be posted. (Waiting for this anxiously ....... JM)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 19:56:25 (GMT) From: Ben Lurking Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: So are they NASTY? Message:

North American Sync. Team Youth North American Sync. Team Yogi North American Sync. Team Yespremies Shheesh - these guys have more acronyms than the military

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 22:01:24 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Ben Lurking Subject: Synchronized Team and the military Message:

Speaking of the military, they are also fond of the word 'synchronized' and use the term 'Synchronization Team', see Statement of Honorable John J. Hamre...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 01:01:24 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Ben Lurking Subject: there's also the SCIPT Message:

That's the Smart Card International Processing Team, mentioned at EV's SmartCard page. Or is it the ISCPT (International Smart Card Processing Team)?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 16:37:48 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Ted Levitt Message:

The North American Synchronization Team (NAm Synch Team)???? This is just so funny, I almost can't joke about it -- it's already such a joke. Isn't this the same name as a team of women who do acrobatics in a swimming pool? This is classic Elan Vital. Those same, ridiculous titles have gone on since the 70s. Always trying to get organized, hoping something will happen. Maharaji must use the word 'synchronization' a lot. Premies repeat it like a mantra. I'm so happy for Ted that he has moved up from 'Honey Oat Bar Coordinator for the United States' to NAm Event Team Contact,' although on second thought, I'm not sure that's actually a promotion. I wonder if he knows what he is? What is it about Elan Vital and the proliferation of coordinators and titles? Is it that these people have nothing else in their lives and need titles in some cult organization to give their egos a boost? And I have a complaint against the Public Relations Team Contact, Andrea Robbins. Nobody in PR for Elan Vital either answers the phone, or returns calls. I think she should be fired. She is really out of synch.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:06:03 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Joe Subject: Joe, you don't understand about Andrea Message:

Andrea is doing her job perfectly - absolutely perferctly! Of course, she won't return your phone calls or mail. That's what GMJ's PR is all about.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 13:23:38 (GMT) From: JTF Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: NAm Synch Team needs a fight song-BARF (NT) Message:

asdf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 07:44:22 (GMT) From: Loaf Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: MEMO Re: management structures Message:

What we need here at ex-premie HQ is an entire (and infinitely expandable) middle management of committees and co-ordinators. We are missing out on the whole game here, by not gathering ourselves up into an unweildy pyramid. (Remember the sheep in Wallace and Grommit's 'A close shave') Hitler thrived on mis management - and the jelousy and social climbing that kept all the high (and low) ranking people below him squabbling and trying to out-do each other , whilst he could be aloof, superior, perfect. This has been cited as the dynamic behind his kidnapping of an otherwise educated, sensible and great nation. M isn't doing too well by this score - he has never managed to invade even Poland, and unless we doubting Thomases are all being rounded up here on the way to the new shower block at amaroo, we are all having a great time at his expense. So - what manner of Churchillian Emperor of the Exes can we look forward to ? Can we at last put our carpet laying and thronebuilding skills to good use ? If Sir Daves Law holds true - that (and this may be a misquote): a power vacuum can only be filled bu an individual who has the neccessary qualities (or lack of 'em) then we are fucked - because Jim would never run this place as anything near a democracy. It'd be pink triangles all round. Can we get rid of the journey's section and instead have manifestos ? When i rule the world...... Love to all from the humble and light hearted Loaf Coordinator of the Emperor's New Warderobe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 09:49:18 (GMT) From: ZELDEX.COM Email: None To: Loaf Subject: MEMO MEMO Re: management structures subsidiary Message:

Z Zero E Empress L Leader D Distiction E Energy X xpectations We ensure flatline directives but cannot be responsible for advancemnt in perspective-as per Mr Pickwicks hat advancing to the horizon in perspective. You will have your own thoughts and not subscribe to any particular ex premie dogma. Some knowledge of astrology and co-dependant systems would be usefull. Successful applicants need not apply If you would like to join our team consider it done Welcome aboard

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 16:26:52 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: ZELDEX.COM Subject: I subscribe to roger's adage Message:

Don't wanna be a member of any team that will have me. Selene - a team of one

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 14:43:42 (GMT) From: Loaf Email: None To: ZELDEX.COM Subject: do i get a swipe card ? (nt) Message:

otherwise I'm not playing

Return to Index -:- Top of Index