|
|
|
......at nineteen I was full of fervour and moderately f**ked up.I got seduced by the false promise and my fervour found a fake focus and my f**ked-up-ness was compounded.
Modified by Lexy at Thu, Mar 02, 2006, 20:06:50
|
|
|
|
I reckon being full of fervour is a normal state for a nineteen-year-old. And maybe for an any-year-old. The tricky thing, as you rightly infer (I got seduced by the false promise and my fervour found a fake focus) is the question of what you focus your fervour at. I hope this forum is helping to, if not answer that question, at least prevent people from directing their energy, focus and love in the very wrong direction.
|
|
|
|
Former premies feel that they were f**ked from focusing their fervor on the false promises of a fake fatguru. Kabir
|
|
|
|
One of the reasons why I hate (oops, there I'm already semantically exposed within Rawat terminology as a deviant) the 'moving on'/'moved on'/'not moved on' formulation, is that it presents an untruth about human beings. The idea that we somehow go from one personality state to another, without the elements of our past self staying with us, seems to me absurd and could only occur in someone who suffers an extreme neurological or psychological trauma. Of course we are capable of change but all that we were before the change (whatever that change maybe) still has a reality and will still inform who we are after the change. The fact that any of us may reproduce behaviours in an 'ex life' that mirror the behaviours of our 'premie life' should neither be surprising, nor a basis for concern - unless the particular behaviour is harmful to our present life or to those around us. We can not have been other than who were, and who we now are will mostly be what we have been. Perhaps one of the more poisonous cult aspects that afflicts 'exs' is the notion of some kind of perfectability - maybe that's a 'behaviour that is damaging and which we would benefit from being less involved with. And as ex premies that may mean accepting that from time to time we will be 'premie like'. In terms of a 'domestic exchange' I do like the rejoinder "you sound like a premie" - almost on a par with "you sound like my mother" - always to be used sparingly and subsequently paid for with an apologetic bunch of flowers. Nik
|
|
|
|
That kind of thing reminds of when I have a fight with my wife and say, "you sound just like your mother right now." While there might be truth in it, it is also a cheap way to gain some ground in an argument.
On the other hand, I can remember one of my first girlfriends after I left the ashram. She had known some premies and also some scientologists. She would say to me sometimes, when I would talk about the guru or after I meditated, that I would get that weird cult glaze in my eyes. THAT, was a very appropriate thing to say and I'm grateful that she said it.
I've noticed that some exes choke on words sometimes. It's been a long time for me, and all I can say is, those words don't belong to Rawat: mind, understanding, bliss, joy, feeling. Take them back and use them the way they are supposed to be used and not the way some dumb cult distorts their meaning.
Anyway, Nik's response was perfect. Are we allowed to say that?
|
|
|
|
Yeh - too right - those words don't belong to Rawat. I truly hope we can all re-own what ever we feel and think (not that feeling and thinking are really separate functions IMO). And, yeh - I think we are allowed to say that Nik's resonse was perfect. I've reposted bits of it above in my 'Help' thread.
|
|
|
|
....in a hurry....but on the subject of "fervour" that Moley mentioned...I maybe didn't make it clear that "fervour" IMO is a positive attribute when directed towards something valid and life enhancing.... far preferable to apathy and disinterest. We made a mistake...and all that fervour was wasted.
|
|
|
|
One of the reasons why I hate (oops, there I'm already semantically exposed within Rawat terminology as a deviant) the 'moving on'/'moved on'/'not moved on' formulation, is that it presents an untruth about human beings. The idea that we somehow go from one personality state to another, without the elements of our past self staying with us, seems to me absurd and could only occur in someone who suffers an extreme neurological or psychological trauma. Very astute, Nik. And spookily, I was going to talk to Nige about tonight about my 'experience' in a Tibetan Buddhist shop in Liverpool, then I thought I'd better check out this thread. I just got a real strong sense of 'belonging' when talking to the proprieter. I 'know' its cos of my past spiritual-seeking phase ( a very long one!), but that doesn't make it any less real, or less convincing. Of course we are capable of change but all that we were before the change (whatever that change maybe) still has a reality and will still inform who we are after the change. Yeh - that is so true, but what do we do about the 'spiritual' parts of our brain/memory/consciousness that we actually like being in? But can't fit into rational mindset? I'm gonna run the whole thing past my other half (being as how he's a psychologist), cos it's bugging me. In terms of a 'domestic exchange' I do like the rejoinder "you sound like a premie" - almost on a par with "you sound like my mother" - always to be used sparingly and subsequently paid for with an apologetic bunch of flowers. Ah - I can see you are an old hand at 'domestic exchange' damage limitation
Modified by moley at Sat, Mar 04, 2006, 15:33:20
|
|
|
