|
|
|
Thanks Gallery, pretty clear as usual.The thing that I don't understand is WHY are Jossi and Elan Vital and current premie honchos, yes and Maharaji himself, trying to hide all this? To all the many thousands of premies who lived through those times, of *course* he was Lord of the Universe. You can have so called academics (NRM types) and the whole Wiki attempt at NPOV (neutral point of view, which is in fact a very distinct and clear point of view) plus premies who were not there at that time (including of course Jossi and presumably Daniella) trying to prove it did not happen. But why? If Maharaji and his public relation people just admitted it: 'yes, that was the vibe at the time, but it was the 70's you know when all kind of stuff like that was happening, and I am sorry for laying such a trip on you but I have left all that behind now...' then he would have a much more easy time. From the emails I get and the people I talk with, it is the deception, the revisionism, which turns them off most. Why does M and his sidekicks put themselves into this weird position? It is such a public relations mistake. Having asked the question, here is my own answer: It is *because* he is still viewed as the Lord!! As the Lord, he cannot make any mistakes of course, so to admit his whole spiel throughout the 70's and early 80's was mistaken is impossible. Now for a real live genuine inspirational speaker, and only that, it would be no problem: 'Yes, I made a mistake, but I was as trapped by the whole Indian guru thing as you guys were...' would buy him a whole lot of credibility. But as the Lord still, he can't admit that he ever said he was the Lord. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
": 'Yes, I made a mistake, but I was as trapped by the whole Indian guru thing as you guys were...' would buy him a whole lot of credibility. But as the Lord still, he can't admit that he ever said he was the Lord." What a hypocrite he is. I remember him saying "If you want the gift of devotion, you must start with honesty first". I suppose he still thinks that rest of the human race are fools. Be well, Jethro
|
|
|
|
When first we practice to deceive."
Pride ?
Arrogance ?
Desperation ?
Maybe he spends so much time lying to himself he no longer has a clue what's real and what's not?
Fascinating the other week, round at a mates, he came up as a spin-off topic. My mate asks if there is any video of his on the net so he can see him for himself. We go to the keys site
So the first few minutes when he's at his calmest and blandest, pretty innofensive, then the voice starts rising, the finger starts wagging, the hand movements start all over the place, warning signs by the bucketload.
Then my mate comes up with a classic.
"He so wants to be the Dalai Lama, but he's got no class."
I reckon pride, he knows he couldn't get away with the old spiel in this day and age, but his pride is so enormous, and he's been surrounded by yes men all his life, so amongst all the debris of the years, and the failure of his mission, all he's got left is his pride.
If he can lie and get away with it, then he still has some power.
I dunno, just can't imagine where his psychology is after years of fawning, saying black is white and everyone having to believe him, no proper peer recognition etc etc
And more importantly no semblance of a social life with equals.
A curious existence
|
|
|
|
Scratch the surface of the average premie and you'll still find someone who regards M as God. Alongside this, they've now got to do all this frantic denial. So they know--absolutely know--that they're lying, not just about the past, but about the present as well. Neville B
|
|
|
|
I have little to add to what Mike, Jethro, Neville, and Hamzen have already written. I think the way of reasoning of people who were not there is as follows. Please correct me if I am wrong and do not shoot the messenger please. Rawat cannot speak about himself when he compares himself with "another Perfect Master", like Krishna, because this logically contradicts his repeated denials of being God.
I know what to think of this way of reasoning, but I first want to hear the opinions of others. Mike, I do not agree that the Perfect Master and guru stuff is something of the seventies. It happened after that too and it is still happening here in the Netherlands with other gurus, though less conspicuous. People who are not involved are nowadays generally indifferent. This contrasts with the public attitude towards the DLM in the Netherlands during the 1970s and 1980s which was quite negative, I read in the book by Jan van der Lans. Andries
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 12:07:00
|
|
|
|
Rawat cannot speak about himself when he compares himself with "another Perfect Master", like Krishna, because this logically contradicts his repeated denials of being God. As far as I'm concerned, Rawat did not at all repeatedly deny being God. Rather he played the coy game well-demonstrated in the Alta Loma satsang I linked to earlier. I do agree that he did this to make us premies feel like we were specially privileged and in the know but that the game was transparent. And let's not forget, for all his peek-a-boo mugging about whether or not he was God, he was hardly demur when it came to being Guru Maharaj Ji. After all, as Chris reminded us with that introduction to And it is Divine, that's how he signed his name! But I think the reason he talked about Guru Maharaj Ji, the Lord, the Perfect Master, that Creator, our Saviour and the like in the third person was just that it was a conventional rhetorical device.
|
|
|
|
>But I think the reason he talked about Guru Maharaj Ji, the Lord, the Perfect Master, that Creator, our Saviour and the like in the third person was just that it was a conventional rhetorical device. Plus it is probably the only way, when you are (or are pretending to be) God in Human Form, of appearing 'a humble servant of humanity' - a mere accident of cosmic circumstance that you have been blessed by, but never asked for?
|
|
|
|
What was it that JC replied to Pilate?Rawat/Maharaj received a major part of his education at a Catholic school (in Dehradun). He would have known that the story goes that, when questioned by Pilate, the "Chosen One" (the "Perfect Master" in Rawat's terms) remained silent. And what is truth? Apparently the one who Pilate questioned remained silent. According to whom?
|
|
|
|
That's very far fetched Chris.
I remember that Drek said his sister visited that school & asked the headmaster about Prem. Apparently the lad was an unremarkable student & a trifle spoilt to boot. There was no mention of any preternatural attentiveness in the RE lessons.
I'd say that it was his mother & his close babysitters, Jagdeo, Sampuranand, Charnanand, who drummed into him the neccessity of avoiding the 'I' word from the age of 6 or whenever it was.
Maybe it just isn't socially acceptable, even in India where Incarnations are ten a penny, to go around saying so up front. I wouldn't know. This guru /sant mat business still remains something which it's very difficult to get a handle on. However, from what we know of its origins in the middle C19th, it has more to do with speculative scientific theories then current, than with Catholic Christianity in its private school manifestation, in the middle of the C20th.
|
|
|
|
The Pilate/JC reference wasn't meant too seriously, though I could have made that clearer. What was it that Pilate said he was?Anyway - the story I heard in my premie days was that Sant Mat had it in for DLM in a big way. The reason was never fully explained, but it was made clear that there was certainly bad blood between the two.
Modified by cq at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 13:14:52
|
|
|
|
...the story I heard in my premie days was that Sant Mat had it in for DLM in a big way....
I heard that too, but Sant Mat (I think) is just a collection of loose congregations who've spent the last 150 yrs disputing with one another over who owns what, both spiritual & temporal. Wasn't it the Arayah Samaj (sp) that really got into the fisticuffs with Shri Hans' devotees? This org was one of the foundations of the Indian Independence movement around 100 yrs ago.....my, my, how time flies...& saw the Sant Mat/ Rhadasoamis as Uncle Toms who had shat on the pure Hindu belief in an unshakeable caste system, amongst other things.
I put it down to one of those ironies of history that we got conned by an offshoot of something which was once (& possibly still is) a dynamic modernising force in an otherwise rigid society.
|
|
|
|
Laurie thinks that the reason Rawat always used the third person was simply because it takes a pretty brazen person to actually mouth the words "I am God" when they know they're not. Oh there might be times when they actually summon the steam to make such a ridiculous pronouncement but, for the most part, even if their whole trip is to seduce people into thinking they're divine, it's just one hell of a mouthful. You know, I think that's pretty good. For a non-premie at least. 
|
|
|
|
Let me correct that. Laurie is always right.
By using the third person when making grand proclamations about himself, he creates a certain distance that doesn't come off so utterly, well what's the word, pompous to the tenth power. Is there a word for that?
He is in that moment talking about the "office" of Guru Maharaji and not his magnificent humbleness on a personal level.
No biggie really. People do it all the time. In fact I even do come to think of it. I say to my customers, "we" when actually I could just as well be saying "I", but it sounds mo better, as in, "we have determined it necessary to raise our prices by 200%". Or when the boss has bad news, he might say, "the management has decided that there will be no raises this year." The third person singular is less vague though. Like if George Bush said, "it is the president's responsibility to be a voice of leadership in difficult times." And the most vague is when you leave out the actor completely, as in "it has been said, that when darkness prevails, the perfect master comes in human form".
Kings like to do it, at least Yul Brenner did. I remember him saying, "as it is written, so shall it be done." What did that mean actually?
And didn't Jesus talk about the "son" in the third person? Okay, I know, I'm going home now.
Modified by aunt bea at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 15:55:55
|
|
|
|
I remember being very confused by that third-person voice that Rawat used, when I was new to knowledge. My brains were scrambled by it (admittedly not a hard thing to do!) but it WAS a source of confusion. Was he or wasn't he "maharaji" himself? Never mind the God question. But like so many, I learned to absorb this because everyone around me seemed to be so sure, for one thing. And secondly, the onus was put on me to surrender and have faith and believe and see and say that, yes, it was himself he was talking about! It served his purposes very well (whatever his intention or socialisation was to begin with) because by saying to us essentially "Who do you say that I am" it's up to us to agree or disagree--and who would want to (when you are a new premie or even and old one) dare to assume that you can tell who is God or not, or who is The Living Perfect Master, or not! Doublespeak, for sure. It really isn't about whether any human being is God, or whether any human being can be a perfect devotee! It isn't even about language. It's pure duplicity and cowardice! ~Shelagh, so glad to be back in the ordinary world of Mondays and Tuesdays!
|
|
|
|
It has never really made sense to me why he just doesn't say some version of what you said If Maharaji and his public relation people just admitted it: 'yes, that was the vibe at the time, but it was the 70's you know when all kind of stuff like that was happening, and I am sorry for laying such a trip on you but I have left all that behind now...'
Do you think maybe the biggest reason is fear of lawsuits?
|
|
|
|
I'm sure fear of lawsuits is a factor, Susan. A big factor. Maybe a bigger factor (as hamzen suggested below) is pride. If he's not the living incarnation of God on earth in the (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) dewey eyes of his followers, then he's nothing. He's unqualified to teach, has no charisma for newcomers, and can't even construct a persuasive form of words to present his message. If he isn't God, what is his message? If cognitive dissonance was a hard one to deal with for exes, how much tougher for the guru when confronting the reality that he's just another human being with no special talent? And if 'pride comes before a fall', then it's safest to stick with the pride for as long as possible, gather a nest egg for your luxury retirement in the South Pacific whilst keeping those chubby, wagging fingers well crossed from now on..
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Feb 28, 2006, 13:29:16
|
|
|
|
John MacGregor's treatment at the hands of Rawat and his lawyers being a case in point. Rawat has proved that he - via those agents who are willing to accept his money - can destroy the career of even a legit journalist - an award-winning one at that too. Or will that prove to be a case of "Give a man enough rope ...?"
|
|
|
|
The lawsuit question was more Susan's than mine, though I suspect EV would be nervous about any potential claim against Rawat, if it were lodged in the USA and had sufficient financial backing to go the distance. Any press attention could damage him badly, as it has in the past. But you're right about John MacGregor, of course. Thanks to the web, however that case turns out, the cult's style of operation when under fire is now on permanent record, so maybe the 'give 'em enough rope' manoevre will do the Indian rope trick for us in the long run?
|
|
|
|
I think Rawat is incapable of admitting error, especially when it comes to his role as perfect master and what he's done in that regard. Has anybody ever heard him ever do it? I think to him, admitting error in being the perfect master is just beyond possibility. It just can't happen. If Rawat commits an error, the universe (and especially all the premies), have to carry on the facade that no mistake ever happened or it was somebody else's mistake, or, as most premies do, you pretend you don't see the issue and/or don't care. It's mad, that's what it is.
|
|
|
|
Not sure if that counts as a personality disorder.
There is a definition of introverts and extroverts that I like, from Dorothy Rowe: http://www.dorothyrowe.com.au/dr_faq.htm#item5
She defines introverts and extroverts as to where they feel reality lies, inside them or outside them. According to her definition ( not sure if this is just her, or it is more mainstream - I am no psychiatrist ), introverts regard their internal reality as more real than what goes on around them. So when something goes wrong, introverts are more likely to blame things outside of themselves rather than question their own internal reality. If Rawat is an extreme introvert, it would explain how he can never admit to a mistake. And I guess the most extreme introvert would be a Perfect Master.
Maybe someone else has looked into what Dorothy Rowe says more thoroughly than me. She seems a rare thing - a down-to-earth shrink with zero tolerance for bollocks.
|
|
|
|
Or maybe anti-social personality, but if you read books like the Guru Papers they talk about the cult leader as a sorf of personality disorder. Rawat has willing followers who will cover for him, of course, and he is surrounded by sychophants to try to protect him from ever having to admit a mistake, and if somebody doesn't follow the line, like Donner, Dettmers, Mishler, etc., they are banished. They, and their pesky tendency to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, cannot be tolerated. So, I think with Rawat it is a mental disease. Remember how Rawat used to carry on all the time about how confused "the world" and "human beings" are? I think this came from the fact that he couldn't be protected from everything and found the world outside his controlled world painful because it tended to mirror his shortcomings. His tendency to rage at people and to banish them, I think, are symptoms of the personality disorder he has.
|
|
|
|
You remind me of his rant at Kissimee, when he convinced quite a few that they were not worthy to be on the same planet as him. Unfortunately, I wasn't quite persuaded at the time, and wasted a few more years playing follow the leader. His raging and ranting I could tolerate. Those soft focus slide shows, the poetry, the lovey dovey gentle pleading - that was harder to bear!
Do you think he is still so completely surrounded by people admiring his emporer costume? Surely some criticism must have dripped through?
|
|
|
|
Hello 13, Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, by Madeleine Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich, is quite a good book about cult involvement and cult leaders. The book describes cult leaders as not only narcissists but psychopaths. Here's a link to the review of the book, which states in part: Who Becomes a Cult Leader? Frequently at gatherings of former cult members a lively exchange takes place in which those present compare their respective groups and leaders. As people begin to describe their special, enlightened, and unique "guru"--be he a pastor, therapist, political leader, teacher, lover, or swami--they are quickly surprised to find that their once-revered leaders are really quite similar in temperament and personality. It often seems as if these leaders come from a common mold, sometimes jokingly called the "Cookie-cutter Messiah School."
These similarities between cult leaders of all stripes are in fact character disorders commonly identified with the psychopathic personality. They have been studied by psychiatrists, medical doctors, clinical psychologists, and others for more than half a century. In this chapter we review some of this research and conclude with a psychopathological profile of traits commonly found in abusive leaders...
Related link: Captive Hearts...etc.
|
|
|
|
Guru Maharaj Ji: the Perfect Master who propagated meditation techniques that will bring peace to the world. The LOTU. Prabhupada: the popagator of devotion of Krishna, the theist missionary from an orthodox Hindu sect who puts a great emphasis on strict scripture and an ascetic life style Sathya Sai Baba: the self-proclaimed avatar, the miracle monger through sleight of hand the prolific orator about Hindu religious subjects with a great talent for syncretism Rajneesh: the philosopher, the intellectual entertainer among the gurus, the rebel who derived his teachings partially from the human potential movement Andries
Modified by Andries at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 14:14:36
|
|
|
|
Andries, Cynthia is saying their psychological pathologies are similar - how that manifests in their careers and exposition is different depending upon their personalities.
However, Prabhupad is in a different category to the other 3. He didn't claim to be God - he said if you claimed you were God you were Dog. He was a sincere (though completely misguided) missionary who had already lived a normal family life before taking up his missionary role.
|
|
|
|
What Ocker said is true. I'm talking about their psychological personality/behavioral profiles, not their individual claims and/or their specific belief systems. For example: how the way cult leaders attract people; how they behave with followers; how they behave with people outside the cult; their personal living habits; secrecy/deception; how they attract followers to them; their use of thought reform, magical thinking; their use or abuse of drugs/alcohol; how they use the instilled indoctrination of a belief-system to manipulate followers; how they use sex for power/control exploitation; how they must be/are the central focus of their religious movement; and how they view/use money/wealth. That's to name a few. The characteristics that experts put forth might not necessarily all apply to each charasmatic leader, but the general profile is quite similar, when you compare one to the other. One thing that has startled me over the years of studying cults is that just about every cult leader uses sex in some abusive/perverted way. It's about exerting power over others whom they perceive (or have made) weaker than themselves. These are personality and character disorders, which would be more specific if experts could have one-on-one contact with the leaders to study them, but similarities are uncanny, imo. That's why I titled my post to you about Daniella "Devil in the details." The details are in their belief system/claims but the behavior and psychological make-up is something else altogether.
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 06:59:23
|
|
|
|
Starting about 1976, the Rawat cult started lying to the public about who we all believed Rawat to be, what knowledge was, what the purpose of life was, etc. The cult was teaching that the purpose of our lives was to surrender and devote it to Maharaji, who was the current manifestation of God on earth, and knowledge was just a means of connecting with him...period. That was the belief system, stated explicitly by Rawat and premies until at least when I left the cult in 1983. Nevertheless, we started doing "introductory" events, often using videos of Rawat speaking, in which NONE of that was disclosed, and instead we said that what Rawat was offering was a beautiful experience...period. We all knew we were lying, using the feeble excuse that people weren't "ready" to hear the truth, so it was okay to lie. The same thing is going on now. The premies and Rawat lie, and the premies think it's okay because people aren't "ready" to hear the truth. Ex-premies are a HUGE problem, however, because they persist in telling the truth. Hence, they must be silenced if possible, and of course, from premies to Scientology, that's what cults do.
|
|
|
|
"Having asked the question, here is my own answer: It is *because* he is still viewed as the Lord!!" Not so in my view. Rather, it is because he still views himself as the lord. This is not a fine distinction, I think it is a significant difference descriptive of a state of mind that filters through all religious minds. What we are dealing with here is an orthodox religious mindset not just a gurus position in relation to his hordes. All this "I am the One I am not the one" pantomime is a fantasy that religious minds of all waters use to insulate themselves from the responsibility (the pleasure thereof!) of being human. The guru does it as much as the disciple. As a disciple I imagine I was a worse flip-flop,flickering mind game,tyrant than PPSR! Recent experience among esoterically inclined people shows me the terrible primitive resolution with which the cult mind identifies itself with the divine as and when it suits it. The audience is secondary and is there solely to gratify the temporary craving for divinity of the intoxicated self appointed deity, be he high or low. It is dangerous to be audience, I have found. Priests exist all the way up and down the heirarchy and they are ruthless.I have been very slow to grasp this fact. A possible cause of the mixture of charm and ferocious full on justified lying, I think, is those "Light experiences" that yer man Rennie D. was bragging about below and on his website. Imo meditation a la rawat is little more than dream experience while awake. The feeling of self is soon swept away by the dream, giving the illusion of the superiority of dream over self. It leaves you with the sensation that you are the front end of a mighty power greater than all, with all that might entail vis a vis your behaviour. all the best Bryn
|
|
|
|
Hi BrynYou are probably right, meaning that we are both probably right. Certainly he is viewed as the Lord by committed premies. I agree with all your points about the religious mind, that it leaves you with 'the sensation that you are the front end of a mighty power greater than all' (good phrase, is that yours?) Whether he still views himself as the Lord, I don't know. My own feeling is that he does so view himself, simply because it would be too much to do what he does knowing he is not what he has claimed for so long (or in view of the discussion in a thread or two below, what he has allowed to be claimed on his behalf for so long). Like Jim's point (OK, Laurie's point - hi Laurie!) that even to mouth 'I am the Lord' is a bit much for anyone, so to allow others to worship you as the Lord is a bit much for anyone unless they believe it themselves. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
I can't remember which one, but I asked him if Maharaji was God. His answer was that Maharaji cannot say 'I am God' because as soon as he says the word 'I' he has created the duality of 'I' and that which is 'not I'. In God there is no duality so he cannot say it. Notice that the mahatma didn't answer me that Maharaji wasn't God!
Didn't really satisfy my doubts at the time but I went ahead and got Knowledge anyway and got sucked in.
John.
|
|
|
|
Prem always used Guru Maharaji in the 3rd person because it referred to various entities.
First was the omni-everything generic GMJ aka God.
Second was the embodied Guru Maharaj Ji, who was the power in person.
Third was the Knowledge - not the techniques but the experience of power inside - which was sometimes known as or referred to as GMJ within. Similarities between these 3 concepts and the Christian Trinity - God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - were probably not meant to be coincidental. He often kept a small fire-break between himself and these concepts by talking of himself as the Perfect Master, which was supposed only to mean he taught perfection, but certainly suggested the idea he himself was perfect.
However, the overall intention was to provide a small filter through which his import and meaning were pretty incontrovertible to the sincere yet could foil the ill-thinking. In regard to him being Guru Maharaj Ji, and what this implied, I am thinking of how he explained his sense of mission following his father's death. How, after hearing his voice 3 times, Prem accepted his duty and had an enormous feeling of being overwhelmed with the power.
In the Peace Bomb he says something like GMJ is so great in me, which is interesting as there are the 2 things - himself and GMJ. And I suspect it has always been like that for him. That he has felt a vehicle for power, and when he felt it extremely strongly, well, he was synonymous with the Power, so much as to be (for him) its ultimate mouthpiece. I guess he always felt this amazing mission, the undertaking placed on him, but simultaneously knew he was an ordinary guy too, and that was when the problems kicked in. People were demanding everything from him, which he couldn't emotionally and psychologically fulfil. He took to drink, took nice sabbaticals in Harrods and in buying up cars (thinking they were perks of the job). The pressures of being God full-time (instead of just an occasional channel) really got to him and he really freaked out in Mishler time, having sometimes to be carried to bed incapacitated. The Indian devotees probably had some concept all along that an incarnation was just some human with a great gift - and saw he had blown it copiously through his various predilections for material possessions and hot living. The westerners, however, were all conditioned by what took place in the 4th century AD, when in the Christian church the Athanasians overcame the Arians, and the notion of Jesus having been completely God and completely human had been accepted as fundamental truth, instead of Jesus having potentially been some guy who wasn't God but an important channel. So, it seems to me that Prem continues to live with this dichotomy of being a (highly?) flawed individual but who to himself remains the Chosen Vehicle of the Lord.
And this is maybe what being the Lord to him really means - that when he is with the power, he is still its greatest channel or expression, and thus as close to being the Lord in human form as one could imagine. The old-time premies are still stuck in Athanasian mode, and, while they sense and perceive much contradiction, amazement at how things have turned out over time, still believe that at any moment he is still capable of Really Turning on the Power and finally Doing It. Just some thoughts, really.
Modified by Anthony at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 12:06:00
|
|
|
|
Your posts and some of the others here make me feel like we're probably doing the analysis that would make Rawat himself pause and say "You know, that's probably rrue. I never thought of that" if he ever dared. It is a great question that even premies could join us in considering: why did/does Rawat speak in the third person?
Modified by Jim at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 15:28:54
|
|
|
|
A really interesting post Anthony.
|
|
|
|
I just chose that combative lead-in line to get attention. Everyone wants to take a pop at the local phd after all.Yes the good phrase is all my own work-ta. I reckon that anyone with a religious streak will at some point dig their heels in because they temporarily are doing it (whatever deed)in the name of God- to them to all intents and purposes they are god. If your born into the posture, Prem style, its your living and never a need to change. All you need is to exercise caution with language and your guaranteed a job for life. Even though all of the saintly do the "I am actually god" thing, rank does come into it too. I think it is something to do with the fact that the human self is to some extent self creating. The man with the biggest self- perceived "wazonga" promotes himself to the top of the tree, a position conventionally referred to as god. Prem was blasted with the divine light by his very own dad at an early age, he has got the really big credentials-he doesn't know nor need to know self doubt.He just keeps on making himself up. Trouble is his dad and the divine light are not the trump cards he thinks they are, only he will never know that! Har har. Thats my perspective today anyway. All the best Love Bryn
Modified by Bryn at Wed, Mar 01, 2006, 13:41:16
|
|
|
|
Trouble is his dad and the divine light are not
the trump cards he thinks they are, only he will never know that! Har
har. Thats my perspective today anyway.
I don't think he even cares about that, or ever has done..........the possible deleterious effects on his immortal soul (lol), that is, of having duped a great many people in the name of God. Whether he's destined to be absorbed into the self effulgent light, or has a rendezvous with the toasting forks, when he finally turns in his last pair of spittle stained silk socks, is something which no-one will ever know.
In the here & now though, he certainly seems to be successfully holding onto the pot in the great card game of life...for the moment.
Thing is though, which game is he playing with his inner circle? It may have started as Blackjack where the bank has the advantage, but it could be mutating into Mexican Sweat, a truly nerve wracking form of poker which often ends in knife fights & shootings.
I reckon someone is going to blink one of these days, then we'll see who shafts whom for real money.
Chin up Bryn.
|
|
|
|
"I reckon someone is going to blink one of these days, then we'll see who shafts whom for real money." Ho ho har har.Yes. but.. these things just drag on though don't they? The man in the pulpit just keeps talking. What does he care? My chin is up ta. keep on swinging that axe Bryn
|
|
|
|
How are you Mike? hope all is well with you? do you remember my Husband Derek? He passed away on the 9th of Feb. so its a sad time for our Children! we knew each other for 33yrs which is a long time! i met Derek in a restaurant in Dublin named "The Good Karma restaurant" would u believe? the first time he spoke to me, he asked me if I had heard of Maharaji and the Knowledge he could reveal to me. at the time in 1973 i had heard a little but was keen for Derek to tell me more, so I requested him to do so! I will always remember the exact words he spoke to me and I was delighted to hear them, and have to admit I have never looked back, simply because what he told me is totally true! Derek went on to say to me "If your ever looking for a Love that depends on no one or nothing, well Maharaji can show you how to go there! I just simply checked it out got Knowledge 2 weeks later and have practised it ever since! Im very happy to feel the Love and peace within me, and am glad I dont doubt Maharaji in any way! I practise regardless of other peoples experiences! If i want to learn how to play an instrument which im doing at the moment, then i understand i must practise, simple as that where im concerned! I hope everyone is concentrating on there own peace! I was very glad to have the understanding about Death when my Husband and Dad to my Family passed! There are 3 things that we can all be sure of! We"re born, we die, and in between we have our breath! thats what im concentrating on Mike! Love and best wishes to you and all. Love Julie
|
|
|
|
Hi JulieI am so sorry to hear about Derek. You and your kids have my sympathy and condolences. Actually, they're not 'kids' any more are they?!! I am glad you are happy. Take good care of yourself Love -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Hi Julie 33 years is a long time together. Good to hear you are coping with your loss and hope your " kids" are ok, too. Best regards to you & yours at this time, anyway. I agree about the birth and death points you make but as for the " and in between we have our breath!" Well, thank goodness, I think we have a heck of a lot more than just that but, yep, strictly speaking, as you point out, while we're breathing we are breathing. Most of us can be sure about that. Well those breathing who are also compus mentus, at any rate : ) Still, now is probably not the best time to get into a detailed discussion about that ( and all its ramifications) but as you posted in public and not in private,I thought I'd just make a brief passing comment: ) I remember when my father died and we had a good ole “ Irish wake” with the songs bellowing, the crowds a’jostling, the whisky and booze flowing (even though he’d given up all that himself, during his life) , the people crying, reminiscing and , yep, laughing too. I also remember pummelling my brothers with satsang and trying to bring some of the focus onto Prem Rawat, too, and all my understanding of life & death, to boot. I spent the night, though, alone in the front room with my father’s body in its coffin. The house wasn’t so big and it was packed out. I even put a little pic of “ Maharaj ji” up and tried to meditate. In the end, though, I just touched my fathers cold, embalmed face and wept & wept & wept & wept my eyes and heart out. Joy, thankfulness, sorrow, regret, uncertainty, rage, doubt and basic love …the whole caboodle. Looking back now, the only thing I regret is the “ satsang”. Of course we’re all different but, don’t forget, a good cry can do the world of good and there‘s more to life than breath alone.Well anyway, that’s my opinion/ home-spun philosophy for what it’s worth Finally, Julie, I thought long and hard about whether to write to you at such sensitive time other than sending you simple condolences as mike has done. But the satsang you gave on a public forum of ex-premies somehow seemed strange , discordant and out of place, tied in as it was with your, and your family‘s, loss.I guess we should all just cut you slack big time at such a time of personal loss and obviously I don't want to " get at you" in any way. So, arguably it’s also strange, discordant and out of place of me to respond to you as I’ve done. It’s just that your post reminded me of the time of my Dads death as I’ve described. So I threw caution to the wind and said my bit. Above all, though, I wish you well and hope you cherish and treasure your memories of your husband. Of course, I’m sure you will. Take care .... - Dermot
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 11:55:06
|
|
|
|
Hi Julie,I just wanted to say that I was really sorry to read about your husband, and I hope that you and your children are all okay. Take care  Stardust
Modified by Stardust at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 13:41:16
|
|
|
|
thank u Stardust thats very nice of u, my family are in their 20s which makes it not so bad for them! Im glad their Dad didnt pass away when they were teenagers! Im ok Stardust and know i have to get on with life as a one parent Family! thats life ey> Thank u once again, love Julie
|
|
|
|
Good response Dermot.
I started off 1/2 an hour ago with a serious train of thought, & then began watching a rerun of Father Ted on the tv.....the one where Father Jack ends up shoving the Holy Stone up the Bishop's arse....so now I'm incapable.
Sorry Julie.
She said:
I was very glad to have the understanding about Death when my Husband and Dad to my Family passed!
Despite this being at the heart of my objection to Rawat & his lies, I'll not comment, other than to wish you well, Julie.
|
|
|
|
Julie, I'm surprised that you insist on coming here, an ex-premie site, to chatter about Rawat the way you do at this particular time. But you have and you're throwing satsang at us so you must be looking for a little conversation. I'll bite. You say that: "I was very glad to have the understanding about Death when my Husband and Dad to my Family passed!" So I give up. What exactly is that "understanding about Death"? And please quit ending all your sentences in exclamation marks. It's irritating in the best of times but when you're talking about how sad your children are, it's downright creepy.
|
|
|
