|
|
|
I think the main defect in the whole K shebang is His Lordship. Guruism is a feudal religious phenomenon. Lights, Holy Names etc in themselves are not a bad thing..potentially informative to the enquiring mind. But as the so called gift of a so called Master they are an insult to freedom and a dead end.
I've given some considerable time to theology and philosophy since escaping the smug premie stance and I am struck by the respect and freedom that thinking people, even adversaries, extend to each other. As a premie other people were simply propogation fodder. Upon exiting I noticed how almost impossible it was for me to listen to, let alone evaluate other people's viewpoints. Religious people are all like this I have discovered, and the best I can say about it is it is a very dated way of being.
Got to go now
Love
Bryn
|
|
|
|
and how are they potentially informing to the enquiring mind? I guess it's true that we're not brought up being taught if you hold your fingers on your eyes long enough with enough pressure you'll see lights and if you concentrate long enough on your breath you feel energy flows but so what! The phenomena are trite, dull and meaningless, among the many things that human societies have ignored in the past becuase of thier valuelessness.
|
|
|
|
>The phenomena are trite, dull and meaningless, among the many things that human societies have ignored in the past becuase of thier valuelessness.< At the very least we ought to talk about them because there's always going to be someone trying sell the trite, dull and meaningless as though it was the answer to everything. N
Modified by Nik at Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 02:52:27
|
|
|
|
Blimey Ocker, thats a bit ferocious isnt it? Trite dull and meaningless? This is the human faculty of imagination we are talking about here. At the very least its got history. Philosophically its a bit of a springboard too. The Light for example impinges on the inside/outside issue, being as it is an object in both. Chill man. Love n grooviness Bryn
|
|
|
|
What Maharaji did to us is spiritual abuse of the worst kind. I'm one of the ex-premies that thinks nothing was gained by my association with him. Nothing. My life would have been far better without being his devotee. Much of my anger with Prem rawat has been about the fact that I had plenty on my emotional plate without having to deal with exiting a cult after 20 years. Whatever I learned from having to exit that cult is a life lesson I could have done without. Religious people don't bother me until they proselytize. I really don't care if someone wants to believe in something. I couldn't care less, really! Just please leave me alone about it. Period. I don't want to know about it and I definitely don't want to hear about it. It has nothing to do with me and it has nothing to do with discussing the cult. I don't allow Jehovah Witnesses to preach to me when they come to my door. When I tell them I'm an atheist, I may as well have told them I'm a vampire. They turn and run from me. That, I find amusing. When someone preaches to me about Jesus, or whatever, I tell them I was raised a Catholic, so no thanks. When people tell me about the Great Spirit, I tell them I spent two years practicing Native American religion that I got very little from, so no thanks. When people tell me about new age mumbo jumbo, I tell them, good for you, but not for me. When I hear about "The Secret" I tell them it's a bunch of shit and are being taken by a conman. I know a lot about that. I've had enough preaching about this or that God for one lifetime. It's inconsiderate for people to come here and lay their religious stuff on anyone. No premie who is trying exit the cult, considering exiting the cult, or in the difficult process of leaving, should have to be faced with reading posts about someone else's new-found beliefs, regardless of how mainstream or extreme those beliefs. It's inconsiderate and unfair to them. No one did that to those people who now feel so free to spawn their religion here. But, it's not my forum. New exes are grappling with horrible spiritual abuse, they don't need to be preached at about Jesus or any other religion. My opinion is that if an ex-premie thinks it's so important to report publicly about their new religious faith, they ought to put it in their journey on EPO and leave it at that. I'm so sorry about your loss. Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Apr 09, 2007, 19:37:41
|
|
|
|
Okay, I usually do not read your posts, except when I'm following a thread, or a heading catches my attention. I did read this one. I usually understand why you write what you write, since we both have posted in the forums for years, I since 1999; I know a bit about your life. I get most of what you share, I understand it, because I imagine what is like to be you. I do need to point something that maybe has escaped your attention. Did it ever occurred to you that what you are asking, in fairness SHOULD go both ways? I cannot ask you to stop saying anything. You do have plenty of rights. When you repeat over and over your atheism I NEVER thought you were asking me to become an atheist, well, lately. When I began posting for a short while I became an atheist because my spiritual life got challenged here and I let myself get influenced by my "peers", ex-premies. In those days the word God or spiritual was very much mocked. God was called an imaginary friend. What created the Big-Bang if that is what some seem to believe? I say "something" I call "GOD". So, that I believe is offensive to you? Ask yourself, why? Do you complain about EVERYTHING you read? Then, shortly after I renewed my faith in God. My personal bussiness. You expressed lots of your stands in many subjects and if I am not to take them personally, why should you? Abortion comes to mind. You are not the only person reading these pages C. I remind you, many people with different needs do it, daily. I frankly find it inconsiderate of you to expect that ALL your needs are met by everyone who posts here. There is enough space for everyone. If I am NOT to think that anyone is trying to make me stop believing in a Creator, then, I think you can also make a space, and STOP believing those who mention anything resembling to God, or faith are offending you, personally. Ignore those posts; do not read them, or read them as you were reading a bok, after all, again, we are real people, more important thna fictional characters and with much more definite human needs. Justified, I say. Again, for the stuff you usually read, it seem you have an ample "stomach", so, why attack the ones who NEED to exercise a faith? Is it inconsiderate of people talking about their spirituality but is oaky for you to put IT down? Is it fair? How many more times are you going to say it? Are you afraid of something? A tip: I would mention it to your tetaphist, seriously. It sound like a phobia to me. Again, I do not write for you, as you do not write for me. Alot of what you share is of no help whatsoever in my daily life, but I do know, that for those premies who are thinking in leaving the cult, a life without a God can be consider a cruelty, why? Because C., you left the cult sooo long ago, you were only for a few years, and yes, you gave up alot (I have good memory) but those people like me, who spent 25-30 years, perhaps we were stripped of so much more and left very much "naked" and all we have now to build ourselves, to grow, is HOPE in a real GOD. For you to act and think self-centered (no offense) is VERY inconsiderate, IMHO. If I was promoting child abuse, I see that you could resist my posts, but "a religion", (which in my case is not what I follow, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, through evangelism -oposite of a religion) supporting 18 different world causes, ALL GOOD, compassionate as is provid food, education and water, and to SEE IT AS POISON, then you puzzle me still. For the longest time you keep posting the same stuff and you yet have to find out that it goes both ways. YOU post about stuff that many may find it offensive. To me it was your swearing in the past. But I think you are over reacting and are being unfair. I certainly can care less if you want faith or not. I do not write what I write FOR YOU, that is for sure, BUT, you seem to think that EVERYTHING is said for you. I say, you are wrong. Can you imagine if each post made everyone react? This forum would be chaotic and also, who would have the time to respond to all we disagree with? Some people WANT and NEED to believe in GOD and in angels and is nothing you can do about it and if there was a vote here, I would vote for a complete FREE DEMOCRACY FOR ALL the posters, not just for some. We were all created equal last time I checked MY Constitution and we live in the same country. Can I tell you that I love you or that will offend you too? I do. Be well, and Tom too.
|
|
|
|
Silvia, In the past, the forum participants used to talk about many different things besides Prem Rawat. Atheism, agnosticism, and religion were discussed, but we also used to discuss many other off-topic things, such as science, pop culture, 9/11, current events, and politics. After 9/11, we collectively decided to have another forum for those discussions. You know that. That's what the off-topic forum is for and if I wanted to discuss my atheism (which I don't) I would start a post there, or go to the millions of blogs and forums around the internet to discuss it. But not here. I don't discuss my atheism here anymore and haven't for a long time. It's you that continuously brings up that very personal aspect of my life, while casting it in a very negative light, and it's none of your business. **And please stop blaming me for your problems. I never have told you, either here or when we used to be friends, and talked a lot on the phone, that you should or shouldn't be religious or find faith. I've never said that to any ex-premie, and for you to say or imply that I have done that is simply not the truth.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 08:51:23
|
|
|
|
I couldn't have said it better myself! Thanks Cynthia! "What Maharaji did to us is spiritual abuse of the worst kind. I'm one of the ex-premies that thinks nothing was gained by my association with him. Nothing. My life would have been far better without being his devotee. Much of my anger with Prem rawat has been about the fact that I had plenty on my emotional plate without having to deal with exiting a cult after 20 years. Whatever I learned from having to exit that cult is a life lesson I could have done without. "
|
|
|
|
timely post! I was wondering just the same.. I guess it may depend where you started from? In my case, parents brought me up without any religious faith and by my teens I also had pretty firmly rejected religion as superstition. This was for a host of reasons that still seem good to me now i.e. all the usual questions... 1) Why did God create smallpox etc? 2) If God is omnipotent then why doesn't he help? .. ergo he is either cruel (and not worthy of worship) or powerless (and pointless to worship)? 3) Having created a Universe of unimaginable size, age and splendour why is he apparently only capable of communicating via ancient and self-contradictory snail mail? 4) Why does he apparently require 'belief'? In his existence ....or in creation myths, miracles and so many other tall tales that are obvioulsy not true. 5) How could a kind and just God (i.e one worthy of respect) possibly favour one group of people in one culture, place or time over another ? If Christianity were truly 'right' then why pick Palestine, 40 AD ...and what does that make all Chinese and the Australian aboriginals etc ..or later or earlier generations etc that only get 'the book'....' his less loved children'? and so on ..with so many other arguments....not least the fact that (since 1859 at least) it really isn't necessary to posit the existence of a creator 'God' to explain the existence of the world and the creatures in it. The very reason I was attracted to 'Guru Maharaj ji' ..or more accurately, to his followers was not only because of the offer of an ideal of love but also direct simple confident answers that swept away my objections (crap answers in fact but, as a 16 years old 'all new to me'....e.g the concepts of rebirth and Karma, of God always being present and available for every generation through the 'satguru' and, anyway, not to worry, GMJ had come with more power than ever before and would soon have it all sorted). So it is funny really. The only answer that was really going to satisfy me was the most outrageous ..i.e...'Hi..I'm God , be happy..it is all under control' which was, in fact, Rawat's message. Of course he denies it now .....But actually all of his hold on long term premies derives the effect that his original message had on them....a hold now dishonestly maintained with just a nod and a wink. So yes, for me, ..Rawat had no answers and the past 'God men' and their many myths never held any spell over me anyway Question about faith? Whose faith and love are the deeper? A religious person subscribing to the security of a religious doctrine or an atheist with faith enough in life to accept truth unbiased and as whatever it may turn out to be? best Tim
|
|
|
|
Hi Tim, The thing about those questions about God is that religious people do have plenty of answers, just go ahead and ask, they're more than willing to tell you. 
|
|
|
|
At the risk of falling into the same chasm as Freud’s – “it’s all sex”, my approach toward religion and ‘faith’ is that it is “all about relationships”. The collective processes that have become concretised as established belief, in my view have their origin in the psychological processes that allow human beings to operate and survive as social creatures. An animal with an enormous brain, a huge capacity for sentient experience and an unprecedented identity of self, faces profound challenges in sustaining effective social cohesion. IMO Religion has its genesis in the development of both innate and learned complex emotional responses which evolved to assist us to ‘relate’ to one an other. In this evolution of emotional response, the actual substance of belief is a purely secondary phenomena, it is simply a code which has to meet the cultural, social and economic demands of the time and place. The code particularly does not have to meet any set test of logic or proof because the neural processes that are involved not only in large measure bypass intellectual function ( in fact the involvement of neurotransmitters like oxytocin are active in switching off the more incisive cognitive functions) but there is abundant evidence that in human relationships the mind actively employs creative delusions – the whole basis of romantic love. One idea about romantic ‘encounters’ is that rather than the participants engaging in an ad hoc assessment of each other’s biological fitness, each participant is looking for characteristics that fulfil a model of ‘desirability’ that has been learned, acquired or developed earlier in the individual’s life. I view the same thing as happening in the ‘choice’ of religion, an individual who experiences the emotional ‘absence’ of a rewarding social construct of belief will adopt one which ticks enough of the boxes on their personal ‘desirability’ check list. Of course this process is almost entirely subconscious – although there may be a huge amount of conscious thought that supports the direction that individual eventually takes. I should say at this point I do not consider this process in anyway devalues the individual, although I do see at as socially anachronistic. Although I personally dislike most religion – I actually find the ‘blood and guts’ of Christianity revolting – I am not comfortable dismissing religion as a product of ‘uncritical’ thinking. The religious impetus has been, and remains, of profound significance to our species and we will no more effectively come to terms with that significance than we could come to terms with domestic disharmony by protesting the illogic of people ‘falling in love’. Nik
|
|
|
|
I like the notion of religious belief originating in the evolution of the emotional response. I don't find that hard to accept at all.
Of course, religious people can be perfectly capable of critical thinking. In my prime devotee days, I was able to take in lectures on genetics and biochemistry which were based on an understanding of evolution, and yet I spent my evenings in satsang, which was based on the idea that human life was called into existence for the express purpose that humans could recognise the perfect master. The critical thinking I used at university was switched off for satsang. This is what we call these days cognotive dissonance isn't it? Holding incompatible beliefs, but keeping them apart - so that the critical thinking applied in one situation is not applied in the other.
What I am curious about is how religious ex's manage to do the same again, or have they expanded their logic to provide answers to the sort of questions tommo poses in this thread?
|
|
|
|
>What I am curious about is how religious ex's manage to do the same again< I think it's just that same process that leaves us with that sinking feeling when we see an 'old friend' pairing off with yet another loser/drunk/druggie/waster - banging around our head is the question "Can't they see he/she is just like the last one ?" The answer of course is emphatically No! N
|
|
|
|
This was such a clear explanation, and so in line with my own history with Rawat, and the psychology of how I stayed involved, that I made a copy of it, but I don't recall who actually wrote it. If it was you, it was great: I too was a seeker of more enlightened states, higher consciousness or whatever one might care to call it, and like many premies, cast my lot with the guru in order to find it....this was his main selling point, and was what differentiated him from religions that didn't offer "an experience"....of course, you needed the "living master" in order to get the "living experience", so the two went hand in hand... And today, it's still "the experience" and "the experience" alone, that premies refer to as the main reason why they stay and choose rawat over other forms of growth, enlightenment etc.....they realize his "teachings" are inane, he rambles and offers nothing new but a rehash of old stuff, but they get "the experience" when they see him... (Of course, for the gopis, there is the added bonus of rawat himself, and any interaction with him, although this is definitely downplayed publicly today, and only whispered about amongst old timers...) To me, the problem with "the experience" philosophy for choosing rawat, or any guru for that matter, is the "the experience", while promoted as the only thing that lasts and can be counted on, doesn't last, plain and simple......it's totally dependent upon seeing rawat in a carefully contrived setting, not too often, in a certain type of guru-disciple way, with him talking and a crowd of adoring devotees projecting their energy upon him, which he reflects in some manner back to them.....take away the programs, and premies have very little, if any, extraordinary day to day experience to draw upon,no coherent teachings to reflect on, a spiritual life they are embarrassed by,and in many instances a fairly dysfunctional personal life, way behind and too far to catch up, many times, which makes things tougher...if you believe rawat holds the key to happiness, then you simply try harder, and the cycle continues... For me, the major con that rawat pulled on me was convincing me that "the experience" was always there, HE was always in it, and that although I wasn't, I could be and should be, if I were devoted enough....what rawat told us for years was that we weren't doing it well enough, and that's why the mystical permanent state of grace that he claimed to have, eluded us....(remember,"Who has realized this knowledge?".....a totally meaningless statement, but imbued with great significance, because no one seemed to have done it, except rawat, mainly because no one even knew what it meant exactly...) When a guru who is supposedly "perfect" (whatever that might conjure up was never sure, and better left to each persons imagination, which would then be a guaranteed selling point, since it was your own fantasy that fit you ...), keeps telling the quite "imperfect" devotee (and he never stopped delighting in telling us all what Bozos we were, especially the instructors) that they need to try harder to achieve an unachievable goal, the devotee (if they are true devotees) will implicitly listen to the guru and try harder....this perpetuates the guru-disciple relationship and guarantees that the devotee tries harder, always convinced that the "promised land" of experience is just around the corner.... When I started to understand just how rawat behaved off stage, and how imperfect he really was, and how screwed up he became if not continually on stage, the whole idea of a permanent experience simply unravelled in front of me...(Mike Dettmers accounts of rawats follies were especially revealing and helpful-I still chuckle over rawat getting Dettmers to start smoking cigarettes, Dettmers quitting, and rawat being jealous that he couldn't quit himself--oh well, so much for being "Balyogeshwar"-Born lord of the yogis)) When I stopped trying to gain this mythical peace or higher consciousness, I immediately felt more peaceful, happier, and more myself....peak experiences seem to come from everywhere, and I felt the wall of disconnect that I had constructed between myself, people and the world (remember, always keep maharaji between you and the world satsang?) disappear...suddenly there was nothing to 'attain', nowhere to go, nothing to be, and many things things seemed possible that didn't before...I felt that in leaving rawat I was closer to feeling what I wanted to feel than in staying...I saw that rawat was indeed a drag on my system--disempowering, infantile, silly and quite shallow....I think that his philosophy, derived from his life experience and world view, reflects that....he lives in an artificial bubble that neither he nor any one around him has the guts to pop....in other words, it doesn't play to well in "Peoria", or any where else besides India for that matter...it would be so much more "truthful" to pop the bubble, but then the whole game of 'truth seeking" would be over, and rawat would be out of a job and premies out a fantasy..... These states of consciousness come and go, and can be achieved by so many means...for me, the main hold that rawat had on me was the "Just around the corner" philosophy, combined with a healthy dose of fear if I left..... When I left, I "turned the corner", looked fear in the face, saw through rawat, and became a much more authentic and empowered person..... I encourage anyone else to do the same....
|
|
|
|
No ...that is so clear and accurate...thanks fot finding posting it. I fail to understand how any premie (monitors or whatever) could read that and still fail to 'get it'. Tim (idly reading the forum having been forcibly removed from watching the Man U match by wife who wanted to watch something else)
|
|
|
|
Not me, but I'd be pleased to have done so.
|
|
|
|
Hey Joe, I wrote this a few years ago, and thanks for putting it up there. It's a pretty clear description of what I went through upon leaving... Best wishes, La-ex
Modified by la-ex at Tue, Apr 10, 2007, 17:42:27
|
|
|
|
Well done, as usual, although I didn't realize it was from that long ago. So, LAX, how are you? I'm doing great.
|
|
|
|
Glad to hear you're doing well. I'm doing extremely well myself, have gotten married as well as starting a new career direction in the last few years. I'm continually amazed at reading these old posts...how did we ever swallow so much BS?...simply amazing... Will contact you if I ever get out to the west coast... LA
|
|
|
|
We all went wrong at the same spot. And it's our own fault. None of us can be faulted for being "spiritual seekers" in our late teens or early twenties. No human being can be faulted for going through a period of trying to figure out religious issues. Nor can anybody be faulted for wanting to join a group that promotes peace on earth and/or a supportive family-alternative. But speaking for myself, I identify the exact moment I went wrong, and in a manner that I can be faulted. It was when I chose to set my doubts aside for awhile, while I give something a try to see if it might work out. This very specific and voluntary action is where we all went wrong. This "giving-up" action is something that is required by Rawat in order to receive Knowledge. It is a universal aspect of cults and religions. It is human folly, and this is the aspect of human nature that we ex-cult members must fight against. So, when you come to this spot in the road, you should recognize it. It isn't difficult. There is a sign there, a very large sign. The road splits in two and each direction is clearly marked. On one road there is a sign marked WARNING: Down this road you can proceed only by giving up your discrimination and putting your trust in something or someone other than your own self. Unfortunately, there is another sign on that side of the road. It is the sign that the cult leader puts there. It says: "This way to Paradise." Only a fool makes the choice that we made. But at least we were not big enough fools to keep on truckin down that road when we ended up in a countryside that was most certainly not Paradise. At least we finally opened our eyes, and remembered ourselves. That road can lead to very, very bad places, to group suicide by kool-aid, for one example; or to murder and mass murder, for many examples. Or merely to long stretches of La-La-Land. In the case of Rawat, it leads to the middle of an onion field (the location of today's program in Bihar). There you are, sitting in an onion field with hundreds of thousands of poor, ignorant peasants, and there is Prem Rawat on his stage and his mug on a giant screen as he ad-libs to his own great satisfaction. You are sitting there listening. You're breathing and trying to convince yourself that your breath is the ultimate human fulfillment. You are a Westener and have disguised yourself as a native Indian. You have diarrhea like never before, but try not to notice. This is your Paradise. In reality, you have gone nowhere. You are still exactly where you were when you made the wrong turn in the road. You are afraid to consider such an embarrassing possibility. You have wasted your life so far. And you ain't gettin any younger.
Modified by Will at Fri, Apr 13, 2007, 16:31:41
|
|
|
|
What a post, Will 
Yes I too identified that point, sitting on a chair in a row in a hall listening to Rawat and thinking okay okay I'll give it a whirl, as you say I don't know what it's like unless I try it, so despite this not having made sense to me yet I will stop questioning and see what happens.
It was something I was talked into doing against my better judgement...maybe why so many join in their teens and early twenties but not in their thirties.
And indeed it did lead to that temporary paradise of a shared group high.
It's like treading on a banana skin!
I accepted the prevailing explanation without further question and wrote Rawat a free lunch ticket. Oh dear..
I had to laugh at your description of sitting in an onion field breathing attentively through the chilling discomforts of a day spent in the paradise Rawat offers.
Okay so they're not getting any younger, but really I think it's a case of one direction or the other, life in a cult might be repetitive but it is not static so who cares how old you are, being able to look forward to an improving experience of life has to be better than looking forward to more breathing....such a reductive philosophy, Rawatism, life no more than a dash (with a lot of breathing in it) between the events of birth and death, - ridiculous monster of a preacherman.
|
|
|
|
Excellent post as usual Will. I can identify my own point with absolute clarity, even though it happened 35 yrs ago, & 9 months after I got initiated.
|
|
|
