| Corruption, Idieology, Whaddya Expect? |
|  |
|
|
|
Forum |
|
|
|
I don't see the difference between the "peace of common unity" and the "peace of common belief." What the belief happens to be is irrelevant. It's the paradigm that's corrupt, and it has led to one totalitarian disaster after another. Little ones and big ones. Conservative and liberal. What, really, is the difference between Naziism, Stalinism, Salafism, and Elan Vital? Anyone waking up yet?Something like 90% of the folks here are "progessive" not because 90% of the population adhere to progressive beliefs, but because you've managed to create a discursive structure that excludes dissent. But 90% clearly will not be enough. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether progressive beliefs are inherently true or false, and everything to do with the nature of humans. You set a trap that caught... yourselves. You've a precious insight. You know, firsthand, the essential weakness of mankind. You can either play with it, like a kid with a mudpie, or you can use it to change the human condition. So, what is there about this that's so deucedly hard to comprehend?
Modified by Juan Carlo Finesseti at Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 01:24:12
|
|
|
|
|
Your ideas always struck me as interesting, even when I disagreed with them, but some of us aren't as bright as you, please try to keep it simple for us simpletons yeah, and bloody great to see you here again by the way 
|
|
|
|
I think what Juan is trying to say is that we got caught in a belief system where we more or less held the same beliefs as other premies. Then we got out of it, and as discussions here and elsewhere prove, we no longer collectively have the same beliefs as other premies or ex-premies. However, the tendency to adopt reasonable sounding beliefs is not so easily shaken off, and these discussions that show that as a group we no longer have shared beliefs, also show that we still enthusiastically embrace or retain beliefs. And having done so, we gravitate towards others that have those beliefs, and walk right back into the same trap we escaped from. Only this time, we think we won't get fooled again.How we use this knowledge to change the human condition is something I would be interested in knowing. It seems that our tendency to embrace beliefs, and gather together with others who have the same beliefs, is what brings change. Individuals who question all assumptions and try to shun beliefs tend to remain ineffective individuals (unless they become leaders of groups who believe in them!). (I didn't understand the 90% bit of Juan's post.) John.
|
|
|
|
I think that what he is saying is that 90% of ex-premies are "progressives" - in other words liberal, leftleaning Democrats. This irks him because he thinks that the mature intelligent response to the worlds condition is to become, like he, a rightwing "classic liberal", a Republican.
In JCF's opinion anything less than a return to pre-new deal conditions is communism.
Should this discussion really be here?
|
|
|
|
Should this discussion really be here?
Sure. Why not? Years in a cult impinges on all areas of life, informs us about some, warns us of dangers, sets us up to spot parallels. Where were we at, what were we believing when we got involved? etc. You can't deal with Maharaji in a bubble.
I agree with your analysis, BTW.
Nigel (who has been reading a few days to re-acquaint with ongoing issues and participants, but finally couldn't resist joining in.)
|
|
|
|
But there is a big difference between any belief or belief system and a cult.
Why would one want to "shake off" beliefs that are "reasonable sounding?" I mean, isn't it just being closed minded to ignore everything you don't already believe? The critical point it to be critical of them, not to avoid in any way entertaining them.
What a cult tries to keep you from doing is testing out the belief system (or in the case of the Rawat cult, even acknowledging that there IS a belief system), and that is inherently different than many other beliefs.
I also just reject the idea that there is some ideal truth as to whether a belief is true or false; I think it's a lot more complicated than that and there are lots of nuances and gray areas.
And they do change, and just because you hang around people who have similar beliefs doesn't mean they are not challenged. I mean, just attend a Green Party meeting in the USA and see the vast, wide range of beliefs people have.
And political beliefs change all the time. David Brooks (who I think is an idiot) is always talking about how the natural political lifecycle for middle class Americans is that they start as urban liberal Democrats, become suburban moderates, and then eventually settle in as exurban right wing Republicans. Perhaps they see it in their own self-interest to make the change, but if those beliefs were part of a cult, self-interest wouldn't be a major consideration, as we all know from our own cult experiences.
Modified by Joe at Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 15:06:22
|
|
|
|
I don't see the difference between the "peace of common unity" and the "peace of common belief." What the belief happens to be is irrelevant....What, really, is the difference between Naziism, Stalinism, Salafism, and Elan Vital? Anyone waking up yet?
I guess I'm still asleep because I don't see that "common unity" or "common belief" is necessarily peaceful, and excuse me, but I think there is a huge significance in what the belief is. Note, for example, the difference between the belief that all Jews are subhuman and dangerous and must be exterminated, and so I should support that endeavor (Nazism), and say the belief that Prem Rawat is the Lord and so I should kiss his feet and give him money (Elan Vital).
You've a precious insight. You know, firsthand, the essential weakness of mankind.
I think there are lots of people with these insights, many of whom have never been in a cult, and actually I think for anyone with their eyes open seeing the "essential weakness of mankind," (as well as certain essential strengths), is what is called "life."
You can either play with it, like a kid with a mudpie, or you can use it to change the human condition.
I guess it depends on what you are changing it to, but perhaps you can tell us all the wonderful things you have been doing since you left the cult to "change the human condition" with your valuable insights and keen skills and comprehension. I'm sure we would all be improved by what you can teach us.
Modified by Joe at Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 13:22:23
|
|
|
|
I think what Juan possibly means is that in this forum you have created a location in which probably 90% of people now adhere to a certain paradigm.
You have created what you think is a comprehensive and intelligent scenario to discuss Maharaji stuff.
Yet, the truth is, you have created another box.
You have excluded much to do with the sense of spirituality within people.
You try to limit things to discussion of Maharaji's ancient statements, and his more recent endeavours, and to exclude the spiritual angle of things.
For example, what constitutes natural spirituality, and how this is maybe used or abused by him.
Yet it is still possible to be a highly spiritual person before and post Maharaji.
In any case, I'm bowing out from this. I've said my piece many times, but feel my era is done.
I still love EPO and the general endeavour, but I'm away to retirement now.
Best wishes indeed to everyone I've met here.
Tempora, previously Anthony
|
|
|
|
Most exes have heard of Maharaji's "monkey" trap.
To anyone who doesn't know, there is a kind of monkey trap used in Asia. A coconut is hollowed out and attached by a rope to a tree or stake in the ground. At the bottom of the coconut a small slit is made and some sweet food is placed inside. The hole on the bottom of the coconut is just big enough for the monkey to slide in his open hand, but does not allow for a closed fist to passed out.
The monkey smells the sweets, reaches in with his hand to grasp the food and is then unable to withdraw it. The clenched fist won't pass through the opening. When the hunters come, the monkey becomes frantic but cannot get away. There is no one keeping that monkey captive, except the force of its own attachment. All that it has to do is to open the hand. But so strong is the force of greed in its mind that it is a rare monkey which can let go.
It is the desires and clinging in our minds which keep us trapped. All we
need to do is to open our hands. Let go of ourselves, our attachments, and be free.
I think that Juan Carlos is saying that we have to be cautious of being caught in an anti Maharaji "monkey" trap.
Modified by Steve at Wed, Nov 09, 2005, 16:58:55
|
|
|
|
I think that Juan Carlos is saying that we have to be cautious of being caught in an anti Maharaji "monkey" trap.Actually I think that Juan was heavily into the Scotch last night what with Bush so far down in the public opinion polls, Scooter Libby indicted, and the whole Iraq fiasco turning the neo-con wet dream into a nightmare. So he likely just stumbled over here wanting to blow off a little pent-up steam and I can't say that I blame him.
|
|
|
|
It is the desires and clinging in our minds which keep us trapped. All we need to do is to open our hands. Let go of ourselves, our attachments, and be free.
Yes, I think it goes "anger, desires, attachments rob us of eternal life."
It's just so beautiful.
Must say I agree with Dr. Wow. In addition to the collapse of the "neo-con wet dream," last night Arnold Schwartznegger was also done in. Even Maria Shriver could not save him.
|
|
|
