|
|
|
..this is now! Yes I remember some of those.I took them deeply to heart. I think that once you hook into a relationship with a guru you have to go where he leads you. Humiliating isnt it. What daddy said yesterday he said for your good and daddy knows best and you listen to what daddy says today and you will be alright! It really is like that for premie minds, now matter how groovy they try to be. Today Daddy has said he isnt daddy anymore, so thats the way it is. Always was too, because no one was really remembering what he said, just sort of being "inspired" by it. To remember you have to first observe consciously and in detail.The master moves too quickly to do that (all in the name of helping you defeat your own slippery fast mind of course) -you know a hint here, a seed there-let those who have eyes etc. Great formula for self-promotion among the slow witted or vulnerable. I am excited that "Daniella" is studying this forum. It makes me feel very important. A bit like staring back up the microscope. All the best Jethro. I found a picture I took of the inmates of Spencer Place in the back garden the other day. Trouble is it was framed on someone elses wall! Bryn
|
|
|
|
"..this is now!Yes I remember some of those" Yes it is now, I just wanted to check some of my memories. I don't take too much notice of Wiki, but premies revisionism always amazes me. David Irving is more up-front than this lot. Spencer place..now that's another story for another time ... All the best Bryn Jethro
|
|
|
|
Thats why premies dont care about their past. must dash
|
|
|
|
Sure he said those things. Something about turning everyone blue too. Yes, we should have those quotes, don't you think? They're about as close as the bombastic little prick got to having a hissy fit on stage and they definitely deserve a place around here somewhere.
|
|
|
|
During Kissimmee 1978 (the first one) he was very rough. I remember one particularly beautiful afternoon when he left premies sobbing from shame because he was so rough on us. People had to be counseled afterwards. He said we didn't have a right to listen to one word of his satsang, talk to him, or even look at him. Of course he was speaking in the third person, as usual, but... Now those satsangs would be good to have in the gallery. He was such a rotten little prick to us during that time.
|
|
|
|
I probably have audio tapes of them, maybe magazines. Does anyone know how to transfer audio tapes, video tapes, or film to the web? I have TONS of this stuff, including film.
|
|
|
|
....when Guru Maharaj Ji said...I think at the Palace of Peace around 1973/4 ....re: the wars and tension in the middle east " Who do you think stops the bombs from falling ?" and everyone cheered and applauded. Or am I hopelessly deluded? I think it's important to point out that IMO most premies really don't deny what happened and what was said in the past.I didn't anyway! Yes ,he said he was The Perfect Master ,Lord of Universe and all the rest.If he didn't say it directly then no matter ...it's definitely what we were all supposed to believe.We all know this.Longstanding premies all know this. It's absolutely what it was all about.There is no doubt in my mind or anybody elses IMO ;nor has there ever been !
Modified by Lexy at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 13:45:18
|
|
|
|
Lexy, ...but the question that Daniella and others are interested in is whether Rawat himself was responsible for faith in the LOTU or was it his family, his followers, the Mahatmas? (I know that Rawat often compared himself to Jesus Krishna etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.) Andries
|
|
|
|
Honestly Andries, anyone who would suggest that Rawat had NO responsibility in these matters is either in deep denial or horribly deluded.Such denial of what I know to have been historical fact offends me - almost to the same degree (I don't mean to offend by this) - but almost to the same degree as I am offended by David Irving's denial of historical fact. The aim of such revisionist propaganda is the same in both cases - to deceive and excuse. Those charged with propagating the revisionist version of events may not be aware of the deception they are being implicated in, but that's no defence.
Modified by cq at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 14:30:04
|
|
|
|
Of course, to deny all your testimonies would be as intellectually dishonest and insulting as a holocaust denial, but you have to understand that I am in a middle of a propaganda war. (I know that Rawat often compared himself to Jesus Krishna etc. ) In other words, I think that Rawat was/is responsible. Andries
|
|
|
|
Andries, the "war" you have put yourself in the middle of is not just about each side propagating its own version of events. At some point there has to be consensus about historical fact. You are indeed acting as "go-between", but please don't forget that when you put the point of view of those who would deny Rawat's responsibility - albeit as a "go-between" - you run the risk of appearing to ally yourself to the POV of those (unwitting? who knows?) revisionists. If I suggested to you that Satya Sai Baba had no responsibility for the damage he has caused, you might be offended too. No?
|
|
|
|
Chris It will be clear that I am very offended by the New York Times article about SSB that states that he is involved in charity and teaches peace without mentioning the dark side. And yes, I am offended when all the suffering and harm that I and others have experienced is minimized or omitted from the SSB story or when the stories of critical former followers are treated with excessive skepticism without good reason. But many people here are not writing here under their real names. Or at least I do not know them. Then how do I get to know the historical facts? Andries
|
|
|
|
Hi Andrias Most people here are indeed writing under their real names .and you surely , have all the historical facts at your hand . Poul Persson ( Denmark )
Modified by Poul at Mon, Feb 27, 2006, 15:05:49
|
|
|
|
Hi Poul many thanks for your name. The only dispute left with the quote that you gave is whether he referred to himself when he spoke of "Guru Maharaj Ji" or to his father. Here is what the Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg writes about Maharaji's claims of divinity. "She [his mother] disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued independently, though with less pretentions than in the past: he did not speak with divine terms about himself, but called himself 'humanitarian leader' " "Zij [zij moeder] onterfde hem spiritueel, in feite werd hij de beweging uitgezet. Maharaji ging zelfstandig verder, zij het met minder pretenties dan voorheen. Zo sprak hij sindsdien niet meer in goddelijke termen over zichzelf, maar noemde zich 'humanitarian leader' " Encyclopedia of Neo-Hindu movements in the Netherlands page 178 What did you think of the documentary about SSB if you saw it? Thanks Andries
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries I can only think Kranenborg is a premie or a fool ,its the same thing really . Everyone whoever was involvet in the cult surely knows that Kranenborgs statements are desperatly wrong , just remember the cult dogma and how this dogma did not give any credit to dead masters at all , the point was and still is : Dead masters are indeed dead ,this is the time of completly new rules and the master makes them and change them - and only the living perfect master of our time - bla. bla . bla ,knows - and so on and on , forever - Offcourse he was not , in any way , speaking about his father shri Hans , he stressed the point about the divine meaning of a real and alive living master, who was here with us , rigth now , on this earth , in almost every satsang he gave . Yes i saw the documentary about SSB , and if i ever had any good feelings towards Shri Baba and his movement , it is all gone now . Poul
|
|
|
|
Bhurr, I don't need to watch any TV program or read anything about SB. I have met enough of his devotees who are openly proud about the honour of having SB touch up their kids. In that respect SB devotees are more honest than Prem Rawatt's followers (premies) in that they do not lie about their beliefs, as premies do. According to an early premie in the USA, Sai Baba's organisation in the USA used to let DLM use their places for satsang in the very early years. I am sure Sai and Prem have a lot in common. Maybe they should do a workshop for all God incarantes ....
Modified by Jethro at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 00:01:31
|
|
|
|
Here is what the Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg writes about Maharaji's claims of divinity. "She [his mother] disinherited him spiritually. In fact, he was expelled from the movement. Maharaji continued independently, though with less pretentions than in the past: he did not speak with divine terms about himself, but called himself 'humanitarian leader' " After all this time and all the evidence you've been shown do you think this is true, Andries? If not, why did you post it?
|
|
|
|
No, it is not true and it is inaccurately worded by Kranenborg who knows better: he wrote another article about the DLM in which he contradicts what he wrote hereabove. The reason why I posted it here was because I was looking for the historical facts about Rawat's claims about himself. Please remember that I do not consider anonymous testimonies here as valid evidence. My e-mail is andrieskd AT yahoo DOT com for anybody who wants to reveal her or his real name to me. Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 11:35:15
|
|
|
|
It's easy to see how Herr Kranenborg made this mistake. He reads that the mother disinherits ahim and short-term superficial research based upon media reports or DLM publications call him a humanitarian leader. However, this PR campaign only lasted a short period and then we really got into a devotional period during which Prem Rawat really stressed himself as LOTU to his followers.
|
|
|
|
The two points you raise are very different issues Andries.I don't have a link to the New York Times article about SSB you refer to, and I've not read it. Until I do, would it be fair to assume that it evades many of the controversial aspects of SSB's claim to fame? But what's that got to do with the fact that people are not writing on this Forum using their real names? I personally have done so - even given my postal and email addresses. That was about five years ago, when such bravado was being encouraged. The past half-decade has taught a lot of people - myself included - the folly of doing that. Nowadays, Identity theft isn't something to risk, if at all possible. Historical facts? Well - how are we to know what is any historical fact? For instance, the version that DLM gave in the mid-1970s about their guru - is that fact? All we can say - from a non-committal/neutral point of view - is that DLM (under the command of Guru Maharaj Ji / Prem Rawat) said ... "this and that" ... about himself and his "mission". And if Elan Vital now wants to deny their history, who should try to stop them? Who COULD?
|
|
|
|
Postings that are anonymous cannot serve as evidence to determine historical facts. You can say that you were there that you saw it, but what kind of value has that for me as evidence when I do not know your real name? Next to nothing. You can write me an e-mail if you want to andrieskd at yahoo dot com. Andrie
|
|
|
|
The references I gave you are to published works, Andries.My own personal evidence is simply given as a true account of what I witnessed. Unlike Rawat, I cannot afford to put my own experience into print. And are you suggesting that my personal experience is only validated if it's been published?
|
|
|
|
Your personal experience cannot serve as evidence for me if I do not know your real name. My e-mail is andrieskd AT yahoo DOT com Andries
|
|
|
|
>but you have to understand that I am in a middle of a propaganda war< Andries propaganda war suggests two sides equally engaged in a conflict based upon the distortion of truth. While various ex premies have added material to the Wikipedia articles, I do not see where exs have engaged in propoganda. The validity of ex testimony can be challenged in terms of inaccuracy, misunderstanding or whatever - but it is only the pro Rawat side that is engaged in propoganda - they after all have a cause to fight for. Your tanacity in sticking with the Rawat article is admirable but I really think that attempting to treat sock puppets like Daniella as though they are contributing with academic rigour will lead you to madness ! Daniella's claim to be writing a paper is absurd - no paper written with the obvious bias of that Wiki contributor would pass even the most basic peer review. And even at the level of an Adult Ed. class the bias would fail the paper. Under the most pathetic circumstance - vanity publishing of the paper - Daniella has already undermined all validity that his/her paper could have had, by engaging in a derogatory assessment of the subject that he/she claims to be writing about. Jossi et al are not interested in any 'truth'. For them Wikipedia is just a means to an end - that is the assurrance of a high Google rating for a pro Rawat link. Wikipedia and Wikiquote are simply marketing canvasses on which anyone who has a product that is search engine sensitive, now has to ensure 'text' and 'image' domination. Andries you are doing a great job in trying to keep Rawat's advertising 'honest' but don't lose sight of the fact that on the Rawat wiki article you are trading words with the moral equivalent of a group selling a 'time share' scam. Nik
|
|
|
|
Andries, Do you think these guys really question that? Kind of along the same vein, do you think Jossi really questioned whether or not Rawat called himself Perfect Master? Or do you think, rather, that they are exercising blatant sophistry of the worst kind? What do you think of Holocaust deniers, Andries? Do you see any similiarities at play here? By the way, would you please respond with a full thought and not a terse, tight-lipped word on the subject as you seem wont to do when it comes to Wikipedia? Thanks, Jim P.S. Listen to the wav file Galler put up! 
|
|
|
|
Come on , Andries - here you go: | | Guru Maharaj Ji. The Lord. All-powerful. .... To be here as individuals
and yet to be able to be next to
the person who is everything;
in which everything is, and he
is in everything. Guru Maharaj Ji.
The Lord. All-powerful." |
|
|
|
|
|
Was Prem Rawat responsible for the LOTU belief system.
On one hand, of course not. He was born into a family who were in the LOTU business, whether as a religion they believed in completely, or one they were using to make a very comfortable living and I'd say nearly certainly they believed in it.
At the age of 8 he was proclaimed the LOTU, the Perfect Master, the Satguru and what possible reason would he have for not believing it when his mother and his father's devotees said it, acted like they believed it and he said he had a supernatural experience in which he was told by "the voice" that he was the one.
Unfortunately he didn't receive the long education in the "Sant" spiritual path that his father received. It is irrelevant whether you believe this religion has any validity. He was a child who was being educated in a Catholic School and his "spiritual" training was deficient. He basically only knew what he'd picked up listening to his father so his spiritual education was very small. He loosed the chains of parental control at 13 or so and has only ever surounded himself with yes-men since and judging by his 70's satsangs his further education was received via cable TV.
On the other hand his satsangs up until 1982 constantly reiterated that faith in LOTU and if anything became more rabid and reeking of megalomania as the years went on - 1978 and 1979 especially and we have much documentary evidence for that. See http://www.ex-premie.org and http://gallery.forum8.org/
|
|
|
|
>I know thatRawat often compared himself to Jesus Krishna etc. ) In other words, I think that Rawat was/is responsible. < Andries I think your perspective on rawat is colored by your experience with SSB. My impression from what you have written is that SSB was fond of in-your-face claims about himself, such as the above. But this is not rawat's style at all, at least not in public. Rawat eschews claims about himself in favor of claims about the Knowledge. He leaves it to the listener to put two and two together. He says that there is only one perfect master at any one time. He says that the test of the perfect master is whether he can give you a direct experience of god ("show you god face to face" is the way he liked to put it). If asked, he would affirm that his Knowledge was such a direct experience. But if challenged to say whether he is the perfect master, he would just mutter something about being a servant or doing service to his father, and say that it was up to the individual to decide whether he was the PM or not. Similarly, to my knowledge he never claimed to be a reincarnation of Krishna (!) or Jesus. But he did claim that they gave the same Knowledge that he gives. So, if they were unique perfect masters of their time by virtue of giving K, and rawat also gives the same K, what does that make rawat? Trying to judge rawat by the claims he makes about himself seems a serious misunderstanding of his MO. All his claims are mediated by the Knowledge. Unlike SSB, the K isn't just some optional extra that comes along with rawat the master. He derives his whole justification from that Knowledge. If you want to know why otherwise sensible people were attracted to him, don't look for some kind of charismatic personality, glittering intellect or profound wisdom. Look at what he and his followers were saying about K. Don't judge rawat by what he says about himself, but what he says about the Knowledge. That is the key! Most ex-premies have realized that what rawat is really selling is the guru-disciple relationship, and in that sense rawat is similar to SSB; but even that relationship is mediated by Knowledge. Premies know that rawat doesn't know them personally; but they believe that through K they have a special mystical relationship with him. You seem to have been gulled by SSB on the basis of claims that he could do miracles. To test these claims all you need to do is check out whether they really occurred or whether they were just magic tricks. Rawat's con is much more subtle, because he invites people to convince themselves about who he is, by persuading them that the experience they have in meditation is a divine confirmation of his status. For premies, the more rawat denies any special status, they more this confirms the specialness of their secret. And probably apologists for rawat love debating whether rawat claimed this or that about himself: it beautifully misses the point. rob
|
|
|
|
I wanted to say something like that myself, but you said it so much better.
There is way too much focus on the claims of divinity when the real con is much more subtle. The follower is invited to convince himself of Rawat's divinity. This was and still is the the essence of Rawatism. This hasn't changed at all in spite of the fact that Rawat has been much more discreet in claims about himself since the 80s. If this area would be explored more, then the exposure of Rawat for what he is would be a lot stronger and more revealing I believe. Even today he makes claims about himself in terms of knowledge which say it all.
What is necessary for this belief in the follower to develop is of course a very certain interpretation of the experience of meditation and Rawat's role in it, and that is what the keys and all the other propaganda are about.
|
|
|
|
Hi Rob and Aunt BeaYes, both of you are spot on, that is exactly how it was *and* still is. The aspirant or premie is invited to make the connection that Maharaji is the Lord using pretty elementary logic: The Knowledge is the ultimate that can only be given and made to work by the grace of the living Lord, and Maharaji is giving it. Who is Maharaji? That is for you to discover (nudge nudge, wink wink). I never heard Maharaji actually say 'I am the Lord' or 'I am God incarnate'. But I certainly heard many many premies say that (including myself ad nauseam), and when asked if he was, he would always give an evasive answer that was clear to the cognescenti that he was (just so modest and oh so merciful not to blast our heads with saying it outright!). These facts are indisputable: -- Throughout the 70's and early 80's the vast majority of premies thought he was the Lord, the Perfect Master, the Guru who was greater than God; -- Maharaji's organizations, such as Divine Light Mission, actively promoted this belief, whether through influential speakers (mahatmas) or in their publications; -- Maharaji himself actively supported this belief by (a) never denying it, (b) making innuendos and implying on many occasions that he was, (c) using elementary logic about his 'perfect gift' of the 'perfect Knowledge', and (d) talking about himself in the third person such as 'Guru Maharaji is all-powerful' and the like. And yes Aunt Bea you are quite right that 'is what the keys and all the other propaganda are about'. The length of time needed to listen to Maharaji's talks on video or DVD is simply so that the wannabe premie can soak up the message, and avail him/herself of that invite to join the dots and make the connection as to who they must accept Maharaji really is before they can get Knowledge. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Mike wrote, "Maharaji himself actively supported this belief by (a) never denying it," This should be, I think, Maharaji himself actively supported this belief by (a) never denying it unless explicitly asked" Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 11:46:44
|
|
|
|
No Andries:This should be, I think, Maharaji himself actively supported this belief by (a) never denying it unless explicitly asked He did not deny even when explicitly asked. I can't say he has never denied it, but many times I heard him being asked if he was the Lord, or some such, and he always evaded denying it. He would always give some answer that to the cognescenti would mean that he was. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/whoisgmj.htm Receiving Knowledge - Guru Maharaj Ji, are you God?
- No. My Knowlege is God.
I think that Rawat apologists put all the denials that Rawat made during his whole life in the Wikipedia article. I know that I may come across arrogant if I try to correct you in a matter to which you devoted so much of your time and life, but please take into account that I have been arguing for years about Rawat in Wikipedia. Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 13:35:15
|
|
|
|
>- Guru Maharaj Ji, are you God?
- No. My Knowlege is God. And even on that one occasion, it was still 'my' Knowledge, (not just a knowledge that anyone can provide) that was 'God'. ie., God was powerless to reveal himself without Prem's agency, and thus, for all intents and purposes, Prem was God for the likes of you and me. The only other time I remember Rawat denying that he was God was when he said 'Guru is greater than God'. To Mike: That's an important point I don't remember anyone else spelling out so neatly. It may be tricky to tease out an unequivocal, non-slippery claim of M's to being God, but it is nigh-impossible to locate an outright denial. Excellent! Was that inductive or deductive logic? I sometimes forget which is which  But good science, either way.. Nige
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 14:43:33
|
|
|
|
The thing is Andries, that there now exists 40 years of Rawat saying all kinds of things and specifically answering this question. I would venture to guess that he has never answered the question the same twice. Even saying that he is just a humble servant of God is a weird answer, and even the answer that you give, which perhaps seems direct is weird.
First of all, how does the situation even arise that someone is motivated to ask such a crazy question. How many times have people asked you that question for example?
So the fact that people even ask the question shows that there is some pretext that he is making the claim. And then, if it was just a ludicrous question, as it of course ultimately is, then the answer is simply flat out, "no, that is ridiculous, of course I'm not God." But he doesn't say that does he? He says, No, my Knowledge is God. Well what exactly does that mean? What does that make him as the giver of God. He also says "my" Knowledge. Does that make him the owner of God? Does he own Knowledge or is he its stewart? Why does he have a monopoly on the Knowledge of God?
And how does he know that his Knowledge is God? That alone says alot. If someone "knows" that his special thing that he teaches is God, what is he saying about himself.
So really, that answer does absolutely nothing to clarify the situation, it makes it more ambiguous and opens the door for many more questions. And the situation will never be clarified by him, at least not in the negative. He will never say, come on, this is ridiculous I am not God, I'm no different than anyone else. His whole position is based on being something special. The moment that it isn't, his whole business collapses like a house of cards.
His answer that you cite sounds like a no, but it is far from it.
|
|
|
|
Dan T., and Nigel, You make good points that I did not think of. Is it just my impression or is it true that this forum has become very lively? I am sorry for not answering all the many questions yet, but there is to much to do and so much to think about. Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 14:02:57
|
|
|
|
First of all, how does the situation even arise that someone is motivated to ask such a crazy question. How many times have people asked you that question for example?
Such an obvious point yet one that so easily gets lost in the mix. Like, duh!!
|
|
|
|
>First of all, how does the situation even arise that someone is motivated to ask such a crazy question. How many times have people asked you that question for example? Best forum post ever, perhaps. (No, the best was by thingummy on forum 3 talking about whatsit back in the last century... who was it again?) Second best forum post ever? If only for this sentence: >First of all, how does the situation even arise that someone is motivated to ask such a crazy question. How many times have people asked you that question for example? Wonderful! And one more time... >First of all, how does the situation even arise that someone is motivated to ask such a crazy question. How many times have people asked you that question for example?
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 18:12:36
|
|
|
|
Hi Andries,
In Rawatism there is always a distinction made between GOD (Generator, Operator, Destroyer, Holy Name, the Primordial Vibration, The energy that is keeping you alive, etc, etc) ie Brahman and the present living incarnation, the avatar, the Satguru, the Perfect Master, the manifestation, the LOTU. Yes he denied being God but did he ever deny being Guru Maharaj Ji, the Perfect Master, etc?
|
|
|
|
it is also pretty strange. Everywhere else in the English language there isn't a distinction, as in "I am the Lord thy God".
Of course both words have have other meanings, as we all know, but this is just a silly mind fuck that premies and Rawat like to play on. It has no real meaning and is just a way to squirm around giving a straight answer.
But there is perhaps something more behind it. Like how do they know that God is energy. Because they have "that understanding". And how do they have "that understanding", because Rawat told them so. And how does he know? Because he knows what God is. Well how does he know that then? Oh yeah, because he is the LOTU.
Modified by aunt bea at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 16:03:53
|
|
|
|
Of course there's a distinction, especially in Christianity where exactly what those words meant in relation to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost set up a killing frenzy that lasted for centuries if not millenia.
It wasn't just a way to squirm around up front questions, it was part of an ancient religious tradition that states that God "incarnates" on Earth through history to have a direct spiritual influence on humanity. Rawatism has a pretty simplistic but quite orthodox concept about this.
Remember it wan't just about understanding this because you were being told, you were meant to have a direct, undeniable, incredible, divine experience of this in meditation. That was going to be the proof but as it didn't happen it got transformed into your devotion to Prem Rawat being the experience and the proof.
|
|
|
|
The normal joe on the street understands the two words synonymously. In Judaism they are also used that way. I have heard some Christians make a distinction, but really most that I know understand it as God the father and God the son. They aren't killing each other these days about it. I think a lot don't like using the term "GOD" because of that old Yahweh thing, like your not supposed to say the guy's name, so they prefer to say "praise da lawd" instead of "praise gawd", though you'll here the latter as well on occasion. But in the end all these Christian types certainly understand the idea of "Da Lawd" as being God, so really what's the difference? Jesus is Lawd and God all rolled up into one juicey tootsie roll. Or is that a Twinkie?
|
|
|
|
"Yes he denied being God but did he ever deny being Guru Maharaj Ji, the Perfect Master, etc?" He never denied this. As late as 2005 he referred to himself as "Master" at premie only events. Kabir
|
|
|
|
hello Kabir, as Maharaji has said, I am not God my Knowledge is God! How we define God surely is entirely up to each indivudial! I know God is an experience which Maharaji revealed to me 33yrs ago! i always knew there was a God and Maharaji simply showed me how to stay in touch with that experience within me, simple as that!I have no problem with Maharaji being the Master of what he does, do you Kabir?everyone is good at something, dont u agree Kabir? my Mother brought up 10 children and she was great at the job. Apparently the Masters of the past did a fine job too! take care Kabir and best wishes. julie
|
|
|
|
I took "knowledge" in 1973, and you're right, he did once say that his "Knowledge" was God. And to judge the tree by its fruit.But I find it difficult to reconcile that with the fact that (via Elan Vital) he's now saying that "his" Knowledge has "nothing to do with spirituality or religion" Can both angles be true? If so, I'd love to know how.
|
|
|
|
Hello cq, Knowledge has nothing to do with spirituality or religion I agree with that and not because Maharaji may have said, because i know it to be true. Religions are based on masters who have come on the earth in the past as is spirituality. the knowledge of God is based on each individuals own personal experience from practising! Iknow when i practise singing or playing an instrument i play and sing better, so can you see how both angles can be true Cq. love and best wishes Julie
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to ask you one question. Do you look upon Maharaji as being the Lord? As being the living lord today on this planet? I'd really appreciate your perspective on this. Thanks! Stardust
|
|
|
|
AndriesI remember this actual exchange being discussed. Maharaji was asked privately why he denied being God. He did not answer, but Sampurnanand (now dead, but then one of the top mahatmas) answered (in Maharaji's hearing) 'that is correct, he is not God but is greater than God, because Guru leads you to God'. I can't swear to the exact words, but something like that. In any case, the fact that Maharaji as Guru was 'greater than God' was a favorite line for several years, and was often quoted in satsang. No you are not arrogant. The question is not really an academic exercise to find attributable quotes where it can be proved that Maharaji said he was God. The exercise is to stop pretend-academics showing that what was common knowledge and commonly accepted, as I indicate in my post above, was denied by Maharaji. Even when he appeared to deny it, as in your quote, it was only an appearance, and not a real denial. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
In other words the issue is not: Did he claim to be God or God-like, the Lord etc?The issue is: Did he allow those claims by others (his senior followers, his organizations etc) made on his behalf to pass, or did he deny them? One or two denials is not enough; did he on balance allow the claim to pass unchallenged over many years? The answer is clear: he allowed the claims, he supported them surreptitiously, and even his few denials were camouflaged to be acceptances of the claim to those in the know. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
(might take a wee while to load)
.
.
.
. 
Modified by cq at Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 06:28:13
|
|
|
|
rgj, with regards to the explicit extraordinary claims made about himself, SSB is the exception. Few gurus go so far and are so explicit as SSB. And even in the case of SSB his claims of personal divinity are toned down by saying that yes, he is God, but everybody is God too, but only he is fully aware of it. And yes, SSB sometimes spoke about himself in the third person too. (Check Brian Steel's website about this.) It is more common from what I have read and heard that the leader only makes suggestions, strong suggestions but leaves the conclusion to the (potential) followers. (Kranenborg and Rothstein "New religions in a Postmodern World" In the case of SSB it is not true that all miracles can be explained easily with magic. For example, one miracle related to SSB happened in the village where I grew up! Experiences of miracles make it extremely difficult for followers to believe that the materializations are done by sleight of hand and that the testimonies of sexual abuse by SSB are true. One of the main reasons why I trusted SSB was because I used the rule of the thumb that one knows a prophet by his fruits. And I thought that the fruits when I looked at the charity was good and I saw nothing negative. Anyway, thanks for your explanation about the importance of Knowledge which is different from the SSB movement that also advocates certain meditation techniques, but "keeping in touch", keeping the techniques secret, and initiation to learn the techniques are not necessary in the SSB movement. Andries
|
|
|
|
All I remember Maharaji saying was he could put a rainbow in the sky, just like that (click!) turn the motorway around (click!) and bring the whole of humanity to his feet, right here, right now (click!) - if he wanted to. Guess he never wanted to. Have you checked your sources? Personal memories don't count any more. I can totally relate to your Bobby/Dallas reference, Jeth. I just wish I could wake up one glad sunny morning and realise my Rawat-fixation episode was all a bad dream while I was in shower, and no years wasted...
|
|
|
