|
|
|
Stephen, Sad to say but the disrespect and disdain you express for a rational approach to life and beliefs reminds me of why I've grown to dislike new agey people with their new agey expressions so much. Hey, there you go -- that's MY truth, I guess.
Modified by Jim at Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 21:00:04
|
|
|
|
Please copy those posts you think express distain? I would be happy to learn.
|
|
|
|
I'm only thinking of the post above. Peace to you too.
|
|
|
|
Welcome to you Stephen and Jim,
You are two who's views I am very interested in hearing.
I do not promise to immediately jump into a version of either view, but I do promise to weigh carefully all I read.
I find them both valuable, these views, if for nothing final, at least for getting over the damage done by Maharaji's ministry on Earth.
It is very common, and I'll guess, inevitable that a person weening themselves from Guru Maharaji will take comfort in the thought of a greater God than Guru Maharaji.
I would venture to say it is almost impossible to pass straight from believing in God as Guru Maharaji to total atheism. I prayed to the True God of this Universe, to help me get away from this conniving guru. And he was there at once, in ways I would not dare to air, in such a sceptical atmoshere.
As I look around outside or consider the nature of my own being and awareness of being, I can find supporting evidence for either point of view. Especially so, when I look into the night sky.
I got away from guru maharaji by having a very deep, personal, revealing and informative new and deep relationship with what was clearly a higher consciousness.
It was extremely effective in dismissing the guru myth because guru maharaji had not the kindness, wisdom, understanding, knowledge or power that I was now accessing and being blessed by. Whether this took place entirely within me or in the Universe it is immaterial, but if it is true, and any one actually believes in "God" in the guru camp they might like to know that "God" is on my side in the fight against the spread of cults, particularly the Rawat cult.
The question, here, as I see it is: what to call those real experiences and information which amounted, at the time, to actual proof.
You want an example? I perceived inside and alone: the worsening corruptions that were taking place with guru maharaji and left on that evidence: Only afterwards did I get confirmation from external sources, like premie rumours and the forums, of the actual facts, the RTA, the mistress, the booze, etc..
Admittedly self doubt is a constant companion, at least with me, so I also had periods of thinking I was, as all premies insisted: going crazy.
I was so desperate for a while, that accessing Truth or not, I was only staying in this world by going to church and getting coffee, two biscuits, a book to borrow and some sympathy.
A dear old couple still send us birthday and Christmas cards, but when I was strong enough to stagger on I did.
When I first read here I read with avid curiosity and a sort of fearful joy to move on even further; and was apprehensive but fascinated to talk especially to NAR and Jim who had a clinically "pure" view as regards belief.
However, I am not able to dismiss the "inner friend" I had and we are still in touch.
I do not know fully the nature of human: or if such a presence is aware: universal consciousness, but I do not feel, thank God, alone inside: just on the outside.
I am very fond of Stephen and love his honesty and am eager to hear of his spiritual experiences.
One. Because, out of curiosity, I am keen to compare with my own past experiences, (Nothing whatsoever to do with gurus) and:
Two. Because I am open minded and still willing, indeed eager, to learn more.
This physical universe, big though it is: it's physics and chemistry, though awesome, is reasonably straightforward to comprehend.
I am eager in this life, as a self appointed scientific/psychological/philosophical explorer to hear every one of those people's inputs: like Stephen's stories, poems, songs, and just to pass the time in idle chit chat.
I have waited to hear his posts for some time. It would be nice Stephen, if you did not feel unappreciated, as if you had found yourself being judged, or your thoughts dismissed before they could even be assimilated and expressed..
As far as I'm concerned, you're not being cross examined. You're sitting at my campfire, telling interesting things I want to hear, well, it's getting chilly let's say in my front room, with coffee and biscuits. Please don't feel it's hopeless here, there are many here who are as open minded; as you and I know, we are.
No one here (on earth) can dismiss finally with proof or disproof the answer to The Greatest Question Of All Time.
It is interesting that the more atheist some become, the less sensitive towards others feelings they become also. Not always so.
This forum does not have to take on the responsibility of having to come up with an answer by the end of term. I am not qualified, with respect to John and Mike, for defining it's purpose or main contribution to society. But I hope you will forgive me having a guess.
To debunk the myth surrounding maharaji, as far as his being God or having knowledge of God.
To encourage his entrapped followers to take the courage to be honest with themselves.
To assist the inevitable leavers in getting over the wrench of inner life that leaving his belief system entails.
To provide a place where we might get over the life threatening loneliness which follows. (My ongoing experience.)
To provide a place where we might express our new feelings in the matter and to do something to assist others to leave or get over it and to hasten the departure of the phoney master, by whatever means.
Whether this is done by recontacting a higher aspect of our own being or a higher aspect of the universe, or by dismissing all belief in anything subtler than physical evolutionary phenomena; is immaterial for the (supposed) purposes of this forum.
The person gets the strength to crush his or her own concepts, feel the pain, and move on, and feels supported in the process and during the lengthy time it takes; by others undergoing the same, late, upheaval of their life and all it's most treasured values.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 05:18:55
|
|
|
|
Hi Saph,
Your post suggests that atheists are not open minded, presumably because they reject the notion of God.
You are claiming the moral high ground here - as was common amongst premies in the old days, and as is still prevalent amongst New Agers - that those who don't agree with their ideas are insensitive, lacking imagination, too rational. If only they could let their 'hearts be free' they could would come to a similar conclusion, and experience divinity in their lives.
Instead of seeing a mind closed to God, how about imagining a mind open to the possibility of no God? It's just a little switch.
I have myself had many 'mystical' experiences, but feel freer interpreting them without reference to God. To me, disposing of God has been another step forward. Getting rid of the guru was a good start, but I don't think disposal of blind faith needs to stop there.
Don't be offended by my take on this - you are welcome to your God. I just reject the implication of atheists being less open-minded.
|
|
|
|
You should read my post again.
I did not say all, I allowed for exceptions,
"It is interesting that the
more atheist some become, the less sensitive towards others feelings
they become also. Not always so."
I am aware of two very real exceptions to this and will now I hope not embarass you both too much by holding you up as examples, You, along with Anth, of atheists who are not dismissive but are two of the warmest hearted of my new found friends. This speaks well for atheism and exing in general.
My main intention behind my post is not to thrash out the argument, we've got the rest of life to discuss this, but to say we should not push people away, who still have beliefs.
Of course the most closed minded are the believers, that goes without saying, not believing can also become a trip though. And one which, like any belief system can disregard the value of individuals in trying to express it's conviction. (Not in your cases, I hasten to add, 13 and Anth, and others.)
As usual I am now having to defend myself for mentioning God, even though I was expressing, I think, an openness to the very definite possibility that there is none. A few years ago I would have been too sensitive and it would have left me feeling without support in the universe to have to imagine no god.
I don't now believe in a God as a being in any way comparable to the human, but I cannot dismiss the possibility of a higher --(wrong word: I should say: more vast,)-- level of consciousness than our own, any more than I can dismiss the possibility that there is not.
One interesting point for me is that if there was a "god" he would be far, far greater than maharaji and probably pretty displeased with him by now. 
Another point I find interesting is the fact that without conclusive evidence either way, ...that there is no higher (or vaster) consciousness.... is as much a belief as.... that there is.
I think the problem lies in the connotations of the word "god". It is the most missused word in the dictionary. No one can be unbiased in their interpretation of it.
That we have consciousness is self evident, what it is; is not immediately self evident. But as such, it has the greatest chance of coming up with the answer, by coming to know itself.
I also reject the implication that I am a "God believer" at this time, because I have not deliberately closed off the door to the possibility of some level of overarching will or consciousness to the universe.
I fear some might deny their actual experience at present because of insistence upon a belief which denies possibility.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 06:03:11
|
|
|
|
Another point I find interesting is the fact that without conclusive evidence either way, ...that there is no higher (or vaster) consciousness.... is as much a belief as.... that there is.It is only because the idea of God or 'a vaster consciousness' is so prevalent in our history and our culture that it seems reasonable to equate the belief that such a thing exists with the belief that such a thing does not exist. But if you could imagine that nobody had ever thought of such a being, and we all lived our lives without such an idea, then no one would say that everyone has the belief that God didn't exist. It would be like saying that everyone now has the belief that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Of course we don't have such a belief, but that doesn't mean we believe the FSM does exist, or that we are agnostic about its existence. What I'm trying to say is that the starting position should be that we haven't even considered the existence of something like God. Then, if someone raises the possiblity (as they could with the FSM), we could think about it, and maybe ask for some evidence. Then, if the evidence isn't convincing, one would carry on as before. To call that state 'having a belief that God doesn't exist' would misrepresent it, just as saying your postman has a belief that the FSM doesn't exist misrepresents his position. Does this make sense? John.
|
|
|
|
Of course it makes sense, I would not disagree with a word. In fact I 'm always glad of these nudges in the right direction.
Thanks for that clarity.
I am still left with the question of our consciousness and it's limitations and boundaries, whether bound up in our brain or able to move beyond it?
And whether as with synapses, neuron like firings are possible at the speed of light between points, stellar or personal, which, on a grand scale, might link up into awareness over infinite time: as awareness on a miniscule scale has arisen over insignificant time in the mud?
I'm not saying I believe it, but it is just as possible as how I got my brain on Earth and how it came to function and eventually give me a sense of being in some way connected to everything, not just the planet, ... even the voidness....
But, thanks for jogging me on to the next notch. The starting point is definitely "No god."
Regards John,
Saph.
Modified by Saph at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 06:35:30
|
|
|
|
The starting point is definitely "No god."No, this is too definite. I think the starting point should be that the idea of such a thing hasn't occurred to anyone, not the definite "No god." that your statement implies. Then, when someone proposes such a thing, one could consider it, be convinced or not convinced, and if the latter, carry on without God, or the absence of God, ever being an important part of one's worldview. The problem we have is that we get presented with the concept at such a young age it becomes part of our mythology, and we have no chance to consider it as a new idea, as we can the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Regarding infinite consciousness and timelessness, I have talked about my idea of this before. Consider that consciousness is awareness of self. I believe that one of the earliest ideas our blank minds have to learn is the boundary of self and not-self. I think that even though most of us go through life with a working idea of that boundary (you know that I am another person than you are, and that your computer is not you), we never actually get it clear. For instance, is my fingernail me, or in my arm me, and if I am not my body (in many practical situations that is exactly what I am) then where do I live - behind my eyes somewhere? We know these questions because they were the kind of questions that led us to Rawat, but I think the questions may be invalid. I think that the boundary between self and not-self is something we constructed very early on (first few weeks), and its value is in its convenience in doing the main thing in life which is surviving and breeding. So the question we later ask could be translated as 'what is this thing inside this boundary that I have drawn as a matter of convenience and utility'. An analogy has just occurred to me - take a large expanse of grass, and draw the outlines of a football pitch in one part. To then ask 'what is this football pitch? as something separate from the rest of the expanse of grass would be silly - you just drew it, and it's no different from the rest of the expanse. Anyway, I have given a lot more background than I probably needed for the point I want to make, which is that what would happen if we forgot the boundary we have created, differentiating self and not-self, for a moment? My proposition is that to our adult minds, this would be an experience of infinity (no boundaries) and because we are so used to living with that boundary, it would be an extraordinary experience, when all it is is the forgetfulness of an early lesson, like forgetting how to tie one's shoelaces. Of course, I could be wrong, but as it explains the experience so convincingly for me, I would need some evidence that the experience really is of something infinite, not that it subjectively feels like something infinite. Say if two people had it at the same time, and were able to share some information that they could not possibly have otherwise known. I'm sure others could come up with other possible ways of getting that evidence. But until then, sure it feels cosmic, but one thing I have learnt about people is that we are like children, and easily impressed. John.
Modified by JHB at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 07:51:41
|
|
|
|
The problem we have is that we get presented with the concept at such a young age it becomes part of our mythology, and we have no chance to consider it as a new idea, as we can the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why, then, don't we still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Those were fairy tales we were taught, and believed in, as children also. But when we got older we got wiser and realized they dont' exist. How come we didn't get wiser concerning God? How would you explain that? An analogy has just occurred to me - take a large expanse of grass, and draw the outlines of a football pitch in one part. To then ask 'what is this football pitch? as something separate from the rest of the expanse of grass would be silly - you just drew it, and it's no different from the rest of the expanse. Interesting analogy. But the problem I have with arbitrary boundaries that we identify with is that if you're hungry, that doesn't mean I am too. If you're sleeping, I could be wide awake. The boundaries we draw up for ourselves are based upon experience, which ones are our's and which aren't. ...what would happen if we forgot the boundary we have created, differentiating self and not-self, for a moment? It would be an entirely different identity, of course, and this is the goal of certain forms of meditation, the liberation from a self-imposed self (along with all it's miseries). But my question is, does that mean you've touched reality, or just altered it, created a new one? I think you touched on this when you said the following: I would need some evidence that the experience really is of something infinite, not that it subjectively feels like something infinite. Ah, the musings of philosophy. Just how many angels are there on the head of a needle anyway?
|
|
|
|
The problem we have is that we get presented with the concept at such a young age it becomes part of our mythology, and we have no chance to consider it as a new idea, as we can the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Why, then, don't we still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Those were fairy tales we were taught, and believed in, as children also. But when we got older we got wiser and realized they dont' exist. How come we didn't get wiser concerning God? How would you explain that? I think because in the case of God we see the examples of our adult roll models sharing the belief. With fairy tales we gradually notice that no adults believe in goblins and dragons, although some believe in witches.... An analogy has just occurred to me - take a large expanse of grass, and draw the outlines of a football pitch in one part. To then ask 'what is this football pitch? as something separate from the rest of the expanse of grass would be silly - you just drew it, and it's no different from the rest of the expanse. Interesting analogy. But the problem I have with arbitrary boundaries that we identify with is that if you're hungry, that doesn't mean I am too. If you're sleeping, I could be wide awake. The boundaries we draw up for ourselves are based upon experience, which ones are our's and which aren't. Aah, but I never said the boundaries we draw are arbitrary. In fact, they are extremely useful, which is why we plump for them, but they are still only vaguely drawn which is why the question, 'Who am I?' is such a bugger. We were all doing fine until we asked it! ...what would happen if we forgot the boundary we have created, differentiating self and not-self, for a moment? It would be an entirely different identity, of course, and this is the goal of certain forms of meditation, the liberation from a self-imposed self (along with all it's miseries). But my question is, does that mean you've touched reality, or just altered it, created a new one? I think you touched on this when you said the following: I would need some evidence that the experience really is of something infinite, not that it subjectively feels like something infinite. Indeed. The question that was implicit in my post is once all the learned ideas of self/not-self, spacial awareness, passage of time, etc. are temporarily unlearned, such as in meditation, what is left? Ah, the musings of philosophy. Just how many angels are there on the head of a needle anyway? Although these are just the musings of my mind, I can envisage this theory being tested as our understanding of the brain gets better. Just find where the idea of the separation between self and not-self is stored, somehow inhibit it, and ask the subject what he experiences. .... but who is doing the experiencing?
Modified by JHB at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 09:39:41
|
|
|
|
Why, then, don't we still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Those were fairy tales we were taught, and believed in, as children also. But when we got older we got wiser and realized they dont' exist. How come we didn't get wiser concerning God? How would you explain that? Wow, Jer, I think you're really onto something there. But perhaps you could flesh it out a bit more before I wallop it with my club.
|
|
|
|
C'mon, Jim, you know how frequently the infidels like to compare a theist's beliefs to that of a child who believes in Santa Claus. Is it really a fair comparison, or isn't it just a derogatory swing of the club? Actually, John's answer is one worth considering, that we picked up on the game adults were playing with us re Santa, but not God. Who knows? BTW, I've been reading God Delusion. When I'm done maybe we can discuss it more on the non-rat forum. There are certain presumptions he makes that dilutes his argument I'd like to share.
|
|
|
|
Steven Wright: What did Santa Claus get Jesus for Christmas?
|
|
|
|
A birthday present? Probably nothing since Jesus was Jewish. Kabir
|
|
|
|
"I think the starting point should be that the idea of such a thing hasn't occurred to anyone"
Quite so. I sit corrected.
Modified by Saph at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 09:27:18
|
|
|
|
John,
I deeply value something I can't quite get my mind around in your posts. It's as if you saw with a view that I am familiar with on an almost subliminal level.
Yesterday I dealt briefly with the god: no god: not even thought of that yet, side of my blind spots.
I have read your excellent paragraphs which followed several times but am still not sure if I've been able to get the right perspective.
It touches me in another way. I have a strange condition which is difficult to define from my own experience. It may be easier for other people to define. It came to light in tests at college, various names were used, spatial dyslexia, dyspraxia, organisational dyslexia.
It's hard to describe how it feels from the inside. It's easier to see the after effect. (like experimenting on spiders and their web making skills.) Externally, looking at the chaos in my room, it is looks as if I am just missing an organisational gene or something.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder also seems to be present, whether as part of a single complex or in addition. This effects me so that I can't concentrate long on things that I don't find interesting. Unfortunately major unanswered questions burn in me all life long.
Referring to your boundary references, I am reminded of this. Consciousness feels to me only vaquely to spring from a point, though usually it is in the centre of my head, but it seems harder for me to clearly define the boundaries. There are special times, (that I love) when I feel as if I were spread outward from my body into the space around to some distance.
This is a beautiful experience in natural surroundings, but most uncomfortable in cities, or even inside houses. This is why I have to go into relative wilderness to think and write anything more than a page. When I look at the sky, the awe I feel is the feeling of my self there.
Sometimes I just feel undefined, like a raw cloud of invisible nerve endings: this stone house literally hurts. Often, only in nature am I comfortable.
But to continue with the subject, it feels as if, at times, for me, consciousness were a continuous field and beings were but salient points within the field matrix. Points where consciousness has centred itself, associating itself with a body, and drawn clearly defined boundaries, usually.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 06:11:44
|
|
|
|
Often, only in nature am I comfortable.
Identify with that...it is also where I feel most deeply comfortable...(although always happy to get back for a nice cup of tea and a slice of cake) it feels as if, at times, for me, consciousness were a continuous field and beings were but salient points within the field matrix. Points where consciousness has centred itself, associating itself with a body, and drawn clearly defined boundaries, usually. I really like your idea (bearing in mind Bryn's point below which I thought was funny) . Intutively it resonates but I don't know if its 'true' best Tim
|
|
|
|
I think I live here because I need to have wider boundaries. Having written these posts, in more detail than previously, I think I'm on to something with this idea that we come up with some vague boundaries for our selves that are convenient, just as we learn as much language that is convenient, or learn as much local geography as is convenient. As understanding usually takes a little while to sink in with me I'll get back on this topic when the implications of this view on self have sunk in a little more.
|
|
|
|
You have inspired me in more ways than one, I am seeking more space to spread my boundaries for the same reason, which has only just sunk in with me recently.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 18:52:22
|
|
|
|
My hopes are riding on this at the moment, the suspense is killing me.
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 09:07:59
|
|
|
|
cq took this pic.Unfortunately they are not my woods, just some woods in Dorset! Your woods look beautiful Saph. While I'm here I would like to add that I've enjoyed reading this thread and..........please stay Stephen as I feel very sympathetic towards your posts. I have been a bit busy lately and unable to post anything of substance but try to read when I can. Lexy x.
Modified by lexy at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 10:45:34
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing these photos. They may be as important as what you are thinking if we get to know each other.
|
|
|
|
The States has some of the most dramatic in the world.
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 16:03:14
|
|
|
|
I love your pics.
Modified by lexy at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 17:04:16
|
|
|
|
Great photo Lexy, (still waiting to hear on the woods though, I 'm afraid.)
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 11:51:15
|
|
|
|
Moss Glen Falls. "Moss" because of the many people who don't know any better and try to climb up the hundred or so feet and lose limb or life. When the falls freeze over in the winter, folks take bets about when it'll thaw come springtime and gush all over the road. I'm so fortunate to live where I live, on the border of 30,000 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest. It's not easy to live here, the winters are tough, earning a living tougher, but every day of the year there's something to see and cherish...If I had religion, nature would be it...I get so much from it and it never asks me for a thing. Breath-taking beauty is everywhere around these parts. And to Lexy...I hope StephenB stays too.  I don't know who took this photo. It wasn't me. 
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 14:14:04
|
|
|
|
That is one beautiful waterfall, you are lucky. It must look fantastic all frozen.
|
|
|
|
Hi John, I hope you don't mind but I wanted to adjust the light a little on that picture. Beautiful place. Lots of elbow room. Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 12:33:23
|
|
|
|
Then I can do it to the higher resolution original.Thanks, John.
|
|
|
|
Hi John, It was easy because I have the Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 software that came with the Canoscan 8600F flatbed scanner that I bought a few weeks back. It cost a little more but was well worth it because of the great software. However, there are many other software programs that can do the same thing. This is what I did with your photo... I right clicked on the photo and saved it to my desktop for easy access. Then I took it to the Adobe Editor where I adjusted the lighting... shadows/highlights & brightness/contrast. That's it. Yes, I'm sure the higher resolution original could be adjusted too. This software seems to have everything (geez now I sound like a commercial) and I'm still learning how to use it. For example I took your photo and clicked on the watercolor tab under the artistic tools and this is what I got below. Anyhow, thanks for posting that picture of your awesome place, it gave me an excuse to use the Adobe Photoshop. Plus the photographs others have posted in this thread showing nature's glory...trees, rocks, waterfalls and the like has inspired me to take a walk in the woods. Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 08:07:21
|
|
|
|
.. pictures taken of Latvia when I visited John back in Nov 2004. (Hope John does not mind me posting these). T
|
|
|
|
Hi T, Those are absolutely beautiful. Gee can I visit too? I have to admit... this is one of the Best threads in a long time IMO. It has a bit of everything in it. Very nice shots T! Sincerely... Hilltop
|
|
|
|
Hi Hilltop Latvia is lovely and John is a wonderful host, even his home made wine is perfectly palatable. ( ) Here is a cutout of the Latvian coast as well as a daubed picture of a building in downtown Riga. T
|
|
|
|
All the Latvia pics I've seen of John's look so much like Vermont. Even the water scene looks like Lake Champlain at sunset. Striking.
|
|
|
|
Synapses and neuron firings are not possible and do not occur at the speed of light, they're actually very slow compared to the speed of light. The parts of the brain do not exist in the quantum world where things begin to get "spooky".
The fact that you "sense" you are connected to everything doesn't mean you actually are connectd to everything in any way that is meaningful or "sense-ible"to you as a person. You didn't "get your brain".
|
|
|
|
I don't think you quite grasped what I was saying. Rather than try to patch up my previous awkward sentences; let me try to rephrase this.
In a relatively short time in a very tiny space, so much consciousness has evolved. If consciousness can occur so relatively quickly and with such a tiny amount of material, why should it not be able to awaken given (almost) infinite time and (almost) infinite material to work with.
The brain reaches its state of intelligence by compiling the relatively meaningless transmissions of billions of cells.
I was offering that the light radiating from billions of stars with which the universe is criss crossed carries much information about the physical universe for us, who are insignificantly tiny. What other transmissions or receptions might there be?
Might there not also be a level of self awareness within the play of light and many other forms of radiation, between points, in a vaquely similar way to the collective intelligence which we experience? Collective in the sense that ours is the gathered result of millions of individually insignificant neuron pulses in the space of a coconut.
Not saying there is an awareness other than our own, but I can't rule out the possibility, when I see what has happened here in the soil of Earth, in a short time and on a tiny scale.
All arguments I have seen against this seem motivated by an intense will to deny any possibility. I don't see why it is so important to claim that we (with earth's life forms) are the only objects in the universe that are aware.
It is understandable, if it is motivated by a distaste for gurus and religions. But scientifically it is self defeating, as all determinations seem to be based upon the purely physical side of phenomena. We can clearly see that life is everywhere on this planet, and we know that our intelligence is quite evolved, what makes us so sure the universe is inert, a lifeless object.
Conveniently the speed of light limits us from seeing other worlds close up enough to see if life exists there or not, but our consciousness is subtler, I would say, than that, What people perceive inwardly might be subjective but it is undeniably something we share. (Or deny.) We are in a sense denying our own intelligence, limiting it in one of it's greatest functions: to question and explore the unknown.
The insistence that we are the only consciousness in the universe seems quite like religion to me. Only we have been touched by or have access to the miracle of life. The rest of the universe is stupid: dead.
Sounds like a residual underlying religious belief that some sort of "god" loves us more than the rest of the universe.
Do we really think we are so special that only we, in all the universe can see? Think? Love? Understand? Empathize? Even know that anything is here?
Lp
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 04:32:21
|
|
|
|
This disliker of religion can happily accept the terms you have set out here.
Anyone who has looked down a microscope at an amoeba, and then contemplated the size of the universe and our place in it, can't be too certain that it's just us here. Nice rephrasing.
|
|
|
|
I hope you're managing OK up there, thinking of you.
Lp who also dislikes religion.
|
|
|
|
Well I agree with all those mights and uncertainties though I'd come down on the side that said these things might be but so far there is no evidence to suggest any of them actually are. But I disagree strongly with the idea that it is convenient that the speed of light constraint limits us from seeing other worlds close up. I think it is dashed inconvenient.
I also think you've got the perspective on the other awarenesses in the universe back to front. As we don't know of any other awarenesses it is the proponents of the idea that should be providing exceptional evidence for such an exceptional hope and wish.
As for me I've never had a moment's concern that there could be other awarenesses. I'd love there to be other awarenesses and my distaste for most gurus has no connection whatsoever with my belief that so far we have had no contact with extra-terrestrials. I think JHB can confirm that I am such an egotistical bastard that I expect them to contact me on arrival and eagerly await that enlightening day.
|
|
|
|
Hi ocker,
Yes good points,
I meant convenient in the sense of there not being any evidence. Although I realised afterward that it is not the speed of light, but just plain, vast distance that prevents us from seeing so far.
I agree the onus is on the proponents to furnish proof. I feel I have been misunderstood a few times in this thread, on this. I am not proposing any thing other than that we can't prove it either way and that we can't dismiss the possibility. If we get to the point of saying my opinion is thus.... we then have something to defend.
I am happy to say I haven't got a clue, and cannot dismiss the possibility either way, and therefore an opinion would be only a guess.
Extra terrestrials do not sound all that different from ourselves and could easily be a construct of our imagination. It would be fascinating to meet one, but I was leaning more towards a less defined possibility.
Not a hope or a wish, just allowing for the possibility that apart from our knowing, the universe is perhaps not otherwise unknown in its existing, possibly on an inconceivably great scale.
Perhaps we cannot know because we are minutely inside it. So: vague though it sounds, I am trying to remain in a space of being open to either possibility without picking sides or deciding which opinion to entertain, mainly because proof does not exist for either view.
That consciousness may exist out there in forms inconceivable to us is not a quantum leap, considering how much consciousness we see where universe matter is in range of sight. And even here, we see almost inconceivable forms which possess some awareness.
Thanks for you comments
Lp
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps we cannot know because we are minutely inside it." I like that it sounds like the inverse of the concept that we cannot truly understand "consciousness" cause it is inside us. I think it seems like a great time to be alive, enormous strides are being made in knowledge on all sorts of fronts, the first steps are being made in understanding our own consciousness, the birth of access to all knowledge for anybody who cares to look for it has happened and communication is so available that organisations based upon hidden information like Rawatism may never have an opportunity to arise again.
Imagine if the internet had been available in 1970. The "Knowledge" techniques would have been available to all, the information from all the people quickly becoming disillusioned with Knowledge would have been available and discussed and all of the scandals like the family break-up, the Millenium near-bankruptcy, the divine ulcer, the hammer attack, the millions young Rawat was spending on himself would have been available to "aspirants" before they had been tranced-out and love-bombed in satsang.
Imagine Rawat telling his henchmen it was time to destroy all the information available on him in the early 80's and they look around and whisper "Doesn't he know about the Internet?" Doesn't he know we published all the And It Is Divine's and Golden Ages and Divine Times on the net and the youtube has all footage from 'Satguru Has Come'. Rawatism was able to grow initially and has been able to survive because there was so little information available about it.
|
|
|
|
Yes, Ocker:
"it seems like a great time to be alive, enormous strides are being made
in knowledge on all sorts of fronts, the first steps are being made in
understanding our own consciousness, the birth of access to all
knowledge for anybody who cares to look for it has happened and
communication is so available that organisations based upon hidden
information like Rawatism may never have an opportunity to arise again."
These are interestings times for sure. I guess such organisations will reveal their true colours by making the internet taboo, which should set alarm bells ringing, for discerning observers. But the chance of such blind brainwashing decreases for the new generations, for whom, there is the chance to get an all round picture of things.
Any organisation which frowns upon or dissuades it's members from using the net, is admitting that it's tenets are based upon enforced beliefs, and grown in shallow soil. Eventually, it seems to me, they must fold before the mass of free and unbiased information that abounds. Their beliefs and chosen ideals seem inevitably bound to appear more and more archaic as we jointly become more discerning and, hopefully, wise.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 03:52:15
|
|
|
|
Hi LP, You might be interested in this website about SETI, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. There's tons of info here about Carl Sagan and colleagues, etc., debates about intelligent life in the universe and how to find it. http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/search_for_life/seti/seti_debate.html Also, if you've never read The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, it's a wonderful book that explores many topics about science, belief-systems, how science works. I highly recommend it. Sagan was one of our greatest teachers, imo.
|
|
|
|
The example you gave equates God with "a vaster consciousness," I named them differently because I wanted to set them apart.
The word god seems to presuppose a ruling entity. Consciousness is what it is. No crown.
I have no idea what it would be like but the step from life forms, with consciousness to the possibility of consciousness existing in forms which we cannot see; either because they are too faw away, or too big or too small, or too close, or because we are inside of them... is not so big a step as the step from a world without FSM to a world with FSM.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 11:53:19
|
|
|
|
The word god seems to presuppose a ruling entity. Consciousness is what it is. No crown.I like it. Not sure a vast consciousness without the will or power to do stuff makes sense, but it kinda feels .... interesting
|
|
|
|
Well there is a lot going on out there. Once everything is set in motion, the outcomes are quite predictable though, no room for free will. Gravity, the laws of motion, magnetism, solar winds etc. are inexorable.
Cosmic dust falling,
Inwards toward the centre.
Thus new stars are born.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 19:34:15
|
|
|
|
What would be the point? What good is a vast consciousness if it didn't have any input on what it observes? In fact, that strikes me as absurd, an infinite consciousness aware of everything but having no part in creating it. Where did it all come from? In fact, I can just see this vast consciousness looking around bewildered at all the stuff. "Where did all this come from? I've been around forever, see all, but I still haven't figured out where it came from. Maybe Richard Dawkins knows."
|
|
|
|
The History of God? The History of Mythology? Etc. She talks about human consciousness evolving through time and the concept that God has evolved in relation to the realities of humans as they have changed from hunter/gatherer to agriculture to cities to countries and finally the scientific revolution. Far from dispensing with myth as fiction and God as a concept she explores the relationship of the human psych with the vast/small "other". Maybe the reality of God is not the same thing all the time, (maybe not even "God" ! Interesting reading. Stephen B
Modified by Stephenb at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 12:02:36
|
|
|
|
Far from dispensing with myth as fiction and God as a concept she explores the relationship of the human psych with the vast/small "other". Maybe the reality of God is not the same thing all the time, (maybe not even "God" ! I'm toying with this idea, myself. It's not that the reality of God isn't the same all the time. That would make God just a figment of the imagination, a whim having no inherent reality. It's the myths that have no inherent reality, but they connect people to a reality beyond them. They're a means to an end, to get closer to God. If the book explores this subject I might check it out. Thanks for the heads up.
|
|
|
|
ex-nun? prolific author on religion?
|
|
|
|
Armstrong has garnered quite the reputation as a wilfully naive apologist for Islam. That's how I know her. Here's a bit from a Dhimmi Watch article that shreds her: Armstrong’s nonsense perhaps has to do with some rude and indigestible bits of history that she dimly recalls, about the story of Prester John, the mythical Christian king of a mythical Christian kingdom, placed first, in European imaginations, in India, and later transferred to Ethiopia – a fable, designed to hearten European Christians who were always fearful of Muslim assaults, the Arab raiding parties by sea, up and down European coasts, and the Turkish land armies of the mighty Ottoman Sultan. Her every word adds to the absurdity. There is no evidence for Armstrong’s assertions about Columbus himself, or about what motivated him. History is putty in her hands, we said earlier. But the word putty does not do her infantile approach to history justice. History is for Karen Armstrong not so much putty as Playdoh. She can roll it about, she can pull it apart, she can twist and turn it with the same delight exhibited by a two-year-old when too-too-solid block of Playdoh is finally softened up for use by grown-up hands. But the two-year-old is an innocent at play, and even if he leaves a momentary mess, he has done no real harm. Karen Armstrong is not innocent, and manages to do a great deal of harm, careless or premeditated harm, to history. Too many people read that she has written a few books, and assume, on the basis of nothing, that “she must know what she is talking about” – and some of the nonsense sticks. And perhaps an enraged professor or two bothers to dismiss her, but mostly – this is how the vast public, in debased democracies, learns its history today. It is hearsay as history – “Karen Armstrong says” or “John Esposito says.”
And that is only her first paragraph.
Related link: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005849.php
|
|
|
|
While I certainly agree that Ms Armstrong is not the brightest bulb in the pack, you could at least have mentioned that she is very nice and well-meaning and says nice things about all religions, not just Islam. I'm sure she would think that Prem Rawat is a very nice man who is working very hard to bring inner peace to the world.
|
|
|
|
Ocker, Apologists for Maharajism are bad enough. Apologists for Islam who set themselves out as experts on the subject but who deny everything troubling about its teachings are worse. Armstrong is a toxic blight on human understanding at this particular time. Just when we need some clear vision, she's a veritable fog machine. But yes, I agree, she probably would think that Prem Rawat is a very nice man who is working very hard to bring inner peace to the world.
Modified by Jim at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 18:27:09
|
|
|
|
I read her books a few years ago but I recall her not so much denying everything troubling about Islam but just only writing about everything that could be considerd positive about Islam. She's the middle-brow Pollyanna of religious writers.
|
|
|
|
It is interesting that the more atheist some become, the less sensitive towards others feelings they become also. I think the problem lies in the connotations of the word "god". It is the most missused word in the dictionary. No one can be unbiased in their interpretation of it. I think the problem is that people try to figure out "God," things on this forum. Instead of deconstructing the cult, how they got in, what they think about it, how much of the mind-control they still entertain in their heads, etc., they spend time trying to construct new belief systems. Cart before the horse, IMO. It's off topic to explore new beliefs here. Simple as that. If people want to discuss those things there's a whole other forum available for that. A whole internet. I can't figure out why that's such a big problem for people to accept. If folks don't want to be challenged about their beliefs in public there's also something known as a personal journal, pastoral counselors, and there are plenty of discussion groups on the internet to join where one won't be challenged or confronted about beliefs. I also disagree that "some" atheists here are insensitive to "believers." By far, the greatest majority of complaints here are about the atheists/agnostics from believers/seekers, not the opposite. There seems to be some idea that atheists/agnosticss don't have feelings and an emotional life, and we can become the whipping posts of believers because it's politically correct for people to have religion or God in their lives but definitely not socially acceptable in society to be atheist. Happened to me here last week and no one said anything. My feelings were hurt badly, I just didn't say so at the time because I didn't want the conversation to escalate. I was told I don't believe in anything so I don't know anything about...whatever it was... All kinds of slack and leeway are given to require that I be "open-minded" and politically correct to religions and their people. Why? So far as I can tell it's so that those religious people don't get their feelings hurt and belief-systems challenged. So when religious convictions aren't criticized, feelings don't get hurt. But, believers seem to have carte blanc to ridicule people who are humanists, skeptics, and rational thinkers. And believe me, God-believers have no problem walking all over my feelings with distain and condescension any day of the week. I still think that when folks start complaining about the forum, two things are going on: 1) They aren't getting their needs met on many levels, some which can be addressed here and some not (but they don't bother to figure out and state their real needs); and 2) For whatever reasons, they simply don't like the personalites of the posters here and want us to change and be different for them. That's not a happening thing. Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 09:50:07
|
|
|
|
I agree that believers are often insensitive on these forums. Take StephenB - he clearly appeared to attack me and Mike by saying that this forum is 'carefully managed' to present a particular point of view. I was upset about that being the owner of the forum, but he didn't even have the courtesy to reply to or even otherwise acknowledge my response.John.
|
|
|
|
Take StephenB - he clearly appeared to attack me and Mike by saying that this forum is 'carefully managed' to present a particular point of view. I was upset about that being the owner of the forum, but he didn't even have the courtesy to reply to or even otherwise acknowledge my response. This is such a long and interesting thread. I didn't remember your response to Stephen, so I looked for it.I found clearly headed replies from you to Saph but can't find the one to Stephen.Please could you link it.Maybe if you make it more obvious Stephen would reply as he doesn't strike me as remotely ill-mannered.
|
|
|
|
Entitled "Who is doing this 'Careful Management'"The thread was very small when I wrote it so I'm sure he spotted it, but don't you agree Stephen's post was insensitive to my feelings?
|
|
|
|
See link for Stephen's response which was latched onto a post by Tommo but addressed to all. "don't you agree Stephen's post was insensitive to my feelings?" No I don't John. Don't forget I was exposed to the appallingly insulting posts you received from the saintly cowman on the erstwhile AAA forum....and you didn't whinge about those or even turn a hair whereas I,having just ex-ed and new to the internet, was horrified.Frankly I find it hard to believe that you JHB, having survived that blatantly personal attack and more recent ones on Drek's forum, are suddenly deeply wounded by an innocuous remark by StephenB . Stop being so mamby pamby and get out there and chop some more wood !
Related link: http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/12131.html
Modified by lexy at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 21:01:52
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see Axis unblocked but ofcourse that is up to John. No one's perfect right? Just a thought. Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 22:43:51
|
|
|
|
The last time Axis appeared on this forum (with a different handle which I can't remember...but I'm pretty certain it's her....same style ) she was always terse and cross with me for no reason.I ignored it.She then sent me a private message ( in the days of private messages) apologising and explaining that shehad thought I was someone else. Well she came back and was being cross with me for no reason again.I suppose she thinks I'm someone else...again ! Anyhow I never complained or anything to admin., so she wasn't blocked because of me. I think she's going through a hard time in her personal life if I have understood correctly. Far as I'm concerned Axis can come back and be cross with you, this time Hilltop, for no reason. Love to you and your family anyway. I agree that none of us are perfect which just proves what a hopeless "Perfect Master" we had.
Modified by lexy at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 22:58:25
|
|
|
|
Hi Lexy, Hilltop for love...LOL! Darn you have a good memory. You will never let that one rest. That's OK. I liked Hilltop for Love (capital L for Love thank you) because no one knew if I was a guy or a gal at the time. Plus it was a good dating handle so I thought. LOL once again. But seriously, I've talked to Axis in the past and quess what her service to Guru Maharaj Ji was? She spent many years and countless hours transcribing the Lord's Satsang. That's what she did. Can you imagine reading and rereading Prem Rawat's cult talk over and over again? How horrible is that? I have a little idea of what that is like looking for things to post on the forum. But ofcourse I'm not in the cult anymore. She was when she did this service to him. And she did go through alot more than you know because of this. I wouldn't feel right talking more about that here out of respect to her. Axis doesn't want to talk to me at this point in time and she may be cross with me too. She might not want to post on the forum either. However, I know that she has a very good heart and means well. Please don't take offense by what she has said to you and others here on the forum. Trust me she has been though alot thanks to Prem Rawat. Haven't we all? I'm not trying to make excuses for her but I'm just trying to use a little empathy. Not everyone who was in Prem Rawat's cult comes out of it as well as others. And some people have killed themselves because of the cult's very negative effect on them. Isn't that true? The way I see it from having talked to Axis, is that she is indeed a wonderful and very kind person, believe it or not. Even with the fact that she had her heart ripped out of her because of Prem Rawat's lies. That's how deep it was for her. I pray and hope that Axis regains her health and much more. Please have the understanding that I have about her beyond the petty insults you may have had to endure. Best thoughts go to you too Lexy! Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Sun, Oct 29, 2006, 01:13:10
|
|
|
|
In private communication with me Axis rold me a little of her new religious beliefs, and her purpose in posting here which clearly stemmed from those beliefs. As that purpose appeared to conflict with the purpose of this forum, I suspended her posting rights pending clarification. Her one email to me since then not only did not clarify her position, but was frankly even more bizarre than her previous communications.If anyone is in touch with her, and on good terms with her, then they might want to check up on her to see if she is OK. John.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for explaining that, John. I noticed that Axis has changed quite a bit since the last time I spoke with her, which has to be a couple of years ago. From her recent posts to me here, I got the feeling she strongly dislikes me now, which is a pity and a suprise to me, because we were once good friends. I wish her well. Cynthia
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that , Hilltop. I understand only too well what you are saying re: Axis. I honestly feel that I get a strong feeling for other contributors here through the interface of these posts and the energy and passion of Axis shines through any excess zeal.I know that Axis is a kind person and that she has been deeply hurt by her time in the cult. I have been too. More than I could ever begin to express on this forum. You mentioned suicides.Yes,there have been so many.A few months ago I met Sir Dave for the first time in over 20 years ( he seemed just the same ! ) and I was ( and still am ) devastated to hear that a premie of my age that I was close to all those years ago and her lovely son had both taken their own lives.........( if anybody knows more about this and recognises the story ,can they please contact me through forum admin.). Whenever I think of this I am frozen with sadness. Many of us are rather fragile and I am always desperate not to be misunderstood.At the same time ,as I think you know,I have a slightly zany and dry sense of humour and-thank goodness- can rise above all the petty comments and see the funny side ( sometimes hilariously funny ). I can even look back at the days,more than a couple of years ago now........when I ventured onto forum seven,shaking with fearful apprehension,and all the fiasco that followed when Mike Finch came and rescued me from being verbally barbecued alive by saint gerry,who thought I was a troll...........and really laugh!! I so had no idea what was going on ! best wishes to you,Hilltop, Lexy x
Modified by lexy at Sun, Oct 29, 2006, 09:25:40
|
|
|
|
Hi Lexy, Thank you for your reply. Axis is doing fine and I'm not going to mention Axis anymore because it is not fair to her esp. when she can't reply back. That's all I want to say about it other than thank you for your understanding Lexy. Trollfully Yours.... Hilltop
|
|
|
|
Hi Lexy, This is Prem Rawat talk from his Divine Times magazine. This may help explain a little... as to why? Best thoughts to you... Hilltop
|
|
|
|
.... and there was no mention or withdrawal of the comment about the forum being 'carefully managed'. Sure, I'm not 'deeply wounded' but I was just making the point that believers don't have any monopoly on 'sensitivity' and in fact frequently make insensitive remarks here.
|
|
|
|
Hi John, I agree with Saph; that Stephen was using the term "carefully managed" as a general term rather than a reference to forum admin. In fact Saph expressed most things I feel in that post of his.
|
|
|
|
StephenB started this long thread, so I don't see why it should be a problem for him to respond to John, because he clearly said "carefully managed." John and Mike are the only people who manage the forum. So, I'm puzzled by your and LP's interpretation. The words Stephen wrote speak for themselves. Cynthia
|
|
|
|
In which you manage this forum, (and, of course: Mike).
When I read StephenB's post it did not occur to me, that he was talking about either of you.
I still wonder if he even thought that.
I was sure he was referring to a sort of managing that sometimes appears to be attempted by some posters (I'm guilty here too of course), who, understandably sickened by spiritual concepts, sometimes are quick to remind us of what we have gone through because of just that sort of thing.
I'm equally sure it is not their intention to stifle the poster's desire to share something, but (gingerly now) can imagine that it can feel like that at times.
Particularly to those who have not learned to watch their P's and Q's with other posters or become familiar with any reputations for the efficient disposal of beliefs.
I am still convinced Stephen was not referring to the admin. of the forum, (only he can verify this one way or the other).
But I would like to make it clear again how highly I value your forum and your management of it and any moral support I leant to StephenB was in no way considered by me to be supporting a complaint against your good selves.
I won't embarrass anyone, especially myself, by naming anyone, I have carefully chosen my own words regarding belief.
If anyone remembers my "satsang" from the 60's and 70's they will no doubt remember this.
I often gave this analogy, I can remember it almost word for word, because I said it frequently.
"Belief is what it sounds like. Being a leaf. Don't be a leaf with belief. Leaves blow away in autumn (fall). Don't even be a twig or a branch, be with the trunk and roots of the tree of life."
Admittedly this had a "knowledge" spin put on it. But I have never felt any differently regarding belief, only replacing the reality of life, the universe and everything as the trunk and roots of the tree, instead of "knowledge", or for that matter, Maharaji's woefully simplistic cosmology and ideology.
My greatest respect and highest regards to you, John and Mike. If there is ever anything I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know.
I hope you realise how much you are appreciated by (I'm pretty sure) everyone who posts here.
Anyway I speak for myself:
Thankyou John, (and you both,) for the continuing patience and effort you apply in great measure, here.
With love and admiration
Lp
Modified by Saph at Sun, Oct 29, 2006, 03:52:41
|
|
|
|
I agree. I appreciate the efforts of John and Mike to provide this place for us to converse. This is the best forum we've ever had, imo. Without many rules or guidelines, it's the most liberal and civil. Forums previous to F8 often were like the wild, wild west, with everyone packing six shooters. Your analogy of belief above is interesting because the style is much like many Indian mahatmas' satsang, using rhymes, similes, and metaphors. A unique style. I'm a lover of words and particularly interested in definitions of words and their etymology: From dictionary.com: Belief: | 1. | something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. |
| 2. | confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. |
| 3. | confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. |
| 4. | a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. |
[Origin: 1125–75; earlier bile(e)ve (n. use of v.); r. ME bileave, equiv. to bi- be- + leave; cf. OE gelçafa (c. D geloof, G Glaube; akin to Goth galaubeins)] —Synonyms 1. view, tenet, conclusion, persuasion. 2. assurance. Belief, certainty, conviction refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. Belief is such acceptance in general: belief in astrology. Certainty indicates unquestioning belief and positiveness in one's own mind that something is true: I know this for a certainty. Conviction is settled, profound, or earnest belief that something is right: a conviction that a decision is just. 4. doctrine, dogma. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. |
Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Oct 29, 2006, 07:25:28
|
|
|
|
Spiritual beliefs fight dirty because they're weak. People who defend them often do so on the basis that it's just not fair the way they're attacked so strongly. Yeah, that's just weakness asking the ref for an interminable time-out. We've seen this here again and again. No, make that again and again and again.
|
|
|
|
I have seen that Jim. Yet a belief is a belief, regardless of the content of the belief.
When beliefs are associated with "spiritual" matters (yay or nay,) another level of emotion seems to come into play.
Some might be emoted by expectation, while some might be emoted by bad experiences which are sometimes seen as arising from a single source, when, in fact, there are countless sources and degrees and varieties of experiences, and conclusions arising from these.
Is it possible to observe one's experiences without turning to conclusions resembling belief? Can one retain an interest in experiences that are not immediately explicable: in phenomena arising from being a living being with only a partial view upon one's life and awareness, a partial view of the physical universe and, of course, a much lesser view of what is going on in another's mind, without resorting to belief?
Is it possible to hear about the experiences of another without accusation of creating a belief system, or association with the worst of systems of belief?
Past experiences good or bad can provide emotional content which inhibits debate. This is usually evident when it turns to personal affront.
It is certainly not innocuous if a partial view is purported to be absolute. And further, when inadequate views are substantiated with guesses and imaginings, for the purpose of filling out the presentation of systems which can be marketed or used to enslave, it is most harmful to human liberty.
It is insidious when all these guesses and incomplete data (a mass of beliefs) become spoon food to the masses, especially when it entails a personally negative view of others, whose conclusions differ, or who reject those erroneous conclusions which have become convictions.
This blinkered view reaches a peak in the major religions of the world, where those whose views differ are seen as infidels or heathens.
When those who follow no longer question or explore, but except the conclusions of their forerunners as truths, the damage is done and there is no good result for the individual and ultimately for the human situation in our world.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 05:17:17
|
|
|
|
I have seen that Jim. Yet a belief is a belief, regardless of the content of the belief.
When beliefs are associated with "spiritual" matters (yay or nay,) another level of emotion seems to come into play. If you're equating people rejecting spirituality with people believing in it, I strongly disagree. People resort to all sorts of emotional ploys and games to protect their beliefs from rational scrutiny. People who don't have those weak beliefs don't have to play those games.
|
|
|
|
I'm not equating believers and rejectors of spirituality per se, except in one small area, that there can be an emotion involved in the position.
for example a bad experience with a religion could make a person not reject, that is passive, but actively opposed to anything remotely similar, to the point of reacting to key words and phrases, and missing points of context.
Your references to ploys, games, and weakness I would not question or comment further upon.
|
|
|
|
Saph, I've never met anyone whose previous bad experience with spirituality left him so emotional about it he couldn't consider it rationally. Sure, lots of people hate spirituality but they can still do so rationally. On the other hand, almost everyone who clings to spirituality seems to defend it with emotionally-laden tricks at one point or another. Sorry but that's how I see it. It's just the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
|
...it is, after all, a reflection of how the world looks to me: so recently encountering more accurate or more far reaching gauges to detect shreds of spiritual belief which I have to admit, you are by quite clear and unemotional reasoning inexorably paring away.
You seem very convinced it is for the best so perhaps I should let you carry on. I don't want any residual beliefs floating around especially if they are somewhat imbedded.
And I'm pretty convinced that belief is harmful to others so perhaps I shouldn't dive to the rescue of others but see how much gets pared away with healthy interest.
But then not every one is as clear, rational and unemotional, as you are.
I believe I could enjoy rational debate listening to you, but if the only way I can do that is to take the opposing view I'm not sure that will be much good for me.
Ideally I should I suppose sit back and enjoy your debates with others. All I appear to be left with is a notion that my (our) being able to recognise that we are aware seems of a different order from the object of our awareness: i.e. the physical universe. No gods.
The fundamental difference between subject and object remains. Is that enough to build a debate upon?
Yep it's still there like a doubt. At what point can the subject finally cross over to the other side, the object side?
And only the physical universe remain?
Modified by Saph at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 21:02:39
|
|
|
|
LP, some people seem to question the function and value of this forum, but this thread is demonstrating both, I'm thinking. A safe place to take out your residual beliefs one by one, examine them carefully under a good light to see which are sound, and toss the stinky ones posthaste. And wow, have you been leading the general mucking out lately!
I've been following the "drips" postings and thinking of how, one by one, premie-facts collapse in a sickly heap of sugar water and spangles at the slightest touch of clear, rational challenge. No wonder premies run screaming at the word "why". No wonder Jim is the fabled Anti-Prem. But drips never stop, and they're not confined to premie lore, or to premies. We've all got to examine everything we think we are to see what's really true - all of it, all the time - or we risk drowning in our self-spun delusion. Religion is a loaded word that means something different to anyone who utters it. Because it's an especially hard one to look at rationally, it needs to be looked at a lot harder than might be comfy. Jim is an especially good person to get into a debate with on this subject, I think, because he is completely unwilling to ever agree that s**t smells like violets if it doesn't.
Untested beliefs are subtly poisonous and better out than in, like gallstones. If you're left with nothing but a change purse full of beliefs at the end of your trip, so much the better. And if you find, at the end of your examination, that only the physical universe remains, and you only gain the knowledge that this life, whatever we do with it, is all there is? This isn't enough? LP, that's like turning your nose up at paradise because you think you need to go to church instead, in case there might be something better than paradise later. I never could figure that one out about religious people, frankly.
I love how you're tossing the premie stuff out... you must feel SOOOO much lighter without all that drek. Check out the King of the Mountain...
Best to all, as always, Fiona
Related link: http://www.ecosystems.bc.ca/Clay%20Valley/CD-ROM%20project/Assets/photo_htms/eagle.htm
|
|
|
|
"We've all got to examine everything we think we are to see what's
really true - all of it, all the time - or we risk drowning in our
self-spun delusion."
"Untested beliefs are subtly poisonous and better out than in, like gallstones."
And if: "this life, whatever we do with it, is all there is? This isn't enough?"
"that's like turning your nose up at paradise because you think you need
to go to church instead, in case there might be something better than
paradise later."
These are great and true words.
Yet at first I thought "Why, because I wish to observe that consciousness exists: because I'm using it; is that religious?" Yet that is one reason I cannot with conviction say: "There is no god." Obviously all the images and ideas about god are bogus, I have to stretch a definition far from the standard interpretations if I am to accept its use, at all, as a word. I try not to use the word, and only realise that if it has anything to do with anything, I don't know how or if, or want to opine upon it, it would be to do with consciousness: which is not differentiated; nor is there a plural form of the word.
It's blatantly obvious that I can't with a shred of evidence or conviction: say "There is a God." either. I would never consider making such an impossible statement. That is not my drift. I'm trying to say, sometimes, that I simply am not qualified or sufficiently informed to say either, and recognise that for me, as a living organism, consciousness, as one of the marvels of the known universe, soars sometimes, as does the eagle with whom I share it, into unknown air.
That is not premie stuff, that is the continuation of the mind I had as a boy even. I'm curious as to why, because I think like that, I'm lumped back with the premies or into the religion category?
But then I hear another voice, reminding me that so often I look at life in the way you have described. As if,
"Oh well, it will all be OK in the end, The poor will inherit.. I've tried.."
and there is a sense somewhere of a judging entity considering whether I've been good or not
("not like all those worldly people who went out and worked hard and got the lifestyle they wanted while I was traipsing round the Himalays or whatever. Bought their house when they were giving 'em away, now they're sitting on a cool quarter of a million. I wasn't greedy, I just kept thinking about ... trying to find ....".
Look I'm gunna have to get back to you on this one, ....
But hopefully, soon I will realise what another voice seems itching to say.
"Why not go and enjoy this world and universe while you're here and forget about it? There is so much wonder, perhaps a cursory glance at the stars, a warm by the fire, and then rest for another busy day doing everything that you want to get done while you're here."
I was talking to another local non premie friend yesterday and he agreed that six months ago, I was always saying, "That guru's influence is still effecting my life, I'm still not out from under that".
I expect I appear to be to some still struggling but I feel quite close to something like a liberating feeling.
I don't know if it will entail giving up or changing the sense of wonder I feel at the emptiness of space or the clarity of consciousness however. I'm prepared to find out either way without bias, or to continue, never knowing.
Modified by Saph at Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 07:01:11
|
|
|
|
Though strictly speaking, I'm not "back", 'cause I've been lurking all along. Just not talking is all... but this place is just too interesting to walk away, even if it is ostensibly about the boring and ultimately inconsequential RawatCo.
But I think one or both of us is misunderstanding the other. I think it's me. I responded to your post to Jim because I was really surprised to read you describing the physical universe as something that was an "only", as if it weren't good enough to be a mind-boggling miracle all on its own without factoring in some conscious, directing deity. Here's me paying attention, eh? Hit the nail right on the thumb.
I went back on a few of your posts and now think (please correct me if I'm wrong here) that you are not favouring some kind of intelligent design theory, but rather describing the exact opposite thing - the wonder of ferns and stars - and using religious-ish metaphors because you're on a site where absolutely everyone has a strong focus on religion(s), one way or the other.
When I wrote about ending your life-trip with only a small purse of beliefs I was thinking, actually, exactly of "the sense of wonder I feel at the emptiness of
space or the clarity of consciousness however. I'm prepared to find
out either way without bias, or to continue, never knowing", being pretty much the ultimate in losing baggage. That thing we all have as children, that thing that is always and only ours, that thing which religions so often mangle - if that's all we've got left at the end of the journey, that's good enough. So I guess the thing I was trying to say, but not actually doing it, is what I think you were trying to describe anyway. So pay no attention to what I said because I didn't know what I was talking about.
Did you check out the rest of the pictures at that Clayoquot site I posted? Many varieties of ferns and moss, rare forest lilies, salamanders, trilliums... who needs god when you've got trilliums, no? Best, Fiona
Modified by Fiona at Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 20:26:57
|
|
|
|
By only physical universe: I meant - the consciousness I experience and observe in others, - being an effect purely of physical evolution. (As opposed to a most ancient, inexplicable, subjective feedback potential inherent within existence itself, as void, at least, as space itself.)
I had a feeling when I wrote "the sense of wonder I feel at the emptiness of
space or the clarity of consciousness however. I'm prepared to find
out either way without bias, or to continue, never knowing",
I had the feeling that my purse was getting lighter now.
I love this Universe and the Earth, especially the living things, I just don't know where consciousness begins or ends or actually what it is. And I realize that consciousness being by definition not differentiatable or taking any plural, I cannot say "my consciousness", realizing it belongs to no-one.
I don't really care about the answer anymore and enjoy this much mystery.
The woods are just given the finishing touch for me,
(when watching the raucous rise of rooks;
circling at sunset from the highest beech tree
by my little question mark in my purse.
Thanks Fiona, is there any certificate for getting down to small change?
It might provide an incentive for other purses!
All the best,
Lp
Modified by Saph at Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 04:57:58
|
|
|
|
Zim cala bim. But I'm not sure how this will work so if you don't see anything I'll try to find some of those earlier threads that talked about how to upload a .jpeg image
|
|
|
|
Modified by Saph at Fri, Nov 03, 2006, 01:48:12
|
|
|
|
and reading this morning, I must comment on my own post.
There were of course many entertained beliefs despite my protestations to the contrary.
A probably quite incomplete appraisal.
I believed Maharaji was the "official" purveyor of the techniques.
I believed the techniques were crucial in the process of human understanding of life.
I believed that everyone would benefit from receiving them.
I believed I was serving the race by assisting Maharaji in introducing them to the west.
I believed the high I was experiencing was due to the techniques.
I believed Maharaji was an altruistic servant of humanity.
I believed I had the best service imaginable.
I believed we were bound on a course of enlightenment together.
I believed those who rejected the "satsang" were throwing their life away..
I believed the explainable inner phenomena associated with the techniques were associated with some divine basis to existence.
Ahh ... my coffee has gone cold ... and the list seems likely to continue, perhaps, almost indefinitely...
I'll post under this if more obvious ones come to mind which I have omitted, ....
Of course, I believed I was sitting on a chair, but no ordinary chair.
And when Maharaji said he was the perfect master I believed him.
Modified by Saph at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 02:52:29
|
|
|
|
Yes, a much more exhaustive list, it's amazing once one begins to look into how many individual beliefs were involved, how many come to mind. Apart from the obvious main beliefs there were so many minor ones that got passed around the premie grapevine.
I definitely remember (I can still hear his voice and the intonation) Maharaji saying,
"If God had manifested one year later it would be too late."
Typical sales technique, buy quick before it runs out. Or was it more ominous? Was he saying that something catastrophic was going to happen in a year's time? I'm sure lots of people believed something along those lines. What a negative idea to implant. He, I suppose, believed he had the freedom and the right to say such things.
There were rumours that the world would end soon and so on. What a thoughtless manipulation of the human race to say such things. Anything to sell the product. No wonder people gave up homes, inheritances, university places etc.
What use were they if the world was going to end?
Thanks for the post T
Best regards
Lp
Modified by Saph at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 05:33:35
|
|
|
|
Hi, I have not been on line in 2 days. I am sorry, I don't really yet know the nuances and rules here. I did post a note to all way down the page, thinking I was talking to everyone, that I was thinking and would be back. I am a little overwhelmed by all this activity. I have noticed that if I go away, the thread rapidly leaves me in the dust playing catchup. I will respond to your specific question. It is among the things I am thinking about. If the topics run away, I will send you a private email. Thanks for your patience. Stephen B
|
|
|
|
I recognised you were talking to everyone including me, but I was just using your post as an example of my view that sensitivity has no noticable relationship to spiritual beliefs or lack of.Take your time, and don't worry about what anyone writes here, including me. We're all just ordinary people! John.
|
|
|
|
I have myself had many 'mystical' experiences, but feel freer interpreting them without reference to God. To me, disposing of God has been another step forward. Hi 13, So, how do you now interpret them and how sure were you at the time you had them that they were experiences of God? Maybe you weren't so sure at the time that they were, like maybe you weren't so sure at the time you believed in Maharaji that he was LOTU. I know, for me, it was easy to let go of Maharaji as LOTU because I always had doubts about that anyway. But I never doubted my mystical experience was of the living God. In fact, I'd never felt more sure of anything in my life. I've reconsidered the experience in light of what I've learned of evolution and neurology, but I've yet to find an argument convincing enough to abandon my conviction that what I experienced was God, and I've heard just about all of them.
|
|
|
|
I certainly linked these experiences with God and M as the LOTU. Hard not to when you see a halo round him, or everything disappear so that all you see is light with his face in the middle.
There were other, much more profound experiences, that weren't so directly connected with him - I don't really want to try to describe them now. Too busy, and a rush job would be trite. It was pretty heavy duty religious stuff though.
I find it odd looking back, how long I kept up this interpretation of these experiences, despite my instinct in other areas not to take things at face value, and to be critical.
Did you ever take acid and find deep meaning in something or other, write it down so as to remember it forever, and then find your scrap of paper with some deep and meaningful scribble about the significance of something that was actually mundane? Have you never been aware of someone applying some deep and meaningful interpretation to something you know to be not that wonderful? An accident that appears to them as miraculous, or a coincidence that is actually not really that unlikely?
It seems to me that the meaning we apply to our experiences is a social construct - we all have the same physiology and neurology ( pretty much ), but we end up with applying quite different belief systems to our experiences. I think I mentioned once before talking with some hillbillies in a jail in Florida who had been tripping on acid the night before. They had really enjoyed the experience, but didn't apply any of the usual hippy-type significance to any of it. It was just another kind of drunken revelry for them. That was a revelation for me.
In the end, I realised I just didn't need to bother applying a religious interpretation to my experiences. Nor do I feel the need to find an alternative interpretation. I guess I have just lost interest in that entirely subjective self-centred - I was going to put 'outlook', but 'inlook' might be more accurate.
Cynthia - I hope you don't regard this as off-topic - when I refer to religion, I mean the several phases of Rawatism ( and all the surrounding stuff - karma, yoga, all that Indian spiritual stuff ) I went through, from LOTU onwards.
|
|
|
|
I agree, 13, not off topic,
We are not representatives from various religions discussing our beliefs, but ex-premies painfully examining the various ways in which we disconnected our beings from the foster body of maharajism, while avoiding total disfunction, given the previous deeply implanted beliefs of our upbringing, and in many cases, the revelatory experiences of our youth.
Belief or non belief are all being discussed here as a result of (or as a means to process and move on satisfactorily from) the ill effects of being in the maharaji cult. Not for their own sake.
Modified by Saph at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 12:26:16
|
|
|
|
Cynthia - I hope you don't regard this as off-topic - when I refer to religion, I mean the several phases of Rawatism ( and all the surrounding stuff - karma, yoga, all that Indian spiritual stuff ) I went through, from LOTU onwards. Of course not. That's what the forum's for: To examine all of the Rawat religion in the clear light of day.
|
|
|
|
I find myself not trusting to post this forum. What are those "mystical experiences" that we have in our inner work? How can they be interpreted? Are they simple a psychic break and we need to seek medication? (You see, I am even afraid to label it inner work in fear that someone will attack even this simple concept as not being valid). As I think about this I am thinking I am looking in the wrong place.....this forum is specifically for exposing the abuse of M, a worthy goal. Maybe I am in the wrong place? So 13, what are the experiences you are speaking about?
|
|
|
|
It's one that interests me too, Stephen. There are several good books on the subject you might like to read. My favorites are Varieties Of Religious Experience by William James, and more recently, Rational Mysticism by John Horgan. Another book, from the evolutionary psychology perspective, that just came out in hardcover, is The God Part Of The Brain. We can discuss the mystical experience on this forum, but I don't think you're going to get the food for thought that experts in the field can provide. A couple of people here are well read on the subject. I'd like to consider myself one of them, but aside from Nigel, who is actually a professional, most of us can only offer our speculations and, unfortunately, derogatory comments if one is so inclined. Good luck in your search for understanding.
|
|
|
|
(You see, I am even afraid to label it inner work in fear that someone will attack even this simple concept as not being valid).If you give your experience a label and I question that label as implying an interpretation that has not even closely been established as true, then I am not attacking you, and you should have no fear in discussing it with me. It's a big wide world out there and if you only talk to people you agree with you will stay stuck in your own little well (remember the well story?) I would appreciate your views on the posts I wrote to Saph on the subject of these experiences. John.
|
|
|
|
Hi Stephen,
I on the atheist side of the divide intellectually but emotionally I'm on the side of mysticism and spirituality. I certainly don't see any "management" on the Forum to promote an atheist viewpoint, it's just that there are a few people who love debate and are very good at it and are atheists and they tend to wear down the "spirituals" who usually tend to a less rigorous intellectual and less confrontational debating style.
You can hardly expect to find that same loving acceptance of the spirit that you found in early premies here because everybody here is 35 years older, wiser and often more skeptical. But seriously, what's wrong with joining another cult? Where else are you going to find like-minded people discovering wonder and an inner spiritual life and wanting to share that? I certainly don't mean a cult based upon a charismatic guru but one based upon a valid, religious/spiritual tradition that you find sympathetic and that has traditions that prevent power abuses?
|
|
|
|
Hi 13 , I just reject the implication of atheists being less open-minded. I agree. That notion is simply incorrect, especially when one doesn't know or consider the process that someone has gone through post-Rawat cult. I didn't automatically go from cult to atheism. I did go from atheism to the cult, however, which is something Rawat had said it's easier to convince an atheist about Knowledge than a religious person. I questioned, explored, and even practiced a religion before I came to my personal conclusions. Plus, I don't begrudge anyone who wants to explore religions or belief systems. I think that for ex-cult members to do that they must remember that it's okay to question any beliefs or religion, and that's generally what happens here when the subject is raised. I mean what's at stake by doing that? Losing the faith or religion? And if one finds they can punch holes in a belief system or religion, their honesty and intregity isn't lost. Let's not forget the old gem: "Don't be too open minded or your brains will fall out."
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 08:22:54
|
|
|
|
I don't think Stephen wanted to share anything about a belief system or a religion he wanted to share a personal experience. But I imagine he will have changed his mind now.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 11:39:45
|
|
|
|
I don't think Stephen wanted to share anything about a belief system or a religion he wanted to share a personal experience. But I imagine he will have changed his mind now. That's too bad for him because there are lots of people who still meditate and might like to talk to him about it. He and others might try practicng to make requests more clearly. It's really simple. Here's an example: "I started using on the k techniques recently, although I don't care about Rawat anymore and haven't in a long time. Is anyone else who meditates willing to discuss their experiences here about meditating after leaving Maharaji? Thanks, Steve." I don't know what the big effin deal is, Saph. It's a simple, plain English request and would have been received a lot better than a defensive and passive-aggressive approach, with criticism and caveats. People need to state their needs clearly here. Nobody's a mind reader here.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 11:56:48
|
|
|
|
Hey! Passive-aggressive is when people aren't overtly aggressive, but hell, here's a definition I found that explains it well: Someone who displays some or all of the following behaviors: (1) procrastinates, (2) sulks or argues when asked to do something he doesn't want to do, (3) works inefficiently on unwanted tasks, (4) complains without justification of unreasonable demands, (5) "forgets" obligations, (6) believes he is doing a much better job than others think, (7) resents useful suggestions, (8) fails to do his share, or (9) unreasonably criticizes authority figures. I'll add sarcasm. When people are frequently sarcastic, they tend to be p-a people. I should add that I can't say if Steve is passive-aggressive because I said so. That's not fair of me. I think he miscommunicated. All under the bridge I hope.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 17:26:52
|
|
|
|
I’m not sure I entirely agree with that set of definitions for passive-aggression, Cynth – or at least not all of them. (I can imagine those particular examples being drawn up by a bully/manager in the workplace having problems with recalcitrant or non-co-operative staff, when they themselves are the problem) My understanding of passive-aggressive would be ‘acting in a way that will deliberately hurt or upset another person, but doing it surreptitiously so that there is nothing that can be pinned on you later’. Sulking – in your list – is one good example. Others might be: - Letting someone else know – obliquely, though hints and silences – that you are angry with them, but not explaining why. - Declining to talk, or using grunts and monosyllabic replies. - Deliberately ‘misunderstanding’ or shrugging off the kind words or gestures of others. - Listening to the other person’s concerns whilst drumming your fingers, and then abruptly changing the subject. - Perhaps raising one eyebrow or sighing pointedly, as if to say, ‘God, what an idiot…’ (The important thing is not saying it.) - Use all the above techniques until the other person loses their temper, and then adopt a pose of saintly, Buddha-like equanimity, so they feel guilty about their anger. - Using a glary, pink font that hurts people's eyes. Trust me, Cynth, these work - not that I’d dream of doing any of the above…. J
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 11:43:07
|
|
|
|
Hi Nige, I got those definitions off the web. It's how shrinks in the U.S. define it in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manugal ofr Mental Disorders) when diagnosing passive-aggressive disorder. Of course, that's the "bible" for shrinks, and we all know how perfect they are. My understanding of passive-aggressive would be ‘acting in a way that will deliberately hurt or upset another person, but doing it surreptitiously so that there is nothing that can be pinned on you later’. Sulking – in your list – is one good example. That is quite the font color. I'm never passive. I really have to watch myself because I usually just get mad and say so loudly, embarrass myself, shoot myself in both feet, and generally make an idiot of myself. Of course, I'm always right about all things, so I don't know what the problem is. Cynth
|
|
|
|
So it's the criticism and caveats that got the goat. That I can understand. I didn't think Steve meant maharaji's meditation though.
The experiences I am a having are nothing (NOTHING) to do with M or anything in DLM.
If you remember, within a day or two of posting here, I asked if the prevailing view here was atheist. For a newbie it's any easy conclusion to come to.
I have to sense rather than actually hear other's views which are not atheist, they have to write between the lines in hints and inferences almost, to avoid direct confrontation. There are many here who though not aligned with any religion still respect their subtler inexplicable experiences. It may be that it is better to not even try to share them, perhaps they are our private property, be that as it may, when a person is brave enough to wish to share something or lonely enough, I see no harm in listening. Perhaps you only saw criticism.
It is unfair to lump everyone who is not an atheist with your worst experiences of "believers".
I believe nothing but I do not deny experiences, neither do I rush to interpret them.
Some have had a profound effect upon me and could be called revelatory, but that does not make me a "believer" neither am I automatically responsible for the faults of "believers".
I was not offended by Stephen's thread header because I knew it didn't apply to me.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 16:03:57
|
|
|
|
Thanks Lexy, everything well with you and yours I hope.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 17:51:55
|
|
|
|
Saph, So it's the criticism and caveats that got the goat. That I can understand. I didn't think Steve meant maharaji's meditation though. Yes, it got my goat. Sorry, I'm not perfect and I don't want to be. When someone walks into a room, bar, or anywhere, and approaches people who are talking, they usually don’t say "I’ve been watching and listening to your conversations and saving them up. I want to talk to you about the conversations you’ve been having. I think your conversations are carefully managed so your group projects a certain response to DLM/EV. And, if your explorations don’t "toe the line" then you try to silence the offender or argue them away." If someone walked up to me and said that, frankly, I’d tell them to take a hike. First, because it’s not true. Second, because it’s really rude. And third, because how I (and other posters here in this case) converse with others is none of their business to make such comments. Also, I don't feel comfortable being watched (my problem) and that's what Steve's said he was doing. He didn't even imply it, he said it. Words are the only thing we have to go on here, so I have to assume he meant what he wrote. I already know that Elan Vital monitors (watches) the forum, so I really don't like to be spoken to like I'm someone's object of observation. I’m touchy about it and there's a long history of premies doing that to me (and many others) on these forums. Plus, that’s no way to make friends with people and maybe Steve will learn something from his approach. I hope he comes back, but that's his choice to make. If you remember, within a day or two of posting here, I asked if the prevailing view here was atheist. For a newbie it's any easy conclusion to come to. And it may be true. So what? The people who post here are what and who they are. It’s too much to ask people to change their personality or belief systems or behavior, in oder to meet someone's specific needs. It’s my observation over the years that when people complain about the forum, I think they’re actually saying they don’t like the people who post here. Therefore, if they don’t like the people that post here, what can I say? It could have turned out that the majority of exes that post had decided to become Christians or members of some other religion. But, this is the way it turned out, based on who's posting here now. There's nothing good or nothing bad about it. It is what it is. We are who we are. Steve: The experiences I am a having are nothing (NOTHING) to do with M or anything in DLM Of course that’s true and Steve was stating the obvious to me and probably everyone else. It's wasn't a risky thing to say on the forum at all, so I don't know what your point is. That's a large piece of cult deconstruction: that the K techs were never connected to M. Hooray! But, if Steve was trying to discuss another meditation, he probably should have brought it over to the other forum because that’s not the topic here, from what I understand. You don't see Mike Finch starting threads about his meditation practices or experiences on this forum. I have to sense rather than actually hear other's views which are not atheist, they have to write between the lines in hints and inferences almost, to avoid direct confrontation. I see. You want to feel more comfortable and you want everybody to feel comfy. I'm sorry, but I never learned an important thing in my life by being comfortable. It's probably true that people may write vague things, but that doesn't help communication. And if people are too afraid to post for whatever reasons, it’s not fair for them to project their insecurities upon me or others here, either. I'm not the one who made them insecure or frightened people so it's not my job to fix that for them. I am who I am. What you see is what you get. Besides, Saph, if you're "sensing" rather than reading the actual words written here, then I'd guess you're not communicating properly with people, and probably expending way too much energy on them too. Language and words, talking and writing are how people communicate, and especially on this forum, the words are all we've got. We don't have the physical contact with facial expressions and eye contact to tell us more about what's being said by someone, so it's very important to write clearly and try not to read the wrong thing into what someone else is saying. Lots and lots of miscommunications and very hurt feelings have occurred on the forums because people have misread what's written. They believed that they could read into what someone else is writing and conclude something about what that person meant. Phew! That's way too much work when simple and plain old English will do. I don't recommend trying to sense anything in any form of written communication unless it's with someone with whom one's very intimate. So, my rule of thumb is to respond to the words written and to be as clear as I can be when I write back so that others know exactly what I am saying, and understand clearly what I mean. That's the responsibility of the every writer here. There are many here who though not aligned with any religion still respect their subtler inexplicable experiences. It may be that it is better to not even try to share them, perhaps they are our private property, be that as it may, when a person is brave enough to wish to share something or lonely enough, I seen no harm in listening. Perhaps you only saw criticism. It's not my forum so you'll have to as John. But, Saph, have you ever learned about making "I" statements? I ask because you use the royal "we" a lot. That's called "globalization." You really don't know what "some" or "all" of the folks here feel or think, anymore than anyone else knows, except by reading their words. None of us is in a position to generalize about what "everyone" or "some of us," do, think, feel, believe, experience, need, or want. What is it that you want, Saph? You might try rephrasing your thoughts and try using "I" statements, and you might find it's a great way to get in touch with yourself and how you're feeling and thinking and figuring out what you need and want. I’ve found that over many, many years that reframing and rephrasing my thoughts and words that way really helps me to better get my own needs met, because I first get in touch with what my wants are. After all, if I don't know how to get my own needs met, I'll never ever be able to help anyone, must less myself. I believe nothing but I do not deny experiences, neither do I rush to interpret them I don’t want to be too challenging or confrontational, Saph, but I think you still do have a lot of beliefs. You protest them a lot, that’s for sure, and there's nothing wrong with that, either. But, that's not how I read what you write here. I also think, based on your most recent writings here that you do seem to rush to interpret your experiences Saph. That's okay too. There ain't no right or wrong about leaving a cult. You are who you are, and that's good. But, if you you're interested in examining that -- which is your private personal choice, no pressure, don't if you don't want to -- try as an experiment reading some of your recent posts here, right in this thread and see if you can distance yourself enough to pretend you didn't write them. See what you think of what you wrote. Critique yourself. I do that all the time to my own writings, so I can safely say that I don't ask anything of others that I don't ask of myself. I'm saying this with fondness and care for you. Be well, Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 17:16:07
|
|
|
|
Oh by the way, I still don't much like being told what to do.
It's especially difficult to extract good advice from a defensive outburst. I wasn't seeking any personal advice or analysis, but then, it wasn't really advice, was it? Just my telling off for sticking up for the non atheist fraternity.
And a smoke screen to avoid looking at the possibility you might be wrong........ you correct others all the time but consider yourself beyond correction. Where's Axis by the way?
regards
Lp
Modified by Saph at Thu, Oct 26, 2006, 18:43:50
|
|
|
|
Brain, I really don't have any response to you other than you really don't know what you're talking about. Let me know when you're ready to do some real work here to process your involvement in the cult, as someone who was in a position of power as part of Maharaji's inner circle, and the responsibilities you carried as someone in such a position (instead of playing the victim every day) then I'll start reading your posts again. I'm not interested in whether there is life in outer space and if it has consciousness. As if that is the topic of this forum! Unbelievable. You'll have to ask John about Axis because I don't run the forum. Until then please shut up about something you now absolutely nothing about. Really, you're clueless about that one. After you do know something about it, I'll be here waiting to accept your apology. 
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 05:46:47
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry if there is something I don't know, regarding Axis, I apologise for bringing that up. It's just that one minute there was a nice thread going and the next time I looked there was a heated argument between you two. I resonated with Axis' words: "You give unsolicited advice" or something like that. You do. She also said you sting. You do sometimes Cynthia, I'm sorry to have to say.
The only power I had in the mission was the ability to give satsang that people appreciated. Every premie that came along from the very beginning, walked right on past me (if not over me) to get up close to Maharaji. I was happy to fade into the background and just give satsang, the rest of the time I hung out with my friends. Oh, and I made model aeroplanes for gm.
All this was before the mission even came to America. The only other service I had besides satsang, when allowed, when I was sent to America, was waxing maharaji's aeroplane and going to the office at the airport, every day, to answer the phone.
If I had had any power I would have tried to stop what I saw happening. All I could do was visit premie communities and try to pick up the pieces, and then come back and have arguments with Bob and the mission representatives about the way things were done.
Not exactly an involvement. I gave a lot of satsang, in a lot of places, mainly. Wrote some too.
Now, there are many individual stories I intend to tell, but they are not crucial to the mission, just anecdotes and situations that were at times amusing. That's all I usually see, I avoided the mission heavy stuff, organizing etc. and found it distasteful from the start.
I try to resist judging others, but you have judged and judged incorrectly. You seem to me to be still looking for a scapegoat to vent your anger at the mission and maharaji upon. Perhaps it's just an impression I get from your style.
Oh I've just thought of something, to my shame now.
While I was revealing my identity, (something I would not recommend to anyone else, since I am now feeling more lonely and desperate than before in some ways, I had a fresh chance to start again to "meet" people without all the mission garbage being dragged up again and again and enjoyed my short life as LP. I carry my name now more like an albatross around my post, but I can't turn back time. I liked being LP.)
Anyway while I was posting that long week:
Guru Charanand was in my locality and talked in satsang about me. He said that no westerner had helped maharaji's mission more than me. He has often said that if I had not been with him in that first year in London, he would have given up and gone back to India. I often saw him weeping and writing letters to Mataji. I talked him repeatedly into staying.
For this I apologize to you all.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 07:42:16
|
|
|
|
Err, I hope so. When I told you to shut up about something, in this case Axis, (which again you know jack shit about) I would hope you would, shut up that is. But, what do I know? I've never been a mahatma, nope, I'm not nearly as wisened as you are, the high one who pronounces your approval or disapproval over the posts here as if you're high on some perch somewhere governing, judging, approving. Check yourself out, Brian, before you hurl your judgements and stones at me.
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 06:36:36
|
|
|
|
You don't realize that you do that? You hurl insults and judgements whenever someone disagrees with you.
If I do what you have described, I am truly sorry, I tried to be a friend to you all. Now and as a mahatma.
And please don't use my given name, I reserve that for family and friends. Something else I notice you do, part of the veiled aggression I presume.
I call myself LP here and wear the albatross because I feel it is my duty.
By the way I had something to do with bringing the mission to England, but had no part in it going to America. In fact at the time I objected strongly, having just put in several years of effort and many miles across continents to bring maharaji and knowledge to England.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 08:04:11
|
|
|
|
You don't realize that you do that? I make judgments every day of the week. I try not to hurl insults. Today, I'm so angry with you I could spit nails. If I do what you have described, I am truly sorry, I tried to be a friend to you all. Now and as a mahatma.
More of your "poor me." I'm not biting. You really love theose pity parties of yours, don't you? You're not a mahatma anymore! You're no different from any other person on this fourm where the rubber meets the road. I don't see you as a mahatma, never did, never will. You another person here to me. Isn't that what you want, or do you expect special treatment? And please don't use my given name, I reserve that for family and friends. Something else I notice you do, part of the veiled aggression I presume. Not as veiled aggression, at all and I'm not the only one who's called you that. I don't grok this "veiled aggression" it appears to be something you're making up in your head. Now that you clarified exacly what you want to be called I'll use LP from now on -- that's no problem at all but why not change your handle to that, if it's not too insulting to ask. It's been confusing with your three names. I find it extremely weird you use your matahma name and I don't feel comfortable using it. Sort of like you're advertising something. I call myself LP here and wear the albatross because you, in part, convinced me it was my duty. I did no such thing! You show me where I specifically told you to come out! Please do this right now, or take it back, because it's a lie. My general opinion is that it's better to post with one's real name and I say that here, but I never have ever, ever suggested to you personally or anyone else that you should out yourself. I have no explanation for why you are syaing this other than you have no self-control over the decisions you make or the consequences thereof. Plus, you like to b lame others a lot for your problems. More pity-partying. You missread (again) something I wrote. By the way I had something to do with bringing the mission to England, but had no part in it going to America. In fact at the time I objected strongly, having just put in several years of effort and many miles across continents to bring maharaji and knowledge to England.
Ultimately, the only person I blame for this whole mess is Rawat and his family. You can project your problems onto me or anyone else in your life, that's your choice. I'm not buying into it.
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 07:53:41
|
|
|
|
You advised me against it in emails that's true, but in posts you often said that people in such positions had a duty. Any way I accept your correction on this and have changed that.
I weighed the decision for quite a while and felt it was right from my own viewpoint, besides discussing it with Mike. So on that I'm sorry, I do not blame you for that..
I was trying to make the point that it was never my intention to bandy around my name like some kind of trophy. I do appreciate having met some old friends because of it though.
I have tried to continue as usual. You seem unable to see or speak to me as you did before with that handle hanging over me. I shall reflect further on my decision.
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 08:35:33
|
|
|
|
Ultimately I blame Rawat for this mess too.
|
|
|
|
LP, I'm very sorry I came on so strong to you this morning said those mean things to you. I lost control of my emotions and I shouldn't have, but I'm not going to make excuses for myself, I was out of line. Period. I hope you accept my apology because I want to make this right with you. I've thought about what you said about my telling you to come out, because that puzzled me a lot. One thing I want you to know about me is that I've always been very opinionated and I'm probably more opinionated now than ever, now that I'm an old middled aged woman. I think I deleted the post where I told you how my family, friends, and husband sometimes call me "She who must be obeyed." They say it as a joke because they know that when I voice my opinions, give advice, etc., that I just about never expect people to take my advice, heed my opinions, listen to me, or agree with me. I do it without expectations or demand, but I know I don't come accross like that sometimes. That's why, when I voice an opinion here I really don't expect anyone to follow my advice. So, I am well aware of how bossy I can come off. But, I know how it feels to receive unsolicited advice, so I now hear what you and others were saying and will try to improve. I also know I cross boundaries sometimes and while I don't mean to do that, I'll try hard not to do it in future. So, I apologize again to you LP, for crossing the boundaries with you today. I'm not going to delete anything I wrote unless you ask me to. Please let me know if you do, and I'll be happy to. Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 11:52:17
|
|
|
|
Cynthia, I'm sorry to have provoked you into getting so upset.
I realize you have challenges as much as any of us.
I admit, while I usually choose to bow out gracefully rather than get into a head on, I decided this time to see what would happen if I just went on replying as logically as I could.
Well, we live and learn.
I saw the post briefly you speak of before it went, and noticed it's warmer tone.
As far as the posts go it's up to you if anything is uncomfortable or embarrassing to you then feel free to edit or delete.
I don't think I should tell you to, as the forum is about freedom of expression and is for the benefit of all. There's a lesson in this somewhere, maybe.
I understand, and except your apology, while, apologising for the effect I personally, or my "coming out", or my past in general have had upon you.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 12:30:09
|
|
|
|
LP, It wasn't your fault that I got upset. It really wasn't. This isn't the first time I ever lost my cool on the forum. One of the best things about ex-premies is that we do understand that we're all human and are so forgiving. I don't think I should tell you to, as the forum is about freedom of expression and is for the benefit of all. There's a lesson in this somewhere, maybe. I'd like leave the posts 'as is." I certainly learned something today. I love it when missunderstandings and conflicts can be worked out. I really love it.
Thanks again,
Cynthia
|
|
|
|
Hi saph, I don't think you should take the responsibilty of Maharaji staying in the west on your shoulders, that's a too heavy load to carry, we can never know what would have happened "if" and how would have been the turn of things. For my part I know almost for sure that if i would not have been caught in this cult it definitely would be another waiting for me by the corner. I did some crucial mistakes before stepping into maharaji's trap, so i take responsibility for that, and i hope that you'll get over these feelings of guilt. with sympathy miri
|
|
|
|
Hi Snow White,
Thankyou for your post, I realise that we can't say if that hadn't happened or things went differently, but, when an easy going premie friend told me at Anth's friend's campfire, about GuruCharanand being there and then again the following night in a larger town he said the same thing, I was more embarrassed than anything else.
Especially as I'd just spent some of the last several hours roaring and laughing and talking about loads of things with them, thinking we were all ex-premies. We had been good friends once as premies but I hadn't recognised him, about three in the morning he told me who he was, then I recognised him.
But it wasn't until several days later that Anth told me he was still a premie.. But I don't think he noticed. Fortunately there were barrels of good cider around.
Always nice to hear from you,
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 07:57:27
|
|
|
|
This is the post you should've written when you 1st identified yourself.
I avoided the mission heavy stuff, organizing etc. and found it distasteful from the start.
Just a plain statement of where you fitted into the cult. I think it's quite reasonable for people to presume that because you played such a key part at the very beginning, that you would know stuff about how this phenomenon morphed from almost total obscurity in run down basement rooms, into something more like a multi-national business pretty much overnight.
Now you've made it clear that you don't, I can go back to enjoying your posts as I did when you were LP, without a background feeling of, 'why is this guy holding out on me'.
I hope you can understand that.
|
|
|
|
Hi PatD, thanks, well that is good news, I'm not the hold out type anyway, so I couldn't even if I tried.
I did say this but in a far more long winded fashion and so interspersed with growing expressions of frustration at my group probing, that it got lost amongst the many layers of posts going on that week.
I would so like to be able to post in the way I could as LP, but I can't change the past. Perhaps it will be like that again. I hope so. Since the first weeks when I started casting off syllables from the name Maharaji gave me, and assuring premies I was the same as any of them, I have wanted only to be a friend and an equal. Though I was admonished many times for saying so.
I publicly declared my soul to be no greater than anyone else's once and got hauled out of my sleeping bag and taken to a court like scenario on the roof before dawn in my bare feet in winter.
There stood Maharaji with Bihari ji and Gurucharanand standing on either side, to address these claims of ordinary sized soul. This was seen by them to be direct denial of maharaji's agya. i.e. on the issue of an atman that Maharaji had called maha.
Maharaji's final judgement being: (shouted) "I don't care if your soul is this big:" (indicating the size of a pea between finger and thumb) "If I say you're a mahatma you're a mahatma." It might sound funny now but I was shivering with fear, far more than from the cold. I slinked away feeling trapped.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 14:25:11
|
|
|
|
Maharaji's final judgement being: (shouted) "I don't care if your soul is this big:" (indicating the size of a pea between finger and thumb) "If I say you're a mahatma you're a mahatma." It might sound funny now but I was shivering with fear, far more than from the cold. I slinked away feeling terribly trapped Wow, LP, how old were you when Maharaji said that? That's the kind of stuff I'm really interested in hearing from you about your time in the cult and around M, but only if you feel okay about it. I just cannot imagine how that made you feel, knowing myself what it's like to be around that little egomaniac. That little sh*t! I'm so sorry you were put through that. Really sorry. I know it's not my fault, but god, it's horrible to feel so trapped. I know a lot about feeling trapped, it's the worst feeling in the world.
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 14:26:43
|
|
|
|
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 14:33:46
|
|
|
|
"If I say you're a mahatma, youre a mahatma!" Now that really is a line and a half! Brilliant I hope I'm not being flippant about your hard experience, but I too find this kind of detailed reminiscence so much more "real" than generalised stuff. If you write your book I'll buy one for sure. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
Now that is some serious encouragement to get the pen and paper out. Thanks Bryn.
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 14:44:29
|
|
|
|
It is a funny story this " youre a mahatma if I say so " one, but it does speak loads about the kind of authority that would actually have surrounded you, what ever your feelings about the scope of your influence. If Tony Soprano Rawat says your the man, well.. You Are The Man. Don't get me wrong Saph I am not scapegoating here, its just that when you say you were only empowered to give satsang, imagine the influence you really had on those around you in that process. Satsang was truth and you were a great soul-Maha says so and what Maha says-is. My point is really nothing more than: how complex getting out of this business is, and to say I appreciate your posts and presence here. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
Firstly thankyou for your fine posts Bryn.
One little point here, I didn't say I was only empowered to give satsang. I said the only power I had was giving satsang.
Subtle difference I know, but my point here is that decades ago I realized giving satsang was my own ability not a grace bestowed upon me, I don't know if that's what you meant.
Anyway about the maha stuff, I very rarely told the story of the dawn roof court because I didn't want to reinforce the notion. Actually, at least in the communities which I became a regular visitor to, I think I succeeeded in getting premies to feel we were all equal.
Something sort of happened, a few minutes before I went into satsang, no phone booth, nothing like that, but I would say goodbye to my mates for a while, do some pranayama, pull myself together, splash cold water on my face, if need be, and reappear stage left as a sort of satsang machine.
Then when it was over it was back to the premie house or the pizza parlour or guitars or whatever.
Alright I suppose there was an aura.
I honestly believe though, based on the complaints I got from the Glens, and Peters of this world, as well as my own recollections, that I managed to shed it quickly afterwards, and for most of the time keep the common touch.
Lp, who read his Rudyard Kipling
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 16:45:13
|
|
|
|
..you seem to be suggesting that giving satsang was some sort of accomplishment on your part. ??! That idea sort of grinds with me. Personally I am ashamed of every word I uttered in the satsang chair. It was bolox and bullshit from beginning to end. It certainly couldn't be thought of as a talent could it? It was the abused abusing the abused. It was a pure colusion and at the root of it was the example of his majesty PPSR. And while I am at it, your sentence about managing to get the premies to feel what you wanted them to feel (that we were all equal) I also find a bit chilling. Am I putting it too bluntly here? Have I misread you? We were totally conditioned to persuasion in our discourse. We had no respect for freedom or even truth for that matter, what mattered in the moment was what would produce the effect. For me that is what Rawat offered me and what I took from him, and it is what I now am trying to disolve in myself: those "priestly virtues". It is a fascinating theme and it is why I am harrying you a bit here. Love Bryn (who also wants to be a man my son)
|
|
|
|
I experienced satang differently than you are describing Bryn. There was an excitement about sharing ideas and those ideas were not quite yet under control of M or his henchmen. I also wonder if satsang was influenced and changed over the years, I certainly saw it become more controlled. I now understand it eventually ended because they could never quite control it completely. What was M without satsang; it was the single biggest piece of the attraction for me? Here is an experience I had one time: I was 19 years old and asked to give satsang, I got up to the front of about 45 people at 1610 Race Street at the Denver Satsang hall. I don't remember what I talked about, but I remember a communication exchange which I have never experienced since, people were open to what I was saying and I in turn opened to the people as they listened. True joy came out my mouth and joy was expressed in return. Although it fed my ego, I also experienced an expansion of boundaries like I have never had before or since in a group. I entered a different consciousness, my face buzzed with energy, I felt one with the people I was talking with; I felt they were drawing the words out of my mouth, like I was an instrument of shared communication. I loved it! I can only compare it to things I have read about participation mystique and actors/speakers who are transported to a different state of consciousness by their art; they get addicted to the experience and cannot live without it. I tried many times to re-create it, but was never able to do it. Anybody else have this happen? One thing I was clear about, I never attributed it to M. It was about the people in the room who created the shared experience. If this is what Saph is talking about, I am jelous he was able to do it so much. I also would forgive anyone who experienced what I did an kept doing it hope for it to happen again.
Stephen
Modified by Stephenb at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 18:11:00
|
|
|
|
Yes Steve, I always had that experience.
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to use words like "true joy", after all can there be an untrue joy? but that was pretty well how I felt about "sharing satsang". I've since read about actors and public speakers who have spoken of the joy involved in public speaking and public performance. I think there has to be a receptive audience and I remember it was pretty "high" at Alcoholics Anonymous (I was taking someone else) and so I suspect that an element of "confession" or bearing of the soul tends to heighten the experience.
|
|
|
|
Totally.
There must some kind of animal instinctive reaction, that no doubt is ancient.
When everyone's attention is focused upon the presenter, (it could be wordless even, as in dance) there is an increase in energy within and a sense of euphoria.
There is probably a chemical explanation for this, which I imagine might be discernible in the study of, say, apes.
In satsang a kind of high seemed to be induced by the combined gazes of the crowd. If this includes smiles of apparent understanding and agreement the high is raised further.
But there is a more insidious side to this in matters of spiritual belief. The concentration and smiles of the crowd are easily construed as confirmation of one's "truth".
The high is also self congratulatory, a temporary relief from the nagging doubts that go hand in hand with belief.
Modified by Saph at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 02:18:15
|
|
|
|
Hi Bryn, it's difficult to get it right with words. This is where I feel like not trying because I see misunderstanding galloping away faster than I can explain.
My satsang was mostly about human beings, nature and the universe and often about LSD, and a bit about yoga, I went pretty light on the praise of maharaji. Realising the mission were using a verbal ability and yoga background I already had was a step toward getting my power back. (many years later, that is) At an early time, admittedly I thought it was his grace, which allowed me to speak.
"your sentence about managing to get the premies to feel what you wanted
them to feel (that we were all equal) I also find a bit chilling"
Yes Bryn, with respect, I think you are misreading something here. You added the words underlined.
We are equal. All I had to do to allow that to be clear was not be aloof (which was going against my agya) and be with them as friends, which they sincerely were to me. Just hanging out without airs and graces, our equality became self evident.
I see now I was a low risk introduction, once people became interested, and went down to the ashram, others could come along and give the special "secret satsang" about how it was all just guru maharaji and all you needed was darshan and darshan stories and to wait interminably for knowledge selection.
Of course I am ashamed of those times, but I am glad I was as "outside" as I managed to remain, and that I managed to convince some not to join the ashram or get involved in full time service.
Love to you too
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 19:35:10
|
|
|
|
...I mean lets try to get hindsight as sharp as possible here, for the benefit of the future at least. Surgical or not here goes.
From my perspective it matters very little what your "satsang" as you call it was "about". It wasn't yours. You were sitting on someone else's throne, in someone else's room, talking to someone else's audience using someone elses formulas.
As I recall it, satsang was imitative and formulaic. It had just enough space to give the more intuititive among us the chance to pull the crowd, but it always, and regularly had to ground itself on certain compulsory "themes of the day" provided by his lordship. Then it moved on again into impro until the next doctrinal pitstop. HE provided the template for the whole situation-all of it, regardless of whether it gave a feel-good hit, which of course it did. No bogus Knowledge, no self promoting Lord, --then no satsang, no audience, no local man at the front spinning the myth, getting the glances.
The theme of apostate priests is what I'm on about here. Most people have no problem in convincing others around them that they are "equal" because its all too evident who is who and what is what in the crowd. But the retired holyman separated for the first time from Mother Church, seems to have all sorts of strange perspectives on himself and the world to put right.
I am a bit Nietzschean when it comes to the real role of prelates, advocates, and holy intercessionaries. That's what I was suckered into with K and M.
The paradox is so huge. God's reps think (very humbly and secretly of course) they are the highest of the high, but on leaving have to confront the very real possibillity that they were the lowest of the low. I can understand why "equality" would seem an attractive buzzword in such a situation!
This is from my own experience, as I keep saying, not a vendetta or a lapse into "passive agression". My own self esteem took an almighty leap when I joined the living Master in his campaign of saving souls, and spreading love, light and peace to our brothers and sisters. I realise now that the exalted perspective I had awarded myself in doing this was entirely situation dependent. Upon exing I couldn't persuade myself for very long that I could simply transfer the status I had learned in K into some more "politically correct" arena. No, the status I had in K was a complete nothing. It was entirely prem Rawats!
I think this is what current "lifers" are afraid to face-no exeptional spiritual status whatsoever. It isn't easy to lay it aside even as rank and file apostate.
The duck is dead, Saph and all who kindly responded here. Good intention doesn't come into it, and there are as I see it no mitigating circumstances to plead. We was shafted, and to a great extent by each other as I see it.
Love
Bryn
|
|
|
|
That, is about what it amounts to Bryn.
Please forgive my attempts to paint a less reprehensible picture.
I was his priest and am forever full of misgivings about it. Wayward or not I preached and the people came.
Love him completely or not, others came and gave their love to an ogre at my behest, and lost something valuable, as have I, from life.
I again express my regrets, my anger towards Maharaji, and my sadness at the numbers of people who were deceived into giving an irreplaceable part of their lives.
We all did it, but I gave probably more satsang than most.
I tried to give a lesser form of indoctrination, but the end result was usually the same.
Few took my advice to keep a safe distance or even go and practice it in their own way by themselves. It was impossible to stem the rush of people to get to his darshan tunnel. Eventually the idealistic picture I had at the beginning was replaced with a realisation that it was not good.
Now it has grown into the full horror of what we were all involved in. I am prepared to do what I can to undo the harm in my own account. I have apologised and intend to use my experiences and stories to show the hollow fallacy of our past endeavours.
And my name to let Maharaji know that I for one do not wish his ministry on Earth to continue, and to alert and inform follower and non follower alike that there is only harm in following this guru.
Please personally forgive me for the percentage of blame that is rightfully mine in your own life Bryn, and for the extra glances that I acquired undeservedly, and advise me of what more I can do for you.
Love
Lp
Modified by Saph at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 08:59:21
|
|
|
|
Guilt is a useless emotion. I regret anything I did or said that encouraged and led people into the cult or to stay. I no longer feel guilt about it because all of us were equal before Maharaji: dung beetles, dust under his feet, etc. That's something that was made quite clear by any travelling mahatma or initiator. I don't excuse myself, but definitely gave up the guilt. That was an terrible albatross.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 08:38:02
|
|
|
|
Modified by Saph at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 08:47:17
|
|
|
|
Hi, I don't think you have any greater responsibility than any other ex-instructor or inner circle premie. You got caught up and trapped in the cult, too. The fact that you post here so much, you have made a public apology (more than once), and you use your real name and your Mahatma name is more than enough. To expect any more isn't fair or reasonable, plus, what are you supposed to do? We can't undo the past. I don't remember anyone laying huge guilt trips on Michael Dettmers, Michael Donner, or anyone else who has showed up to post here. Those two Mikes, btw, didn't post for nearly as long as you have. The only thing you can do is to tell the truth just like you've been doing here so far. Other than that, you don't owe anyone anything else. I don't think you should feel obligated to continously apologize, either. You've already apologized a few times, that quite enough, imo. Maybe you should bookmark those posts and link people to it when they confront you. We're all human, we all made mistakes, and now we're trying to make amends for our mistakes. Expecting more than that is unfair, unreasonable, and unrealistic. Cynth
|
|
|
|
A very fair, reasonable and realistic answer.
|
|
|
|
Well said of course Saph. I can't help feeling somhow though that I've just given you a good mental thrashing! It clears the decks though, and all have said to you is what I say to myself. Time to dump the lot and start again. There is a sort of proud private drama in the disaster of building yourself up during twenty five long years only to then have to take yourself to bits one stinking,lousy bit at a time! Ho Ho Ho. I hope my flippancy doesn't offend. Much love Bryn
|
|
|
|
No, that's fine Bryn, Yes it felt good to get that off my chest.
No offence taken: a few bruises of course.
Lp
|
|
|
|
Interesting points, Bryn. As I recall it, satsang was imitative and formulaic. It had just enough space to give the more intuititive among us the chance to pull the crowd, but it always, and regularly had to ground itself on certain compulsory "themes of the day" provided by his lordship. Then it moved on again into impro until the next doctrinal pitstop. HE provided the template for the whole situation-all of it, regardless of whether it gave a feel-good hit, which of course it did. No bogus Knowledge, no self promoting Lord, --then no satsang, no audience, no local man at the front spinning the myth, getting the glances. Where I came from, the northeastern U.S., the cultivation of an aspirant was very precise and continued to be precise and dictated from the top down in the cult throughout the mid-70s and 80s. The aspirant programs were designed by Rawat and DLM, and local premies taught aspirants that satsang wasn't merely the "company of truth," but it was an initiated premie speaking from their experience. Not "of" their experience, but "from" it. Satsang held great power to premies because at that time satsang was one of the three of M's basic agyas: "practice satsang, service and meditation" and a huge amount of weight was placed upon the "experience of satsang," and great weight placed upon the satsang giver. It was considered magical stuff. Also, while giving satsang, premies were considered the conduit of Maharaji's energy or truth itself, i.e., he was speaking through us. Hence, the phrase "giving satsang," rather than speaking to a group of people. The compulsory themes of the day that you mentioned above mean to me exactly what the initiators/ mahatmas/instructors were saying in satsang as they toured communities. Those premies had been close to Maharaji, were high up in the cult heirarchy and usually had been in recent IDP (Initiator Development Programs), therefore, premies came in droves to see the "special premies" who had a close association with Rawat. They were considered the most clear and "realized." Community coordinators were in more contact with DLM therefore they received special cassette tapes that instructed them about this or that. All of this was designed to give the satsang givers more credibility. That's still true today, evidenced by the special preparations made when Charanand and other inner circle premies visit enclaves of premies (communities) or when they speak at public or introductory programs. People like Yorum Weiss also tour for fundrasing, and usually those premies bring special video tapes billed as "not for general distribution, and/or specially made by Maharaji for you." That's always happened. Therefore I don't believe it's important to emphasize what anyone's intention was or wasn't when giving satsang, but it is important to understand what the listeners believed about the satsang based upon the Rawat religion. After all, we were taught that satsang wasn't the words anyway, and it was a common belief that one could sleep through satsang and still benefit! I was asked to lot of satsang, not just because I was very active in my community and considered "clear," but because I happen to be a good, articulate public speaker. We was shafted, and to a great extent by each other as I see it. Absolutely.
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 08:27:36
|
|
|
|
Hi Cynthia, This post you wrote along with Bryn about satsang is a very good one. It belongs at the beginning of a new thread IMO. After all it was the first or number one thing of most importance when it came to what Prem Rawat said so many countless times. Do...Satsang , Service, and Meditation. I remember a satsang that I heard (more than once) back in the old days, where it was explained that these three... Satsang, Service, and Meditation were like the legs of a table and all were needed in order for the table to stand up. I think if someone wrote a book about this cult your post about satsang should be in one of the first chapters explaining this all important agya by Prem Rawat. I'm only responding because you nailed it. Thanks! Sincerely, Hilltop
|
|
|
|
Hi Hilltop, It's snowing like a dog out here and sticking. Woodstove is going and our new baby kitten is asleep on the couch. "Libby" is an orange and buff cat and I couldn't have special ordered a cat like this. I've always wanted an orange kitty. Thank God, she's finally learned how to use the litter box! Yes, we're new parents again and our older cat Nina Benigni Giancarlo Gianinni (Nina for short) has been a bit bent out of shape about the new addition. She's been hissing and swiping, but overall doing better than we anticipated. The first snow we got earlier in the week melted and yesterday was a nasty, windy rainstorm. Thankfully, we didn't lose our power. I think it's a great idea to bring the subject of Rawat's definition of satsang, service and mediation. I'll do that now and see if anyone's interested in discussing it (or maybe not). Yours in VT, Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Oct 29, 2006, 11:45:38
|
|
|
|
Bryn, You more or less convinced me..a well expressed analysis and (unfortunately) I could identify with much of what you wrote. But .... 'Good intention doesn't come into it, and there are as I see it no mitigating circumstances to plead. We was shafted, and to a great extent by each other as I see it.'
is going too far. A lack of deliberate intent or indeed 'being in a state of delusion' are certainly factors that diminish personal responsibility and therefore do mitigate guilt. Obviously manslaughter isn't murder etc.. best Tim
|
|
|
|
Absolutely, Tim. No ex-premie I know has ever done anything intentionally to my knowledge while promoting K. We didn't know we were in a cult. We all were caught up in that enormous mess. The best we can do is to post here, and give ourselves a break from guilt and culpability. The minute I realized I had been conned all that time was when I found the forum and started posting. And that's not a requirement either. Plus, it's not like I'm going to offer to pay for anyone's exit-counseling! lol Wow, we've got a miserable windy rainstorm going on here today. yuck.
|
|
|
|
Ta for the reply. To me the word or even the concept "guilt" doesn't come into this. I don't think a person can ever be guilty of offences against themselves-and that's how I see it. I certainly feel not the slightest guilt whatsoever myself and don't want to encourage anyone else to, no matter how much they might enjoy it! This is really an issue of self and the abdication of self IMO. Guilt is just a further displacement of self away from self. Its a wierd shadow form of devotion, I think. Anyway, sorry to have convinced you of anything! Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
Thats a very good point Bryn. I know it was directed to Saph but made me think too. I'm guilty of helping bring people in too ..and it is a part of the past that I certainly haven't understood or really confronted yet.. I understand the 'persuasion' point. It did happen..but was it all that? Was there ever such a thing as 'honest satsang'...where you were true to your own feelings and experience and felt some sense of flow and 'uplift'. I know there was bullshit but sometimes also a more innocent and sincere effort to attain openness to 'whatever is within' with no lie intended. I know that I embarrassed myself and others sometimes with tears but that was not through any 'effort at persuasion'. I am not referring to anything mystical here but just the openness and vulnerability which is a dynamic that can sometimes happen within groups of people. This is by no means just a 'premie' thing. I have experienced similar 'highs' of, I suppose, just 'free-flowing thought, openess, energy, conversation and a sense of profundity.....well I am sorry to be so mundane ..but even on company team-building excercises and courses I have been on. It is a strange thing ..but it does seem to be a fundamental human thing that given the opportunity and even the most idiotic of common purpose that most people will tend to bond in a spirit of love and friendship. In this sense then, some people do just have the 'gift of the gab' ...an ability to articulate our common thoughts, feelings and humanity spontaneously and well...and that resonates with others. My personal feeling is that used kindly, naturally, motivelessly and responsibly such an ability is indeed a 'gift' ...no need to see it as poisoned by Rawat. Good for Saph if he is a natural BUT...just look at the shit that happens when someone abuses these natural human dynamics and uses their gift to take control of and ultimately abuse a group who, because of the groups dynamic, are completely open and trusting of 'the message'. Well we know don't we Love Tim
Modified by tommo at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 19:01:38
|
|
|
|
Bryn, Your 'harrying' of Saph is I think very useful - and hope Brian is OK with it. As with your 'testing' Mike a few weeks back at first sight what you are saying does seem a bit too much like actual surgery, but somewhere along the way I do think this 'incisive' questioning is needed. However I do have some reservation about both Mike and Brian being subjects of this surgical approach - not because they need protecting but because I'm not sure that the context of their involvement/role in the Rawat package is actually amenable to dissection. Saphlanand, was key to my involvement in DLM and when Brian now writes "managing to get the premies to feel what he wanted them to feel (that we were all equal)" he is recording accurately (at least to my memory) what he was communicating, and that certainly allowed me to maintain a protecting sense of self in the face of the abject cultism being promoted by the other stars of the DLM firmament in 1972. So that far from being > pure colusion and at the root of it was the example of his majesty PPSR< much of what Saph was saying actually provided me (and I believe others at that time) with an alternative to pure cult immersion. Of course Brian would now look like he was on the side of the angels, if in 72 he had gathered up up his robes and separated himself from Prem and DLM. But to criticise him for staying with it because even his 'off message' satsang only served to cement the cult, verges on denying that there was any alternate view of how DLM could/should have been. Nik
|
|
|
|
"Anyway about the maha stuff, I very rarely told the story of the dawn roof court because I didn't want to reinforce the notion. Actually, at least in the communities which I became a regular visitor to, I think I succeeeded in getting premies to feel we were all equal. "
Hi Saph
Can you say more about this and the subjekt of being equal?: Best wishes Poul
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I know what you are asking.
I tried to explain the latter half of this quote in my reply to Bryn.
The former half refers to the story above.
The subject of being equal.
This is a conviction that I have felt, more than intellectually arrived at, for most of my life. Any other scale of values feels wrong. But more lately, I have become more convinced that it is a safe position to adopt towards all.
It is for me a reality and a guiding principle. Any degree of inequality perceived is based upon superficial values. At the level of our basic humanity, I firmly believe we are of equal intrinsic value.
I also see how if I had applied this at the time of meeting maharaji instead of allowing him to bring about the suspension of my better judgement, which gradually returned, it would have immediately shown up the flaw in the Rawat cult concepts.
Maharaji definitely would not have agreed we were all equal.
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 19:27:41
|
|
|
|
Hi Saph
"It is for me a reality and a guiding principle. Any degree of inequality perceived is based upon superficial values. At the level of our basic humanity, I firmly believe we are of equal intrinsic value. "
I love your answer , my feelings of brotherhood and love just reach out for us all once again beeing on this forum . A week ago i played Abbie Hoffmans video : the lord of the universe , for my 18 and 15 years old daughters - they are still today , once again , making jokes about it all towards me . now , aint life just great . Love Poul
|
|
|
|
"now , aint life just great"
Thanks Poul, I'm only on my first cup of coffee this morning and the first two post replies I came across, yours and Ocker's are both saying something similar. I'm inclined to agree, life is great, it almost feels as if we are turning a corner in the evolution of our understanding as a race.
Love to you too
Lp
Modified by Saph at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 04:47:50
|
|
|
|
Lp, who read his Rudyard Kipling
............The curtains part, the trumpet blares, and the eunuchs howl aloud ; and the gilt, swag-bellied idol glares insolent over the crowd. THIS IS RIMMON, LORD OF THE EARTH ---FEAR HIM AND BEND THE KNEE ! And I watch my comrades hide their mirth that rode to the wars with me...........
|
|
|
|
.. didn't see you as any different before and after learning that you were 'Saph'. ...enjoyed your posts before and still do after...you write well and insightfully ....the 'Saph' label obviously means zilch so don't feel that you have to be anything other than yourself. Actually ..in as much as I had heard of you, you would have been one of the last on my list to probe about how the 'organization' worked (although high up on the list to learn how it all started). Back in 73 and 74 I remember that for those of out on the premie fringe you were spoken of as a torch bearer for the notion that you could stay 'outside' and still succeed in Knowledge. all the best Tim
|
|
|
|
Thanks for helping to clear my name Tim.
|
|
|
|
When I spoke of silly and kindergarten I was referring to Élan Vital, not this forum and its members. That may not have been clear from my post. I also have had time to think about it and offer apologies to those of you who are still currently in pain over leaving, my leaving was 30 years ago and I was being insensitive (though that is really how I feel, after a short time earlier this year to process old stuff it has become a non-issue for me.
|
|
|
|
Hi Stephen, A couple of points in reply: first, I’ve lost count of the times over the years that visiting posters have claimed the forum has some kind of agenda by which posts are required to ‘toe the line’, ie. express a uniformly negative view about all things ‘spiritual’ and the value of meditation. (‘Throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ is a phrase that comes around.) Nonsense, IMO. In the real world you can only be made to toe a line by folk who have some kind of power over you – financial, emotional, military or whatever. Nobody here has any more power than anyone else. It’s just people expressing their beliefs and opinions, same as you – often agreeing, often disagreeing – that’s what a free and open discussion should be. Or are you suggesting ex-premies should censor themselves in the interests of not rocking the boat when they see an opinion they disagree with? As it happens, I nowadays fall into the atheist / rationalist / humanist camp that you talk about – exes who reject any notion of a ‘ghost in the machine’, that is, a disembodied spiritual self that coexists with the body but is somehow not of the body. I never planned it that way – it became more-or-less inevitable once I read up on evolution and studied a bit of neuropsychology. (I don’t even see mind as having an existence independent of the body/nervous system – but that’s another discussion, maybe for the Non-Rawat forum). But I don’t think mine is necessarily a majority view here. There must be at least half a dozen forum regulars who see some value in meditation or talk about religious or transcendent experiences etc. And I don’t doubt those experiences are ‘real’ enough for the person having them. The differences arise with interpretation. When a poster talks of their subjective reality as if it were objective truth – as you seem to be doing – it is more or less inevitable that somebody will call you on it, not because you’re failing to toe the forum party line, but simply because its healthy to have that discussion, to find points of common agreement, disagreement shared terms of reference. Try to understand why the other person believes what they believe, etc. Anybody who feels confident in their ‘truth’ has nothing to fear from that process, surely? Compared to many internet forums, I’d say this one is remarkably civil in the way people conduct their exchanges. It’s all just shadow boxing, after all - no blood is spilt - and the discussions probably help all readers – posters and non-posters – work out for themselves what they nowadays feel about their post-cult lives. Cheers,
Nigel
Modified by Nigel at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 02:40:21
|
|
|
|
Hi Nigel and StephenGood post, Nigel. Just one point, you write: I nowadays fall into the atheist / rationalist / humanist camp that you talk about – exes who have rejected all notion of any ‘ghost in the machine’, that is, a disembodied spiritual self that coexists with the body but is somehow not of the body. I feel the same way. You then write: There must be at least half a dozen forum regulars who see some value in meditation... of which again I am certainly one. Now you don't explicitly present the two views as being incompatible, but you seem to be saying that they are. At least, whether you are saying so or not, I am saying that I do not see them at all as incompatible. In fact, I would go further, and say that for myself each supports the other. Any incompatibility comes about because of the context or interpretation of one's meditation, when as you say you take subjective reality as if it were objective truth. If you just take meditation to be examining your own mind, in a disciplined yet open manner, and do not posit any extra-bodily spirit, then I see no conflict at all. Stephen, firstly as Nigel says there is no 'accepted expression here'. I think it is beautiful to rediscover 'wonder...' and even '...an inner spiritual life' as you put it, but of course it depends what you mean by 'spiritual'. For myself, I am happy with the word 'spiritual' if you mean spirit as essence, or what-exists-really, as in the phrase 'spirit of the law' or something, meaning the heart or essence of the thing (like 'spirit' as in liquor, originally brandy was considered the 'spirit of the wine'). But I agree with Nigel that if you mean by 'spirit' some kind of disembodied ghost, then you have lost me. You clearly denigrate the areas that I am fond of: 'Buddhist nihilism (colored with Scientific Rationalism)', athough I think to call Buddhism 'nihilistic' is unfair. I guess the difference between us, then, is where do we look for that 'wonder', which we both seem to agree is important to explore? For myself, I find it in both the world around me, at all levels, and in what I find within me when I look with an inquisitive yet as-humble-as-I-can-manage attitude. I find as much wonder in those two places as I could wish for, and more. I personally don't find 'wonder' necessarily in inventing spritual hierarchies or gods or new-age energies or anything like that. I need to go to *what is* rather than what I would like to believe is. To John's point above, that is just my belief, I guess you could say, where I stand. There is no censorship on this forum of beliefs as such, but the purpose of the forum is not just to swap beliefs, which as John says is pretty pointless, but to help each other in various ways deconstruct our past with Maharaji. Certainly how to explore that 'wonder', after rejecting Maharaji and all he stands for, is an important topic; and many of us have been so hurt by our time with Maharaji that it is hard to open our eyes to any wonder for fear of being conned yet again. For myself, I want to befriend and explore the wonder, as you call it, but without the crutch of another belief-system, which I don't think is necessary - in fact, which I think detracts from any true wonder at this amazing universe and ourselves as conscious beings in it. Take care -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
And sooo civil. But I think Stephen is right. There does seem to be a subset of individuals who prowl the forum like a pack of wolves looking for an easy kill in the form of anyone who appears a little new agey. Kind of like neanderthals heading downtown for a night of fag busting. Enough people have complained about it, so I assume there's something to it, and it certainly seems that way to the people who are on the receiving end of it. I don't think it's just a case of innocuous disagreement. Some people seem pretty irate in their objections. I've been on the receiving end of it myself. I know when somebody is politely disagreeing with me verses when somebody is, well, treating me like I'm an asshole and they're so smart.
|
|
|
|
That's bullshit, Jerry. "A pack of neanderthals heading downtown for a night of fag busting?" That's nonsense. If you don't like the way certain people are, you're free to ignore them, or, you are also free to contribute more to the forum to make it be more like you want it to be. It's so easy to complain in sweeping generalities. Sheesh!
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 10:06:28
|
|
|
|
I use to be one of the prowlers, Cynthia, so I know they exist. I think it has to do with the suden liberation an ex-premie feels that the mind is now unbridled and it's no longer taboo to object to premie dogma. It's a great relief to feel you're now one of the good guys in expressing all the bottled up doubts that were always frowned upon. The forum provides a rare opportunity to express them. And that's a good thing. The problem is that now you're part of a formidible crew of opponents where before you were a wallflower keeping all your misgivings to yourself. It's as if ex-premies get unleashed on this forum, and take glee that it's finally CLOBBRERIN' TIME! We don't have to eat crow anymore. Now we can feed it. But that's not where it ends. There is a line between believers and atheists, here, beyond premies and exes, and however much you might think it's bulls*t, it does appear that atheists act like they got it right and anybody who objects is an a**hole still living in ignorance. The funny thing about that is I find the objections often drawn on spurious lines, that believers are irrational compared to the rational atheists who bravely pursue reason while believers wouldn't dare. That gives the atheist a slight air of tired, and boring, elitism. The truth is that while the atheist's argument is a rational one, it's also narrow and incomplete, but you'd think listening to an atheist that they've coverd all the angles, and when the believer summons the courage he'll join their ranks. Phooey!
|
|
|
|
I think I know what you're talking about, but your characterizations are way too extreme when talking about this forum as a whole. I maintain a lot has to do with personalities and writing style, and the lack of eye to eye contact, rather than personal stalking as you describe. The problem is that now you're part of a formidible crew of opponents where before you were a wallflower keeping all your misgivings to yourself. It's as if ex-premies get unleashed on this forum, and take glee that it's finally CLOBBRERIN' TIME! We don't have to eat crow anymore. Now we can feed it. I think that a lot of the people that post here have formidable intellects. That's a good thing. I wouldn't want that to change nor apologize for it. This is not a forum for lazy thinkers. But, it sounds like you're talking about forum 5, 6, and 7, and sometimes 8, but not this one, when there was more of a group mentality of responding to premies that would come here to argue. The forum is the sum of the posters here. So, if someone doesn't like someone else's personality, they can tell them that directly, or just avoid them, but I really don't know what can be done about it. I don't see packs of atheists here stalking those with beliefs. That's absurd. I do read some people talking about the "universal consciousness," "what the self is, and "self-consciousness," -- all philosophical stuff and some very flowery language. So I ignore it or respond once in a while in my own way. My personal impatience with that kind of talk is that I'm a person who lives on the ground, so that doesn't have anything to do with what I believe or don't believe. I get tired when people do stream of consciousness type writing here -- it's a confusing style. It's a difference in personality and writing style. I just like to call a spade a spade and dispense with 1000 word essays calling the spade as a being in the one or three universes, self-conscious or not. That's just me. This isn't a philosophy forum any more than it's a religous or an atheistic one. I believe it's better to write clearly and not confuse than to confuse people with strange speculations. The truth is that while the atheist's argument is a rational one, it's also narrow and incomplete, but you'd think listening to an atheist that they've coverd all the angles, and when the believer summons the courage he'll join their ranks. I see your point, but disagree. Besides, none of that is the subject of the forum anyway, so I'm quite sick of the complaints about atheists. It's been going on forever and it's not a valid argument. I don't care what someone else believes or doesn't believe. Besides, this is a discussion forum, not a forum where people get to declare their beliefs without a challenge. Plus, I don't start posts about being an atheist here, I don't discuss it here, so the religous-minded shouldn't either, and stop being such babies about it. Period. I thought we were adults.
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 11:39:04
|
|
|
|
There is a line between believers and atheists here, beyond premies and exes, and it does appear that atheists act like they got it right and anybody who objects is an a**hole still living in ignorance. Well said Jerry! And what's to stop an atheist from meditating. In fact, are spiritual concepts even necessary, or do they too get in the way? Spiritual concepts are still concepts. Buddhist Trungpa said that all concepts are barriers to meditation, even spiritual ones. He advocated cutting through spiritual materialism.
|
|
|
|
Hi Steve, Do you really think that atheists 'act like they got it right', more than believers? When was the last time you were doorstepped by a couple of smart-suited young gentlemen anxious to share the gospel of athiesm? In my experience of two decades of godless debauchery, the feeling among non-believers is to keep your head down and avoid treading on people's toes and upsetting them. Say nothing about it, unless asked. You only have to look at the barrage of brainless abuse hurled at Richard Dawkins (a very gentle, caring sort of chap in real life) for daring to express some sincerely held views derived from science and reason, if you want to identify the real trouble-makers in the world: believers acting like they got it right. >And what's to stop an atheist from meditating? Nothing at all. See my other posts on this thread. And, Steve, may I suggest you be wary of all truths that begin with 'Buddhist Trungpa said...' Or Maharaji said... Or Sri Sai Baba said... etc. People relying on spiritual maxims and pat expressions (known as 'teachings') in conversation have invariably lost their own voices. Cheers, Nige
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 12:13:41
|
|
|
|
Do you really think that atheists 'act like they got it right', more than believers? They do here! And, Steve, may I suggest you be wary of all truths that begin with 'Buddhist Trungpa said...' Or Maharaji said... Or Sri Sai Baba said... etc. People relying on spiritual maxims and pat expressions (known as 'teachings') in conversation have invariably lost their own voices. Just didn't want you thinking I was the only one.
Modified by Steve at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 23:06:09
|
|
|
|
>The truth is that while the atheist's argument is a rational one, it's also narrow and incomplete, but you'd think listening to an atheist that they've coverd all the angles, and when the believer summons the courage he'll join their ranks.< Jerry, I have some sympathy for your critique - however I'm a lot more sceptical about your >line between believers and atheists<. While a few people may fit into such a rigid delimination, taken over time and across many subjects I can not recognise a static two camp polarisation as a real description of this or any previous ex forum. One very, very important aspect of what goes on here is that people change their minds, they adopt different styles of thinking and entertain ideas that they had not done previously. So long as that mental fluidity continues the 'two camps' position can only involve a minority of posters. Nik
|
|
|
|
when faced with a good, well set out post in either camp, wanting to applaud. I am, as truthfully as I can be with myself now, in neither camp, even if pushed to opine either way I now would decline.
I enjoy and feel empathy with a clear and unbiased presentation of arguments for or against any possibility of a universal consciousness. But I feel uneasy where it is evident that a conclusion has been reached while, or by, ignoring factual evidence.
Choosing a view and vehemently sticking to it, is a mentally unhealthy, blinkered approach in either persuasion. Teams form and loyalties emerge which further close down the "spirit" of enquiry. worse, our great gift of humanity is impaired, even threatened.
More importantly, we have all the evidence we need to know we are a part of a marvellous race of living, intelligent beings, whom I love, mainly I think, because we are capable of being loving and understanding, and have a deep incentive to know more.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 05:31:46
|
|
|
|
....sorry I haven't contributed to this thread but I have been reading many of the posts (as time permits ). So many subjects have been touched upon it makes me feel very emotional and I daren't post. From the million swirling thoughts and emotions in my head (or where ever emotions are ! ) here is one...... In one of your posts earlier you were talking about the Satsang you tried to give.....that premies should be free to practice knowledge, give satsang etc in their own way as free spirits and not be enslaved by an organization etc At least I think that's what you said ( I can't find the post now ...the thread is so long )....however, I think that whatever you did or said there would be unforeseen consequences.Things you couldn't even imagine. I told you that I ended up living in an unofficial ashram.It was a terrible place, like a concentration camp but in a beautiful environment. All my clothes and belongings were taken away.My hair was cut to about half an inch ( to stop me being "vain" ) and I had to wear a kind of ghastly denim uniform.I was frightened into giving up university ( told the world was going to end soon bla bla) and stood over while I wrote the letter resigning my place.I was isolated in a farmhouse miles from anywhere and not allowed to talk to or visit my friends or family.My post/mail was opened and read before/if I was given it.Food was strictly rationed ( I went down to about 6 and a half stone). I had to get a job in a factory and learn to be "humble"......and that is just a tiny part of this insane story (btw I was 19 years old ). The premie ( David Willmot, now known as David Breathe) in charge of this madness was much inspired by you.He talked about you a lot, and your satsang (when you hung out in West London). From what you have said,I now think that his interpretation of your suggestion to not be attached to DLM or the organisation, was to invent his own gruesomely crazy set up, and I haven't mentioned the half of it. It seems that anything, even the most well-meaning advice (yours), remotely mixed with the "knowledge" of our stupid guru and his philosophies....turned to crap. I'm not telling you this to invoke any kind of "guilt" on your part but just to point out that, because there are plenty of fantasists,meglomaniacs,narcissists and just plain con-men in this world ,somebody will take your best advice and twist it to their own deluded ends.
Modified by lexy at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 21:55:13
|
|
|
|
... Thankyou for your kind post, I am always so sorry when I hear about this guy David Wilmot, I'd like to give him a piece of my mind. (That's not all I'd like to do!)
I just used to say something ..."Carry on with your life as it was, but if you feel like meditating, perhaps this will help." I never suggested setting up the first mission, let alone a pale/(dark) and evidently even more gruesome version. (If that is possible.)
I have a horrid memory of a sister who was displeased with something, arguing with Glen late one sunday night at Woodside. I was meditating upstairs and heard the arguing. I came down but stayed on the stairs at first, eavesdropping.
Then I saw flashing lights outside the window. Before I knew fully what was going on, ambulance men came in and Glen was directing them to her.
I ran into the room protesting that they were not required, that we could resolve this, it was just an argument, no actual harm or violence was occurring.
I argued vehemently with Glen, saying something like have you any idea what they do to people when they take them away like this... any idea what effect this could have on the rest of her life?
It was as if I was talking about what harm could come to a stone. No one cared a jot about the girl. All Glen and other residence staff seemed to care about was silencing some criticism at all cost.
I completely forgot all mission considerations, and fought to stop the ambulance men from taking her, but I was hopelessly outnumbered.
Two big strong ambulance men manhandled her into a straight jacket and dragged her away screaming. I yelled at everybody till late, even getting suggestions that they could always make another call..
I moved out and stayed in premie houses. I secretly vowed to be prepared to resist the mission authorities after that, and knew I was not in their camp.. I'm so angry with myself for not walking away for good, there and then. (around '72)
Best regards to you Lexy,
I'll try and call you some time today,
I hope you are well
Your friend, Lp
Modified by Saph at Sun, Oct 29, 2006, 01:15:54
|
|
|
|
Hi again Saph, It was lovely to talk to you. When I first read your post about the ashram premie removed in a strait jacket I was too shocked to reply. I remember many instances of mental illness in and around DLM/Elan Vital , including my own bouts of serious depression. That is one of the results of supressing the natural critical thoughts of our minds. Our natural wonderful minds that maharaji taught us were chock full of doubt , negativity and monstrousness. Really he told us to put our minds in strait jackets. That premie's punishment for letting her mind free...........she was externally,physically restrained and taken away. I can only conclude that Glen Whittaker, who IMO,underneath the brainwashing, is really a kind person and full of humour, must have been so frustrated that his mind was imprisoned and he couldn't let it out.Maybe the premie was punished for doing what he ( Glen) longed to do....speak his own MIND. warm thoughts to you.
Modified by lexy at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 16:26:36
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, and thanks for the positive comments above. Jerry: I'm surprised you seem to feel you've been on the receiving end of some rough treatment here. Maybe I missed it? I'm not sure who you are thinking of when you talk about a prowling wolf-pack out looking for an easy kill. Like Cynthia says, this particular exes forum hasn't been marked by overtly hostile posters of any persuasion that I've noticed. Surely it's all just words, however they are expressed, and provided no threats or libel is involved, it's all healthy debate - just as I see you seem to be punching your own weight over on the Non-Rawat forum Mike: to your point about atheism and valuing meditation being not necessarily incompatible: I didn’t mean to imply that they were, but I probably phrased it badly, and should have said: 'There must be at least half a dozen forum regulars who claim some personal benefit from meditation or religious / transcendent experiences'. That's where I depart from exes here who still value meditation. It has no value in my life, these days, that's all. But growing up, aged maybe twelve or thirteen, if I was tired but couldn’t be bothered to go to bed, I used to lie on my back on top of the bedclothes, staring up at the bare light bulb and often had this experience of what you might call – I don’t know - dissociation or disembodiment, maybe. A deep, relaxed feeling where the room fades away, apart from the light, and a sense that I was somehow not in my body, or that I no longer had a body. Instead, it was like ‘I’ was not only seeing light, but feeling light and being that light. This was an experience I occasionally re-encountered practising Goomjee’s ‘light’ technique years later – but nothing like as powerfully or effortlessly as those early 'mystical' moments. I wouldn’t swear to it, but I imagine the psychological and neurochemical processes underlying those spontaneous childhood bliss-outs were much the same as experienced by people in meditation entering ‘samadhi’ or ‘cosmic consciousness’ or whatever you want to call it. But knowing nothing of mysticism, yoga or so-called Eastern paths at the time, it would never have occurred to me to think of those disembodied moments as being somehow ‘spiritual’. (‘Spiritual experiences’ were not much discussed or encouraged in my Baptist Sunday school between the hymns and Bible-readings.) Would it have added anything to my understanding of that experience if I’d had the conceptual framework and vocabulary to define it in spiritual terms? – I don’t think so. Confusion, more likely. It was simply something I could do, and enjoyed for its own sake, but I certainly wouldn’t have dedicated my life to it. Nowadays, I’d suggest all so-called transcendent states involve our regular perceptual processes disengaging whilst various ‘reward’ chemicals are somehow activated in the brain. The ritual practices of Eastern religions and similar, probably capitalise on some commonplace and easily-explained quirks of the way our nervous systems have evolved. Chanting, fasting, sleep deprivation and ecstatic mass-gatherings also seem to evoke similar natural highs – not to mention a ready-made tool kit for would-be gurus to exploit to their advantage. But I’m sure there’s some interesting stuff we can learn from the serious study of altered states, whatever their cause, but, for me, step one involves stripping away the spiritual baggage. The terminology used by most practitioners of meditation invokes a cosmology and belief system chock-full of untestable, pre-scientific concepts that have been handed down and revered as ‘ancient wisdom’. (Though some of us prefer the term: ‘new-age hogwash’ ) Concepts such as a real self that is not your body and not your mind (according to who?), higher consciousness… (higher than what?), infinite energy… (why energy – does it have fields or waves? And how do you know it’s infinite?) going inside… (am I not already inside?) And the idea of meditation being a path that takes you somewhere should also be knocked on the head, without compelling evidence for the measurable progress that may be made through decades of practice. Show me a realised soul and I will show you a deluded fool, or Ron Geaves. (Oops, am I ranting?) Any honest exploration of meditation for its own sake must rid itself of these meaningless and misleading concepts, IMO, as well as the assumption that meditation is necessarily a good thing. I mentioned in my EPO Journeys post my own suspicion that meditation experiences might be nothing more than a regression to an infantile crib-state – more a case of arrested development than enlightened self-advancement. Probably harmless in its own right, but damaging psychologically the moment it is hi-jacked by some all-knowing Master promising deliverance from darkness to light, from death to immortality, and the rest…
I’m sure we can all agree on that last sentence, at least.
Modified by Nigel at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 15:03:18
|
|
|
|
Jerry: I'm surprised you seem to feel you've been on the receiving end of some rough treatment here. Maybe I missed it? Not by you, Nigel, but there have been some pejorative remarks made with regards to my faith. But that's okay, I didn't lose sleep over it. I just got a taste of what the "other side" goes through. But knowing nothing of mysticism, yoga or so-called Eastern paths at the time, it would never have occurred to me to think of those disembodied moments as being somehow ‘spiritual’. I sometimes wonder if I had never been taught about God would I have ever believed in him or thought my own mystical experience was a visitation from him. I may never know for sure, but I see no good reason to doubt that it was. It was a life changing experience, much more than just some curious anomaly of consciousness. In his book, God Delusion, Dawkins says creating such experiences would be "child's play" for "software" as sophisticated as the brain's. Like he would know. I mentioned in my EPO Journeys post my own suspicion that meditation experiences might be nothing more than a regression to an infantile crib-state – more a case of arrested development than enlightened self-advancement. I've thought that myself. My own experience was one of remembrance like I was returning to a place (state of being) I'd been before but had long forgotten. Maybe I was remembering a good day in the crib. You know, Mommy's just fed me and changed the diapers, I'm not hungry, don't stink, life's good. It didn't take much back then. You might be onto something, Nige.
|
|
|
|
I enjoyed your post immensely. One thing I don't necessarily agree with though is: "Chanting, fasting, sleep deprivation and ecstatic mass-gatherings also seem to evoke similar natural highs". While I think that individual chanting, fasting, sleep-deprivation and long sessions of meditation will/might produce similar "natural highs" the consciousness changes in mass chanting and other ecstatic mass-gatherings seem to produce a different consciousness and one that can be the opposite of ecstatic or switch quickly between positive and negative states quite easily.
A group such as Elan Vital will use both forms to enhance belief and compliance (even though no members may be consciously aware of doing this and I certainly don't mean to say the Prem Rawat was some evil childhood genius working any of this out). These days if it wasn't for the occasional ecstatic (or at least slightly ecstatic) mass gatherings I can't see too many 30 year premies having too much faith in the consciousness altering powers of the 4 techniques.
|
|
|
|
...in that 'ecstatic' and 'high' are pretty-well synonymous. But interesting reply, and think you've raised a good point. >I enjoyed your post immensely. One thing I don't necessarily agree with though is: "Chanting, fasting, sleep deprivation and ecstatic mass-gatherings also seem to evoke similar natural highs". While I think that individual chanting, fasting, sleep-deprivation and long sessions of meditation will/might produce similar "natural highs" the consciousness changes in mass chanting and other ecstatic mass-gatherings seem to produce a different consciousness and one that can be the opposite of ecstatic or switch quickly between positive and negative states quite easily. I wonder whether the critical variable that causes that switch is fear? Reading your post got me thinking about Hitler's Nuremberg rallies which, from all I've read, were not just the angry, belligerent affairs we might imagine, but joyful, semi-religious gatherings, all torchlight, smiles and warm fellow-feeling. A bit like bonfire night without the jacket potatoes. (Come home from the ritual Jew-burning to Mutti's fresh-baked lebkuchen and goodnight kisses and all is well with the world. Anyone who wants to understand how ordinary decent people turn Nazi should try and get hold of Edgar Reitz's Heimat. It's thirteen hours long, but worth every minute, if you want to understand 'the banality of evil') I guess, being part of a large crowd celebrating a common cause can, on the one hand, give you a sense of safety and empowerment, but, in signing-up with that vibe there lurks an uncertainty - and fear - about what if my fellow-travellers use their collective power to turn against me? Easy to imagine in the case of the Nazis, but perhaps equally relevant to the insidious workings of Maharaji's personality cult. >A group such as Elan Vital will use both forms to enhance belief and compliance (even though no members may be consciously aware of doing this and I certainly don't mean to say the Prem Rawat was some evil childhood genius working any of this out). These days if it wasn't for the occasional ecstatic (or at least slightly ecstatic) mass gatherings I can't see too many 30 year premies having too much faith in the consciousness altering powers of the 4 techniques. Absolutely! Of all the tools in the cult armoury, the four K techniques - which work fine as the bait in M's bait-and-switch strategy - are probably the least necessary for sustaining a premie's long-term devotion. Cheers, Nige
Modified by Nigel at Sat, Oct 28, 2006, 15:49:02
|
|
|
|
Hi Nige, Never heard of Heimat but the BBC page I found discussing it puts it in good company: Berlin Alexanderplatz, 1900 and a recent favorite Laurie and I both loved, Best of Youth. I'll look for Heimat for sure. Hope all's well for you two, Jim
Related link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/heimatreview.shtml
|
|
|
|
And I'm only talking about part one (the thirteen episodes from 1984 - I haven't even seen Heimat 3 from 2004). Best thing I ever remember seeing on television. I may have oversold it in my last post, since the Nazi factor only came in half way through that series - but mostly it's about the way this rural German village comes to terms with the 20th century and new communications: radio, autobahn, telephone and then Der Fuhrer... Heimat 2 from 1992 I remember as being pretty good, but nothing like the original - not through any failing of the director - but because it deals with less-interesting, post-1960 and 70's years. Thanks for good wishes, Jim (and Laurie). Bests to you too. Moley says hello and we'll email with news soon (xxxx's from Moley). Nige
|
|
|
|
But growing up, aged maybe twelve or thirteen, if I was tired but couldn’t be bothered to go to bed, etc.............
I haven't done the meditation from the moment I understood, 6 yrs ago, just what a dreadful piece of shit my supposed 'lord' really was, is, & always shall be.
However, around 18 months ago I decided to get an HGV (heavy goods vehicle) licence. I realised on day one of the course, that contrary to my blithe assumption, it was going to be far from a dead cert, mainly because the neccessary hand eye (& foot) coordination in my 50+ self had subtly deteriorated without my being aware.
On the night before the test I went to bed at 9 pm & took a couple of non prescription tranquillisers, 'Kalms' they're called, you can buy them in any high street pharmacy. I slept fine, but woke up hyper tensed, yet cool calm & collected.
The1st part involves manoeuvering around cones, the position of which can initially be seen through the windscreen, then in the various mirrors, but finally must be remembered, as they disappear into the vehicle's blind spots the closer one gets to the line ( which also eventually disappears into another blind spot) at which point one must stop, or else fail straightaway, without even going out on the road. The examiner is outside the vehicle at this point, observing.
I don't know whether that makes sense, but the point is that it can only be done successfully by the application of total visual concentration, not only focus, but also all round staring awareness.
Shit, it's difficult to explain this kind of thing.
So there I am, all straightened up, with the final cone (point of reference) sliding slowly out of view in the kerb mirror, & creeping towards the soon to be invisible stop line, when, bam.............the examiner I can see through the windscreen dissolves into a haze of golden light, clipboard & all. Not only that, but it's bubbling up from the periphery of my vision in fast solid pulses just like I very occasionally experienced whilst trying for samadhi after hours of sitting, & I don't want it.
I blink, shake my head, but it won't fucking go away. I made the final judgement on when to stop totally distracted by it.
So, what to make of that.
I put it down to an unusual combination of high nervous centre excitement, combined with an intensity of 'looking', & a steely resolve to be relaxed. Also the early morning sunshine on a cloudless spring day, was shining right in my face.
Something like that was the usual frame of mind we were in, when in the presence of the Lord of the Universe, & bright lights lit up his throne.
|
|
|
|
Ok, so I’ve been saving up, watching posts. I want to write now about this forum. It seems to be carefully managed to project a certain response to DLM/Elan Vital. If ones’ explorations do not “toe the line” then the posters try and silence the offender, or argue them away. Stephen, could you explain how you think this careful management is done? Mike and myself administer the forum but in no way do we try to steer the discussions to project any one view, and our intervention is actually quite rare. You claim that some posters 'silence' others or, God forbid!, try to 'argue them away'. Exactly how does one silence someone here? Mike and I can do it, and have, on a handful of occasions, but how does someone without admin rights do it? And arguing is something that is encouraged here, so if someone makes a statement that cannot be defended by argument, they had better have a good think about their views. The problem with spiritual beliefs is that they are just that - beliefs - and cannot be backed up by rational argument. So, although expression of such beliefs is allowed here, once I or someone else has expressed their belief, what next? Poster A states 'I believe in God'. Poster B states 'I don't'. Pretty absorbing stuff don't you think? John.
|
|
|
|
I think people can be silenced in proportion to how sensitive they are. Posting here with time definitely makes you thicker skinned. But people can be silenced by a tirade of unwarranted personal remarks and judgements (when the opposing view is offered,) when they are sensitive.
They may be going through something alone and unable to think clearly being so upset, or even type, or they may have been made so angry that they don't dare voice their feelings in public.
Or they may have been severely demoralized by an unnecessary verbal attack in an area which is deeply personal, highly sensitive, and which has major outcomes for the future of life and family situation, work situation, interpersonal relationships, sense of purpose on earth and more.
They then, like a snail which has touched upon a hot coal, will crawl away, fearing to return, faced with the prospect of unravelling the mess maharaji has made of their lives alone again. This forum is extremely beneficial but it is not always immediately apparent to the newcomer. "Take it like a man", may not always work.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 03:46:22
|
|
|
|
Stephen, In any collection of human beings there will generally develope some sort of majoritarian take on any given subject - no one should be surprised if it happens here. Although I still see plenty of scope for disagreement with pretty much everybody on this forum. >The expression of Buddhist nihilism (colored with Scientific Rationalism) that seems to be the only accepted expression here is a pale inspiration, and nothing to excite anyone.< The ex premie forums are the sum of thier contributors - no says anyone has to like them, they are around for a particular purpose. As happens I've often commented on the limits of 'rationalism' - so you aren't quite as on your own here as you claim. >I am lonely. A fifty year old business person who has re-discovered wonder and an inner spiritual life that others say does not exist. I long for the loving acceptance of the spirit that I found in early premies, (however false it seems now, there was something very real).< Loneliness and aging can often go together - we may have to work surprisingly hard to stay in social AND intimate relationships; dreams of youth and notions of 'spirit' can all too easily be means of avoidance of real people. My memories of thirty years ago are not of some beautiful spiritual haze - they are of a vast amount of individual unhappiness in many premies, all of it swamped by an impossible religious fantasy such that the very real feelings that people had could only be squashed. In some cases the effects were utterly devastating. > I am beginning to meditate again after 30 years of ignoring the whole phenomena.< And I hope you have an interesting journey - but for someone who states that he is lonely is it really a wise move to engage in something that actually promotes separation from others ? Yes you can promote feelings of love and exstasy and being one with the Universe - but that is not the same thing as 'loving and being loved', nor is it the same thing as being part of a social group with all the ambiguities, stresses and complications that involves. Meditation is in at least part (I would say entirely) a neurological process, like any human activity it can be beneficial, neutral or harmful depending on circumstance. But any activity undertaken in isolation from other people is always dangerous because we do not have the benefit of other perspectives to tell us when we may be going wrong. It is one of the great evils of Rawatism that premies have been forced to be isolated meditators - unable to share their experiences or anxieties with each other or non premies. I strongly recommend that no one repeats that mistake of their own accord. Stephen you are apparently in reasonable health you have a career/income - you have immense opportunities open to you - I must ask What are grumbling about ? Nik
|
|
|
|
Hello Stephen I too have noticed a bit of a clash on here - and id like to examine why its inevitable, irrespective of the personalities involved. For newly hatching ex-premies, coming out of their shell is not an easy process. It wasnt for me, at all. I lacked the armour which I had grown used to sheltering behind, and IMO a little bit of hand holding was needed so that I could find my feet. And why was I so wobbly on my rational legs... because after 20 years in the Knowledge Bubble, I had grown unaccustomed to having my point of view challenged. The standpoint of any faith is usually a defensive one 'I know what I feel, I cant convince you of it, so leave me alone' and especially for premies who have been drunk on certainty for so long without ever examining that about which they were certain. M's use of phrases like 'within you' and 'this life' create a context of separation and introspection which is never examined. The experience of meditation itself is never examined, or discussed.. in fact its forbidden. So what we are inheriting as they leave are refugees from a damaged and dysfunctional community - many of whom, like myself are emotionally dependant isolated people, in SUCH denial that their spiritual smug arrogance serves both as their prison and their only comfort. Until they realise that everything is ok, and there is bliss and love and intellect out here which can feed them better than he did, they will be hyper sensitive to criticism. Its a bit like working in rehab. So - yes this forum has at times seemed to me to be a hostile anti spiritual place, but thats cos some of the more vocal posters are not tentative about expressing their opinions.. all of which stab the sensitive Premie in the 'heart' Well, the truth is that it does them good in the long run. You learn to ignore those opinions which you dont feel like tackling head-on, but respect them too, and that is the beginnings of a healthy attitude towards what we hold precious.Nothing is too sacred to be examined...cos contrary to what we have been told for decades by maharaji, love evolves spectacularly when its questioned rationally.
Modified by loaf at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 03:06:25
|
|
|
|
StephenB, Nobody manages this forum in a controlled way in the manner you are implying. If that were true, and if I even suspected this were going on I'd be the first person screaming loudly about it, and/or leave forever and never post one more word here. Nobody forces anyone to post here, so I wonder how you think this control would be accomplished. This forum is not the answer to leaving Maharaji behind. It's not the place to provide alternatives. It's not psychotherapy or exit counseling (thank God). There is no rule set forth anywhere that states this is the alternative path or solution to following Rawat. That would be just plain weird. The expression of Buddhist nihilism (colored with Scientific Rationalism) that seems to be the only accepted expression here is a pale inspiration, and nothing to excite anyone. The truth is that I have no idea what Buddhist nihilism is and I've got a feeling I don't want to know. For the record, though, I don't post here to give people "excitement," "enlightenment," or anything else, and if that's what you're expecting, I don't know what to say. Lots of people want to complain about the forum and do. After all these years, I find that when people complain about the forum, they are just saying they don't like the people who post here, nothing more. Please take the time to read this post that Aunt Bea wrote to me on the off-topic Rawat forum. I think it's an excellent post about this forum and it rings very true for me. Hi Cynthia,
That same paragraph also struck me and I considered a similar response to it. I would just like to add that becoming an ex-premie is about leaving a cult and not about joining a group of ex-followers. This idea has always bothered me when now and again it has cropped up on the forums – mostly from premies asking the rhetorical question, "what alternative (to Rawatism) are we offering." Like huh?
If some fence-sitter is bothered by what people here say, so what. They don't have to post or read here if they don't like it. It's not like some kind of binary formula, either you are a premie or you have to post here every day as an ex-premie.
It is their responsibility to free themselves from the cult. If they can be assisted from the websites or forums, that's great, but in the end it is their own personal process. And these forums represent only one of many possible aids in that process. And really the most valuable step to take is to learn how to stand up on your own. Replacing the crutch of Rawatism with a crutch of on online community of ex-followers is not a real or lasting solution.
Furthermore, I think that the newest forum, www.prem-rawat-talk.org, is the most successful, thanks to Mike and John. It has found the right balance between openness and sensitivity IMO. If that isn't enough for some people, than I doubt any forum could serve their needs.
And to state the obvious, THIS forum is not the forum about Rawat and is more raucous. But even this version of the off-topic forum I consider to be more pleasant than previous generations. In terms of being turned off, I certainly was from previous off-topic forums that had "considered" debates over Zionist and 9/11 conspiracies.
But I guess this is all obvious. Hi Cynthia. Did I already say that? I always seem to be posting on the wrong forum.
Related link: Aunt Bea over there
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 07:44:07
|
|
|
|
S.B. uses the phrase "acceptance of the spirit." A very problematic thing to say. Some people talk about the opposite: acceptance of non-spirit. Here's an example:
Jacques Derrida interviewed by Jean Birnbaum
Translation: truthout from Le Monde. I have never learned to live. Not at all! To learn to live means to learn to die, to take into account, to accept complete mortality (without salvation, resurrection, or redemption - neither for oneself nor for any other person). Since Plato, that's the old philosophic injunction: to philosophize is to learn how to die. * I say that both of the above extremes are wrong. What I say is that we need acceptance of what is, even though we don't know what it is, whether it is spirit or not spirit, salvation or not, eternal life or not. Why do we need acceptance? For our own peace and happiness. Why does a person meditate? Are they trying to improve something about themselves? If so, they should stop. Not stop meditating, but stop meditating with the goal of improvement. They should meditate instead with the goal of acceptance. Acceptance is a state of mind that can be had with or without meditation. Many activities are "meditative." Acceptance is complete, but only on the level of pure mind. In the physical world, we cannot accept pain, for example, we must try to avoid it as much as possible. What we accept is not individual pains, but the fact of pain and its part in life. We also must accept the fact that we hope. Most of all we must accept our limitations, (without shortchanging ourselves of course). Once we have acceptance, we can accept each other, and our peace is a shared peace. Too bad Rawat and other gurus keep messing up this simple message with false and divisive beliefs and directives. Too bad that religion in general also spoils individual and collective peace with false and divisive beliefs and directives. Rawat's message comes close to acceptable at times. But if he went all the way in renouncing guruism, then and only then would he acquire some sort of legitimacy in this world, and both he and his followers, not to mention his vast legion of ex-followers, would be happier, I think.
Modified by Will at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 09:34:22
|
|
|
|
..that's why he and by assosciation his "spirituality" is implicitly under fire here. Rawat handed out his "Knowledge" meditation techniques to us as if they were something they were not.They were not in any way exceptional as acts of cognition. But they were mystifying, befuddling and bewildering. And worse he imprinted his large persona, and undigested assumptions on them and the fog they generated. From what I see there is no definitive philosophy on what is and isn't going on in the body-soul-spirit conundrum-here or anywhere else. Rationalism, idealism, transcendentalism, and all, any one can claim the field at any moment. I get my thrill from trying to keep up with each of them. Once again I have to toady to Loafster below who points out the delicate nature in matters of opinion, of "the challenge". As premies we must have been the most un-assailable snotty bastards you could get..we had even side stepped ourselves, so nothing was ever going to touch us. We weren't there to be affected. Its different now of course but I for one find a critical response very hard to enjoy, but I'm working on it. Something I have noticed and will publish despite the glaring contradiction of it all is this: The best way of cocking up a really good insight is to tell it to somebody. That really buggers it up because for them it comes contaminated with a massive assosciation- of you.I never had that contamination when I worked it out, and now they have to go to all the trouble of disinfecting the insight before they can use it for themselves.Ho ho. The thing that gets me though about religious discourse, especially that of an "eastern flavour" is the hyperbole. "The All, the One, the Divine, Consciousness, etc" I mean how can you ever unpack such concepts? The best you can get is some "ex post facto" analysis stuck on to make it all sound considered. Harrumph.And then when you want to actually say something like "F... me, that was amazing!!", or "Jaysus!! I've just performed a miracle", the language is all used up or too bloody rarified to carry .. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
I love the way you phrased this paragraph: >Once again I have to toady to Loafster below who points out the delicate nature in matters of opinion, of "the challenge". As premies we must have been the most un-assailable snotty bastards you could get..we had even side stepped ourselves, so nothing was ever going to touch us. We weren't there to be affected. [Hey admins, why has the paragraph formatting on this post gone all wonky?] [ from Admin - because you had 'align=right' in your paragraph definition - I think this happens if you hit ctrl+R - Anyway I fixed it]
Modified by Admin at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 14:57:46
|
|
|
|
Something I have noticed and will publish despite the glaring contradiction of it all is this: The best way of cocking up a really good insight is to tell it to somebody. That really buggers it up because for them it comes contaminated with a massive assosciation- of you.I never had that contamination when I worked it out, and now they have to go to all the trouble of disinfecting the insight before they can use it for themselves.Ho ho. True but one of the blessings of advancing years is that I'll soon forget where it came from and by next week it will be mine all mine the hyperbole. "The All, the One, the Divine, Consciousness, etc" I mean how can you ever unpack such concepts? The best you can get is some "ex post facto" analysis stuck on to make it all sound considered. Harrumph true best Tim
|
|
|
|
Thankyou for your courage in posting here Stephen, I know how feel. I have often felt more apprehension of fellow posting ex-premies than I have of maharaji and EV.
This is not a complaint, I accept it as a normal part of the process. It is probably because as posting ex-premies I have a great amount of admiration and respect for them and their views.
But it is interesting especially to me to see how you are getting along as you were the next person to start posting here after me.
Anyway, I will email any other thoughts I might have.
A little light relief, from this week's APODs.
Star EGGs in the Eagle Nebula
The Antennae Galaxies in Collision
Modified by Saph at Wed, Oct 25, 2006, 14:55:49
|
|
|
|
Hello Stephen, I don't feel the forum is corralling us into a group think. I agree about the spirit of the 70's amongst premies....it was amazing ...and it was all down to us . Rawat and the 'holy family' did nothing except appropriate 'our grace', satsang, energy and sincerity. But we can't go back and life moves on. My own take (for what it is worth) is that I find myself just valuing all the understated old-fashioned virtues more and more ..kindness, courage, stoicism, humour, humility, cheerfulness and integrity. Everything in fact that Rawat turned out not to have ....but that so many people around me demonstrate every day. Debate may sometimes seem kindergarten but IMO is just plain good fun and should be entered into in that spirit. Nothing is really at stake. In the end it can't possibly change anything; one thing that is sure is that we'll never sort out theists versus atheists here! ' A rose would smell as sweet by any name' and any divinity worth its salt won't stand on ceremony or disspear under scrutiny. Many things move me greatly and sometimes I do feel deep 'gratitude' .....especially on an autumn walk...to who or what ..I don't know...but it feels like a love that won't 'take offence'. Those feelings are a part of life and certainly not peculiar to premies or ex-premies (if you saw 'Nature watch' on BBC you would observe presenters so in love with what they were watching that they could barely speak). I don't feel that that sort of 'spirituality' is asking to be made 'the focus' of my life....or that I could explore it any further even if I wanted to....rather it is just one of the colours of the rainbow of life to be gratefully accepted alongside all the others ....and for me, that includes the enjoyment of discussion and learning from Dawkins and other great thinkers of our time. That's not limiting ..its just more of an opening out best Tim
|
|
|
|
I really appreciate all of your responses; they have not been what I expected. Most of you actually put kindness into what you wrote and it was well reasoned. You have all made me think, I want you to know I am still thinking and digesting. My first reaction is that I see how I get this stuff in my head and it seems to make sense....until I put it on paper, read it, and see what others think. I got a lot of stuff in my head that seem true, UNTIL I start talking about it! I did not see myself as intellectually somewhat fragile, except that as I re-read my post and the responses, that’s the only conclusion, I could come to. I am also not used to this kind of a forum. The internet has truly changed the rules of intellectual communication. I have never really participated until now. I, now more clearly, see the strength and weaknesses of this kind of forum. After I have a chance to think more I will post again. Stephen B
|
|
|
|
I can really empathise with that Stephen. Getting those thoughts down in black and white and then getting some feedback from others can be pretty challenging. Any weaknesses, either in the intellectual aspect or in the way you explain it is exposed, and your personal prejudices and quirks are laid bare. At least I feel like mine are. I wonder what it is doing to us all, being challenged and stimulated like this. Probably more good than the way we stimulated each other in cult days, so that has got to be a step forward.
|
|
|
|
How are you? I have almost jumped into this thread several times, but decided to wait and see if you responded. Now that you have, I am glad I waited. You and I got into and out of the cult around the same time. When I found the forum and EPO, I thought I had dealt with all my "Guru Maharaji stuff" long ago. After posting on the forum and reading more information, I realized I had just shelved a lot of it, and couldn't honestly have processed the experience because so much information had been withheld from me. This forum can be, at times, an oasis of understanding, and at others, a harsh desert. There can be tough debates, and much more will be asked of you if you post "new agey" comments that some decide to challenge. I know the tone can be off putting, but I decided I'd rather have the hard debate instead of letting sloppy thinking and feeling prevail. The forum can force us to examine what we really think and feel inside - and be prepared to concretely explain and defend it. That is a good thing, in my opinion. Please understand that there is truly a wide range of opinion among the posters about spirituality, meditation, psychology, etc. I don't think anyone here would argue with one's desire to do "inner work" - except if it involves getting involved in another cult. Some posters are more argumentative than others. I learned early on to think about what I was going to post before I hit the submit button, or be prepared to deal with disagreements - and then have a thick skin. The folks here are good hearted and well intentioned. We've all felt hurt and miffed at times. If there are people you don't want to respond to, just say so. The questions that are posed to you - that we pose to each other - are designed to encourage "inner work" - the inner work of understanding what our cult involvement really meant to each of us. Your posts are sometimes provocative. That is good for you and for the forum too. Marianne
|
|
|
|
Hi Steve, I hope you're well. There are strengths and weaknesses here so I hope you'll find your way through both. Just remember, we're all human, we all make mistakes, trip over our own feet (words) and come back for more stimulating talk. Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 06:26:26
|
|
|
|
"The internet has truly changed the rules of intellectual communication."
We are witnessing an event unique in history. The pool of communicated thought and information is young and yet already so vast. The feed back we are getting, individually, from that pool has not had time to make all the transformations that are inevitably in store for our race.
Exciting times.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 15:23:11
|
|
|
|
I think that the main problem here is really how Maharajism subverted a natural spiritual process. If you read the history of Sant Mat on EPO, one can see how the idea of some supreme realised soul termed the Perfect Master imposed itself upon a traditional awareness of the spirit or soul inside us. This idea is part of all religions, but can also be quite independent of any of them. Some of us value this new-found spiritual freedom. Others see it in different terms. Each to their own.
|
|
|
|
I long for the loving acceptance of the spirit that I found in early premies, (however false it seems now, there was something very real). I have said many times that the most real thing I took away from the whole business was the feeling of connectedness with some of my premie friends. There really was something I found, and still feel, when I meet with people ( and premies have no monopoly on this ) that I can connect with and talk with ...I think loving acceptance of spirit describes it really well. I don't think the forum is "carefully managed" the way you describe. Gosh I used the term "herding cats" from that EDS ad. I see the discussion as often free for all. But there are some strong personalities, who post a lot, who will say that the think all religion/spirituality is hogwash. I don't see it as a line to toe of a group at all...lots of spiritual posters have posted here....but yeah, they get questioned but by individuals. Rationality is what freed most of us from this cult. Most of us have found that being strictly logical and rational is the key to not getting tricked again. Anytime you open yourself up to anything that requires faith in things that cannot be proven its scary for someone in a cult. I can see why some would say, not scary...stupid. I think if you are having an inner spiritual life, and feel lonely, yes, find like minds you can discuss you feelings with. Sometimes for me the "kinship" with someone that sees life as meaningful and spiritual is very important to me. This may not be the best place to find the kinship...though we share a lot. Its just like ex premies have sore spots ( like opening our wallets for donations ) and I think looking for friends on your spiritual journey ...well...it could be a great place to look for those friends but posting it on the forum puts something that doesn't hold up to rationale scrutiny forefront. I hope sane souls, not in a cult, are there in your life for you to shared your own experiences with and find the kinds of bonds we did have as early premies. I wish you well .
|
|
|
|
For these well timed, mature and considered posts.
I like to hear from your experiences, I never ask usually, proffering my own when I feel so inclined based upon my own sense of timing and consideration. As a writer I need to find the right time, for the subject.
The forum really does seem to be a sort of finishing school for leavers sometimes, as it has been for me as a writer, any parts that are still clinging to concepts get brought to light.
A more mature exing is attained, the more we have been persuaded, shown, shocked or whatever to look at our leaving from an all around perspective: including our blind spots.
Fortunately for us, others can see, (at least what they think are), our blind spots and eventually I hope we are more rounded and complete in our total self-contained integrity: leaning on, drawing from, depending upon none but our own being and life force as it is (within the existence around us).
I think we have a great potential to help one another, but not without increasing consciousness, it does not happen automatically. Just laughing around in a cinema queue (line) we still get into the cinema.
Not so here, the more measured and thoughtful we are in consideration of others here, I'm sure the more effective this process becomes, as your posts show.
Lp
Modified by Saph at Fri, Oct 27, 2006, 03:18:56
|
|
|
