..to Steven Weinberg's philosophy....

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

...And for evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

                                                 ????

I don't think I was ever evil ( a bit extreme!) but in some ways being a premie did make me a better person. This was by my own effort 

The point is that religion is irrelevant for those who are going to do evil anyway.  Religion just gives them justification.   And good people will do good things with or without religion, but will only do evil things under the guise of religion.

How do you know you wouldn't have been a "better person" without being a premie?  Why do you attribute being a "better person" to being a premie?  How do you know you didn't just mature and grow up?  What was it about being a premie that made you "better?"  I think we all just told ourselves that and premies still believe it, but I have never seen any evidence that there is any truth to that.

I don't think being a premie changed my essential nature or my values in any way.  It just allowed me to repress certain of them, mostly to my detriment.

"How do you know you didn't just mature and grow up?  What was it about being a premie that made you "better?"  I think we all just told ourselves that and premies still believe it, but I have never seen any evidence that there is any truth to that."

No, the change in me happened straight after contact with the DLM thing. Meeting the premies , hearing what they said ,reading what M. said and my own sincerity somehow changed me and I never went back to the way I was.Some of the changes were unnecessary bullshit: things I ate, clothes I wore,renunciation, donating,doing Maharaji's version of giving everything to him style "service"  and cr## like that...but there was some kind of a shift in me that was not superficial , was connected to an experience and that change will never be reversed.I think it could have happened through some other cult , charismatic movement or whatever...but for me at that time it just happened to be that one.

ducks and posts....

Of course when you later realise that inspiration and love can come from bullshit this is bound to have a pretty strong impact on your life. In my case it has given me a very skeptical outlook on religion and spirituality but luckily it hasn't affected the way I feel about other people and their religions. Weinberg certainly puts the case in a nutshell: "Only religion can make good people act bad" though I suspect good people will act badly if the circumstancers are powerful enough with or without religion.

> and other people sharing that idealism and that was very inspiring and beautiful <

Well yes - spirit of the age and all that. But isn't that just another personal experience being subject to an undeserved value of 'universalism' - much  like the  personal experience of Knowledge is 'universalised' by Rawat ?

Suppose instead of DLM we were talking about the Hitler Youth - participants in that I'm sure must have said "and other people sharing that idealism and that was very inspiring and beautiful". Of course the level of harm caused by being in DLM was far less than being in the Hitler Youth, yet I can not help but feel that there is something profoundly demeaning in placing particular value on something that was of such dubious purpose.

The individual has to take value from all their experiences - that's essential to enjoying a rounded existence - but IMO experiences such as furthering, maintaining and supporting a cult, even though we can personally take something positive from it - should leave us with a sense of discomfort, much an in the way that medical research based on Concentration Camp experiments or intelligence about terrorism gained from torture leaves any 'thinking person' with a sense of distaste - no matter what benefits follow.

Nik

Hitler Youth indeed!

Maybe there was a very tiny element of "Hitler Youth " amidst the more macho excesses of official DLM (the more secretive ranks of "security" or whatever)....but surely Nik anything more can only be very jaded fantasy ??

I went round collecting money off really poor premies, and held endless jumble collecting events and sales.Everything revolved round fund-raising didn't it ?

 It was the "service" we had promised to do.I don't think premies hid behind the sofa when I came round begging for funds for the lord. They were really nice to me and I liked going around visiting everyone.

Likewise with the jumbling we had quite a lot of fun and the sales were great social occasions.The weary "public" loved our jumble sales because we were oh so full of light and love and let them have things cheap; we delivered furniture right to their door and didn't whinge ...all in the service of the lord .

I don't feel the tiniest weeniest iota of guilt Nik ,about it all.Somehow I believed all the crap and I didn't think I was doing any harm to anyone.Still don't actually. On the whole we were pretty cool and chilled "daan in saaf lunden". Yeah...we helped our deluded master live a life of luxury,while we all struggled....but , him aside, it's still amazing what we did experience and  achieve together.

I really don't think that "Hitler Youth" would have inspired me at all.Many young people joined because it was dodgy NOT to.The ultimate Honchos of Hitler Youth (Nazi Party) had power over everyone in the country.Sorry,but it's a different scenario.  

Well not that easy - being wise. I wasn't suggesting an equivalence between DLM and the Hitler Youth - simply pointing out that the same set of values that Paddy was suggesting had given his involvement with DLM could equally have been claimed by those who were involved with the Hitler Youth.

And I certainly was not invoking 'guilt', which with all its religious accretions is a deeply unhelpful mindset. That (IMO) doesn't mean though that the fact of our involvement should  be 'sugared over' - we supported a deeply harmful set up which continues to blight the lives of tens of thousands - Rawat is busily taking rupees from some of the poorest people on the planet - you and me Lexy helped set him up to do that. We may not be 'guilty' but we are responsible.

I regret joining the cult. I think it inhibited my development as an adult. But the reason I joined was because there were others who convinced me it was the way to truth and happiness. After I joined, others were convinced by the existing members, members that included you and I. Sure, our motivation was good, but we were careless by not researching what we were joining carefully enough, and as a result of our carelessness, others were ensnared. Directly I can count my brother and an ex-premie from Brighton (although he kindly says I was a minor influence). Indirectly I have no way of knowing who I influenced, but collectively, we are responsible for everyone who joined after we did. We were part of the attraction, just as those who went before me attracted me.

Mike Finch says on his website that the reason he writes about Rawat there is because of the responsibility he feels in supporting the cult. We all share that responsibility.

I kind of guessed that's what it was. I've never been fishing since I went with my dad when I was about 10 and my legs got covered with ants. But this will change as I stocked my pond (well we call it a lake - 80m x 30m) last spring with carp and tench and they're thriving, so I will need to learn these esoteric terms soon!

"The fact remains that if it weren't for his followers, other followers wouldn't have got ensnared, so we all should (there's that word again, Lexy! ) accept our share of the responsibility for Rawat getting to where he is."

Yes, I think it true that each person who has inducted someone else, or had some type of prominence or presence inside their own community should be prepared to discuss and help to evaluate the general phenomenon of Maharajism.

I myself 'brought' four people to Knowledge between 1981 and 1985.

Of these, two were followers of Krishna Consciousness, who lasted about 3 weeks in their involvement. The guy I met in the supermarket about 4 years back, before I absconded after Nottingham 2001, and he was so high and happy on 'Holy Name' (though he would not have used the term, just aware of it energy-wise) I felt quite humbled. He had no problems anywhere, he was just incredibly focused and without problems.

His wife, who was always more grounded, asked me cheerfully if I was still into the Maharishi (sic). I gently reminded her he was Maharaji.

The 3rd one was always quite cool after receiving K in 1981, obviously tuned into 'Holy Name' as she wished, and used to tell me how old premies had too many concepts.

I suspect if I met her now she might say she still focused on 'Holy Name' for a brief time if and when she fancied.

The 4th was a guy who had had mental problems, but used to meditate about 5 minutes a day which seemed to chill him out quite nicely, and maybe he still is like that nowadays.

I suppose that this may demonstrate a validity for a bit of meditation here and there, as it was largely proposed in that particular time, without Maharaji having been touted as the Lord but merely a facilitator of the same.

I have no idea how Knowledge is presented these days. Maybe it is just about feeling centred through some meditation, and looking to Maharaji for some inspiration, with which I don't feel I could really object.

The main problem seems to be the oldsters, who imbibed Maharaji as the Lord in human form, which was the major factor why we became involved.

Some people seem to have found some internal connection through meditation with a sense of deeper 'self' and benefit from this.

For them, which includes myself, we have maybe found something which may have also been available from many different sources, and so we are grateful.

The ones for whom I feel the greatest sympathy are those who seem not to have found anything valid and lasting from meditation, and for whom maybe every high or experience came only from attending an Event or a video.

At least people like myself can say I feel a connection with what seems internal soul which is not actually dependent on Maharaji, but is quite natural.

I guess this adds up to the notion that guys like Maharaji can be facilitators of something, but if they pretend to anything more then things can really go tits-up badly.

At the end of the day, I think that all these guys have been the same, including Jesus, giving a way to turn inside and feel hopefully more clued internally to a good and natural feeling.

Christians, for example, have been presented historically with a guy who was totally pristine and caring, despite his very obvious nuttiness in telling people e.g. that even a thought of seducing your neighbour's wife would lead to hell-fire.

They are all vulnerable, sometimes uplifting and at other times quite bizarre and ridiculously human.

Hopefully we can find some way from them of feeling attuned to something good within which blends well with our natural conscience.

If  not, then our natural soul and conscience remain in any case, regardless of any of them and available to us depending on our openness.

And if anyone disagrees with the basis of this post, well, that's all right too.

I'd forgotten that one; thanks for reminding me of what it felt like to walk into the Looking Glass all those years ago.

Total confusion.

There's a whole world of philosophy in that fable, & it isn't one which I feel capable of thinking about at the moment,but I will eventually, maybe.

It wouldn't surprise me though, if it wasn't originally a Persian story, there's a Scheherezade feel to it, which was given the Rhadasoami spin around 1880 or so.

The lies go way, way, back.

Whilst it's true that our aims as members of Rawat's personality cult in its heyday, were completely different from those of Hitler's in his, it can't be denied that the psychology of the group mentality was horribly similar.

The Essen prog in 1975, to just pick one from that decade, was like nothing so much as a Nuremburg Rally, but without the pin sharp organisation. I remember thinking as much at the time, as the massed thousands bellowed out Bhole Shri Satgurudev Maharaj Ki Jai, over & over again. Of course I 'rationalised' that it was probably ok, because Guru Maharaj Ji was God, & not Hitler.

Now we know that he has a great deal more in common with Hitler, personality wise, than he does with God, I don't think it's beyond the pale to apply some self scrutiny to our younger selves, & to recognise that far from being the free spirits we considered ourselves to be, we were in fact, willing slaves.

Letting that trickle into the the roots of who you think you are, is of major importance to the nurturing of this growth thing, that people are always going on about.

Actually, we were lucky, everything considered, & of course the South London public has never been known to turn down a bargain.

"The Essen prog in 1975, to just pick one from that decade, was like nothing so much as a Nuremburg Rally, but without the pin sharp organisation. I remember thinking as much at the time, as the massed thousands bellowed out Bhole Shri Satgurudev Maharaj Ki Jai, over & over again. Of course I 'rationalised' that it was probably ok, because Guru Maharaj Ji was God, & not Hitler."

Yes, I can see that comparison Pat...shudder....I was spacing out in 1975 and missed that event but somebody who lives in my town was seriously injured in a road accident on the way there. She hasn't been a premie for years and years but never fully recovered from the injuries she sustained. 

As for my "growth" ..... I suppose I'm just a bad student and always end up doing things my own way.

Where was I "universalising" my experience of religious conversion and joining a cult. I was placing it in a specific context at a specific and short period of time which I explicitly stated I later realised was based on a false set of ideas and values.

But it was very beautiful and inspiring then and if it wasn't the same for you at the same time in your life I cannot understand why you became a premie (in year 19xx) and remained one for n years. Revisionism by ex-premies is the same as revisionism by premies.

Well I guess I responded to 'the way I read it' rather than (as you would have it)  'the way you wrote it'.

I did understand your > In my case it has given me a very skeptical outlook on religion and spirituality< - it didn't seem to me to fully address what also seemed to me to be the implication that >it was very beautiful and inspiring< could be taken as a reason to accept the 'then' without adequate criticism - not so much  from the personal perspective - but from the perspective of each of us as contributors to society.

>But it was very beautiful and inspiring then and if it wasn't the same for you at the same time in your life I cannot understand why you became a premie (in year 19xx) and remained one for n years. Revisionism by ex-premies is the same as revisionism by premies.<

Revisionism (IMO) is a fundamental aspect  of  the functioning of human conciousness - we are all engaged in a perpetual process of revising our past in the light of our present. Of course intellectual rigour requires that we challenge that revisionism in any effort to see the truth about ourselves, so yes at an individual level >Revisionism by ex-premies is the same as revisionism by premies< although I think there is argument to be made that collectively there are profound differences between the perceptions of the past and present between premies and exs.

Additionally the reasons why anyone becomes involved in anything and remains with it for whatever length of time are certainly not limited to beautiful and inspiring - witness the number of people who become locked in to abusive relationships that last for decades. What I personally got from being involved changed over time and along with a lot other adolescent feelings I'm sure beautiful and inspiring were there early on, certainly as an ashram premie I was intent upon being a 'beautiful person'.

How I was thirty years ago does not really interest me much (is that the effect of a revisionistic attitude) - what does interest me is  what I did thirty years ago and the effects of those actions on my an others present.

N

As I remained in DLM/EV for what I saw as positive reasons then that is what I speak about, if you had other reasons by all means discuss them, they won't invalidate mine.

First of all, it made a big difference if you were living in the ashram or were an initiator. There was even a popular term then for people who were decidedly not having a good time, but nevertheless were struggling along. People said they were "frying". I'm talking late 70s now. But even nightly satsang was often very intense and confronting. It was a style of many initiators and would-be ones. This was a direct reflection of the not-so-nice heavy satsangs coming out of the Malibu Master's own mouth.

Enjoying yourself wasn't really the priority in those days. I won't speak for you, but myself and many of the people I knew weren't doing ssm because it was fun. Really I don't even think that this can be considered in terms of enjoyment. Prem Rawat was the Lord. Following his directives was the purpose of our existence. At some undetermined point along the path of Knowledge was the promise of a deep awakening and experience of Truth. All or a part of these reasons were the motivation to participate in the cult. Enjoyment or fun was a fringe benefit that I believe happens in most social circumstances, but it wasn't the driving force for most of the people I knew.

In the late 70's I'm not sure how different it was for those in the ashrams because it seemed to me that "surrender" and dedication to M&K seemed to be transcending whether or not you were in the ashram especially as many of the earlier ashram premies had got married and had children when the ashrams were first closed and couldn't return therein.

The following satsang which I was reading recently is typical of late 70's satsang. You can take it as being heavy and be upset or concerned or you can take it as basically saying "Don't worry, be happy" and that's how I took it and I disagree: enjoying Knowledge was the directive and I certainly was happy during that time and if some other premies were pretending due to the power of conformity then they have my sympathy. I can remember premies who openly stated they didn't enjoy meditation, who fried in satsang but who were devoted to "Maharaji' and that was accepted as well as those who were having fun. Gopi, enjoyer or struggler were all part of the mix and that acceptance was part of the magic.

I'm quite sure I could find Rawat's satsang of the times which explicitly stated that you could tell you were on the right path if you were enjoying knowledge. But then to me it wasn't about listening to the satsang and thinking about it, it was listening, concentrating and meditating. That's what I had been taught and I found it very enjoyable. Of course none of this discussion is meant to validate "Knowledge" in any way.

"And so what remains in our lives? What remains in this whole, entire world to do? And like I was saying, where does Mr. Mind take you and put you every time? Where does that mind place you? It places you every time at a place that has nothing to do with outrageous, has nothing to do with beautiful, has nothing to do with incredible, has nothing to do with anybody except darkness, darkness, darkness, darkness, darkness, darkness, darkness. And this is where your mind puts you.

And yet, 24 hours a day we stay slaves of this mind, follow this mind. And I guess it's just a habit that we form. As soon as we can comprehend things, this mind starts to get looser and looser and looser and looser. And the more concepts that can be created, the more concepts that can be put in front, the more of a web this mind can weave, and give us the better changes of getting tangled up in that web.

Because I've seen just the way the mind works. And I've seen it in a lot of people. They're there and everything is working okay for them. Everything is working just fine for them. And then all of a sudden the mind comes in and just says, "Do you understand what's going on? Because if you don't, you should try harder."

"Do you really, do you really feel Guru Maharaj Ji in your life? Because anything that you feel is not sufficient enough. You have to feel him more. Do you feel meditation in your life? Any amount of meditation you do is not enough."

To be fair to 'religion', Science also has to take responsibility for its fundamentalists - Science has served  many an evil persons' justification for evil acts, not least in the field of oppressing those who have been 'scientifically' judged as inferior.

Religion has the edge on the totallity of harm done in its name - but then religion has been around a lot longer than an established philosophy of disciplined scientific enquiry - maybe Science has yet to catch up.

Nik