|
|
|
nothing is real. Strawberry fields forever...........
|
|
|
|
Can he spell obfuscate? No...... he probably can't, actually. Talk about an attempt to whitewash EVERYTHING? Yeah, it was NEVER a religion and NEVER had religious overtones. That is why we sang Arti (a RELIGOUS SONG of the Hindu variety), sang the Twameva tune (again, an old Hindu RELIGIOUS song), etc to his lotus bod....... while he sat on a throne dressed as Krishna (a Hindu RELIGIOUS, as opposed to secular, god). Nope, no religion there!
|
| Re: Blah.... blah, blah, blah...... blah, blah.... blah.... blah, blah, blah |
|  |
| Re: Blah.... blah, blah, blah...... blah, blah.... blah.... blah, blah, blah -- NAR |
Top of thread |
|
Archive |
|
|
|
"This is not a religion...trust me, it's not a religion."
Prem Rawat.
So the IRS giving Rawat church status is what, just the bigness of their hearts?
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and the moon the cow jumped is made of cheese and Uri Geller bent the spoon that ran away with the dish (hopa!).... well, ok, the dish cannot run anymore  So, Notable Ron states that it isn't a church and somehow the IRS got the impression that it was...... I wonder how that happened? I think Prof Ron should check that out..... or maybe the FBI.
Modified by NAR at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 14:39:37
|
|
|
|
As a relative newbie, I'm still trying to piece together the present 'state of play'. Let me see if I've got the picture so far? Correct me if I still don't get it!..
... so m is trying to walk an ever narrowing line between: not being the iconic head of a religion, as far as future converts are concerned: but needing to be seen as a religion, as far as the IRS or the FBI are concerned, to qualify for charity status.
......The news which put him on the map, was that a Divine Child Teacher was showing God to people free of charge.
....Now he changes like a chameleon to suit his need and cannot or will not admit his mistake or his deception, (it can only be one or the other).
.... He has proven himself by his own behaviour to be simply a human being. But he has nothing of the characteristic innocence or nobility to be seen in every child and so many adult members of our fine human race!
.....He has used our lives as stepping stones to reach his present state of wealth. One of his major problems is that the West is not going to go on buying this divine being stuff! and it is, he assumes, turning people away.
.....Ironically he cannot relinquish religious status without having to reinvent another reason why he should be eligible for charity status.
.......... He would, however, (if it's alright with the rest of us mortals,) like to be able to carry on flying his jet and have palaces in the major countries and continents, and (if it's alright with us) a token congregation of stooges to boss around so that he can turn to his dad and say "I'm still carrying on the good work", or to justify himself to the IRS.
... Now, some nameless speaker for some nameless group will be speaking.....!
....It doesn't have the same appeal anymore, in fact in respect of all the previous deception, usery and abuse we took on the chin, because he was supposed to be God, it's downright unappealing!
...Add to that the documented fact that he doesn't have a good word to say about any of his followers, no matter how close or devoted, or how large the donation.. (we are obviously not high up on his popularity list) his charm must be taking some pretty big dents.
.....And what will he give? He will give the same; even more watered down techniques; only now without the charm. And what will it mean as far as he's concerned?
.....If he merely wanted people to know it he would give it. All the money goes on creating a vast spider's web over the planet along whose flight path filaments he loves to patrol.
... It will be for him the same calling card proof that he is somehow tied into this knowledge, (which has been around for millenia and is given freely on many sites on the web) that he owns it, that it means, ultimately, that he is in fact it (i.e. as he sees it: the Divine Light and Word of God)
....And as such he deserves to be allowed to shout at us, play with us like kittens in a box and send us out, to rake up more money and more humans to bring back and lay upon his now, more secret, unsacred altar.
This is a worthy charity?!
This is the Love of God?!
It is neither and he deserves the privileges of neither position!
Modified by LP at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 19:27:28
|
|
|
|
Twameva sarvum dravinum twameva ...
......perhaps it would be of interest to our readers to hear the translations of these hindu hymns, arti, we were made to sing together; religiously, first thing in the morning and last thing at night: to a picture of Prem Rawat dressed up like Krishna; with sandalwood, flowers and burning incense laid before it, as we waved a tray of offerings in time, with a little gee lamp in the centre.
.....I know this is a tender memory for many of us, there was something charming about it, but think about it..... now......in the glaring light of the future: our present.
Anyone got all the words?
I know the above hindi quotation means something like:
"You are my Mother, You are my Father, You are my All my Lord to me!"
Modified by LP at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 18:54:24
|
|
|
|
I don't remember all of the words, but I can tell you that it IS an old Hindu verse. I've heard young Indian musicians sing it just prior to their show, etc. It is very common amongst Hindus. Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswara,
Guru Sakshat, Param Brahma, Tas me shri
Guru Venamaha...... Something like that. It is an old Hindu religious verse and, again, for anyone who travels abroad and pays any attention, it is quite common to hear it. "and It Is Religion"
|
|
|
|
that's it! .... spot on!
Modified by LP at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 19:32:29
|
|
|
|
Arti - the updated lyrics by Larkin Vegetation begins in the word of our master
Re-education begins at the feet of our lord
Subjugation begins in the form of our master
Humiliation begins in the grace of our lord. Jai Gurudev Maharaj ji
Your glory fills your head
Exploiter of the weary and the weak
You know the power of entrapment
You showed us all just what 'crap' meant
Realization don't come cheap, Jai Dev
Jai Satguru Dev Fabricator, self-server, destroyer
Why do they bow and pray to you?
Have they really nothing better to do?
Guru gives true Knowledge
Sign on right here at Mindwarp College
Realization don't come cheap, Jai Dev
Jai Satguru Dev Chanting, fasting, charity, austerity
Will never bring you knowledge of the soul
Will never reveal your soul
Without the grace of Satguru
WITH OR WITHOUT our rich fat guru
Realization don't come cheap, Jai Dev
Jai Satguru Dev In the river of bondage to Guru
All are swept out to sea
All are drowning there so blissfully
Guru's boat is a holey one
A 'watch yourself drown very slowly' one
Realization don't come cheap, Jai Dev
Jai Satguru Dev Anger, desires, attachments
Are what being human's all about
Things we couldn't really do without
Guru don't like self-expression,
But anger suppressed is depression
TIME TO LOSE YOUR CHAINS, STAND UP AND SHOUT!
(Jai Dev, Jai Satguru Dev) Jai Gurudev Maharaj ji
Tell us please, what sets you so apart?
Why should people even give a fart?
Without the grace of Satguru
We might all find we've a lot to do
Science, music, poetry and art, Jai Dev,
So long Satguru Dev.... P.S. The full version of arti, with Twameva, etc. is in the linked Best of thread....
Related link: Arti by Larkin
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 18:47:01
|
|
|
|
right ... thanks .. but I prefer this one now ...
Modified by LP at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 19:37:24
|
|
|
|
Larkin's Arti is a true classic...... but so is the conversation in the rest of that thread. Hilarious!Cat-idiot obviously and shamelessly lying about "not bowing down" to a pix of M after singing it. What a liar! Here he is, on an ex-premie forum, telling us that we didnt' bow down. WHat are they trying to do, convince us that we had a group-hallucination? Too funny!
|
|
|
|
http://ex-premie.org/papers/Amanual.htm "Ashram creates itself so holy an environment that when a car passes right there in front of an ashram, the driver feels some strange feeling in his tires." "Why should there be so much strictness? We are the children of God, and this is the house of God." 9. Members must lead a disciplined life of service, satsang, and meditation, and must adhere to the five Holy Commandments: - Do not put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
- Constantly meditate and remember the Holy Name.
- Leave no room for doubt in your mind.
- Never delay in attending satsang.
- Always have faith in God. . . . and oh yeah, the words to Arti. http://ex-premie.org/pages/arti.htm
|
|
|
|
thanks Steve ... beginning to think I'd dreamt it....
|
|
|
|
"...the driver feels some strange feeling in his tires...." I don't know about you, but when I am driving a car (something M seems to like, considering his car choices), I have never "felt" my tires. Certainly, I don't feel anything eminating from them, except heat. What a silly, silly man!
|
|
|
|
that is that for people who become nowadays superficially involved, the meditation and messages have only few religious aspects. I do not know if the practice remains relatively non-religious for people who become more than superficially involved and who take the message seriously. I am aware that Mike wrote that the meditation with the request to "stay in touch" with Maharaji as a necessary condition to succeed in meditation will not work in the long term if one does not believe Maharaji to have some special powers or knowledge. Andries
Modified by Andries at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 14:37:38
|
|
|
|
>become nowadays superficially involved, the meditation and messages have only few religious aspects< What does that mean ? That the test of whether something is or is not religious is dependent on the number of religious aspects it displays? That below a certain threshold the set up is secular ? Andries read Rawat's Indian stuff - http://innerlink.typepad.com/ http://innerlink.typepad.com/india/2006/04/holi_at_rvk_new.html Rawat is selling religion - he's just not using the usual words - and as he is the 'object' of worship he doesn't waste his time talking about God or an afterlife - he simply invites people in to worship the 'Great Inspirational Speaker'. Andries why not write to Ron Geaves and ask him for a copy of the academic reference that confirmed Elan Vital was a 'legitimate' religion when EV applied for Registered Charity status in 1993 - I'm sure Ron must have been sent a copy given all his research. Nik
|
|
|
|
Andries why not write to Ron Geaves and ask him for a copy of the
academic reference that confirmed Elan Vital was a 'legitimate'
religion when EV applied for Registered Charity status in 1993 - I'm
sure Ron must have been sent a copy given all his research.
When you've got an answer to the above, of course, is how come EV(UK) suddenly stopped being a Religious Charity later, & became an Educational one, & does he know the academic referee who facilitated that.
You might also ask him how he 'feels' about such a cynical about turn, & whether he's aware that a Judicial Review would almost certainly have overturned the decision, leaving EV minus Charitable Status: that is, if anyone interested had known about it at the time, & had the means to mount a legal challenge.
Whilst we're on the subject Andries, what do you think of Nik's general perception of this religious phenomenon, as being merely a business?
I must say I'm pretty much convinced that he's right.
|
|
|
|
..and boneheaded positivity is misplaced. Believe me, if Ron's Master suddenly decided that the new thing for EV was going to be religion, Prof.Ron would be up there cogently and academically asserting exactly the opposite of what he claims above. Love bryn
|
|
|
|
Is it true that you wrote e-mails to Geaves about his Rawat papers, but never received a reply? Andries
|
|
|
|
It is partially true, Andreas, in some ways, but in others.... Ron very kindly emailled me all his published stuff when I asked to see it, and I returned a general critique on a few of the lumpier points.We chatted. He replied saying he would get back to me about my very negative observations. So far I haven't heard.That was 6 months ago. He was noticeably touchy on who I should show or discuss his emails and writings with. I have known Ron for many years, as has Jethro among others around here.He hasn't always been a professor you know. Having seen his Maharaji stuff and lived in the same community with him back in the "old days", I have a few opinions now about how he carries on these days. In fact I can say I could very well have gone down the same path as him myself. Ron imo qualified in religious studies not only out of his own interest, but more particularly with the intention of dedicating his extended academic powers to the service of his master. Furthering his master's cause he perceives as service to humanity. We all did, but Ron was closer to the groovy free-thinking cult centre than many of us rank and file premies, many of whom in contrast to him abandoned our academic aspirations in response to the masters more generalised public statements. To a non premie pure academic such a motive for academic research I know sounds odd:where is the detached quest for truth? But to a premie,believe me, qualifying yourself academically is just another way of putting yourself at the service of the master and so indirectly of the world. Academic rigor is a small thing in front of the steam roller of "Knowledge". Blimey Andreas there are people reading here who gave up their children, their parents, their presence at their parent's funeral and more. Abstract academia? Nothing. So Ron has arrived now and nothing is going to stop him. The "postmodern" mindset is ideal for this kind of chicanery. Ron is happy to raise complicated questions about the methodology of religious study because he thinks deep down that he has an answer:for him he has one more square to play on than the rest in this field. He can, he imagines, afford to be just that little bit more controversial than the rest, because he knows just that little bit more...The Knowledge,The Master, The Experience etc etc I have done some study of my own in the field of religion since leaving Prem land. It is interesting but sad to see how young ecstasy can calcify into obsession. Andreas, if you want to parry wits with Ron, I'll foreward an email from you to him..no problem, but I doubt you'll get anywhere with it. You see it simply isn't service brother. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
From Ron, as I knew him, I think what you have said is accurate. Anything that does not fit into Ron's iterpretation of what maharaji wants people to believe is from 'mind' and certainly is not service. In my last conversation with him, he TOLD me that Professor David Lane had made an 'academic mistake'. Did he ever tell you what that mistake is? To Ron, Remember when I got you that job with a company I worked for in Golden Square, Picadilly? And do you remember when when the late Mary O'Ryan (nee O'snodic), who was a small ill lady with belles palsy came to visit me at work? Remember how you physically attacked her beacuse you didn't think she was good premie? Not very good propagation! I hope you have changed your ways and learnt to control yourself.
Modified by Jethro at Sun, Apr 16, 2006, 03:26:03
|
|
|
|
I wonder if Ron is furtively reading here. I shall assume he is. No Jethro, he never got specific with my reactions to his work. To tell the truth I was surprised at his naivete and grandiosity vis a vis the post modern ticket. I had assumed that with professorship would come a more evident grasp of the philosophical subtleties that mitigate against the unrestrained relativism of the popularist postmodern rap: ie the concept perhaps of post-postmodernism. But no, he was happy to equate anything with anything else as long as he could make it come out that Maharaji was ahead of the game and had been all the time. It was bluff to me. I was talking to Dan Cainer last week and he raised a question about a long gone era when you and Prof Ron arrived in town, moved into Dan's mothers house, and set up headquarters as a "proper" ashram!! (thats how he put it).What was that all about then? Tell us, just for a laugh. I still remember the era in question. All the best Jethro Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
I do remember Dan's mother very well. Her house was used often for satsang and she did it her way(as in the Sinatra song :> ) I remember at one Friday night's satsang at her house, instead of lighting arti candles she lit the Jewish Friday night candles to many raised eyebrows. Kewel dudette... I don't remember ever moving into her house, although Ron and myself did do our laundry there once. Dan's father I liked very much. He was the only one in the family(I think) that didn't get involved in the cult. I don't know if he did later on. I had a great year in Leeds, a nice group of people. If you see Dan's father or mother please send them my fondest regards, Jethro
|
|
|
|
I went through the PR article this morning and changed all the inconsistencies in format. Why? Because that article bugs me a lot, it's so poorly written. It took a lot of time because I can't get DSL here and I'm still on dial-up. I took all the "Prem Rawats" and changed them to just "Rawat," conforming to the Wikipedia suggested guidelines for biographies. But, before I did that, I first referred to Bill Clinton's bio on Wiki to see what they did with him, and indeed, even President Bill Clinton, the former leader of the free world, is referred to as simply "Clinton" in his biography. I also attempted to change the sea of pronouns to "Rawat" for purposes of clarity and better English usage, because many of those sentences ramble on and on and on to a point that a casual reader can't tell "he from him from his and he and him again." It's a disaster. Well! Jossi didn't let my edits stand more than an hour or two and reverted my changes. He informed me that because Rawat is such a common name (sure, just like Smith and Jones and Clinton!), that Prem Rawat must be used once in each paragraph. Well! I don't care because it's such a shittily written article so that's what Rawat is going to get from Jossi. The grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure are really terrible, so if Jossi wants it to remain terrible, then so be it! I'll concentrate on content in the future, (as much as I can stomach Wiki) so you won't catch me trying to make a grammatically and stylistically correct article for Prem Rawat. 
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Apr 14, 2006, 15:22:17
|
|
|
|
What do you think the people who run Wikipedia think it is about?Personally I decided I had enough to make a rough conclusion after reading that letter to Jim. I think it is a social experiment to them. In response to your post above, a religious belief is one that you accept on faith. The premie who only meditates or attends events as and when is convenient shares the same religious beliefs as the ones who live and breathe it.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, there are quite a few of contributors to Wikipedia, incl. me who think that Wikipedia is among others a social experiment. I do not know the opinions of the "people who run Wikipedia". All contributors make Wikipedia running. The most influential persons, I think, are the members of the Wikimedia foundation and the Wikipedia arbitration committee. Andries
Modified by Andries at Sat, Apr 15, 2006, 06:01:23
|
|
|
|
>There is at least some truth in what you write. 'At least some' suggests you doubt most of it. Do you mean Lesley's knowledge of the truth is incomplete, but yours is not? Maybe it's a language thing, Andries, and you didn't intend to be rude. Fair enough... But either way, posting links to external pages doesn't answer her question about what you think.
Modified by Nigel at Sat, Apr 15, 2006, 16:41:09
|
|
|
|
I'm assuming you did not intend to offer offense and none taken, Andries, but as Nigel points out you did'nt substantially respond to my post at all.When I said that I thought they think of it as a social experiment, I was just sticking with what I think is beyond reasonable doubt. The wider questions to my mind would be why are they conducting it, what do they hope to get out of it and how do they feel towards the participants they are presently encouraging to join in, what do they think is in it for them? These are questions that personally I could not and have no need to answer because of my lack of involvement with Wiki. But I would be interested in what you think if you would like to say. Of course I do not expect you to know, I am not asking that, I am asking you what you think, just that. regards, Lesley.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, You asked What do you think the people who run Wikipedia think it is about?
I think that most members of the arbitration committee and the wikimedia foundation are sincerely convinced that they are creating great, free, though not flawless, repositories of information. Utopian? Naive? Misguided idealism? Only time will tell. I also think that some members will acknowledge if asked, that they are engaged in a unique social experiment, which they may feel is exciting. Your question suggests that "the people who run Wikipedia" have a responsibility to think about these questions before encouraging others to spend their time on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would be the blind leading the blind, somewhat similar to cult recruitment. I have no balanced opinion on that subject myself yet. But I think that the achievements of Wikipedia (i.e. good informative articles) cannot be undone unless the whole of internet shuts down. Andries
Modified by Andries at Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 04:06:21
|
|
|
|
Like a dog with a bone I still have a question -Is there an ownership of Wikipedia? Reason for the question being that your reply to me gives me the impression that you think it was the brainchild of idealists. As an ex cultie of course, I'm a little suspicious. and a bonus question, is Wiki really full of good informative articles? it's certainly not doing too well on cults. No doubt you're right it has a life of it's own on the internet now.
|
|
|
|
It seems to me more like an ad-hoc compilation of amateur, non-authoritative, often nerdish committee work (+ vanity publishing on non-controversial subjects). Being mostly interested in Rawat links up till now, I've only just started examining Wikipedia objectively. I intend to post something longer about this when I've collected my thoughts... But, for now, just try looking up something on Wiki that you *do* already know quite a lot about, and see how feeble it is as an educational resource. Idealists, nerds or wannabe academics - whoever is behind it, it looks like an already-failed experient. If Wikipedia is supposed to be about truth, good information or education, forget it..
Modified by Nigel at Mon, Apr 17, 2006, 17:42:42
|
|
|
|
I've sometimes wondered if the inception of the fruit machine which has evolved into carpeted parlour upon parlour of one armed bandits was perhaps an armchair conversation...."You could get people to put money in a box even if they didn't get anything in return".. "Come on, people aren't that stupid" "Bet I could" It doesn't have to have come from an idealistic or even academic start. And it doesn't appear to have any interest in getting the facts right. Perhaps it could evolve into a Spin Doctors Encyclopaedia.
|
|
|
|
and the systems modelling stuff I#ve seen there was fine
|
|
|
|
So how can they be considered that great? Perspective, dear Hammy, perspective I'll bet you are wondering, "HOW IN HECK DID A REDNECK KNOW ABOUT VooV?" I'll never tell BTW, I think you should correct that oversite on wiki's part. The music world awaits
Modified by NAR at Tue, Apr 18, 2006, 15:38:42
|
|
|
|
Is there an ownership of Wikipedia?
Yes, the Wikimedia foundation own Wikipedia. is Wiki really full of good informative articles?
Wikipedia has many good informative articles, though some were good, but detoriated, but the good version are still accessible in the history of the articles. However to say that Wikipedia has many good articles is vague and not very informative when taken into account that the English Wikipedia has more than one million articles. I do not know the fraction of the articles in Wikipedia that are or were good. Some articles are tagged as good or as a featured on the talk page. The latter means that it can appear on the main page. Andries
Modified by Andries at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 13:32:55
|
|
|
|
And since when is the organisation set up to only get people superficially involved? Or any NRM for that matter? Where is the Association for Lazy and Non-meditating Buddhists or the Devotees of Sai Baba who Don't Give a Damn About Vibhuti, etc.
Andries, should you (and I don't suggest you try it) become an aspirant and go through the process you will see, though it takes 6 months, that superficial involvement is the last thing wanted. I mean it's not even as if Rawat pretends he want's your superficial involvement, full-on stay in touch, 100% religious involvement is what is wanted.
And don't let the un-religious language fool you (I'm sure it doesn't). The concepts being taught are the same no matter what the language. This Knowledge is the best thing going (therefore it is divine as how else could it be the best thing). This Knowledge is a Gift From Maharaji which after all means Great Lord or Great King and if he's the only person who can give you the gift of Knowledge which is already within inside you then gifting you with the best thing going means he must have some divine relationship as well. It doesn't take more than a minute's reflection to see the underlying concepts or subtext beneath the words. And it all comes out to Rawat being the Lord of The Universe and the Gift being the Knowledge of God.
But I know you know all this anyway. Keep up the good work. If both Jossi and Jim are attacking you then you must be doing something right (and I know the logical fallacy in that statement Jim so you don't need to bother ... )
|
|
|
|
You're right Ocker, Andries is doing a good job. He's not always correct, but he has a heck of a lot of patience and is willing to correct his errors. He also fights when he knows he's right and has done a helluva lot of research, just on the Rawat article. Sometimes when he writes on this forum, he's still in Wiki-talk-page mode, I suspect. Those folks don't really talk much to each other, but do provide a lot of links. Also agree with you on the religion piece. Nothing's changed but the language.
|
|
|
