Anth writes: 'And surely, if you were once, but are no longer, a premie, by definition, you are an ex-premie, n'est ce pas?'

Ah, Anth, shall we get into the intricacies of 3-valued logic versus 2-valued logic ?! Only joking. Leaving aside the Indian meaning of 'premie' as 'lover', by 'premie' I mean a follower of what I perceive as a cult, centered around M. I don't want to be a part of that cult, so I am not a premie in that sense. So the question for me is: Is there any part of what M is teaching that is directly relevant to me, and is not part of the cult ? My own answer is Yes. Since an 'ex-premie' seems to reject not only the premie cult, but also anything remotely good and worthwhile that M teaches, then I am not an 'ex-premie' either. Thus I am not a premie, nor an ex-premie, QED, n'est ce pas ?

He clearly had an idea of what an ex-premie is that was not correct, so he didn't call himself an ex-premie, but he was quite clear that he wasn't a premie. My own definition of an ex-premie is someone who was a premie but has rejected Maharaji as their teacher. Mike at that time said he still thought that something that Maharaji was teaching could be relevant to him. As his previous view of Maharaji was that he was the Lord, and someone that Mike should dedicate his life to, Mike had clearly already gone through a whole lot of rejecting Maharaji.

So, I'm not so daft am I?