Steve Mueller -:- Nurturing Each Other, Not Nitpicking -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:52:31 (EST)

__ Tonette -:- Hello, it's easy to get hurt feelings here -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:37:04 (EST)

__ __ PatC -:- Dear sensible Tonette -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:37:24 (EST)

__ __ __ Tonette -:- And this forum is primative -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:12:18 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Steve Mueller -:- Can't get rid of Steve that easily -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 20:55:03 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Re: Can't get rid of Steve that easily -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 22:07:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Steve Mueller -:- Same as what I told mystery woman Z -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:40:19 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deborah -:- Did you read MD post up top -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:13:40 (EST)

__ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: And this forum is primative -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:31:43 (EST)

__ hamzen -:- And some don't post here because it's so 'nice' -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:09:10 (EST)

__ __ PatC -:- it's so 'nice' -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:25:30 (EST)

__ JHB -:- Nitpicking? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:38 (EST)

__ Brian Smith -:- The Beatles were more popular -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:19:13 (EST)

__ __ PatC -:- Re: The Beatles were more popular -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:05:12 (EST)

__ Jim -:- Um, er, well, uh, um, hm........... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:23:58 (EST)

__ __ Pullaver -:- Well said, Jim. (nt) -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:15:38 (EST)

__ __ Cynthia -:- Oh Puleeze, the recent exes? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:43:43 (EST)

__ __ __ Jim -:- But you HAVE to hurt people .... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:27:43 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: But you HAVE to hurt people .... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:44:23 (EST)

__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Thanks for the excellent link! [nt] -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:47:27 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- The truth hurts -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:36:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:24:24 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- No offense, but you sound like -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 00:52:21 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: No offense, but you sound like -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:43:29 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- So which is it? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:12:23 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Re: So which is it? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:43:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Tonette -:- A non answer from someone who....... -:- Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 00:09:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Re: An answer from someone who....... -:- Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 18:56:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Brilliant, Tonette. You're on a roll! [nt] -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:40:04 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Why can't you see this obvious fact? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:39:43 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:34:45 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Really? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:44 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Really! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:06:48 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Spare me the gobbledygook, please! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:18:26 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- What ?????????? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:24:12 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Brian, did you read my response to Dog below? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:58:53 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Re: Brian, did you read my response to Dog below? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:22:28 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Sorry, shouldn't have said 'transcendent', but... -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 12:56:22 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- No way to get high here -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:11:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Great Response, Steve -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 17:59:35 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- I think you were talking to me, -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 19:41:40 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Brian, another scrupulous man -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:50:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What kind of 'knowing' is that then? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:17:28 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then????? -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:30:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Talking a little further on this -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 13:47:07 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Adding a little more -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:39:43 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:12:25 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Thanks for the link -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:51:03 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh yeah, there's harm alright -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:41:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- You can have the last word on this -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 13:33:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:42:14 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim the Forum Watchdog -:- Why try to salvage something here? -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:12:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Jim, Grandfathering vs Revisionism -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:38:38 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oops! Wrong article! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:15:41 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Oops! Wrong brain! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:22:52 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:06:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry, I left out the best part -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:34:22 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JohnT -:- That's certainly true ... -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:27:18 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The best part. -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:54:12 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: What ? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:50:10 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Been there done that -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:31:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog=) -:- Re: Been there done that -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 18:18:31 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Possibly -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:22:56 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim the Watchdog -:- Christ, Brian, you can't be serious! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:33:11 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- What Now ? -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:39:09 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Funny, they kicked me out too -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:05:00 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Hilarious & Bizzare -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 14:47:15 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Dog's erroneous assumption -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:52:21 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Dog's erroneous assumption -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:11:30 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: Dog's erroneous assumption -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:28:02 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Landmark forum not forum7, I think? [nt] -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:50:46 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 19:03:30 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:25:56 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- If you want to help, scram! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:56:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What what ? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:20:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- What It Is -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:50:23 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Thank's Brian! [nt] -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:59:57 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- Truth or truth -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:43:21 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- Re: Truth or truth indeed! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:48:03 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- Hear and Now -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:29:20 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Re: Now and Zen -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:45:05 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pullaver -:- Zen Again, darlink -:- Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 16:54:50 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- The mind, Poochie? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:56:53 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog =) -:- The mind, PatC! -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:57:45 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Poochie, I'm just an old acid-head -:- Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 14:58:56 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Dog, what evidence do you have?? -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:06:13 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Brutal Honesty Hurts... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:35:53 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Brian Smith -:- Point well taken.. -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:12 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Steve Mueller -:- Saying you have to hurt people -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:59:03 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: Saying you have to hurt people -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:33:03 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- Re: Saying you have to hurt people -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:17:14 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- God, Steve, it was just a joke! -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:58 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- But what if someone doesn't know it's a joke? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:22:32 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- It can be a problem -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:51:39 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PatC -:- Re: It can be a problem -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 13:35:42 (EST)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Re: It can be a problem -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 15:18:04 (EST)

Joy -:- Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:11:08 (EST)

__ Dj -:- Re: Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:56:24 (EST)

__ __ Joy -:- Re: Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:41:04 (EST)

__ Cynthia -:- Re: Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:54:16 (EST)

Jim -:- Real people just don't quite cut it -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:03:25 (EST)

__ PatC -:- She's a nun -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:41:38 (EST)

Jim -:- Can someone help me out here? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 00:22:46 (EST)

__ wpc girl -:- Re: Can someone help me out here? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:54:40 (EST)

__ Vicki -:- Re: Can someone help me out here?? -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:50:00 (EST)

__ __ JHB -:- Could you give more details -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 14:54:26 (EST)

__ __ __ Vicki -:- Re: Could you give more details -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 00:05:54 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Jean-Michem -:- Maybe I can help -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 06:11:56 (EST)

__ __ __ __ Did the formula -:- inflate attendance figures? [nt] -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 05:27:56 (EST)

__ There are still a few people -:- who think Nu Skin will make them rich [nt] -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:01:05 (EST)

__ JHB -:- Yoram helped yesterday -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:28:30 (EST)

__ __ Tonette -:- The big push for money -:- Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:57:03 (EST)

__ __ Occasional Poster -:- Re: Yoram helped yesterday -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:39:23 (EST)

teresa -:- social exclusion -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 19:45:36 (EST)

__ PatD -:- TB was in the God Squad at Oxford -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 20:34:09 (EST)

__ __ teresa -:- Re: TB was in the God Squad at Oxford -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:14:24 (EST)

__ JHB -:- Welcome, Teresa -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 20:01:58 (EST)

__ __ teresa -:- Re: Welcome, Teresa -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:36:31 (EST)

Barry -:- Jim! This is some of the..... -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:12:18 (EST)

__ Dj -:- Re: Jim! This is some of the..... -:- Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:46:52 (EST)

Janet -:- copyleft-we're doing it! -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:06:42 (EST)

__ janet -:- Re: copyleft-let me explain this -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:50:58 (EST)

__ __ Scott T. -:- The Tragedy of the Commons -:- Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 04:40:14 (EST)

__ __ JHB -:- Readability info and a suggestion -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 19:11:53 (EST)

__ __ __ janet -:- Re: Readability -yeah i know -:- Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 20:13:34 (EST)

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:52:31 (EST) From: Steve Mueller Email: mistyqm@mn.mediaone.net To: All Subject: Nurturing Each Other, Not Nitpicking Message:

Further down I posted a 'Nope ... Jesus' post and I realized that I needed to use more prudence about referencing such potentially hot-button words as: 'Jesus'. Many people of many religious faiths received K. Many of them never subscribed to any of the Christian varieties. So, for them, one who is considered to be the founder or spiritual leader of a faith or religion other than the one they grew up with likely means nothing special to them. One of the principles I'm trying to incorporate in my posts is to try to use language that will avoid upsetting such people, those raised under a religious heritage different than my own. So, for those who may have felt offended, I apologize if they felt I insulted their own strongly-held religious beliefs. I certainly did not mean to. And I most DEFINITELY am NOT pushing any kind of religion. I thought I had clarified things by saying that my only purpose in quoting or referencing 'that man' was that some of that things 'that man' said resonated with my own experiences of truth. That's all I was trying to say. Nothing more. You know, I don't play favorites. If another supposedly spiritual teacher said something of value that also mirrored my own experience of truth, I certainly would have or will quote them also. Also, you know, I wasn't around 2000 years ago. I wasn't there when 'that man' walked the earth so I don't know anything more about 'that man' than anyone else does. All I do know about 'that man' is what I have read in certain books. But, I have experienced life and I (think I) have learned a thing or two about its deeper truths. One of the most important and fundamental lessons worth learning about life is that real, true, unconditional, impartial love is the most powerful thing that there is. It is so powerful that it has the capacity of overcoming all barriers and healing all divisions separating peoples. I have realized this totally. You can believe what you want to but nothing you can say will ever make me change that statement. There are other things I have learned, but this is by far the most important thing I have ever learned. So, I hope you will understand the gist of what I'm saying here. Also, keep in mind that we are dealing with concepts here. Concepts are limited. Even if two people say they agree on the words used to express a concept, even so, there will likely be subtle differences of what that concept means to each of them that will differ from what it means to the other one. One thing I try to do when reading posts is to listen with my heart as well as my head. I find that helps me to understand the gist or basic feeling of what the person is trying to say. It helps to stop me from going out on a tangent to take a person to task for something relatively minor or from applying an overly narrow interpretation to their post. It also supports their healing. Often I don't agree with everything someone says but I recognize that, as long as it is not a big deal, just the action of my hearing them out WITHOUT overly nitpicking them is performing the service of facilitating their healing, of helping them recover from M. Understand that M has really really hurt a bunch of people in a very bad way. Most of us are in far greater need of supportive nurturing by each other than we are of being excessively corrected. There are two very very beautiful lady exes who used to post here recently but who have been absent for awhile. I strongly suspect that they just could not handle the unnecessary slings and arrows on F7 and probably said to themselves, to hell with F7 and exes. Let's help each other. Let's try not to imitate or emulate M's contempt and hatred. The Beatles said it best: 'All you need is Love, Love; Love is all you need.' Peace, everybody and I wish you all continued happy exing. Love, Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 01:37:04 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: Hello, it's easy to get hurt feelings here Message:

But unavoidable. Nature of the beast, the beast being the form of communication that takes place here, ie, non-verbal. Oh well. And most posters are very assertive, not aggressive mind you, in what they write and how they write it. Not too many passive people here I observe. I guess if they were passive they would mainly be just readers. And the issues are passionate and emotive due to the very nature of the subject this forum is addressing. I missed your Jesus post, praise the lord.(that's a joke) I would like to know where I can find 'real, true, unconditional, impartial, love.' I wasn't under the impression that it exists. Are you referring to the love a mother has for her child? The love a child has for their mother or father? The kind of love Jesus supposedly had for his disciples or mankind for that matter? Surely not the kind of love The Master has for his student. What are you talking about? I don't mean to nitpick you, I really don't. But part of rejoining the human race after your time in the cult may involve throwing out some belief systems which perhaps served you up to this point in time but will not be able to be incorporated into your life outside of the cult. That is unless you don't want to be free and think for yourself. And just the very fact that people have taken the time to post to you, genuinely, is nuturing in and of itself. How many warm fuzzies do you want? I appreciate it is hard. And like I said this forum, since it only exists in a non verbal venue, is a fertile ground for misunderstanding and 'taking something the wrong way.' But do not try and tell people how they should respond to posts, how our words need to be more sugared. And about the 'two beautiful' ladies who are not currently posting due to the 'unnecessary slings and arrows,' that statement, sir, is very arrogant on your part. And my existance needs alot more than just love, if you want my take on it. I need air, food, water, shelter to name a few. After I am totally satisfied in the areas of learning, there are no more books to read, no more orgasms to have, no more food to taste, wine to sample, flowers to grow, sunsets to watch, ect, then maybe, then all I will need is love. Sincerely, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:37:24 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Dear sensible Tonette Message:

This is after all only a forum. It can never be a warm fuzzy community not really or not for very long. It's really only just a medium of ideas. Sure feelings can be expressed but it can never be like real life and emotions are often trampled. You and I and many others have found that out sooner or later. You said it honestly but not cruelly. Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:12:18 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: PatC Subject: And this forum is primative Message:

I bet 5 years from now we will all laugh and wonder at how we were ever able to communicate at all! Break out the web cams! Damn the torpedoes! Seriously, I'm glad my post did not appear cruel, at least to you Pat. The last thing I want to do is hurt someone. I know what that's like. I get the sinking feeling from Steve's words that what he wrote is a goodbye to the forum and a statement of how he is taking all this in, the forum and exiting. That would be a loss. I've enjoyed reading his posts, I really have. Steve has alot to offer here and I think some things to work out, to understand. I remember when I first found this place. Wow! And posting, interpreting replys, is an acquired skill to some degree. Lots of people make the world go round. But I know that Steve was welcomed here warmly. I can only hope that he won't walk away feeling burned by the forum as well as by Maharaji. Pat, take care, Warmly, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 20:55:03 (EST) From: Steve Mueller Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Can't get rid of Steve that easily Message:

That ol' Minnesota bear Steve was just hibernatin for a few days. He's still around. He remembered that he didn't learn much when he was doing all the talking so he decided to just shut up for awhile and listen to what others had to say. He's glad he did because by not responding to every post, others got a chance to say their peace and he is fascinated and grateful for all the good points that have been made on this thread. Steve says a special thanks to the Light of Cabin John, Tonette. Switching gears a bit, I'd like to pass on some remarkable facts about how expensive it is to follow M around, in particular, to Amoral (sp?) Australia. A premie friend left me some messages on my voice mail on Sat night. In the course of trying to defend her experience in Amaroo last spring (May, 2001), the premie proudly said that she paid $800 for the privilege of staying on the grounds at Amoral for a little over a week. Full course meals cost $150(US) per meal and simpler lunch type meals cost $50 per meal. She said that while some premies skipped some meals, quite a few others had several meals a day. It did not bother her in the least that seeing M in Amoral had shamefully become the exclusive privilege of only very wealthy premies. In fact, amazingly, she was proud of the fact that money was not an issue as far as she was concerned and that she was overjoyed to be able to help support M's 'propagation' (yeah, right) efforts in a big way. I wonder if she'll feel the same way in twenty years when she will be reduced to stretching her meager social security dollars far. Later, folks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 22:07:54 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: Re: Can't get rid of Steve that easily Message:

Hi Steve, I like your post above. It is rather timely for me. What I don't understand is how premies can justify helping M do prachar. How do you help M do prachar with current premies waning and a dearth of new people every year. How does that figure? I know it must sound like a trivial question, because there are so many questions strangely justify. But this one is just glaringly obvious. Thoughts?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:40:19 (EST) From: Steve Mueller Email: None To: Deborah Subject: Same as what I told mystery woman Z Message:

Z broke up with her (now former) premie boyfriend. To put it rather mildly: IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES! She asked me what I thought would happen to him under a number of scenarios. I said that from the premies' point of view, the worst possible thing that could happen to M would be an accidental death (such as his jet crashing into ocean, killing all on board). I said if that happened, the hardest core premies would not quit culting but would continue to meet with each other to watch old videos and possibly have satsang with (psychologically and emotionally support) each other, just like back in the 70's and early 80's. I said that most of those who have not exed by now are so completely and thoroughly brainwashed (due to the fact that for most of them, M-culting is the only thing they have known for virtually all of their adult lives) that they will never ever make it out of the cult. They will continue for the rest of their lives. They are the first generation of Maharajans (followers of the new world religion Maharajism). This is exactly how religions start. Someone who is at least perceived to be some kind of great spiritual leader eventually passes on and leaves behind a following of hard core true believers. Those people just keep passing down stories and other lore of that deceased leader (the Cow story from 1973). If you think about it, hard core premies are much like prisoner lifers. When the state tries to let them out, most are so incapable of handling the responsibilities of freedom that they deliberately choose to go back to prison. Same thing with hard core premies. They are absolutely petrified of real freedom because the mental and spiritual equipment needed to exercise freedom has been so thoroughly dismantled by M that they are as helpless as babies. Truly very very sad and tragic. And we and they have basically one person to thank for it: M.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:13:40 (EST) From: Deborah Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: Did you read MD post up top Message:

Steve, Michael D. very accurately pointed out what the premies had/have to lose. I posted the exerpt in a post to Jethro, I think. May I suggest that you email Z that post. cheers, deborah

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:31:43 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Re: And this forum is primative Message:

You hit the nail on the head again, Tonette. It took me six months to learn my way around here. These typed words really are inadequate most of the time. Like you, I hope Steve sticks around long enough to learn all the nuances that can't be put into typed words. Getting to know the folks behind the words helps a lot and that takes time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:09:10 (EST) From: hamzen Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: And some don't post here because it's so 'nice' Message:

it's pukey. Personally think this fear of argument, confrontation etc is just a relic of our 'spiritual' routes, but then I'm not a recent ex who's really sensitive, so it doesn't really matter what I think, just giving another flavour.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:25:30 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: hamzen Subject: it's so 'nice' Message:

Except sometimes it's nasty - like the troll, ****, who just spammed us and whom I deleted and blocked. I hope the block works. Yes, ham, it has been a bit twee lately no thanks to you. Where the hell have you been?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:38 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: Nitpicking? Message:

Steve, I'm not sure what you mean by nitpicking and I don't know if you are refering to your comments about your view that you imagine being atheist a bleak existence. I know you apologised about it when I challenged you, but I wonder whether you've actually addressed the reason you have that view. At the time I described as being very similar to the view many premies have when they imagine life without Maharaji. Of course we know that premies are incorrect in this view, but I wonder whether you still hold this view regarding being atheist? I think it's part of the way we deal with our fear of the unknown - we paint it in a bad light so we don't have to face our fears. Can you imagine a world where 'real, true, unconditional, impartial love' is not the most powerful thing that there is? Love certainly is a strong motivational factor for humans, and I think we instinctively recognise its value for the survival of the species. Also, the feeling of 'transcendent' love is certainly a big high, and we like to get high. But you are making a bigger claim for love than this, and I wonder if you have thought about why you are doing this? What is the difference between your belief in Jesus, God, Love, and your recent belief in Maharaji? You have taken a huge step in challenging your belief in Maharaji, and I have no interest in making you an atheist or an agnostic or a 'don't know', but I think you owe it to yourself if you want to believe in God to do it for the right reasons, and not out of fear of the alternative. Regarding this forum, we do this sort of thing here:-) Love, John the don't know

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:19:13 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: The Beatles were more popular Message:

Than Jesus, at least that is what John Lennon said and I concur, at least with me anyway. That might not have been the popular conscenus at the time and John was put up to a halfhearted politically correct apology by his management at that time. I have read that he fought the decision but caved in to the wishes of the record executives etc. But for me, aside from the great entertainment factor the Beatles provided over the years, I have gotten more words of wisdom and inspiration from the Beatles than I have from that man who walked the earth 2000 years ago. We can work it Out, J. Lennon 'We can work it out, life is very short and theres no time for fussing and fighting my friend' Within you without you, G. Harrison 'We were talking about the space between us all and the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion, never glimpse the truth, then it's far too late, when they pass away. We were love with our love, try to realize it's all within yourself, life flows on within you without you. Another ex premie pearl from George called think for yourself, 'I've got a word or two to say about the things that you do you're telling all those lies about the good things that we can have if we close our eyes. Do what you want to do, and go where you're going to, think for yourself cause I won't be there with you' Nowhere man 'He's as blind as he can be , just sees what he wants to see, nowhere man can you see me at all J. Lennon I'm looking through you I'm looking through you, where did you go, I thought I knew you what did I know, You don't look different but you have changed, I'm looking through you you're not the same. You were above me but not today, the only difference is you're down there ... I'm looking through you and you're nowhere' Lennon McCartney Of course the great lyrics to Imagine which I don't even have to recite here, I'll bet most of you know them. The list goes on,Fool on the hill, across the Universe comes to mind, very heady stuff the Beatles produced, moreso now in hindsight. Brian a Beatles fan but no religious fanatic

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:05:12 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Re: The Beatles were more popular Message:

Yes, at least the Beatles spoke about their own lives. The folks who wrote about Jesus were not even around at the time he was alive. The New Testament was written too long after Jesus kicked the bucket (sorry Hyacinth, I meant bouquet) to be anything but myth. Jesus may have been an actual person but his story was intertwined with two existing myths - Dionysus and Osiris also both born of virgins and both rising from the dead after three days. Those ancient gods were in turn reincarnations of even older fertility gods. Paul of Tarsus pretty much invented Jesus with a little help from his friends, notably Timothy. Sorry - can't resist this - ''I thay, Timothy, would you pick up the thoap, pleathe? Praithe Jethuth!''

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:23:58 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: Um, er, well, uh, um, hm........... Message:

Steve, If my expressing my opinion that Jesus was just a man, a deluded one at that, bothers you, I don't know what to say. On the one hand, many of us who've posted for a while here realize that there's little exes safely agree on other than that we were had. Thus, we try to stay away from contentious and unrelated topics here. If we don't all hell breaks loose. On the other hand, for someone like me who's walked away from all spirituality and not just the stuff that M's trip is nested in, I feel like challenging all beliefs in masters, avatars or assorted holy men and women. My guess is that Jesus' followers were duped every bit as much as M's. Indeed, I thought I was being generous to Jesus by giving him the benefit of doubt in terms of his sincerity. But here's the impasse. You want to talk freely about the strong power of universal love, listening with one's heart and other ideas that, to some, might be so universal and uncontroversial you can't imagine anyone questioning them. Truth is, however, that, to me at least, these are just another layer of concepts that are indeed questionable. In fact, I like to question them. So what to do? One answer, a route some more spiritually-inclined exes have taken, is to decamp from here and take shelter on the Recent Exes forum. That forum, I understand, is very spiritual-friendly. Plus, it carries the added bonus of discouraging argument. No one's going to challenge your ideas there or, if they do, they'll just do it a little. (That's what I'm told anyway.) Another answer, however, might be to enjoy the discussion wherever it goes. That means hanging in there, staying cool and leaving up for examination all kinds of closely-held, or even cherished, beliefs. Not everyone's ready for that. Especially after spending years, even decades, in a mind-numbing new age cult. But what can you do? We're out here, talking freely. We're not going to adjust downward, this is hard-won freedom. 'Freedom at last', and all that. The only option, I can see, is for new posters, or new exes, to think very carefully about exactly what they're reacting to when that's what's going on. Not everyone gets it but those who do grow to appreciate the robust nature of the exchanges. Not always, but often.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:15:38 (EST) From: Pullaver Email: None To: Jim Subject: Well said, Jim. (nt) Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:43:43 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oh Puleeze, the recent exes? Message:

Jim, So what to do? One answer, a route some more spiritually-inclined exes have taken, is to decamp from here and take shelter on the Recent Exes forum. That forum, I understand, is very spiritual-friendly. Plus, it carries the added bonus of discouraging argument. No one's going to challenge your ideas there or, if they do, they'll just do it a little. (That's what I'm told anyway.) I was involved in the recent exes forum for a short while. Believe me, at that point, it was quite boring and had nothing to do with spirituality, mostly about personal real life problems. I've no idea what it's like now. But, Steve can speak for himself. I didn't read the same thing you did in his post; I think he deserves a bit of slack being a pretty recent ex. I think Steve just doesn't want to see anybody hurt, either here nor there. By the way, Jim, thank your for the HyaCynth name. I loved it. Just noticed it a while ago. Cynth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:27:43 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: But you HAVE to hurt people .... Message:

I think Steve just doesn't want to see anybody hurt, either here nor there. Cynth, How are you going to get any truth out of people if you don't break them first? I mean, you pretty well HAVE to hurt people if you want to get anywhere, don't you think? Sheesh! No, of course, no hurting allowed. By the way, here's a most interesting link I found. It's got several of the leading lights in evolution and related sciences and philosophy describing their interests and positions and then being commented upon by some of their peers. [ The Third Culture ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:44:23 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: But you HAVE to hurt people .... Message:

Yeah, maybe we can get out those birch switches just in case they don't get in the first round:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:47:27 (EST) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thanks for the excellent link! [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:36:32 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim Subject: The truth hurts Message:

especially when someone who is so invested in what they percieve to be reality is confronted with a whole new set of facts and information. It is painful to acknowledge what they have held near and dear for so long just doesn't stack up anymore. Therein lies the hurt, not in finding or knowing the truth, but in finally breaking down to admitting and owning up to the issue of having been duped. Most people stuck in deeply imbedded beliefs need a hammering to break through, some people don't but those types are the exception to the rule. It is not totally bad or wrong when people sometimes get righteously pissed off and angry. Anger can provide the impetus for improvement, Anger can be useful in provoking the energy to make the initial move towards change of position and viewpoint. It's a messy and often difficult emotionally heartwrenching process this exiting business. Anger and hurt are bound to be encountered, in fact they are necessary steps along the way if one ever wants to restore themselves to a normal existence free from the cult and m. To deny these basic emotions and feelings is to remove important steps along the way, steps that one will ultimately revisit sooner or later at some point or another, and that is being painfully honest. I got my toes stepped on when I first showed up here as a cult apologist, I was hurt by what others said to me initially. All I wanted to do was find someone here who would agree with me that my cozy little picture of M & K was just fine so that I could continue on and go back to my illusion. Now where would I be today if that in fact had happened? Thats right, still stuck in the cult, emotionally enslaved to M. I can't tell you how grateful I am that did not occur. I see now that the pain and hurt that I experienced was a necessary part of the process, I do not begrudge those who challenged my wrongly held concepts of what was really going on with m & the cult. I do not begrudge or hold anyothers responsible for any hurt or suffering induced by the factual inquiry I engaged in which eventually turned into restoration of my own free will. Today I celebrate all of it, and I acknowledge the committment of those who hammered me with the real truth because I could not have done it myself. I needed someone else to shake me awake, jostle me out of my stupor. I have benefited beyond measure for it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:24:24 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't! Message:

Brian, I mentioned Leonard Cohen's latest CD Ten New Songs in a post below. In the first song In My Secret Life he writes, 'Can't seem to loosen my grip on the past.' Do you suppose that that's where the hurt comes from? The not letting go? The resistance? Can we be really be free living in a story, i.e. living in the past? IMO in order to be happy we have to make a distinction between the truth and Truth. IMO there is a huge difference between the concept of truth and Truth with a capital 'T'. Mixing up the concept of truth and the experience of truth is like mixing up the steering wheel and the rear view mirror. IMHO Truth (with a capital T) is nothingness, i.e. empty space with no concepts. We used to call it 'Holy Name.' Truth is that which was, is, and will be. It doesn't change. Concepts do change. Truth with a capital T doesn't hurt. So my point is, do you suppose that your concepts, your story about what happened is the source of your suffering? Just a thought! Maybe JHB was right when he said 'I don't know' is the way to go. Are you your mind, or do you have a mind? I say you are not your mind. You have a mind which is available for observation when you are willing to be conscious, and we can experience release from the oppression of the mind by witnessing it. It's known as 'insight' or vipassana meditation. Cut the puppet strings! Okay, the sermon is over. Start ripping!!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 00:52:21 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: No offense, but you sound like Message:

that California cult-leader-wanna-be-Gangaji! She gets off on that 'the big Truth is nothingness' rap. Have you been watching her on TV or something? And Dog, why go searching, chasing your tail, if you will, for 'The Truth', which you maintain exists, if nothingness is all it has to offer you? Nothing, nothingness. That will come all too soon for all of us. Why be alive in the first place? Gee, I guess stroke victims and anacephalic babies have one over on us concept ridden, conscious, thinking, suffering, masses. They have the real insight. Man Dog, you sound messed up or perhaps you're just a bit juvenile. I dunno. Take care, Good Luck in your pursuit of nothing, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:43:29 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Re: No offense, but you sound like Message:

that California cult-leader-wanna-be-Gangaji! She gets off on that 'the big Truth is nothingness' rap. Have you been watching her on TV or something? And Dog, why go searching, chasing your tail, if you will, for 'The Truth', which you maintain exists, if nothingness is all it has to offer you? Nothing, nothingness. That will come all too soon for all of us. Why be alive in the first place? Gee, I guess stroke victims and anacephalic babies have one over on us concept ridden, conscious, thinking, suffering, masses. They have the real insight. Man Dog, you sound messed up or perhaps you're just a bit juvenile. I dunno. Take care, Good Luck in your pursuit of nothing, Tonette --- Tonette, Tail chasing happens in small 't' truth. Nothingness is just a sense of clarity, that uncluttered feeling that makes life (for me anyway) more enjoyable. I can't give my best unless I have room to move. IMO nothing is really something. For me it's being present, being here and now, it's a place of clarity, refuge and peace. A place to transcend my conditioning. It is like wiping the slate clean, doing a laundry, cleaning up. The mind is an excellent servant and a lousy master. I'm sorry you confuse the sense of relaxation and relief, we can get from meditation, with having a lobotomy or stroke. Do you have a past or does your past have you? Never mind, I think I know the answer. Good luck in your pursuit of more stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:12:23 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: So which is it? Message:

You wrote: I'm sorry you confuse the sense of relaxation and relief, we can get from meditation, with having a lobotomy or stroke. Okay, is it relaxation and relief or is meditation the experience of the big Truth? Dog, you're retracting your earlier statements! And can you clarify for me, you're in touch with clarity and lots of it, judging by what you posted earlier: 'Do you have a past or does your past have you? Never mind, I think I know the answer.' Of course I have a past! What in the hell kind of question is that? In fact, that's about the only thing we have in common, getting dubed by the same fraud who likes to talk in parables just like you are doing. 'Or does the past have me?' Well, that's easy, in a word no. In fact I am here now, with my clarity, in the moment, typing to you. Get a grip Dog. Quit alienating yourself with this spiritual bullshit. Dump it. Aren't you tired of marking time? And about the stuff mention, my only guess is you are wanting for what you can think of to say to me. I have all the 'things' and more, than I could ever want. I have so much, I give 'stuff' away! I don't pursue 'stuff'. But if you want to meet the Master of an individual who's so far devoted his whole life to pursue and obtain stuff, well, just look at your most recent role model. If you're referring to 'stuff' in the vehicle of concepts, suffering and conditioning, that's just a very juvenile outlook. I know you didn't mean that since you have such clarity and know where the Truth lies. Speaking of that knowing, that nothingness, if it's so great, the real answer, the big Truth, can you tell me why it is you like to post here, among us concept ridden, suffering, ignorant people? Why don't you just spend the time you waste here, in pursuit of 'that place'? I am well aware of that which you refer to, why it still makes sense to you is beyond me. Good luck, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:43:54 (EST) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Re: So which is it? Message:

Okay, is it relaxation and relief or is meditation the experience of the big Truth? Dog, you're retracting your earlier statements! So which is it? I don't give a damn. I don't have a vested interest in either definition. Whatever turns you on. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 00:09:58 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: Deputy Dog Subject: A non answer from someone who....... Message:

Is just playing a little game here. Get real and grow up!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 18:56:42 (EST) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Re: An answer from someone who....... Message:

Is just playing a little game here. Get real and grow up! --- No, you grow up!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:40:04 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Brilliant, Tonette. You're on a roll! [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:39:43 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Why can't you see this obvious fact? Message:

IMHO Truth (with a capital T) is nothingness, i.e. empty space with no concepts. We used to call it 'Holy Name.' Truth is that which was, is, and will be. It doesn't change. Concepts do change. Truth with a capital T doesn't hurt. If you were to tell all that to someone NOT familiar with your new age spiritual beliefs and jargon, you'd have to explain the whole fairy tale, wouldn't you? First, you'd have to tell them that there's this notion of truth that isn't really the truth. Rather, it's this special meaning, one that -- and here you'd go -- one that was spoken of in songs, prayers and whispers from God, in all the worlds' sciptures. They all talk about this big, ultimate something. Let's assume such a big, ultimate something exists (after all, don't forget all those scriptures!); let's call it 'truth'. Indeed, let's call it 'Truth'. Why? Because one of the things we know about this truth is that it's far more real than the world around us. In fact, if you actually read those scriptures, they all suggest that this world is a mere illusion and that everything in it is transitory and ultimately worthless and ephemeral. That's why, in case you haven't noticed, there's no real satisfaction in the world. (You HAVE noticed that, I hope!). So, yeah ...'Truth' -- the only real show in town. Now, what can we tell you about this 'Truth'? Well, for one thing, all the ancient mystics knew that it was really one and the same with God himself. That's why they called it 'The Name of God' too. (You DID know that they called it that, didn't you?) And, because God's universal and timeless, full of love and mercy, peace and wisdom, infinitely so, in fact, well, guess what? That means that this 'Truth' is too! Yes, this 'Truth' is a lot of things. But mainly, if you think about it, it's actually -- get this -- NOTHING AT ALL! Know what I mean? Pure, infinite nothingness. Everything AND nothing and all at the same time. Cool, eh? What's that? You DON'T get it? Well, don't worry. There's nothing really to get. You see -- and here's this other really special quality to this 'Truth', you can't have any CONCEPTS about it. It's concept-free, if you know what I mean. (What's that now? You DON'T know what I mean? What's your problem anyway? Haen't you read any Ram Dass or anything? We're talking actual paradox here, fella. This is the real thing. Or not. See?) So, yeah, no concepts. None. Okay, I guess that about covers it. Oh yeah, I forgot something: this 'Truth', the one with a capital 'T' never hurts. No, that's not a concept. That's just the truth. Get it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:34:45 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Re: The truth does hurt! Truth doesn't! Message:

Dog, I agree with you about Truth with a Capital T and your explanation of it. Nothing can occupy that space, that is why it is called nothingness. The pain comes when we try to make something out of nothing, and take it all so seriously, like insert a concept, a religion or a guru in there. Whatever suffering happens as a result of all of this depends on the level of investment one has in holding on to the little t while staring in the face of the big T. No rip, and a big right on Dog!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:44 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Really? Message:

Since when does the unknown get to be called 'Truth'? Talk about Orwellian!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:06:48 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Really! Message:

Jim, Have you ever meditated and experienced silence? You know, no words, no pictures, no internal dialogue, just clarity, nothingness, spaciousness. Nothing to do, nowhere to go. That's the place of which I speak. Our 'story' is always commenting and judging and planning. It blocks the light of our natural wisdom. It limits our seeing who we really are. It makes a lot of noise and attracts our attention to a fraction of the reality in which we exist. Our Buddha Nature is like the sun, always shining, always present, though often obscured. Usually we try to avoid unhappiness by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. But pleasure doesn't make us happy. Pleasure is pleasure, a temporary satisfaction of desire. Happiness is a deeper satisfaction. Happiness is the feeling of wholeness, of non-neediness. Happiness is the spaciousness of non-wanting, 'the always so.' What was, what is, and what will be. That's the place I'm referring to. That's Truth with a capital 'T'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 22:18:26 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Spare me the gobbledygook, please! Message:

Look, Dog, I was just making the simple, but rich (if I don't say so myself) point that it's a wonderful perversion of the word 'truth' to assign it to that which can't be known. I wasn't asking for more of your cookie-cutter spiritual mumbo jumbo. Thanks anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 09:24:12 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim Subject: What ?????????? Message:

I was just making the simple, but rich (if I don't say so myself) point that it's a wonderful perversion of the word 'truth' to assign it to that which can't be known. Who has perverted the assignment of truth by relegating it the ranks of the unknown? Not me, I don't agree with that assignment at all. I say that it is possible to know truth both with a capital T and truth with a small t. Dog has just given an superb description of the capital T truth that can be revealed in the moment when one discovers that which is known after he has cleared his mind and consciousness of concepts and expectations. Are you saying that it is not possible to know an experience such as this? Or are you saying that you personally haven't known it? I know what Dog is talking about, I know it well To me it is simply being present with and knowing the freedom found in the unadulterated nowness where we arrive at the place of union with time and space and just be. Just grateful acceptance of what is, no interference. Just taking it in, soaking it up, letting it wash over you, knowing the beauty of it, period. Dog sounds like he is on to it, I am getting it as well but it's only since I dumped m that I woke up to it and found out that I have the right and free will intact to know capital T Truth in and of itself by my own self efforts. It is something that I want to know, it is my choice, what I do, where I look for it. I have found I need look no further than myself for all the truth and experience that I want to know. Call it mumbo jumbo if you like, but it exists Jim, and it doesn't have squat to do with spiritualism, gurus, concepts, religion or whether or not anyone believes in it. Obstacles to be overcome, all of the above mentioned roadblocks to acceptance of self truth. It is my own personal journey of self discovery, one that I found myself by trusting my own instincts to find my own way along the path of self awareness. When my heart and mind was finally cleared of the garbage of the cult and m it brought me to who I am today and to what I now know. Which for me is a stillness, clarity, a true peace of mind and sense of purpose and truth that I KNOW to be the most real and most precious experience of my lifetime. I just happened to catch a glimpse of infinity along the way, one that has awakened a truth that I now know with a capital K and one that has transformed me forever.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:58:53 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Brian, did you read my response to Dog below? Message:

I would be interested in your comments. It's clear to me that 'knowing' is a function of the brain. We feel good when we know or understand something. It therefore seems perfectly plausible that that part of the brain could be stimulated in some way where all we feel is the feeling of knowing or understanding without the ususal subject matter. Also, the assessment of size, and the identification of the boundaries of objects, our bodies, and our selves are also functions of the brain. Again, if that part of the brain is affected in some way, we could feel we are without limits. As I said in my post to Dog, I need further evidence that something transcendent is going on when we have those experiences. Apart from your own feelings, do you have any evidence? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:22:28 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Brian, did you read my response to Dog below? Message:

I would be interested in your comments. It's clear to me that 'knowing' is a function of the brain. We feel good when we know or understand something. It therefore seems perfectly plausible that that part of the brain could be stimulated in some way where all we feel is the feeling of knowing or understanding without the usual subject matter. Also, the assessment of size, and the identification of the boundaries of objects, our bodies, and our selves are also functions of the brain. Again, if that part of the brain is affected in some way, we could feel we are without limits. As I said in my post to Dog, I need further evidence that something transcendent is going on when we have those experiences. John, Why do we have to trancend ourselves to know ourselves? Where it not for thoughts in our brains nothing would be known or exist for us. The brain is one of our most important organs, the one that produces thought, It just occurred to me recently that whenever the subject of enlightenment is discussed there is always this big issue with the mind. It is the enemy, it is bad, and it is the ultimate obstacle, a dark force to be reckoned with. I cannot recall anyone ever saying that a brain is a bad thing to have, quite to the contrary in fact. Maybe therein lies the key, It is quite plausable then that it is the brain that triggers those phenomena attributed to paranormal experiences. In following this train of thought transcending the brain (or body)is like sawing off the limb one sits on. It may well be though that there is plenty more going on within the brain that we have not tapped into. What is it they say we use only 10% of our brain function anyway. Maybe if I find an additional 1% to work with, not much, but still a 10% increase over what I previously used. And that still leaves 89% left, a lot of room for extraordary realizations. I am really being serious JHB, I agree that it is quite plausible that the brain does play a major function in all of this brouhaha attributed to those so called spiritual experiences. I have found no evidence of transcendence either JHB, I am still working with my original issue and having quite an extraordinary time of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 12:56:22 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Sorry, shouldn't have said 'transcendent', but... Message:

Brian, I was careless in my use of the word transcendent, but I don't think you've asnwered my point. You use the word 'knowing' but I'm not clear what is it you know. I thought you were talking about the kind of experience where you 'know' the 'Truth'. I was speculating that when we have such an experience, we don't actually know anything, except a different way of getting high, and use of the word 'Truth' is completely inappropriate, as what is happening inside the brain of a mammal hardly deserves the title 'Truth', regardless of how cosmic it feels. So, Brian, apart from a wonderful way to get high, what value is there in this experience? Of course, most of us value getting high pretty highly:-) John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:11:05 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: JHB Subject: No way to get high here Message:

Brian, I was careless in my use of the word transcendent, but I don't think you've asnwered my point. You use the word 'knowing' but I'm not clear what is it you know. I thought you were talking about the kind of experience where you 'know' the 'Truth'. I was speculating that when we have such an experience, we don't actually know anything, except a different way of getting high, and use of the word 'Truth' is completely inappropriate, as what is happening inside the brain of a mammal hardly deserves the title 'Truth', regardless of how cosmic it feels. So, Brian, apart from a wonderful way to get high, what value is there in this experience? Of course, most of us value getting high pretty highly:-) John. --- I am talking about peace of mind, something that I have come to know deeply since exiting moreso now than ever before in my life. And that has immense value to me particularly on how I approach life with all it's rewards and all of the inherent problems that go with it. This conversation somehow digressed into a way of getting high which is a form of escapism and that is not at all what I am committed to. The only way I ever got high was through drugs and booze and I gave those up 19 years ago. Leaving the cult has restored a certain integrity to my life. Acting on that integrity has produced a profound clarity of my thoughts and purpose that pertain to me alone today. This is something which is has an altogether different benefit and effect than from just getting high. This is a self recovery process one that I approach quite seriously. There were many times when I wished that I could have gone out and gotten high to avoid facing the issues of looking at 29 years of deluded reasoning. But I didn't. What I did instead was honestly and truthfully look at the facts and information that was presented to me and mustered the strength and courage to reclaim my freedom from the cult and m. This is the only truth at risk here, that of my entangled beliefs and emotions related to M and the cult. I never expected to discover how clear that I would feel and the ensuing peace of mind that I now know from having put those matters to rest. That was a big bonus personal truth for me, one that I thought would be appropriate to share as another example of what happens sans M & K. As opposed to his rotting vegetable claim. I do not intend to just have it end there either, I will continue to remain committed to supporting the cause and to helping others in recovering their lives from the cult. Interpretation is a big issue, particulary concerning words from the heart, so be it, that is the risk one takes when talking about the deeper and most personal aspects of ones self. The less said the better, words seldom meet the challenge of communicating the most personal of things anyway, and one invaribly looks ridiculous in trying. I can do as good a job of looking ridiculous as anyone I know, at least I am not afraid to do so if it clears the air even just a little.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 17:59:35 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Great Response, Steve Message:

You spoke my own feelings so clearly, thank you. I think the confusion arose because of using words like knowing and truth in ways that suggested, or hinted, at some exclusive knowledge. BTW, you're wrong about the less said the better - you have used words here very eloquently. Welcome to the real world, once again:-) John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 19:41:40 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: JHB Subject: I think you were talking to me, Message:

Not Steve, in any case, thanks JHB, I have very much appreciated your contributions and commitment here and especially with EPO as well. Words when mixed up with feelings often times don't cut it, but what can you do but try. Thank You, Brian

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:50:32 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Brian, another scrupulous man Message:

Yes, the peace of mind one has from getting out of Rawat's corrupt world is not something to be under-estimated. It does not suit scrupulous people to be involved with the Fudgemeister.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:17:28 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: What kind of 'knowing' is that then? Message:

To me it is simply being present with and knowing the freedom found in the unadulterated nowness where we arrive at the place of union with time and space and just be. I think it's a bit of a perversion to call it 'knowing' as, the fact is, you don't know what the hell it is. It could, for example, be nothing more nor less than the feeling one has when one's lost sight of the normal parameters of personal consciousness, i.e. one's body. Just like in that Newsweek article where they did MRI's and PET scans on all these 'serious' meditators and monitored their brain activity when they were in what they thought were 'transcendental' states. Now what kind of 'knowing' is that if they were simply fooling themselves thinking they'd transcended anything? It's not. It's self-deception in the extreme. Some kind of 'Truth' with a capital 't' that is!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 23:30:05 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then????? Message:

I think it's a bit of a perversion to call it 'knowing' as, the fact is you don't know what the hell it is. It could, for example, be nothing more nor less than the feeling one has when one's lost sight of the normal parameters of personal consciousness, i.e. one's body. Just like in that Newsweek article where they did MRI's and PET scans on all these 'serious' meditators and monitored their brain activity when they were in what they thought were 'transcendental' states. Now what kind of 'knowing' is that if they were simply fooling themselves thinking they'd transcended anything? It's not. It's self-deception in the extreme. Some kind of 'Truth' with a capital 't' that is! It is like the knowing one experiences when one has removed the lid from the trappings of the cult and M and steps outside of that. Never in the course of many decades did I believe let alone 'know' that it was possible to stand without the Cult & M and now I know that it is. The experience of knowing is not mystical or complex nonsense. The reality is that each of us have different perspectives and every person believes that they know some truth about life and the truth that they know is always the more valid. Otherwise we would not argue point, counterpoint. We do this to bring in an attempt to bring thought and perception to bear some mutual meaning. The problem is it is not always possible to find common ground. For instance sharing what I KNOW now as an ex-premie with a “die hard” premie is going to be met with a formidable amount of resistance. They can't know what I know until they do it for themselves. The fact is Jim, we are probably not going to agree about what it is I know, as opposed to what you know, or what you think I don’t know etc. I believe you brought the word transcended into this conversation Jim, I myself do not believe that I don't think that I am transcending anything outside of myself when I describe my experience. I am not launching into the great beyond when I say that I know the freedom that I find outside of my former limitations. To some people it sounds that way, to me it is not that huge of a puzzle. I am more inclined to think that I am working within the parameters of how my brain functions between the scope of my experience and what I know. The MRI scan on those subjects you mentioned showed some brain activity which indicated an occurrence of some sort. Maybe those subjects attributed it to a state of transcendence. Who cares Let’em have it, I do not necessarily see it that way myself. In any case an experience did occur and was recorded, and with no other available way of otherwise expressing its observation in relation to the experiment they may very well categorize it as such. Not so in my case, I harbor no such notion of transcendence. I say that what I know it is a result of my brain producing the sensations of my own experience. I am not deluded into thinking it comes from a higher source, I have already dispensed that illusion. What was then left was mine, unless you say the illusion is that I am now able to produce many enjoyable benefits for myself from it, plus a rich and rewarding sense of deep personal satisfaction for having discovered my own dynamic. All from within this little old grey matter, nothing outside of it. This self discovery of my own volition in itself debunks the many myths associated with the need for a guru, or a secret knowledge or religious beliefs. The exit process unfolds in many different ways, life beyond the guru has opened up many options for me, I just happen to enjoy this one that I stumbled upon of stimulating my own personal brain potential. Besides that, it REALLY doesn’t matter to anyone besides me. Even if it is just my brain it is still a remarkable experience, and to think I am only using 10% of it

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 13:47:07 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Talking a little further on this Message:

It is like the knowing one experiences when one has removed the lid from the trappings of the cult and M and steps outside of that. Never in the course of many decades did I believe let alone 'know' that it was possible to stand without the Cult & M and now I know that it is. Well, Brian, that's a pretty prosaic form of knowing, I think, despite the emotional heft it carries. So you finally get a fuller picture and realize that M's fake for this reason or that. There's nothing esoteric about this knowledge. For example, one doesn't have to have been a premie to share it. All one needs is the facts and a bit of common sense. So I don't see how you're going to get to 'Truth' that way. Just like we can't get there by knowing that Scientology's bullshit. The experience of knowing is not mystical or complex nonsense. The reality is that each of us have different perspectives and every person believes that they know some truth about life and the truth that they know is always the more valid. Otherwise we would not argue point, counterpoint. We do this to bring in an attempt to bring thought and perception to bear some mutual meaning. The problem is it is not always possible to find common ground. For instance sharing what I KNOW now as an ex-premie with a “die hard” premie is going to be met with a formidable amount of resistance. They can't know what I know until they do it for themselves. Sorry, Brian, but I think this last bit is terribly muddled. First, I don't buy the terminology in your first sentence. Why are you talking about the 'experience of knowing'? That's premie talk, quite frankly. You're not the first ex who, in my opinion, relies unduly on this 'experience' word as some sort of step up from opinions and belief. But, Brian, 'knowing' is all about opinions and belief. Surely you've heard Socrates' definition of knowledge? It's the only bit of classical anything I know: knowledge = justified true belief It's not an 'experience'. But yes, we do all have different perceptions of what reality and yes, we argue them out and yes, it's impossible to do that, or do it well, with a die-hard premie. So? What's your point? This is all about ideas and beliefs about truth, about experiences. The fact is Jim, we are probably not going to agree about what it is I know, as opposed to what you know, or what you think I don’t know etc. Funny, that's just what I'd expect the die-hard premie to say. :) No, sorry, just a joke. But, well, I don't know. Maybe we could agree a lot more on these issues. Who's to say? I believe you brought the word transcended into this conversation Jim, I myself do not believe that I don't think that I am transcending anything outside of myself when I describe my experience. I am not launching into the great beyond when I say that I know the freedom that I find outside of my former limitations. To some people it sounds that way, to me it is not that huge of a puzzle. Okay, so why do you think it 'sounds that way' to some people? If it's not what you mean, surely you'd want to amend your description to correct any misconceptions people may have. But how? I am more inclined to think that I am working within the parameters of how my brain functions between the scope of my experience and what I know. The MRI scan on those subjects you mentioned showed some brain activity which indicated an occurrence of some sort. Maybe those subjects attributed it to a state of transcendence. Who cares Let’em have it, I do not necessarily see it that way myself. In any case an experience did occur and was recorded, and with no other available way of otherwise expressing its observation in relation to the experiment they may very well categorize it as such. Not so in my case, I harbor no such notion of transcendence. Okay, but then wouldn't you agree that it's a bit of a farce for anyone being so mistaken as to consider something happening just in his brain as actually being something much greater to wave the banner of 'Truth' around? If someone doesn't even know on the most fundamental level if they're plugging into the cosmos or just their own brain circuitry (spiced up, I'm sure, with a bit of imagination), it seems extraordinarily perverse to call that 'Truth'. Perhaps what it really should be called is 'Confusion'. I say that what I know it is a result of my brain producing the sensations of my own experience. I am not deluded into thinking it comes from a higher source, I have already dispensed that illusion. Tell that to Dog! What was then left was mine, unless you say the illusion is that I am now able to produce many enjoyable benefits for myself from it, plus a rich and rewarding sense of deep personal satisfaction for having discovered my own dynamic. All from within this little old grey matter, nothing outside of it. Now it sounds like all you're saying is that you get a nice effect from meditating. Maybe 'nice' is too small a word; let's say you get an extremely nice effect. Fine. But where in the world is there any cause to call that 'Truth'? This self discovery of my own volition in itself debunks the many myths associated with the need for a guru, or a secret knowledge or religious beliefs. The exit process unfolds in many different ways, life beyond the guru has opened up many options for me, I just happen to enjoy this one that I stumbled upon of stimulating my own personal brain potential. No problem there. Besides that, it REALLY doesn’t matter to anyone besides me. If we're talking, we're talking. That's all. Even if it is just my brain it is still a remarkable experience, and to think I am only using 10% of it Sorry, Brian, but that ten percent thing is a fully-exploded myth. We use it all apparently. Indeed, it would be astoundingly inefficient (and thus unlikely) for evolution to have loaded us up with extra brain power that we had to feed and protect.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 20:39:43 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim Subject: Adding a little more Message:

Well, Brian, that's a pretty prosaic form of knowing, I think, despite the emotional heft it carries. So you finally get a fuller picture and realize that M's fake for this reason or that. There's nothing esoteric about this knowledge. For example, one doesn't have to have been a premie to share it. All one needs is the facts and a bit of common sense. So I don't see how you're going to get to 'Truth' that way. Just like we can't get there by knowing that Scientology's bullshit. Prosaic and poetic as it is it is still a form of knowing, but we are talking here from the standpoint of having once been premies, the difference is we have gathered together sufficient information and common sense to see the foible in it after the fact. Finding that out of that gave us the impetus to get beyond the M&K myth but that does not mean that we have found capital T truth. It simply means that we are free of the cult and the guru. From that position we can inform others both to avoid getting in or assist others who want to in getting out. Sorry, Brian, but I think this last bit is terribly muddled. First, I don't buy the terminology in your first sentence. Why are you talking about the 'experience of knowing'? That's premie talk, quite frankly. You're not the first ex who, in my opinion, relies unduly on this 'experience' word as some sort of step up from opinions and belief. But, Brian, 'knowing' is all about opinions and belief. Surely you've heard Socrates' definition of knowledge? It's the only bit of classical anything I know Experiencing and knowing are involved in ones beliefs, what is so hard to discern about that, two people witness an event, I think that it would be true to say they experienced the same situation. Question them both and they will tell likely different stories of what they believe happened. No, problem Jim, what one knows is dependent on opinions, beliefs and the affect of them stimulates how one defines experience as well. And just because ‘experience” is a former premie buzzword does not mean that I exclude it from my vocabulary entirely. Okay, but then wouldn't you agree that it's a bit of a farce for anyone being so mistaken as to consider something happening just in his brain as actually being something much greater to wave the banner of 'Truth' around? If someone doesn't even know on the most fundamental level if they're plugging into the cosmos or just their own brain circuitry (spiced up, I'm sure, with a bit of imagination), it seems extraordinarily perverse to call that 'Truth'. Perhaps what it really should be called is 'Confusion'. I agree it is perverse to go around waving the banner of “TRUTH” if capital T truth is infinite how can anyone say they really know what it is anyway. I say a lot of what people pawn off as the ultimate T is just a matter of conditioning and yes beliefs and opinions. Sometimes confused, sometimes clearly thought out and communicated, but not necessarily TRUTH the big one. Now it sounds like all you're saying is that you get a nice effect from meditating. Maybe 'nice' is too small a word; let's say you get an extremely nice effect. Fine. But where in the world is there any cause to call that 'Truth'? Where in the post you are referring to did I mention meditation? You brought the word into this particular conversation here. Maybe it sounds like meditation but I am talking about my own personal thoughts and realizations. Ideas that have occurred to me spontaneously after I left the cult. Actually, I have not formally sat down in meditation for months and I know more about my self now than I ever did back when I was a devoted practitioner. Tell that to the Dog I am sure Dog will read the post, at some point or another If you are interested in what I am committed to here Jim, it is simply sharing my thoughts and ideas and yes, experiences about personally having left the cult. This will involve dialogue that references past and present realizations of where I came from and what I am now working through and finding out. Don’t take it personally, I am not foisting my ideas and opinions off on anyone as the big Truth, I am just sharing my story. Sorry, Brian, but that ten percent thing is a fully exploded myth. We use it all apparently. Indeed, it would be astoundingly inefficient (and thus unlikely) for evolution to have loaded us up with extra brainpower that we had to feed and protect. Ten percent was the latest figure that I heard on the brain usage thing. If you have other data to support your premise I would be interested in seeing it so please pass it on.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:12:25 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth Message:

Brian, I guess the real issue I've got with you about this is your continued assumption that there even is anything akin to a big Truth. For example, when you say to Dog: I agree with you about Truth with a Capital T and your explanation of it. Nothing can occupy that space, that is why it is called nothingness. I'm left thinking that that word 'truth' got hijacked. Don't forget, there's a reason that the mystics or spiritualists or whoever chose that particular word. Isn't it to dwarf and trivialize all other forms of human knowledge? Sure seems like it to me. So there's alreay a bit of an attack in play but it's on reason and our lives in the world, not the other way around. You know, someone like Dog would say, if you asked him, that a non-spiritual person like me can learn all he wants about little ol' nothing truth but, when push comes to shove, all that matters is the big 't' stuff and he's got it and I don't. As far as I know, that's what that jargon's designed for. Okay, like I said I think it's perverse, kind of like saying one knows the unknowable. Spirituality thrives in that kind of paradox. I don't. I don't have any further argument with you on the word 'experience'. And as for the ten percent myth, here's one link. There are others. Here's an excerpt of an article in the Skeptical Inquirer: Evidence Against the Ten-Percent Myth The argument that psychic powers come from the unused majority of the brain is based on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. In this fallacy, lack of proof for a position (or simply lack of information) is used to try to support a particular claim. Even if it were true that the vast majority of the human mind is unused (which it clearly is not), that fact in no way implies that any extra capacity could somehow give people paranormal powers. This fallacy pops up all the time in paranormal claims, and is especially prevalent among UFO proponents. For example: Two people see a strange light in the sky. The first, a UFO believer, says, 'See there! Can you explain that?' The skeptic replies that no, he can't. The UFO believer is gleeful. 'Ha! You don't know what it is, so it must be aliens!' he says, arguing from ignorance. What follows are two of the reasons that the Ten-Percent story is suspect. (For a much more thorough and detailed analysis of the subject, see Barry Beyerstein's chapter in the new book Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries of the Mind [1999].) 1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading Skeptical Inquirer, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another. 2) The myth presupposes an extreme localization of functions in the brain. If the 'used' or 'necessary' parts of the brain were scattered all around the organ, that would imply that much of the brain is in fact necessary. But the myth implies that the 'used' part of the brain is a discrete area, and the 'unused' part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary. But if all those parts of the brain are unused, removal or damage to the 'unused' part of the brain should be minor or unnoticed. Yet people who have suffered head trauma, a stroke, or other brain injury are frequently severely impaired. Have you ever heard a doctor say, '. . . But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use'? Of course not. [ Skeptical Inquirer article of Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 00:51:03 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thanks for the link Message:

and for the brainstorming session Jim. I needed the excersise to stenghten my old grey matter. As for the assumption that there is a big T, then nothingingness should satisfy both camps. You are an agnostic, an atheist aren't you? Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't an atheist believe there is no God no afterlife nothing beyond this life, nothing, finis. Isn't that in itself a belief of nothing? Now guys like Dog and me to some extent who think that nothing or nothingness is akin to the big truth, so what? When confronted with the final moment of facing the ultimate reality of it all everyone ends up with the same thing, nothing. I see no harm in this and a lot less in the difference that it makes in the final outcome. Just a difference of opinion here and now, thats all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:41:00 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Oh yeah, there's harm alright Message:

and for the brainstorming session Jim. I needed the excersise to stenghten my old grey matter. As for the assumption that there is a big T, then nothingingness should satisfy both camps. You are an agnostic, an atheist aren't you? Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't an atheist believe there is no God no afterlife nothing beyond this life, nothing, finis. Isn't that in itself a belief of nothing? Now guys like Dog and me to some extent who think that nothing or nothingness is akin to the big truth, so what? When confronted with the final moment of facing the ultimate reality of it all everyone ends up with the same thing, nothing. I see no harm in this and a lot less in the difference that it makes in the final outcome. Just a difference of opinion here and now, thats all. --- Brian, There's a big diff between 'nothingness' and 'Truth' (not just 'truth' mind you, but 'Truth'). As I mentioned elsewhere, 'Truth', for one thing, is an abomination of the word. The word has a perfectly good and important meaning. It doesn't even need a capital 't' to mean that which actually is, plain and simple. That's truth as far as I'm concerned. Now, having said that, I recognize that the word was hijacked by the church and other spiritualists years and years ago. I'm pretty sure it was the church that came up with the capital 't' version, meaning, some sort of transcendent spiritual reality, but I think that's bogus. It minimizes all the other real 'truth' we can learn about. Plus, it turns the regular meaning of the word on its head. I think that's extremely harmful, myself. See, if you think that the big 'truth', the one that really matters, isn't knowable in classic sense of the word (oh no, are we going to play games with 'knowing' too? Afraid so, it's part of the new age and spiritual vernacular), then what's the point of getting hung up in all these 'lesser' forms of truth? That's the problem. Now, I don't get that from you but I sure get it from Dog. For example, Dog refuses to read any modern science. Nothing about the brain, consciousness, evolution. Why? Well, he's said it before here -- why bother going after the truth when you can simply seek out the 'Truth'. Yeah, that's the problem alright.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 13:33:58 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim Subject: You can have the last word on this Message:

I am satisfied that I have taken this about as far as I need to. What Dog thinks is not all that important to me. His difference of perception, opinion, etc does not present a problem to me. Having said that I still support his right as much as I do that of anyone else here to discuss his views pertinent to the topic of this forum. Whether I agree with him or not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:42:14 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: The Ten Percent Brain Usage Myth Message:

The ten percent brain usage, I always thought, was based on the fact that the major part of brain activity takes place in the small part associated with the senses. If the brain had lights to show what part was being used and was observed during a 24 hour period it would look like this: 6am Wake up. The part of the brain associated with the senses lights up AND REMAINS lit up until it falls asleep 16 hours later. Certain thoughts will light up certain other areas of the brain. Emotions others. Booze or drugs will stimulate other parts. Sex and music others. Fear and pain others. But all those other parts excluding the part we call the ''mind'' (the bit attached to the senses) only light up intermittently. It's not so much that 90 percent of the brain is NEVER used but that it is only intermittently used compared with the constant usage of the bit we call the mind. Perhaps meditation is giving the over-used ten percent a break and perhaps it also is exploring the other 90 percent. I honestly don't know about that but I think brain scientists are becoming curious about it and we will have some answers soon or at least will begin to ask the right questions. I'm keeping an open mind.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:12:58 (EST) From: Jim the Forum Watchdog Email: None To: PatC Subject: Why try to salvage something here? Message:

Pat, As Forum Watchdog, I must say that you seem to be trying to somehow grandfather in part of this myth. Like who ever said that there was any 'over-used ten percent' to begin with? Here's another link about the myth which seems to have no redeeming value whatsoever. You can see by this article that it's truly a matter of use it or lose it. :) [ The Brain: Use it or Lose it ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:38:38 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Jim the Forum Watchdog Subject: Jim, Grandfathering vs Revisionism Message:

Jim, I think you know me well enough by now to know that I'm a fairly scrupulous person. When you accused me of grandfathering in the ten percent myth, I did not at first completely understand you. Then I began to think about the misgivings I've had about several of the posts I've made about meditation. For the record I really want to say this: what I now write about meditation is not a lot like what I felt about it while in the cult. I had glimpses of the insights I now have about it but most of the time I was ''practicing Knowledge'' not meditating. That means that I was worrying about ''having an experience, ''striving for perfection,'' ''trying to merge with god,'' etc. In other words I thought about it like Rawat does. It was often a very disconcerting and confusing (and probably dangerous for susceptible people) experience because, on the one hand I was enjoying a lot of it and on the other I was made uneasy with religious guilt and fear. Now it all seems so simple and harmless but I don't want to grandfather in stuff that was not there during my days in the cult. That's too much like the revisionism that cult apologists engage in. I know that people like Erica are basically sincere and have simply grandfathered in most of the changes which Rawat has made. Perhaps there are cynical spin-control spiders at the top of the cult pecking order who invent the ''grandfathered revisionism'' but I think most premies, yes even I, saw it as evolution not revisionism because of the gradualness of the changes. I'll be talking about meditation because I find it an interesting subject but I spent 27 years practicing it under the spell of Rawat. Of course I will take the good bits out of those 27 years and fit it seamlessly into my new Rawat-free world but neither do I want to do that at the expense of telling the truth and conveniently grandfathering in stuff which I now know to be nonsense. For instance I have tried writing my Journey but have given up several times because it is always written with 20/20 hindsight e.g. - I knew that I did not like Rawat from the gitgo but that was not what was in the fore-front of my mind at the time. In the fore-front was that he was the messiah and beyond my comprehension and I felt guilty for not liking him. That concept subtly changed as Rawat gave new cues so that, just before I got out, I could have written the same apologist garbage (maybe even a bit better) as Geaves, Gallwey et al - and worse - believed it. But, as I said, I'm fairly scrupulous and, when I see that I have in fact grandfathered in the ten percent myth, my only excuse is that I am trying to explain meditation in pseudo-scientific terms. As I said to Fran above, I enjoy it first and attempt to explain it second. Maybe, one day, I will be able to. Who knows? Maybe the only answer I'll come up with is that it is like brain masturbation. I admit to being a pleasure-seeker so, if that's all there is to it, I won't be ashamed to admit that just as long as I don't then expect everyone else to enjoy my particular kink. What creeps me out is that some cultweasel is copying this and it will be discussed at the next PR meeting. That has been the biggest cause of my reluctance to talk about certain things here - that the cult takes what is said on the forum to do some more ''grandfathering.'' Rawat had never in 30 years used the word bhakti till a few months after it was used a lot here by me when I first began to post. Next thing he'll be selling K as mental health techiques and he's the personal trainer who reminds you to do your reps. Yuk!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:15:41 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim the Forum Watchdog Subject: Oops! Wrong article! Message:

Oh yeah, it's the MYTH which lacks redeeming value, not the link. Anyway, here's the right one. [ More boring stuff about the brain ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:22:52 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Jim Subject: Oops! Wrong brain! Message:

Thanks for posting a link for kids. That's about the level of my knowledge about the brain and I'm serious. Every time I talk to a teenager (a sensible one) nowadays I came away feeling ignorant. I'm not sticking up for the myth. Okay, so we use all of the brain but do we use all of it all of the time. I don't mean the ''redundancy factor'' where several visual pathways exist or when other parts of the brain can somehowe take up the job of other parts lost in a stroke. I mean aren't some smart guys, like Einstein or Mozart, using more of their brain than say Bart Simpson? Aren't some parts of the brain sitting fairly dormant in most humans? Okay so I need to read more. I still think the ancient Greeks may have been right: the brain is an air-conditioning and cooling system and most of us think with our stomachs. More seriously, I have read that we may also sometimes ''think'' with our DNA but that's very theoretical still.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:06:42 (EST) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: What kind of 'knowing' is that then? Message:

Jim: Just like in that Newsweek article where they did MRI's and PET scans on all these 'serious' meditators and monitored their brain activity when they were in what they thought were 'transcendental' states. Now what kind of 'knowing' is that if they were simply fooling themselves thinking they'd transcended anything? It's not. It's self-deception in the extreme. Some kind of 'Truth' with a capital 't' that is! Now, who would argue that someone *else's* experience is the absolute Truth? I mean, unless you were just trying to mislead. Sort of like telling a girl who has a crush on me that, actually, *your're* a better lover. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:34:22 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Sorry, I left out the best part Message:

I forgot to mention the best part. Scientists can apparently stimulate that same part of the brain so as to give the subject the impression that he's having the same 'transcendent' experience of God he thinks he gets through meditation (and by God's will, of course). That, to me, suggests that all bets are off in the 'Truth' arena.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:27:18 (EST) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's certainly true ... Message:

... and I'd put it more strongly Scientists can stimulate that same part of the brain so as to give the subject the same 'transcendent' experience of God he gets through meditation (and by God's will, of course). But so nothing. Awareness -- experience -- is surely mediated by the brain. It can imagine anything it can experience. All it takes is the right stimulation or input. What matters is whether anything in external reality corresponds to the natural occurence of these brain activities. JHB's question is a good one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:54:12 (EST) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: The best part. Message:

Jim: Well, assuming that this particular experience is the one that's arguably supposed to be 'The Truth' then you'd be stuck with an argument that someone installed a button. Sort of odd, when you consider that the button couldn't be reliably activated until the rise of modern medicine. But it might be useful for terminally ill patients, mightn't it? Better than drugs, anyway. But what criteria would you have to use, to discern one absolute truth from another? One could also argue that no one really has access to the Truth, any more than a clam can read Shakespeare. It's just beyond our capabilities as humans. Of course, that's not a very useful argument for a religionist (or anyone else) because it's not falsifiable. In a relative sense though, there seem TRUTHS that are beyond us, for the time being at least. I mean, what the hell is 'dark energy?' There's a case of something that apparently accounts for as much as 90% of the universe, and no human has ever experienced it or can even conceive of it descriptively. Whoever installed the button apparently short-changed us. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 10:50:10 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Re: What ? Message:

I was just making the simple, but rich (if I don't say so myself) point that it's a wonderful perversion of the word 'truth' to assign it to that which can't be known. Who has perverted the assignment of truth by relegating it the ranks of the unknown? Not me, I don't agree with that assignment at all. I say that it is possible to know truth both with a capital T and truth with a small t. Dog has just given an superb description of the capital T truth that can be revealed in the moment when one discovers that which is known after he has cleared his mind and consciousness of concepts and expectations. Are you saying that it is not possible to know an experience such as this? Or are you saying that you personally haven't known it? I know what Dog is talking about, I know it well To me it is simply being present with and knowing the freedom found in the unadulterated nowness where we arrive at the place of union with time and space and just be. Just grateful acceptance of what is, no interference. Just taking it in, soaking it up, letting it wash over you, knowing the beauty of it, period. Dog sounds like he is on to it, I am getting it as well but it's only since I dumped m that I woke up to it and found out that I have the right and free will intact to know capital T Truth in and of itself by my own self efforts. It is something that I want to know, it is my choice, what I do, where I look for it. I have found I need look no further than myself for all the truth and experience that I want to know. Call it mumbo jumbo if you like, but it exists Jim, and it doesn't have squat to do with spiritualism, gurus, concepts, religion or whether or not anyone believes in it. Obstacles to be overcome, all of the above mentioned roadblocks to acceptance of self truth. It is my own personal journey of self discovery, one that I found myself by trusting my own instincts to find my own way along the path of self awareness. When my heart and mind was finally cleared of the garbage of the cult and m it brought me to who I am today and to what I now know. Which for me is a stillness, clarity, a true peace of mind and sense of purpose and truth that I KNOW to be the most real and most precious experience of my lifetime. I just happened to catch a glimpse of infinity along the way, one that has awakened a truth that I now know with a capital K and one that has transformed me forever. --- Brian, Thanks again for you posts. If you can afford it, I strongly suggest you take the Landmark Forum. Here is the URL. http://www.landmarkforum.com/default.htm Then get into some Buddhist vipassana meditation. Both will allow you to come to wholeness, your natural completeness. Godspeed brother!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 00:31:58 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Been there done that Message:

Thanks again for you posts. If you can afford it, I strongly suggest you take the Landmark Forum. Then get into some Buddhist vipassana meditation. Both will allow you to come to wholeness, your natural completeness Thanks Dog, I appreciate your sincere concern, but no thanks, I went through the forum and a few of it's related workshops 17 years ago. And as far as what meditation allows, I am whole, I am complete in and of myself and this time I alone will allow myself to own my own experience of it. Best regards, Brian

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 18:18:31 (EST) From: Deputy Dog=) Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Re: Been there done that Message:

More power to you Brian. I did the est/Forum training in 1977 at the height of the foot kissing/arti/LOTU period when I was having trouble encorporating all the stuff surrounding K into my life. It was definitely worth it. I re-did the Forum this past summer, 24 years later, and found it even more powerful and effective. My question to you Brian is this...do you think exes who are hurting could benefit from the Forum? That is, do you think The Forum could help them to own their victim story and get on with their lives? (Hold it exes!!!! Before you rip me, I realize that venting can be cathartic, but venting IMO, if carried on too long, is just a waste of time.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:22:56 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Deputy Dog=) Subject: Possibly Message:

But I think it best to stick to the subject matter here and just share your own story. If you benefited from the forum, tell us how you benefited, that will help immeasurably more than telling someone else what they should do.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:33:11 (EST) From: Jim the Watchdog Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Christ, Brian, you can't be serious! Message:

But I think it best to stick to the subject matter here and just share your own story. If you benefited from the forum, tell us how you benefited, that will help immeasurably more than telling someone else what they should do. --- This is Dog's question you said 'possibly' to: My question to you Brian is this...do you think exes who are hurting could benefit from the Forum? That is, do you think The Forum could help them to own their victim story and get on with their lives? Are you serious? Now, I have to be careful here because Fran's already on my case for talking with you. But, really, Brian ... do you actually hold any truck in Dog's insulting dismissal of our discussions here as hurting 'victim stories' that are preventing us from getting on with our lives? And, if you do, do you really think that a superficial sales job like the Forum, arguably a cult in its own right, could even possibly be the answer? Jim The Watchdog

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:39:09 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim the Watchdog Subject: What Now ? Message:

Jim I was bodily removed from the forum, escorted out of the room and not allowed back, which I came back in anyway and was once again removed. My issue with them was this, I stated that I had been to a number of sales meetings and that I recognized a sales pitch when I saw it, so where was the commission structure, how much would I be paid for each sale I made? This of course turned into a alturistic speel by the trainer, and I stood on the issue if money was being exchanged and I was a responsible party in the equation then I should be compensated. I felt that this held up with the atruistic vision of their concern for my welfare and well being by sharing the wealth. When it became apparent that I was making and scoring good points with the rest of the group, two guys came up along side of me and pulled me out of the room but not without me getting in some choice parting shots at the top of my lungs this time going to the scam and bullshit that they were running. I made it back in as far as the backrow, with a few more choice shots and the same thing ensued. It was quite fun really. Now believe it or not I learned a lot from that encounter about standing up for what I believe in. So when I said to Dog it is possible to extract some benefit from these twisted systems it is because I did. That is just my story. And I am tired of talking about Dog, Like I said think he should stick to 'his' specific story and leave the advice out of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:05:00 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Funny, they kicked me out too Message:

Hi Brian, I hear you. In the mid eighties, this one friend of mine was getting heavily into yet another est off-shoot, Evergreen. I think it was headed up by a former jazz musician or something. Anyway, Jerome insisted I go, wouldn't shut up about it so I finally went to one of their meetings down in a shopping centre somewhere Marina del Ray, I remember. I asked one too many questions and they kicked me out. Yippee! I have some cousins who rose very high in the Landmark Forum hierarchy. In fact, when their real estate empire started to crumble in a bad market in the early 90's, they started a very expensive consulting business where my cousin gets paid unimagineable money to teach other organizations how to raise money effectively. We're talking giant corporate and non-profit clients. We're talking money. And where do you think she got her ideas? From the Landmark Forum findraising strategies! Perhaps if EV really does go under, they'll hire Yoram Weiss. I had a long talk with one of these cousins when I was in Seattle last month. It's funny, all of their employees in this consulting company have been through the 'training'. They just insist on that as a prerequisite because, in their experience, people who've been through the training don't bullshit as much. They get the job done, so to speak. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening at all. I think the training gives a whole new set of psychological tools to use on underlings to, yes, get the job done -- but that that's not necessarily a good thing. I know one thing, my cousin was not able in any way to articulate anything unique or profound in the teachings. To me, that just cries out that there isn't really anything special, that it's just a matter of the mood and atmosphere of the sessions. In other words, just hype and manipulation. Since returning to Victoria I've looked at a number of Landmark Forum sites and anti-sites and I now have no doubt that that's the case. But some people don't care about the integrity of their minds that much, I guess. Whatever it takes to motivate them, if it works, it works. They can plug into the Landmark Forum training and allow it to make them feel like they're approaching life anew. Or, for that matter, they can do it with Maharaji. Same difference, really. Either you want to know if there's really any 'there' there or you don't. The reason I keep tossing in little Dog lines is because you seem to embrace some of his terminology and sentiment. The big difference between you though, in that respect, is that you are amenable, indeed committed, to frank and honest rational discussion. He sure isn't. Give me a break! So your aligning with him on anything, you must see, presents an kind of interesting dynamic. Anyway, going back to your experience with Landmark Forum, I'd hardly say that your experience with them spoke well in any way about that group itself. So for you to agree with Dog that the training might 'possibly' help all these hurt and bitter exes who aren't able to 'move on' is a bit bizarre. And I just hate to see the guy find encouragement where it really doesn't exist. Know what I mean?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 14:47:15 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hilarious & Bizzare Message:

As I reflect back on that incident that I had of being ejected from the forum, I recall charging back in and using the fact that they were throwing me out as a clear example of their lack of integrity. I yelled out, Look at how they react to someone who stands up for themselves, after preaching all along that standing up for oneself or ones principles is what one needs to get out of this. I mean when I brought up the issue of the money and the trainer said that if they paid me it would corrupt the intention of the forum and people would not have the correct motivation for SHARING the opportunity. My reply back was then if money is the corruptor why don't you do just this for free then really keep it pure? I did the head count of about 200 @ the then price of 450.00 per (roughly 90 G) minus a generous 15% operating expense for 2 week ends. I remarked that this is a lot of profit and since money IS involved and a profit WAS being made the only corrupt thing about it was that the sales force was being bilked out of their commissions. I don't remember the complete exchange verbatim but I had it going and the crowd too. Bizzare that it was, I did get some good things out of it. I was the first one out of my chair and was a major contributor throughout and I approached the session with an zest for self examination and internal inquiry. A lot of what I got out of it had to do with what I put into it, I admit I dived in headfirst and hellbent. I learned a lot about myself, gained some good insights to improve important relationships in my life. Many people approached me over the course and said that they gained a lot from me taking it head on and dissecting issues. I think that my higher profile of participation created quite the upheaval and increased the impact when I stood up for the commission issue on factual and reasonable grounds and their ultimate solution was to eliminate me. The bizzare and hilarious thing is that they could only justify thier position by reacting in such a closeminded manner. Contary to what the gist of the whole business which was to empower people to take control of their lives and stop being a victim. Evidently that principle applys to everything else except where the EST cult is concerned and you cannot stand up or speak out against being victimized by them. Hilarious I say, bizzare as well that anything good came out of it for me

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:52:21 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Jim the Watchdog Subject: Dog's erroneous assumption Message:

Well I'm observing ''Be Kind to Dogs Week'' so I haven't been too argumentative but yes, I also thought the suggestion that that Landmark thingy would be good for ''suffering exes'' was a bit patronising to say the least. However I think Poochie may be seeing only what he wants to see or is slow on the uptake. For all the time he has been observing this forum it has been, until very recently, from the POV of a premie and we all know that only premies have the Truth and don't suffer. I've heard such a change in Dog's tone of voice (bolder, lighter and more cheerful) that I bet you he'll emerge from this a wiser man once he has seen that not only are most exes NOT suffering but that most exes are much happier than premies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:11:30 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: PatC Subject: Re: Dog's erroneous assumption Message:

PatC, A friend of mine recently left K and M after reading the Dettmers material. He went through hell. I phoned him up and chatted with him several times and helped him get over it. At least I like to think I did. After 26 or so years of investment into K and M he thought his live was a complete waste and was really down. I suggested he take a trip, get into exercise, and take the Landmark Forum. Why? Because it helped me enormously. He got into exercise and took a trip. Two out of three ain't bad. You know what Pat, the Tao is the Tao, I don't give a fuck how people get to it. I don't have a vested interest in Elan Vital and Maharaji has never invited me abord his yacht for a sail. Zen TM, Subud, NLP, kung fu, t'ai chi, yoga, whatever turns you on to the energy within...but get turned on!. IMO that's where the happiness is. That's my philosophy anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 23:28:02 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Re: Dog's erroneous assumption Message:

I'm glad you were able to help your pal. Yes, it can be unsettling for some premies to exit. Was he more of a conventional premie than you? The ones who really toed the cult line seem to suffer more than those like you who dabbled in other spiritual stuff.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 21:50:46 (EST) From: Dermot Email: None To: Jim the Watchdog Subject: Landmark forum not forum7, I think? [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 19:03:30 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog=) Subject: The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter Message:

You're too much, Dog. On the one hand, you're freaking out because you don't understand what it means -- on the game's own stupid terms -- to have a guru. Never did, never will. So when M starts tightening the screws in '77 you do what? You turn to another exploitative scam -- est -- for assistance. Now, years later, you still don't have a clue whether you're coming or going. And look at you! You can't even speak as your own person but have to hide out here anonymously, gingerly hoping that someone will share your weird version of reality. Where's it going, Dog? Will you ever be able to stand up like a man for your beliefs or will you continue to take these anonymous pot shots at us forever?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:25:56 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter Message:

The only thing I'm hurting from is laughter. Jim there are people who post here who are angry, sad, guilty etc....you name it. Not you of course, you are above all that. My comment about hurting was directed to those who are hurting. You must admit, there are people on this site who are going through some heavy stuff. You're too much, Dog. On the one hand, you're freaking out because you don't understand what it means -- on the game's own stupid terms -- to have a guru. Never did, never will. So when M starts tightening the screws in '77 you do what? You turn to another exploitative scam -- est -- for assistance. Now, years later, you still don't have a clue whether you're coming or going. I've been practicing K and going to programs for 24 years, and I don't understand what it means? Aren't you the guy I had to explain what Truth with a capital 'T' means? Truth with a capital 'T' means that which was, that which is, and that which will be. It's unchangeable. Truth with a small 't' means that which wasn't, that which is, and that which will not be. It's subject to change. This is Satsang 101 for Christ sake, and you think I'm clueless? And look at you! You can't even speak as your own person but have to hide out here anonymously, gingerly hoping that someone will share your weird version of reality. Where's it going, Dog? Will you ever be able to stand up like a man for your beliefs or will you continue to take these anonymous pot shots at us forever? I choose to post anonymously to protect my family who have ties to the community and my weird version of reality is shared by about 700 million Hindus. And it wasn't a pot shot! I actually care about premies and exes alike. My posting here is an attempt to help exes and I think I'm about 70% effective in furthering the conversation on this site. If you want to spend the rest of your life saying 'Hey, Won't You Play, Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song,' go right ahead. I'm here to help those who want to change the tune. Steve Mueller's initial post of this thread was entitled 'Nurturing Each Other, Not Nitpicking.' You still don't get it do you!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 22:56:32 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: If you want to help, scram! Message:

Dog, It's true that people are hurt, sad, angry and confused after realizing they'd been had. But your 'solution' is the cult leader's, isn't it: Move on, have fun and basically leave Maharaji alone? You know how insulted exes get hearing that yet you persist in saying it, again and again and again. If anyone's exacerbating the problem, Dog, it's cult apologists like you. As for your weenie excuse about protecting your family, give me a break. No one's going to say boo to your family and you know it. You just like the bullshit convenience of anonymity. No, Dog, if you really want to 'ease the pain' get lost. As you know, the thing exes find most upsetting here is having their experiences dismissed by new age whitewash. You've got nothing else to offer here, apparently, so, if you really are sincere about how caring you are about all this pain you perceive, get lost.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 14:20:20 (EST) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: What what ? Message:

But how do you know it's THE Truth, as opposed to just being an extraordinary state of consciousness, for intance? Reliability ought to be part of the consideration, oughtn't it? I mean, it's fortunate that every time you count your toes you always arrive at '10.' If you were to start suddently coming up with '11,' and then later '12,' you'd be in a bit of a pickle. So, 'THE TRUTH' would have to hold for every single sitution... and given that you haven't experienced every situation, and probably can't, it's unlikely that you'd ever be able to demonstrate that reliability. Then there's the issue of 'validity' which is simply whether or not your experience of the thing has a one to one correspondence with what it actually 'IS.' You're in even deeper trouble on that one, since you probably can't even describe it accurately or meaningfully. So what you're left with is your personal conviction, and that's about it. Now, I've experienced extraordinary states, but the only certainty I gained from them is the conviction that appearances can deceive. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 12:50:23 (EST) From: Pullaver Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: What It Is Message:

Careful Brian, out of the frying pan into the fire . . . The Landmark Forum is run by Werner Erhard (the discredited guy who ran est) or at least by his brother, Jack Rosenberg (nudge, wink). Anyways here are a few links to do a bit of research. Dep Dog is a bit of a new age junkie, so be warned. Isn't This Just Another Cult? [ Landmark Forum Kult ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 20:59:57 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Thank's Brian! [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:43:21 (EST) From: Pullaver Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Truth or truth Message:

So my point is, do you suppose that your concepts, your story about what happened is the source of your suffering? It might be worth pointing out to you that no where in Brian's post does he say he is suffering because of concepts once held regarding the Kult. In fact, the gist of his post was how grateful he is for the jousting he received here on the Forum and how these challenges awakened him from bondage to his false concepts. In other words, just the opposite of what you are stating. Ironic?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:48:03 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: Pullaver Subject: Re: Truth or truth indeed! Message:

Palaver, You obviously feel that changing one set of facts and information with another set of facts and information will bring freedom from bondage. I don’t! IMO we are duped only when we live in concepts, small 'r' reality. To awaken from bondage is to awaken from concepts to Holy Name, to Tao, to the Buddha Nature, the Christ, to Truth with a capital T etc. Deeply imbedded beliefs, no matter what they are, are unsatisfying. The mind state itself is intrinsically unsatisfying. Cozy little pictures, no matter how nice they are, have nothing to do with Truth and awakening. Concepts are concepts. There is a difference between the concept of and the experience of. As I said in my above post, concepts are not truth with a capital 'T'. Emotional enslavement to M or anyone else is bondage and has nothing to do with freedom or knowing God. Concepts about Knowledge are no better than concepts about anything else. Concepts are concepts, and true freedom is freedom from concepts, i.e. when we go from concept to nothingness, the emptiness, the void, you know, what they talk about in Buddhism. So, IMO to be jostled out of the stupor is to go from the mind-state into the nothingness, into clarity, holy name, not another mind state. To be jostled out of the stupor is to come up to present time, into the here and now. To be jostled out of the stupor is to move from the truth to Truth. To be jostled out of the stupor is to be shocked from your story about it, to the space of life, clarity, the always so. To quote Ram Dass, 'The illusion keeps pulling you back into forgetting. Lost in your melodrama: my love life, my child, my livelihood, my gratification etc. Just more and more stuff. You keep forgetting into it. Within the perfection of the Divine Plan is included the freedom of an individual to choose to be harmonious with, or to go against the law. The way that was depicted in the Bible was Adam and Eve’s choice to eat the apple. God we can say, is the word that describes, which symbolically represents, that Divine Law that says, 'Live here in the perfection of the flow, but refrain from eating the apple.' But the choice whether or not to eat the apple exists in the Garden of Eden as well as everywhere else. The apple represents the separation of the individual from the flow in his own mind. The subject-object, self-consciousness reality. That is knowing it, rather than being it. Chomp! The eating of the apple. Separation. Going into God is going into that which is beyond form. Because the concept of God is not God, of course.' IMO, getting that your story is not where it’s at, is heartwrenching. Ironic? Writ large!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:29:20 (EST) From: Pullaver Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Hear and Now Message:

You obviously feel that changing one set of facts and information with another set of facts and information will bring freedom from bondage. I don’t! IMO we are duped only when we live in concepts, small 'r' reality. To awaken from bondage is to awaken from concepts to Holy Name, to Tao, to the Buddha Nature, the Christ, to Truth with a capital T etc. Thrice ye have risen from the dead with the epiphany that ye can be re-born by dealing with issues related to the Kult and it's Keeper here on the Forum. And thrice ye have announced to all with an ear to hear how you have no business criticizing those who come hear to drinketh and purgeth. Yea, thrice ye have retreated tail between thy legs, promising to droppeth no more turds. And yet here you go again. Your spiritual cookie-cutter (thanks Jim) response chock-full of zen wisdom that nobody here has ever heard before, laying bare the fallacious and hopelessly misguided mission to expose cheat, deceit and belief in all things that we do not know by empirical evidence to be true, here on the Forum. Even if I were to agree with 'the spirit' of what you are saying how does your comment really jibe with reality here on the Forum? What do your comments really have to do with either Steve's or Brian's comments? Steve was making a plea for brotherly love and understanding on the Forum and Brian was thankful that he had his tree of concepts shaken otherwise he'd still be in the Kult. Your comments taken to their logical conclusion implies that there is no point to the Forum because we are merely replacing one set of concepts with another. As if the purpose of this Forum is provide the zen-consciousness that you describe. This is simply ridiculous. It is understood that the discussion here provides an interactive process whereby former Kultists can de-compress about all things regarding Wally World and engage in some stimulating and informative discussion. What you are saying is not really being helpful as you have previously suggested is your motivation for posting here. But if you insist on continuing to use this space as your soapbox may I suggest that you get off your little trip of thinking that you have the wisdom that we all are missing; listen to what is actually being said; and know that at the end of the day words mean nothing because in your nothingness all is well, nothing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 13:45:05 (EST) From: Deputy Dog Email: None To: Pullaver Subject: Re: Now and Zen Message:

Dear Mr. Palaver, Yes, there is a point to this Forum and it's also a Forum open to all. If I want to provide 'cookie-cutter' Zen wisdom to those hurting here, I should be able to. Buddhism has helped me a great deal, and for those exes who are interested and in need of solace, I think it can help them too. Buddhism as you may know promotes non-devotional meditation. I've always felt that it was more useful to light a candle than curse the darkness, and that's what I like to think I'm doing here, being positive and lighting a candle. And you know what, many exes here find my contributions stimulating and informative, Brian Smith for one. Remember him? He's the guy I originally responded to in this thread. My above response was to him and he seemed to like it. So, you don't feel that what I'm saying here is helpful, well no biggie. I got that! Understood. Message received!!!! And what can you do about it? Well, I suggest you don't read my posts. You have said among other things that my posts are 'drivel' and 'turds'. So once again, my question to you is, why are you reading them? Just don't read em, unless of course your real intent here is to harass me. Palaver, there are many others posting here with valuable contributions that might be better suited to what you are looking for. You say you come here to 'de-compress about things regarding Wally World,' fine, I suggest you stick to posts that will help you do that. You do your thing and I'll do mine. Goodbye.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Feb 12, 2002 at 16:54:50 (EST) From: Pullaver Email: pullaver@yahoo.ca To: Dupity Dog Subject: Zen Again, darlink Message:

Yes, there is a point to this Forum and it's also a Forum open to all. If I want to provide 'cookie-cutter' Zen wisdom to those hurting here, I should be able to. Buddhism has helped me a great deal, and for those exes who are interested and in need of solace, I think it can help them too. Buddhism as you may know promotes non-devotional meditation. Yes of course you are entitled to your opinions but because it is a public forum you will encounter disagreement and challenges to what you say. This is harassment only if in your zen wisdom you perceive it as such. To a student of zen this kind of sparring should be useful in strengthening understanding or revealing sublime lessons of some sort. Your buddhist philosophy and small t truth and big T truth and small r reality and big R reality are repeated verbatim from your Landmark Forum training, correct?: If these are not just platitudes that you are re-spouting, then please, inform us precisely how buddhism has helped you if you really want to light a candle here amongst the tired and huddled ex's. And while you are at it could you let me know how the whole enchilada comes together for you. You practice the K tech's, you are a 'buddhist', and you swear by the Landmark Forum (put together by an alleged wife-beating, daughter-diddling, income-tax evading fraud of a second-hand car salesman who abandoned his first wife and three daughters). I think if you are sincere in your desire to help people here you should explain how your whole spiritual smorgasborg works. Otherwise, what do you have but a bunch of nice sounding new-agey concepts that you have simply regurgitated in a delusional effort to help (impress?)? BTW, just where do you stand regarding the Gipper? Are you still attending his broadcasts? Are his talks still a source of inspiration to you? Please do not ignore these questions in your response to me. We have known each other for twenty years. Like I said in an earlier post, you have spent all of your adult life consuming one new age trip after another and parroting other peoples' concepts to all who would listen in an attempt to illuminate. However, you cannot shed light when your wick is covered in other people's wax. In my humble subjective opinion if you are a Landmark Forumized, Knowledge Meditating, Buddhist with an inside track on enlightenment or even some shlub with a cursory self-help awareness, you have me fooled. You know how some people post positive affirmations around their house in an attempt to re-program their thinking into some idealized concept of being? Well that's how you strike me - full of quotes, a veritable walking/talking billboard of new age platitudes but without your own genuine experience of 'liberated' life to speak of.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:56:53 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: The mind, Poochie? Message:

Pooch, doesn't it bother you that the sanskrit words for mind have been misunderstood in the west? I have no idea where Rev Rawat got his translation but he sure got it wrong. For 30 years he has demonized something which, in him, may be something which he finds detestable maybe because he's insane. Drinking oneself into a stupor, as it has been witbnessed in Rawat, is often the sign of a troubled mind. Isn't it strange that the sanskrit word for mind - meditation and conscience are all the same - gyana? Isn't it possible that that wonderful peace that you talk about is simply a product of a healthy mind and a clean conscience - in other words the product of telling the truth with a small t. No esoteric big T truth. Just simply - be honest and you will be happy. Or the real translation of satchitanand - a clean conscience is happiness? Or how about the Buddhists use of the word ''mindfulness'' meaning alertness? Or that buddhi means mind in Pali, the language in which Buddhist scriptures were written, and it also means knowledge, understanding and enlightenment. Or, how about the Buddhist notion that all of the body is in the mind but not all of the mind is in the body? Just thought I'd slip a little koan in there for your amusement. :C)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 11:57:45 (EST) From: Deputy Dog =) Email: None To: PatC Subject: The mind, PatC! Message:

PatC, There is a difference between you and your mind. IMO you have a mind and you are not your mind. If feel that we have to make a distinction between the concept of and the presence of, between the menu and the meal, the sacred and the profane. Alan Watts describes what happened in his The Book On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are. According to Watts, God got bored hanging out with himself so he decided to play hide and seek. Watts believes that, 'Because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. That is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks and all the stars. In this way he can have strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear. Now when God plays hide, and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun if it--just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly because that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self--the God who is all there is and who lives for ever and ever. It's the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, nd the one who does it best is thewinner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world.' The 'Ultimate Ground of Being' is paul Tillich's decontaminated term for 'God' and would also do for 'the Self of the world.' The secret is that the Ultimate Ground of Being is you. Not of course, the everyday you, which the Ground is assuming or 'pretending' to be, but the inmost Self which escapes inspection because it's always the inspector. This then is the taboo of all taboos: You're IT!' To make sure that a person doesn't find out who he is, convince him that he can't really make anything disappear. All that's left then is to resist, solve fix, help or change things. That's trying to make something out of something. Life is game in which what isn't is more important than what is. As Francesca said in an above post 'What is, IS.' That's where vipassana comes in. Let the good time roll.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 14:58:56 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Poochie, I'm just an old acid-head Message:

I used to enjoy all that spiritual stuff like your Alan Watts quote but I no longer listen to anything anybody has to say about meditation especially if they have studied some sort of eastern mysticism. That's because too many pre-scientific ideas are involved and because huge assumptions are made based on the belief that eastern mysticism is valid. The more I get rid of eastern spiritual concepts the more I see that everything I ever needed to know about my consciousness was shown to me during the years I took acid. At the time I was overwhelmed by the information and did not have the words to understand what I had seen. Very little had been written about LSD and what little was written was hopelessly tainted with eastern mumbo-jumbo. Hence I was ripe for the plucking by a Hindu guru. Some of the things that I learned from psychedelics which I have only just begun to think and write about are: As Brian said, we only use part of our brain. Psychedelics stimulate parts which we normally don't use. Those parts of the brain can be stimulated without drugs. After taking acid I often had flash-backs not induced by drugs. I also had similar experiences during sex or when in a creative state. Later, when I began to do yoga meditation before getting K, the same states were recreated. Those parts of the brain seem to be associated with feelings, creativity and imagination and are associated with an effortless and exhilirated alertness. Because they are tied up with the imagination all sorts of errors of discernment can take place such as hallucinations which one thinks are real. (I have a hunch that most religions and pre-scientific cosmologies were the result of psychedelic experiences.) It is for this reason that I distrust any eastern mysticism or anybody else's explanation other than my own. The imagination has not been sufficiently studied by anyone to give me a satisfactory explanation. From psychedelics I also learned that, once the drug wore off, that I could be left feeling vigorously healthy and alert or that I could be caught up in endless loops of thought which ultimately left me feeling groggy and depressed. That taught me that I was the creator of my own states of mind, mood and attitude. Yes, about this word MIND. To me my entire consciousness is my mind. Thoughts are just a small part of my mind. My mind observes my thoughts and feelings as well as all sensual phenomena. I don't want to be nitpicky but I do feel that Rawat used the word incorrectly. He used MIND to mean thoughts and, as I've said before, because his thoughts were so inane and maybe insane, he demonized the mind. I'm game to talk about this stuff but I want to talk about it with people who are also willing to struggle to explain it in their own words without resorting to any sort of mysticism or religion whether of east or west. I definitely agree with you to let the good times roll. We are the masters of our own happiness. I choose to be happy and to share that with anyone else who wants it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:06:13 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Deputy Dog =) Subject: Dog, what evidence do you have?? Message:

Dog, You're making some pretty serious claims here for something that as far as I can tell is just a meditation experience. I know that when you have this experience it feels as if you know the truth, but apart from that feeling what evidence do you have that it is some sort of absolute truth? maybe it's just that the part of the brain that deals with the feeling of knowing gets stimulated in some special way and all you have is the feeling of knowing without the usual mundane subject matter normally associated with knowing, like knowing the time of your train to work in the morning. I would be better inclined to believe what we experience is some absolute thing if it also included the mundane. For instance, as well as knowing the absolute, infinite, nothingness of Truth, you also had access to the akashic records and could tell me what sex the foal my horse is carrying is. Otherwise, I choose to believe the simple explanation that what you feel is confined to your brain. So Dog, apart from feeling cosmic, where is your evidence that it is anything special? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:35:53 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Brian Smith Subject: Brutal Honesty Hurts... Message:

I once said to a friend in a tone of pride ''I'm brutally honest.'' She said to me: ''Honesty is great, but why do you need to be brutal?'' It got me to thinking. There are many tender hearts who enter these screens looking for answers, seeking hope, rejecting maharaji and the whole basket of shit that came with him, trying to let go of something that isn't true, never was true and never will be true. There is great pain involved in that step, those steps that many of us made a while ago. Let us not forget what it was like when we entered this room, decided to reject Maharajism, afraid, vulnerable, not used to this type of communication and the turmoil of wrecked lives because of a dangerous and mean cult leader. Is it fair to make a joke without the benefit of vocal intonation? I know I've had my share of brutal in this life. I don't expect it here. Confrontation? I welcome it. Learning? I welcome that too. Plain brutal truth? How about truth and leave out the brutal. Leave the brutal part for the those with iron skulls and brains that cannot function without the cult. I think you missed the point. But, then again, I most certainly could be wrong. Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 21:02:12 (EST) From: Brian Smith Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: Point well taken.. Message:

I got what I needed, from those who I needed to hear it from, and I cannot recall brutality ever entering into the equation. Brutal honesty, kind of an oxymoron isn't it? Honesty is such a rare commodity amongst the mealy mouthed people pleasing masses anyway. I find honesty to be a scarce and beautiful thing so I am always surprised wherever I find it. I prefer to waste as little time as possible in getting the story straight and I like it when people cut to the chase, no dancing around the issues. Now rudeness on the other hand is something altogether different and is something that I do not abide. I think lack of tactfulness has more to do with what divides so many when it comes to the hurtful side of honest communication.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:59:03 (EST) From: Steve Mueller Email: None To: Jim Subject: Saying you have to hurt people Message:

How are you going to get any truth out of people if you don't break them first? I mean, you pretty well HAVE to hurt people if you want to get anywhere, don't you think? Sheesh! --- is just more glaring evidence of M's legacy of cruelty and hatred that has not yet been shed, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:33:03 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: Re: Saying you have to hurt people Message:

Steve, please talk to Jim by phone. He's sort of but not quite but really sort of like you know pulling your leg if you know what I mean. I guess what I mean is that to some of us nothing is sacred not even a PC sense of humor. Words like ''nurturing'' and ''healing'' and unconditional love'' bring out the worst in us. They are like finger nails on the blackboard of our inner platitude detectors. Whenever you have to explain words because they have arcane meanings you will know that you are flirting with nonsense. For instance - nurturing is what one does for helpless infants and plants. Healing is what doctors and nurses do to you in hospital when you're sick. Unconditional love is so esoteric that it is impossible to even begin to comprehend what it means in relation to human intercourse. BTW - There are some excellent articles in the link that Jim posted. I've already bookmarked it for later perusal. I'm hoping that you will learn as much here as you will teach and have as much fun as I am.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:17:14 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: Re: Saying you have to hurt people Message:

Steve, Jim's sense of humour can be a little subtle, but there was no cruelty and hatred in his posts in this thread. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:11:58 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: Steve Mueller Subject: God, Steve, it was just a joke! Message:

Sheesh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 05:22:32 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Jim Subject: But what if someone doesn't know it's a joke? Message:

Then it may be hurtful, that's my point. Jim, I've never heard your voice. I don't think you understand how subtle your humour is when someone hasn't ever heard the intonations of your voice. That, my friend, is the difference.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:51:39 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: It can be a problem Message:

Cynthia, When we had the first Latvian night at the Latvian club in London, I announced it here and Jim made a joke about Latvian gangs terrorising his neighbourhood, only I didn't realise it was a joke, and a short conflict occurred. I have also been guilty of making jokes that have been taken seriously, so I understand the problem from both sides. I am now used to Jim, so I usually recognise his humour, but I also appreciate that others sometimes don't. I'm sure Jim is aware of this aspect of his character, and does try to avoid misunderstanding. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 13:35:42 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: It can be a problem Message:

But half the fun of having a dry sense of humor is that not everyone WILL get your joke and explaining it takes the punch right out of it. Wait until the forum is done with webcams and then you'll see that Jim's in tears most of the time with the cruel things we say to him. Do I have to use an emotikon? Oh all right - :C)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 15:18:04 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: PatC Subject: Re: It can be a problem Message:

Big crocodile tears I bet

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:11:08 (EST) From: Joy Email: None To: All Subject: Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? Message:

Saw the following small piece in the paper today: HARE KRISHNA GROUPS WILL FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY About a dozen of the nearly 50 Hare Krishna temples in the United States will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection this month because of a $400 million lawsuit over child abuse at Hare Krishna boarding schools, a representative of the movement said Friday. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in Texas, are 91 former students from around the world who allege that they were sexually, physically and emotionally abused at the boarding schools in Southern California, West Virginia and the state of Washington during the 1970s and 80s. All the schools have since shut down. _________ I was wondering if anybody had any info on this. Did the plaintiffs win? Remember that documentary called Children of Fear that was shown on PBS in the US awhile back? I don't know how many saw it, but it was chilling and it looks like they achieved their objective in busting the whole cult (I hope). Sure wish we could do that to Maharaji--$400 million, that would sure put a crimp in his style!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:56:24 (EST) From: Dj Email: None To: Joy Subject: Re: Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? Message:

Why do you mind?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 17:41:04 (EST) From: Joy Email: None To: Dj Subject: Re: Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? Message:

Let's see, why do I mind? Well, personally I don't really mind all that much. But when I saw that documentary about the sexually abused children of that cult it touched me to the core. At the end of it, there was an interview with the director, who said that this lawsuit was being watched very carefully by a lot of other 'groups' (i.e. cults) because if it did go in the plaintiffs' favor it would not only bankrupt the organization but open the floodgates for other similar types of lawsuits. I believe the possibility of this has been discussed here at length already so I don't have anything to add there. It's probably not likely that it'll happen, but because I gave so many years of my life in his so-called service, with not much to show for it in the end, and feel so many others' were similarly deprived of a normal existence in 'the world' for many years due to trying to comply with his wishes that we surrender our entire lives to him, I harbor a secret desire to see him sued into oblivion for the obnoxious and obscene lifestyle he lives at the expense of others. Who are you, anyway? Care to introduce yourself?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:54:16 (EST) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Joy Subject: Re: Did the Hare Krishna lawsuit settle? Message:

Hi Joy, As of today I think that the news is that they filed for Chapter 11 to avoid the damages $$$. I think the status of the suit is on hold for the moment. I do remember that documentary, though. It was quite rough, what the victims went through. Now they have to wait because of the bankruptcy filing. Sucks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 01:03:25 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: All Subject: Real people just don't quite cut it Message:

This little Expression of loneliness is from ELK. This poor woman seems to hvae pushed the world away because no one measures up to her fantasy guru: More time to focus within When I read Denise Wilsons' recent contribution to Expressions I totally related. I have lived alone for the last seven years and look forward to the weekly satellite broadcasts. People with Knowledge in my community stay to themselves but I usually meet them at events that Maharaji attend. There is the usual fleeting encounter on the street or at an art show at the local university. I have always been a loner and have respect for every individual to find their own expression of what it means to be alive at this time. My usual enthusiasm for any particular individual's accomplishments or expertise have revealed, in more indepth interactions, the absence of the spark of clarity and appreciation that I have found to be the most finely tuned in my master. No matter how many times I listen to him or see him, his words ring true and his presence is impeccable and sweet scented. To me if I had everything that I've ever wanted, I would still feel empty if I did not practise Knowledge. Magdeline Pereira Eureka, CA, USA

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 03:41:38 (EST) From: PatC Email: None To: Jim Subject: She's a nun Message:

When I looked at that pic of the Canadian premies the other day and saw Anne Johnson and remembered my encounters with her, I recalled what a nun she was. I've known (not in the biblical sense of course - do monks count?) quite a few nuns in my life and can spot one a mile away. This sweet woman, Ms Pereira, sounds like a Catholic Portuguese nun (Oh! Is it okay to say that? Is it PC? Maybe - as long as I don't say she's hunch-backed) caught up in a real life encounter with the LOTU. If she read and understood EPO she'd be very disappointed. Some people need devotion, solitude and piety. Being gregarious I don't move in their circles - oops, nuns don't have circles of friends. They're loners. Just them and Jesus or in this case a weekly satellite broadcast of the master whose purity should never be doubted, the highlight of a week spent waiting to see the living god in a bod on TV and writing out that sacred check for the propagation of peace to the world by the master without whom you cannot be saved. Yes, there still are PWKs like that - the very modest church ladies of the table cloth straightening variety. These guys are at the bottom of the cult food-chain, the bottom feeders, the ones who actually buy the cult crap tchotchkes and send checks. These are not the people who spend all their money buying guitars but end up as the ringers addressing M at by-invitation-only events. These are the ushers who had to take special training. (Yes, there is usher training too - believe me - you can't be an usher till you have attended a training session.) I'm looking forward to the arrival of on the forum of one of these premie nuns of either sex (no, unfortunately not the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.) Hell hath no fury like a church lady scorned. So far most of the recent arrivals have been a pretty down-to-earth bunch - many mavericks and Lone Rangers but no solitary nuns and don't say I didn't warn you about exhausting yourself arguing against New Agism. If you recall I said that the next wave would be fringe premies who are often even too spiritual for the really hip cultists and to expect to be exhausted and overwhelmed by New Age folks (JohnT commented at the time: ''I didn't know you knew my wife.'') and to reserve your strength. Just as well you are currently not in a posting frenzy. And just as well that my prediction was not completely right. Yet. I just hope that you don't give up. I for one have benefited enormously from your no-nonsense approach. Thanks, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 00:22:46 (EST) From: Jim Email: None To: All Subject: Can someone help me out here? Message:

Over on LG, some premie named Lou and I are arguing about whether the cult's waxing or waning. The premie was gloating about how some new person they know is actually getting interested in receiving K, to which I said: There will always be one or two people who somehow either don't get exposed to the truth about Maharaji first or who just aren't smart enough to put it altogether. But the reality is that people are indeed leaving the cult in droves. Attendance is down, contributions are down, sales are down and 'participation' is down. We all know that so what's the point pretending not? To which the premie responded: well, if it is such an obvious fact, prove it, name your witnesses, show your official statistics. If you can't, be a man and admit that you don't know this to be a fact. Come on, you can do this, mmmmmm? I know of the cult's dwindling enrollment second-hand as I haven't been involved -- thank God -- for decades. But can any of you help me answer this question with substance and specifics? Thanks, Jim

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:54:40 (EST) From: wpc girl Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Can someone help me out here? Message:

I have the priviledge honour or misfortune to live within spitting distance of a place that showed m the the tele series twice weekly for a 'donation' I went a few times. There was seating for about thirty people it was never full. The same people wearing the same smiles sitting in the same chairs. alternate events covered those with k and aspirants. They looked to be the same lot at both. No conversation no tea and biscuits not even a jumble sale sadly as there is a lot of stuff gathering around my place. No interaction or jolly knees up planned no fun at all just the jolly little man with anecdotes about jetting around to make people happy and some jokes I didn't get but others laughed and we allneed to laugh sometimes. My taste is more for Victoria Wood if she's got a plane she's got the sense to shut up about it and talk about things us riff raff can n relate to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 09:50:00 (EST) From: Vicki Email: None To: Jim Subject: Re: Can someone help me out here?? Message:

Part of my community coordinator service was to compile statistics for the local video events. When those ceased due to satellite broadcasts, M then wanted those statistics. When people got the dish network and started watching at home, the numbers plummetted. He wanted those numbers, as well. This was impossible to compile, and a complete invasion of privacy, but that didn't stop the crazed attitude because he wanted them. The way we were told to calculate the number of viewers was bizarre to say the least. It inflated the actual numbers. The last series of events he did around the U.S., pwk's who had not attended local events or major events with M for years, were called and invited. Even so, the number of attendees were not that great, compared to years back. M and Elan Vital cannot be depended upon to tell the truth where facts are concerned, hence the fanatisism and blind acceptance on the part of the premies. For Yorum to be begging for money, it can only mean one thing, contributions are down. So if the number of new PWK's were significant, they would have been taking up the slack. Obviously that isn't happening. It's a direct ratio, in my opinion. If Elan Vital is scaling down, then why the need to set up this call for more monies?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 14:54:26 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Vicki Subject: Could you give more details Message:

Vicki, Maybe you've already posted this, but could you give more details on the dubious counting method for attendance at satellite broadcasts? John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 00:05:54 (EST) From: Vicki Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Could you give more details Message:

I wish I could remember the 'formula'. Right now I'm exhausted and braindead, but it might come back to me. What made it so difficult is that is wasn't a simple matter of counting the number of people at a video/broadcast. It was so kooky I broached the subject in complete frustration with the national head of stats. As it turned out, he was completely frustrated as well, but it was out of his hands. He was told in no uncertain terms how to do the calculating by higher ups, probably M himself. There was an actual form that had to be filled in and sent in by a certain deadline each month.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 06:11:56 (EST) From: Jean-Michem Email: None To: Vicki Subject: Maybe I can help Message:

A few years back, when I was still involved - and that counting technique has been the only one for over a decade - we would count the number of entrances for a community. For instance: You have one 'satsang'/video place in this town, you have lets say 10 meetings in a month time, with about 7-9 attendees everytime, that would maybe count for 80 people in that month came to watch videos, and maybe 1,000 in a year ! When there are actually 20 more or less active premies in the town, and each one of them comes about once a week. These days, according to some documents I own, they even count 'aspirants' or anybody else coming to watch a video in these figures. Talk of inflating figures ! I challenge EV to explain why this is not true. As a matter of fact, I'll give you some real figures I have, and you'll see for yourself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 05:27:56 (EST) From: Did the formula Email: None To: Vicki Subject: inflate attendance figures? [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:01:05 (EST) From: There are still a few people Email: None To: Jim Subject: who think Nu Skin will make them rich [nt] Message:

[nt]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:28:30 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yoram helped yesterday Message:

Didn't Yoram say donations for Amaroo were down by 50%? I doubt if all those premies moved their donations directly to Maharaji or Elan Vital so it's fair to assume all donations were down. But it's an interesting question - how do we measure it? There are no regular satsangs to count attendance at, so all we have are attendance at international events with Maharaji and the level of donations. Normally the latter is secret but Yoram has spilled a few beans on that. We know that 4-5000 attended Miami this year, and that many more attended the international programs in the late 70s, but although that proves a decline in the last 20 years it doesn't prove a recent decline. All we have for that is the number of exes coming here which is a fraction, but it's difficult to say how big a fraction, of the numbers exiting. I think Yoram's evidence is the key here. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 02:57:03 (EST) From: Tonette Email: None To: JHB Subject: The big push for money Message:

Well,I have no idea how to measure how many premies have, let's say, left in the past 6 months. Maharaji's need for an infusion of cash may very be he's hurting from the poor performance of the stock market, everyone knows that's how he got his money, what a shrewd invester he is! Could be Maharaji was relying on dividends from his portfolio to meet his monthly expenses. Could be Maharji was speculating that certain blocks of stocks would be ripe and ready to sell when certain notes or interest payments came due. Well, let's put it this way, I wouldn't want to be retiring myself at this point in time. Stocks have sucked for almost 2 years now. And Sept. 11 really threw the market in a tailspin. Could be he's over extended and any businesses he owns are doing poorly at the same time. Not to mention premies who are big donors may be feeling the pinch as well. This is all speculation but makes sense to me. Maharaji's ability to spend money is second to none. But he's new rich, and new rich is much more precariously positioned than old money. He has assets but how many of them are actually paid for? I hope he held lots of California energy stock. Maybe some of those dot com's and since he just fancies himself such an avaitor would it be too much to hope he had lots of airline shares? I can't remember the last time Maharaji sent his minion begging for money. Can you? Fondly, Tonette

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 06:39:23 (EST) From: Occasional Poster Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Yoram helped yesterday Message:

Surely Elan Vital (in whatever guise they operate under in various legal jurisdictions) needs to disclose this type of data? After all they operate under varous charitable status and, presumably, in order to retain their legal status they need to prove that they continue to further propogate Prem Pal Rawat's teachings. Perhaps it is only a subjective test they have to pass? Any legal minds on board here? OP

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 19:45:36 (EST) From: teresa Email: None To: All Subject: social exclusion Message:

after being introduced to this site a week ago I've been wondering why it was so interesting to someone who last saw m about 6 years ago in Brighton and realised that if truth is the conciousness of mercedes then it was all too subtle for me and yet perhaps it was me perhaps truth did lurk beneath the smile of the Steptford wives what I'd really like to know is does m act as consultant to our own home grown god tony blair for it is he who is bringing peace to all mankind now now when I encounter that peculiar smug smile of the saved I wont feel quite so alone thank you all

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 20:34:09 (EST) From: PatD Email: None To: teresa Subject: TB was in the God Squad at Oxford Message:

Apart from that I don't think there's a connection. That Brighton event you mention . Was that the one where he took the piss out of the Indian premies,or the one where he took the piss out of the old lags who'd misinterpreted the nectar teck? I was just a spiritual tourist by then,went along for old time's sake. That conditioning went deep though didn't it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:14:24 (EST) From: teresa Email: None To: PatD Subject: Re: TB was in the God Squad at Oxford Message:

hi Pat D Maybe I was already looking for the door by the time he got to taking the piss out of anyone. I was at a low ebb at the time and was persuaded a visit to my old friend God was just the ticket. Had a pleasant drive there and sat on the beach for awhile with a friend. Once inside the hall and seated the atmosphere of late night motorway caffs came to mind ( ex wpc not famous for remembering holy name ) Then a raddled looking mr rawat came into the room and sat down everyone clapped and I thought whats his next trick. He proceeded with an account of the journey from Reigate by Mercedes and what thrilling events occurred on route. My mind started to wander at that point thinking about that house a Swiss chalet thing and how we gathered as a multitude in the cellar to partake of dinner at trestle tables covered in sheets. It was basic but it was fun, the programme was not [ teresa ] [ Graphic Link ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 20:01:58 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: teresa Subject: Welcome, Teresa Message:

Hi Teresa, Welcome! This forum and www.ex-premie.org is interesting because we invested a lot in Maharaji, and need to understand what happened to our investment. Well, we are older and wiser, and Maharaji is older and richer. By the way, do we know each other? John Brauns

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 18:36:31 (EST) From: teresa Email: None To: JHB Subject: Re: Welcome, Teresa Message:

From what I've read on these pages I feel like most of you put a lot more in than I did. By 1972 drugsnsexnrocknroll was losing its allure working towards world peace and enlightenment looked like a promising avenue for exploration. I was an inmate for maybe three years you would know me by the dishmop and broom I used in service to the lord. It was'nt all glamour though we had to stop deranged premies from attacking m at the astrodome or were we stopping the astrodome from taking off as we all breathed in? For an answere to that send me a few million euros in used notes in a plain wrapperI don't recognise your name but I'm bad at remembering names [ Graphic Link ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:12:18 (EST) From: Barry Email: None To: All Subject: Jim! This is some of the..... Message:

shit I have read here! I was crapping my pants on the floor! Thanks man. A little late but, man was that funny. [ http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/claimscm.htm ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 16:46:52 (EST) From: Dj Email: None To: Barry Subject: Re: Jim! This is some of the..... Message:

Barry, you are a BIG IDIOT!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:06:42 (EST) From: Janet Email: jai_choix@yahoo.com To: All Subject: copyleft-we're doing it! Message:

document.write(''); The Great Giveaway Good ideas are worth money. So why are hard headed operators giving them away for free? Join our experiment to find out says Graham Lawton IF YOU'VE BEEN to a computer show in recent months you might have seen it: a shiny silver drinks can with a ring-pull logo and the words 'opencola' on the side. Inside is a fizzy drink that tastes very much like Coca-Cola. Or is it Pepsi? There's something else written on the can, though, which sets the drink apart. It says 'check out the source at opencola.com'. Go to that Web address and you'll see something that's not available on Coca-Cola's website, or Pepsi's--the recipe for cola. For the first time ever, you can make the real thing in your own home. OpenCola is the world's first 'open source' consumer product. By calling it open source, its manufacturer is saying that instructions for making it are freely available. Anybody can make the drink, and anyone can modify and improve on the recipe as long as they, too, release their recipe into the public domain. As a way of doing business it's rather unusual--the Coca-Cola Company doesn't make a habit of giving away precious commercial secrets. But that's the point. OpenCola is the most prominent sign yet that a long-running battle between rival philosophies in software development has spilt over into the rest of the world. What started as a technical debate over the best way to debug computer programs is developing into a political battle over the ownership of knowledge and how it is used, between those who put their faith in the free circulation of ideas and those who prefer to designate them 'intellectual property'. No one knows what the outcome will be. But in a world of growing opposition to corporate power, restrictive intellectual property rights and globalisation, open source is emerging as a possible alternative, a potentially potent means of fighting back. And you're helping to test its value right now. The open source movement originated in 1984 when computer scientist Richard Stallman quit his job at MIT and set up the Free Software Foundation. His aim was to create high-quality software that was freely available to everybody. Stallman's beef was with commercial companies that smother their software with patents and copyrights and keep the source code--the original program, written in a computer language such as C++--a closely guarded secret. Stallman saw this as damaging. It generated poor-quality, bug-ridden software. And worse, it choked off the free flow of ideas. Stallman fretted that if computer scientists could no longer learn from one another's code, the art of programming would stagnate (New Scientist, 12 December 1998, p 42). Stallman's move resonated round the computer science community and now there are thousands of similar projects. The star of the movement is Linux, an operating system created by Finnish student Linus Torvalds in the early 1990s and installed on around 18 million computers worldwide. What sets open source software apart from commercial software is the fact that it's free, in both the political and the economic sense. If you want to use a commercial product such as Windows XP or Mac OS X you have to pay a fee and agree to abide by a licence that stops you from modifying or sharing the software. But if you want to run Linux or another open source package, you can do so without paying a penny--although several companies will sell you the software bundled with support services. You can also modify the software in any way you choose, copy it and share it without restrictions. This freedom acts as an open invitation--some say challenge--to its users to make improvements. As a result, thousands of volunteers are constantly working on Linux, adding new features and winkling out bugs. Their contributions are reviewed by a panel and the best ones are added to Linux. For programmers, the kudos of a successful contribution is its own reward. The result is a stable, powerful system that adapts rapidly to technological change. Linux is so successful that even IBM installs it on the computers it sells. To maintain this benign state of affairs, open source software is covered by a special legal instrument called the General Public License. Instead of restricting how the software can be used, as a standard software license does, the GPL--often known as a 'copyleft'--grants as much freedom as possible (see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Software released under the GPL (or a similar copyleft licence) can be copied, modified and distributed by anyone, as long as they, too, release it under a copyleft. That restriction is crucial, because it prevents the material from being co-opted into later proprietary products. It also makes open source software different from programs that are merely distributed free of charge. In FSF's words, the GPL 'makes it free and guarantees it remains free'. Open source has proved a very successful way of writing software. But it has also come to embody a political stand--one that values freedom of expression, mistrusts corporate power, and is uncomfortable with private ownership of knowledge. It's 'a broadly libertarian view of the proper relationship between individuals and institutions', according to open source guru Eric Raymond. But it's not just software companies that lock knowledge away and release it only to those prepared to pay. Every time you buy a CD, a book, a copy of New Scientist, even a can of Coca-Cola, you're forking out for access to someone else's intellectual property. Your money buys you the right to listen to, read or consume the contents, but not to rework them, or make copies and redistribute them. No surprise, then, that people within the open source movement have asked whether their methods would work on other products. As yet no one's sure--but plenty of people are trying it. Take OpenCola. Although originally intended as a promotional tool to explain open source software, the drink has taken on a life of its own. The Toronto-based OpenCola company has become better known for the drink than the software it was supposed to promote. Laird Brown, the company's senior strategist, attributes its success to a widespread mistrust of big corporations and the 'proprietary nature of almost everything'. A website selling the stuff has shifted 150,000 cans. Politically minded students in the US have started mixing up the recipe for parties. OpenCola is a happy accident and poses no real threat to Coke or Pepsi, but elsewhere people are deliberately using the open source model to challenge entrenched interests. One popular target is the music industry. At the forefront of the attack is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group set up to defend civil liberties in the digital society. In April of last year, the EFF published a model copyleft called the Open Audio License (OAL). The idea is to let musicians take advantage of digital music's properties--ease of copying and distribution--rather than fighting against them. Musicians who release music under an OAL consent to their work being freely copied, performed, reworked and reissued, as long as these new products are released under the same licence. They can then rely on 'viral distribution' to get heard. 'If the people like the music, they will support the artist to ensure the artist can continue to make music,' says Robin Gross of the EFF. It's a little early to judge whether the OAL will capture imaginations in the same way as OpenCola. But it's already clear that some of the strengths of open source software simply don't apply to music. In computing, the open source method lets users improve software by eliminating errors and inefficient bits of code, but it's not obvious how that might happen with music. In fact, the music is not really 'open source' at all. The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbises--formats which allow you to listen but not to modify. It's also not clear why any mainstream artists would ever choose to release music under an OAL. Many bands objected to the way Napster members circulated their music behind their backs, so why would they now allow unrestricted distribution, or consent to strangers fiddling round with their music? Sure enough, you're unlikely to have heard of any of the 20 bands that have posted music on the registry. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Open Audio amounts to little more than an opportunity for obscure artists to put themselves in the shop window. The problems with open music, however, haven't put people off trying open source methods elsewhere. Encyclopedias, for example, look like fertile ground. Like software, they're collaborative and modular, need regular upgrading, and improve with peer review. But the first attempt, a free online reference called Nupedia, hasn't exactly taken off. Two years on, only 25 of its target 60,000 articles have been completed. 'At the current rate it will never be a large encyclopedia,' says editor-in-chief Larry Sanger. The main problem is that the experts Sanger wants to recruit to write articles have little incentive to participate. They don't score academic brownie points in the same way software engineers do for upgrading Linux, and Nupedia can't pay them. It's a problem that's inherent to most open source products: how do you get people to chip in? Sanger says he's exploring ways to make money out of Nupedia while preserving the freedom of its content. Banner adverts are a possibility. But his best hope is that academics start citing Nupedia articles so authors can earn academic credit. There's another possibility: trust the collective goodwill of the open source community. A year ago, frustrated by the treacle-like progress of Nupedia, Sanger started another encyclopedia named Wikipedia (the name is taken from open source Web software called WikiWiki that allows pages to be edited by anyone on the Web). It's a lot less formal than Nupedia: anyone can write or edit an article on any topic, which probably explains the entries on beer and Star Trek. But it also explains its success. Wikipedia already contains 19,000 articles and is acquiring several thousand more each month. 'People like the idea that knowledge can and should be freely distributed and developed,' says Sanger. Over time, he reckons, thousands of dabblers should gradually fix any errors and fill in any gaps in the articles until Wikipedia evolves into an authoritative encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of entries. Another experiment that's proved its worth is the OpenLaw project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Berkman lawyers specialise in cyberlaw--hacking, copyright, encryption and so on--and the centre has strong ties with the EFF and the open source software community. In 1998 faculty member Lawrence Lessig, now at Stanford Law School, was asked by online publisher Eldritch Press to mount a legal challenge to US copyright law. Eldritch takes books whose copyright has expired and publishes them on the Web, but new legislation to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years after the author's death was cutting off its supply of new material. Lessig invited law students at Harvard and elsewhere to help craft legal arguments challenging the new law on an online forum, which evolved into OpenLaw. Normal law firms write arguments the way commercial software companies write code. Lawyers discuss a case behind closed doors, and although their final product is released in court, the discussions or 'source code' that produced it remain secret. In contrast, OpenLaw crafts its arguments in public and releases them under a copyleft. 'We deliberately used free software as a model,' says Wendy Selzer, who took over OpenLaw when Lessig moved to Stanford. Around 50 legal scholars now work on Eldritch's case, and OpenLaw has taken other cases, too. 'The gains are much the same as for software,' Selzer says. 'Hundreds of people scrutinise the 'code' for bugs, and make suggestions how to fix it. And people will take underdeveloped parts of the argument, work on them, then patch them in.' Armed with arguments crafted in this way, OpenLaw has taken Eldritch's case--deemed unwinnable at the outset--right through the system and is now seeking a hearing in the Supreme Court. There are drawbacks, though. The arguments are in the public domain right from the start, so OpenLaw can't spring a surprise in court. For the same reason, it can't take on cases where confidentiality is important. But where there's a strong public interest element, open sourcing has big advantages. Citizens' rights groups, for example, have taken parts of OpenLaw's legal arguments and used them elsewhere. 'People use them on letters to Congress, or put them on flyers,' Selzer says. The open content movement is still at an early stage and it's hard to predict how far it will spread. 'I'm not sure there are other areas where open source would work,' says Sanger. 'If there were, we might have started it ourselves.' Eric Raymond has also expressed doubts. In his much-quoted 1997 essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, he warned against applying open source methods to other products. 'Music and most books are not like software, because they don't generally need to be debugged or maintained,' he wrote. Without that need, the products gain little from others' scrutiny and reworking, so there's little benefit in open sourcing. 'I do not want to weaken the winning argument for open sourcing software by tying it to a potential loser,' he wrote. But Raymond's views have now shifted subtly. 'I'm more willing to admit that I might talk about areas other than software someday,' he told New Scientist. 'But not now.' The right time will be once open source software has won the battle of ideas, he says. He expects that to happen around 2005. And so the experiment goes on. As a contribution to it, New Scientist has agreed to issue this article under a copyleft. That means you can copy it, redistribute it, reprint it in whole or in part, and generally play around with it as long as you, too, release your version under a copyleft and abide by the other terms and conditions in the licence. We also ask that you inform us of any use you make of the article, by e-mailing copyleft@newscientist.com. One reason for doing so is that by releasing it under a copyleft, we can print the recipe for OpenCola without violating its copyleft. If nothing else, that demonstrates the power of the copyleft to spread itself. But there's another reason, too: to see what happens. To my knowledge this is the first magazine article published under a copyleft. Who knows what the outcome will be? Perhaps the article will disappear without a trace. Perhaps it will be photocopied, redistributed, re-edited, rewritten, cut and pasted onto websites, handbills and articles all over the world. I don't know--but that's the point. It's not up to me any more. The decision belongs to all of us. Further reading: For a selection of copylefts, see http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/open_alternatives.html The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond is available at http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ Editor's comment THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS FREE. It may be copied, distributed and/or modified under the conditions set down in the Design Science License published by Michael Stutz at http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt       About newscientist.com •  Contact Us •  FAQ •  Media Information •  Disclaimer •  Site Map •  Privacy Policy  Jump to .. Home Jobs Subscribe Archive ___________________ News Hot Topics The Last Word Feedback Letters Books Interviews Web Links

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 18:50:58 (EST) From: janet Email: None To: Janet Subject: Re: copyleft-let me explain this Message:

I wanted to bring this here as part of a great experiment, being opened on the web. bear with the wasted space that my copying the html code verbatim caused. when I lifted this, I really did not know how it would come out on the post, and i don't have the 'edit' capability that most of you do when posting. so forgive me for the moment. I don't expect this to happen again. that said--to the central reason. as you read the article, you may come to understand that this is about taking the jealous possessive guards away from the pernicious notion that corporations and people 'own' information and KNOWLEDGE , and thus can legally force you to pay them in order to have what they know. or in cases like the tobacco complanies, coca cola, microsoft, etc, you can't get your hands on the recipe, you can only buy the product, and would be attacked viciously if you ever did get ahold of the information and make it public, because they get stinking rich by keeping it a secret. the copyleft movement is in direction opposite to this, and as I read this, I realized that we, here at EPO are doing exactly this, in our freewheeling public deconstruction of Mharaji and Knowledge and all that he does. He has made his fortune by jealously keeping secret as much as he possibly can, and we here have been undoing that secrecy and power by making it open source, up to and including the fabled Four Techniques, which are on EPO for anyone to obtain. I had hoped to insert my own contribution to the article, in the process of posting it, which i could have accomplished, by adding my own ideas in the text, but as I didn't know if my taking the page to my favorite code revealer site and then copying it was even going to work--at the authors' invitation, as you can see in the article- I had to try just putting it up here first, before contributing to it. Jim and Marianne ought to get interested in the Open Law project, for the rich resource it affords them in their respective practices, since law is such an ongoing arena of hairsplitting debate and fine tuning arguments. The rest of us, I wanted you all to know, that we are already a part of this move, and that we might well consider actually making it official on our masthead, as a direct defense to all that bs of 'copyright violation' that maharaji's lawyers have tried to use in the past, to silence us, to prevent us from publishing his historic satsangs [which he so badly wants to deny he ever uttered], and all the other angles that they have attempted to employ in getting us to just shut up and go away. I realize that open sourcing can lead to being quoted out of context, distorted, and otherwise staining a reputation, but that happens now, anyway. We already have good ways of restablishing the correct original when the error is circulating. Think urban legends. Think snopes. the notion of having as many minds possible working on a thing, finding its weaknesses, improving it voluntarily, refining its characteristics, passing it on freely, and having it be an ongoing phenomenon is ripe for the time. Its a logical outgrowth of the internet, --the connecting, applying, multiplying and depositing all our collective intelligence where we can all tap into it, as needed or inspired, is an unstoppable characteristic of our inborn need to know. this is not Off topic to our central reason for meeting here. If anything, it's the very soul of why we meet here, and I just wanted to make it an overt benchmark, so you all could congratulate yourselves for being in it!! we are doing it, people. the times are with us, and not with him. there is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come. and as the article encourages, feel free to lift it, in part, in full, rework it to your perfection, pass it on, pass it back, and just generally join the movement. I have written to the original , letting them know I put this here, so they can come see what I did with it. BTW--the 'copyleft' symbol is the © symbol, stood on its head or in a mirror image. it was supposed to be in the square above the text, but the image didn't follow me over here. neither did the recipe for opencola--but I can bring that over as a provision of the open source agreement. It'll be under this post. We could put the copyleft symbol on our pages, big and impossible to miss, to make it clear to anyone that what's here is for anyone to use and take elsewhere, for the purpose and the cause. I have always been a big believer in the 'Sunshine Laws'--the belief that all transactions should be conducted openly in the public eye, that if a thing has to be done hidden in secret, then it has no business taking place at all, that if a thing can't stand the light of day, then it is'nt fit to exist anyway, and the more a thing is opened, the more we can see it and improve it. that goes for people as well as corporations and organizations. so on we go! '!¡ let's tear the roof off the sucker, unh! unh!'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Feb 14, 2002 at 04:40:14 (EST) From: Scott T. Email: None To: janet Subject: The Tragedy of the Commons Message:

Janet: There's a considerable body of literature on 'public goods' and 'common pool resources' that seems relevant to this open source idea. Essentially it's creating a common pool resource based on knowledge or information. A public good is a common pool resource with 'exclusion' which is meant to handle situations involving crowding, and overuse. A public road, for instance, is a common pool resource up to the point that traffic congestion starts to constrain it's use, at which point it becomes a public good. One way to manage this public good in order to ensure that the road doesn't become a parking lot, is to charge a fee for entry... to turn it into a toll road. A fellow named Tim Hardin wrote a now-famous article in which he spelled all of this out, and how it relates to the use of food and energy resources. It was called 'The Tragedy of the Commons.' Many of you know his argument, so I won't spell it out. It wasn't exactly uplifting. I'm not sure how all of this relates to the open source movement. After Hardin's article people converged on the idea that a common pool resource could be managed successfully only if the number of users remained small, at less than 200, because they each needed to know the details of the resource and the manner in which use depleted it. Then Elinor Ostrum pointed out that some cultures evolved around the idea of preserving these resources, and had developed 'nested' structures that were capable of managing very large enterprises. Some farming communities in Indonesia are organized this way to manage land use, as are the Spanish Huertas to manage water resources. But it's clear that culture plays a very important role on how these nested structures develop. One relevant question might be: How effective is the policing of the copyleft restriction, and do the courts recognize it? If someone drew the veil over a piece of intellectual development how would you know for sure that the core of it was once under copyleft? Ultimately, what prevents it from being exploited by someone who makes a significant value-added contribution, and then decides to personalize it? Ultimately isn't Marx arguing that that's precisely what happened with *all* resources, through 'primitive appropriation?' It sounds like this debate won't go away. My apartment complex has free satellite TV, but it only works about 60% of the time. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 19:11:53 (EST) From: JHB Email: None To: janet Subject: Readability info and a suggestion Message:

Janet, I found the first post in this thread unreadable using Netscape 4.72 (Netscape tries to load a non-existant page in Hotboards), and very unfriendly but readable using IE, which is a pity as the subject matter is interesting. May I suggest that instead of trying to copy a webpage into a post, that you simply give the link? Anyway, to the subject. I'm not sure we're really engaging in Copyleft. Of course we want the info posted here and on EPO to be freely distributed - that's the purpose of the site, distributing the information. As the article says, the problem of getting participation in a copyleft project is incentive. If people aren't being paid for their efforts, then they need some other incentive. The author cites the kudos that software people get from contributing to Linux, but it's not so clear for other projects. In ex-premie land the reward is the new ex-premies thanks. John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 20:13:34 (EST) From: janet Email: None To: Subject: Re: Readability -yeah i know Message:

Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements All Rights Reserved

Return to Index -:- Top of Index