|
|
|
Are you thinking about going into "SimSell" type stuff with Nogin the Nog? Say something Loaf-like and give us a treat. Tell us about about ecxiting things, not Ray Belcher! Blimey-talent going to waste. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
Aha! I wad just wandering amongst the posts here, and found my way to the dunrite website, and conspicuous by his absense was Ray... thats all. People are more interesting to me now that I have removed the usurper from his throne. I no longer brandish a hefty yard stick to measure people by- and they are no longer perceived in relation to proximity to M. There is a lot of harm done to us all by escaping our emotions over all that time, with the whispering/screeching tempter urging us on '...it doesnt have to be like this... you have a better option' I became over sensitive. The world seemed uncaring, and all the time inside my a little boy was crying 'I only want to be happy'. Ive spent quite a lot of time over the past week talking to a young daughter of premies who grew up surrounded by it all, and is now having a hard time with her bf because she is unused to actually connecting with her emotions. Her temptation always is to float/justify/disengage and to regard the mortal men who crash against her rocks as flawed in their suffering. But now she has a bf who hasnt given up on her, and hes been bashing his head against the (and these are his words) 'glass wall that she has around her'..he cant see it, and she cant see it, but its there and as soon as I heard about it I lept into action like Professor Van Helsing and rushed to the scene of the crime. And sure enough, there was a lovely young girl, protected inside her glass castle.. and a number of bodies scattered around. What created that ivory tower that stopped her from loving? Oh a small voice, which had been her mantra ever since her premie parents had shown her how to 'avoid'.. and the voice says sweetly and in all innocence 'I only want to be happy'. Its the voice of innocence which has sustained mass murderers and is not a reliable navigational aid... yet its M's trump card, to play to that voice, strengthen it, and weaken all other loyalties. xx
|
|
|
|
This : And sure enough, there was a lovely young girl, protected inside her glass castle.. and a number of bodies scattered around. What created that ivory tower that stopped her from loving? Oh a small voice, which had been her mantra ever since her premie parents had shown her how to 'avoid'.. and the voice says sweetly and in all innocence 'I only want to be happy'. Its the voice of innocence which has sustained mass murderers and is not a reliable navigational aid... yet its M's trump card, to play to that voice, strengthen it, and weaken all other loyalties.
|
|
|
|
Modified by Jethro at Wed, Apr 19, 2006, 05:17:12
|
|
|
|
I have heard that voice. This reminds me of a time when I said the exact same thing as a young premie, talking with an ex. I then very slowly, and tenaciously, came to see the complicated way the world and it's people are ugly, beautiful, smart and stupid, caring and selfish, all at the same time. These contradictions have a beauty all their own. That statement "I just want to be happy" is a response to the invitation of the mother-complex to reject the world and all the possible generative power of the individual and retreat into oblivion because we are too scared to be. To be or not to be: A timeless, real question that must be answered. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Hi Loaf! It's good to see you here. I was wondering if I would. Interesting topic--about "innocence" and "avoidance" of real feelings. I think that was a source of some confusion for me, too, as a premie--hooked by the promises of recovering innocence, being like a child, and the many many videos of pretty flowers and clouds and children laughing on swings, etc, etc, etc. ah, and all the lovely lullabye/new agey music for the great nursery of devotees, ahhhh... Who wouldn't want to be like that?! Who wouldn't love to be that free and just play and be happy?! Of course! Especially if you have a wounded chld within who didn't get much of that even in one's real childhood. So yes, a very powerful hook for me. If "knowledge" was going to recover that, or in my case, discover it for the first time, then bring it on! But you so perceptively point out the hidden dangers in that--avoiding real feelings and real responses to the people and events of our ACTUAL lives! Of course it's OK to be happy and have fun! But not at the expense of not being able to go through all the normal stages of development, which happens to include being an adult in an adult world, with all the responsibilities and commitments that are, after all, not so bad! What was it, in the Bible, about "putting away childish things"? When someone or something requires your obedience and dependence, that pretty much puts the kaibosh on any further development for you, doesn't it?--until you have the guts to escape. That's so much harder for kids who were introduced into a cult at a very early age. They won't know what "choice" means. Just a few thoughts...it's a huge topic, actually. Hope everything's well for you, Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Nice to be back. I have looked in from time to time, but to be honest the Rawat world-view is a bit irrelevant for me now.. it was in talking to this girl that I recognised the signs and scars of having premie parents. (She'd never been an aspirant, much to her credit, but its astonishing to note how insidious the effects even on the innocent bystanders) Nobody has answered my question about Ray.. I suppose what I am fishing for is that if Ray is an ex, he may have some interesting stories to tell from the 90s. Or maybe not. The Rawat that I am interested in hearing about isnt so much the boy-guru of the 70s and early 80s (which is so easily derided) but the public speaker we know and love today. Thats the Maharaji that young people are encountering. The past is the past, and (denials and revisionism aside) M's rejection of it is as understandable as the exes fascination with it - but drawing attention to it constantly only serves to highlight how M has 'moved on'. The whole revisionism thing where the past is denied has brought the DLM Guru of the 70s into sharp focus, as if to prove a point, but anyone attending an event with M today or or Satellite event finds a charming, witty, subtle and human speaker, with enormous control and poise and dignity and presidential self esteem. Something in a way far more insidious than the bandwagon of the Palace of Peace, which was a cultural brouhaha of bongos and wannabe saints. M has always been a 'theatrical' phenomenon, his staging, context and the focus upon him elevating the banal to the divine.. but I am looking forward to hearing from X rated people from my era (which I class as the 90s for even though I received K in 1982, there was such a period of transition in progress by the mid-80s that even to me as a new premie within 5 or 6 years the Divine Times Magazines and the films of Maharaji in his Kissimee days started to lose their relevance.) What hold does he have over the imagination of the audience when he whispers the words 'this life'?
Related link: Mike's excellent anti-revisionism article (just in case anyone alive hasnt read it carefully)
Modified by Loaf at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 01:42:56
|
|
|
|
"but anyone attending an event with M
today or or Satellite event finds a charming, witty, subtle and human
speaker, with enormous control and poise and dignity and presidential
self esteem."
Now either you're being very, very dry or Mr Rawat really has discovered a successful method for brainwashing or you might just have very strange taste. I hope for the dsfety of the world, it isn't number 2.
|
|
|
|
When did you last hear him speak? I last heard him about 2 yrs ago and there is no point in pretending that he has no talent for charming an audience.When hes good, he is actually very good. Why do you think new people go back for more? One of the reasons I stopped posting here was cos of the mentality of 'everything about maharaji must be rubbished' whereas the truth is that for some people he IS attractive.. and herein lies the danger. Its not their fault that his message is alluring, its partly due to timing, and his many years of practice at pressing the same button. NOW, if we are going to help people to disentangle themselves from his grip, the best thing we can do is to give them lots of information, and to acknowledge that they do have feelings towards him which have been manipulated. But in playing to his audience he has become skilled, no doubt about it.
|
|
|
|
Loaf, The "charmed" audience is his cult and their guests who are fluffed like pillows. A real test of his oratory skills, comedic, serious, what have you, would be on an unfamiliar audience. And, from what I've read and seen of his drivel, he wouldn't have a chance. Here's a link to a recent video clip from the cult's propaganda email newsletter, Inspire. It's hilarious. Check out the big punch line a minute or so in when he means to say "necessary" but instead says just the opposite, "sufficient". Anyway, here he is at his best playing to his crowd and, after all these years, and even setting aside the obvious substantive dearth of a message, he still sounds no better than an awkward, rehearsed high school kid. Nothing subtle, nothing natural. If this was wine, sure it's the same old wine, unpottable plonk.
Related link: http://inspire.contactinfo.net/v3_i100/story_2.htm
Modified by Jim at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 08:06:06
|
|
|
|
For a bloke without a product, dealing in platitudes and flattery and hope, he could make President of the USA.
|
|
|
|
Yep, I know what you are getting at. I used to think he was a good speaker - I used to laugh a lot.
Now, I find listening to him so unpleasant, I can't really do it, even just to more objectively judge his oratory skills. Out of cult mode, I just want to raise objections the whole time to the assumptions he continually makes. Even the basic stuff, such as 'we are all looking for peace', 'peace is within' ( where else?? ), his definition of what fulfillment might be... the list goes on. I think if you are not in the cult, he is an awful speaker, but if you are in it, he knows the buttons to hit to manipulate the audience ( as many of us have too, 'giving satsang' ).
I'd like to see him up against Jeremy Paxman!
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean, I cant listen to him either, chiefly because I dont want to go where he takes me! Its quite true he has no content or arguement - but thats not the same as not being charming.. it just doesnt stand up to any inspection at all, but whilst you are charmed.. who would inspect ? BTW when I say 'charm' I dont mean it as a quality, but as an attempted act. Bush and Blair are charming. Shudder.
|
|
|
|
I do see what you're getting at, but I wouldn't call it charm.
It's just conviction, mellowed by the passing of the years. Whatever he believes about this, & whoever he believes himself to be, he's always been able to present himself in front of an audience of the true believers without the slightest hint of self doubt. Indeed, if he's any good at anything apart from his real interest in life, flying aeroplanes, then bullshitting to the max is something he's been perfecting since infancy.
Bush and Blair are charming.
I disagree, they aren't natural charmers. Clinton was charming. I once accidently watched a middle of the night tv broadcast of him speaking in Florida. Amazing. That man could talk the monkeys down from the trees. I had no idea of what the issues were, nor was I interested, but I was spellbound by the way he put his points, & most of all by his easy, fluent, responses to all & sundry.
There's absolutely no way Rawat could compete............'.I don't want to get into a pissing contest'......isn't that what he said to someone in the audience in London a couple of years ago, someone who'd respectfully asked him a question.
No, Rawat is charmless, except to those in whom the poison went deep.
|
|
|
|
Hi Pat, Clinton versus Rawat. No way! Clinton is charming, just look how women react to him. It's really amazing to watch Clinton in action. When he gave a eulogy at Coretta Scott King's memorial, the audience was mesmerized and they went wild. All the bigwigs were there, too. Unlike Rawat, at least Clinton is educated and reads. Prem Rawat has said he doesn't read. And he uses the same mixed metaphors over and over. Probably doesn't even know what a metaphor is.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 17:13:42
|
|
|
|
Loaf, I'd expect anyone with 30 years to work on a message which is basically one long shaggy dog story that allows him to go wherever he wants as the spirit moves him to be better, much, much better. By the way, did you see the clip? Did you catch the big punch line screw up? It's rather funny.
|
|
|
|
Oh yes, I watched the clip, all the way through. He has a good instinct for public speaking, he clearly is used to receiving and likes to hold attention, and he understands the effects of his voice in silence. What I think you are confusing is that Im not talking about the paucity of his analogies and arguements - thats the stuff of the analysis of the uncharmed... but for people who are charmed - his charm is sufficient. I know you dont see it Jim, but to be honest I wasnt talking to the converted !
|
|
|
|
Loaf, I get the fact that Rawat's learned to use his hands with a little focus, to be engaged, enthusiastic, all that. But that's just classic public speaking stuff, high school level, isn't it? I mean where's there any subtlety? There isn't any. He paints pictures but they're paint-by-number. Anyway, I won't leave this discussion until someone, maybe even you, comments on his big faux pas (saying "sufficient" when he must have meant "necessary" . And then there was that other weird moment beforehand when he lectures people about how they don't need a lecture. No sense of irony, nothing. The guy's a goof. When he was young he had more charm, I'll grant you that. Any young Lord of the Universe would. Just the part itself was all about charm. But as an adult ....
Modified by Jim at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 09:19:33
|
|
|
|
>The guy's a goof< Well yes - and pretty slimey goof at that but that's not the point. For people who don't have a developed antipathy to being schmoozed - Rawat has a well developed strategy - it's not a sematically strong strategy but so what ? He's not talking to the audience's intelligence, he's massaging something visceral. I was once in an audience of Trade Unionists being addressed by our Deputy Prime Minister before a General Election. John Prescot, although a smart guy, is liguistically 'dyslectic' he not only endlessly delivers malapropisms he misplaces words - indeed whole sentences of his speeches get delivered out of order. Did any of this matter to the crowd - not one bit. He established himself in a couple of sentances as being 'the audience's man' thereafter he simply peppered his speech with key words the order and semantic sense of which were irrelevant, because it was just the key words and the rabble rousing delivery that the crowd wanted to hear. Perhaps Loaf (hi Loaf !) overstates Rawat's subtely but I agree with him on the rest. Rawat may be crap but he's crap packaged in wrapping that's attractive to a market segment Rawat well understands. Nik Nik
|
|
|
|
I still maintain that Rawat would not reach an audience on any level if he came in cold. You guys are talking about the most unique circumstances associated with a cult leader addressing his followers. Of course he's not addressing their intelligence. Of course he touches them on a visceral level. But the question is whether he's particularly adept at that and the test for that must be how he'd fare with a completely cold audience. I don't think he'd fool anyone. Much.
|
|
|
|
You compared Maharaji (we didn't call him Rawat then) with Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols, absolute rubbish as a musician to start with, but through practice, became maybe passably good, or good *enough*. The first time I saw M on film (pre-video days), he was so bad I wanted to run screaming from the room. But the community premies in their far more articulate speaking styles, managed to bait the line sufficiently to make listening to Twatso just about bearable - but, I'd always be struggling to follow his logic and work out what he was really saying. And did he ever say anything deeper than introductory-level satsang, ie., why this world is crazy and lost, and why we obviously therefore need a Perfect Master? - No. I kept listening out of trust and hope, and it took a while to process the cult dynamics and realise that Maharaji was just one of those 'empty vessels that make most noise'. I've heard satsangs from the nineties and there is no more substance, charm, or even humour. And the same old misunderstandings about nature and origins of life, purposes of being here etc. If he appears good at what he does, it's because he has a captive audience in his cult bubble, who will even bliss out when he pauses to smile at his own wisdom. On the whole, I think Sid Vicious showed a steeper improvement curve... (And I far prefer the Sex Pistols to the dreadful One Foundation) I'd like to see Rawat share a bill with Billy Connolly. He would barely reach the microphone before someone unplugged the cable. Hey, didn't something similar happen at that Glastonbury festival, back in '71?  I'm with you on this one, Jim. Rawat is/always was a rubbish speaker. Our reasons for listening might need some explaining, but his oratorial skills are not part of the equation.
Modified by Nigel at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 14:18:09
|
|
|
|
But I agree with everything you said about Rawat, young and old. But then it appears we never "got him". Some people do and it's not as if they're stupid. I've heard very smart people with otherwise good senses of humour laugh at his terrible attempts at humour.
Loaf is either still affected by his years of premiehood or has unusual tastes. No problem. Like your taste in music, your taste in public speakers is individual and so be it.
However, as most people are turned off by him, no matter how much positive reinforcement they receive from the premies who have introduced them to aspirancy, he doesn't appeal to many. And as Jim points out he can't carry a cold audience as he must well know else he'd be out there on the real inspirational speakers' circuit who can.
|
|
|
|
"Saul edited Guru Maharaj Ji's lectures for publication. When a particular transcript showed Guru Maharaj Ji's philosophical remarks "waxing incoherent," as Saul said, he would simply throw up his hands in the air and cheerfully, mischievously, declare, "Oh, he didn't mean that." Then, licking his fine editing pencil, he would squint his eyes and write in something that sounded a little better. "Saul's authority as an editor in DLM went back a long way. He had put out the first national DLM newsletter, writing it and then cranking it out himself on a mimeograph machine in Bob Mishler's basement in 1971. Now, as editor of a monthly four-color slick, Saul, more than almost anybody else in DLM, could testify to the organization's progress." Rawat has always been a lousy public speaker. He's got no command of the English language, and he's boring. I didn't think that when I was a die-hard premie. And, the first movie I saw was "Family of Love" the running on beach one after he got married and had a baby. I was a new aspirant. The premies played it about 5 times in a row and the gushing-bliss-out was infectious at the time. I was always embarrassed, but afraid to admit it to myslef, when I tried to play a tape for new people. He's that bad. My husband thinks he's soo boring, trite, unfunny, and incoherent. 
Related link: Soul rush, bottom of the page
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 15:56:24
|
|
|
|
hiya Nik (:0) (and Jim!) I didnt overstate his subtlety, but I actually think that what he does is pretty subtle. not many people meet someone (without a religious label) who addresses their innermost fears and hopes on a very simplistic, non challenging level. Its classic salesman ship where he ticks boxes, and people make small leaps of assumtion which snares em. Its no good us lot denying his skill,the people who fall for it dont notice it happening ! 'You want to be happy' Check 'You deserve to be happy' I do! Check 'You didnt want life to be this complicated' No! I didnt! Check 'You always felt that life should be simple' I did! Check 'You somehow lost touch with yourself along the way' You know... its true! check. 'Im reminding you of what you always felt' yes you are! Check 'Dont take my word for this, check things out and you decide if you'd like me to help' OK No hassle Hook line and sinker.. no lord of Universe needed. hence the subtlety cos the LOTU stuff is subtext between the pwk and him. Does that make sense James ?
|
|
|
|
Loaf, I'm definitely with Nigel on this one. You are absolutely right that Rawat does all you say he does in this post. But to me that's a given. Of course a cult leader's going to have some sort of hook along these lines. But look how this started. You gave Rawat some serious credit for being: charming, witty, subtle and human speaker, with enormous control and poise and dignity and presidential self esteem Now the only subtlety you're crediting him with is the obvious, i.e. that he doesn't outright tell people he's the Lord of the Universe. As if he'd ever do that. Looks like you've drifted a fair bit there, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
I just felt like saying that. Now the challenge is to work it into this post.
I want to bring in George W. Bush. Now before anyone gets riled, I'm not going to say anything political. The thing is I'm bad at politics. But I think I'm good with character assessment, or at least that is what is important for me.
I've always thought that Bush was a complete idiot the way he spoke. That is reason enough for me to not consider him as a legitimate presidential candidate.
Obviously about 50% of the US voting public doesn't agree with that. Some even find him charming, and dare I say charismatic.
There are other examples of polarizing personalities. Al Sharpton comes to mind. How about Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggert? People think they've been touched by God or something.
So yeah, I agree with you too that Prem is a poor excuse for a charismatic leader, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't get some bites if he tossed his fishing pole in a cold fresh lake.
Obviously he isn't at the head of the class. That is evident by the progress of his western movement. He was a flash in the pad in the 70's, when he had people like Charanand, the grinning Ed MacMahon, to wind up the crowd. Since he's been calling all the shots, things have gone downhill though.
So I think to be fair we have to say that he has some minor powers of persuasion, but he would have never got where he is today without the help of his father, family and a pre-exisiting movement, in contrast to firebrands like I imagine Rajneesh Sai Baba were/are (though I have no idea really).
And finally I just have to add, that this is kind of embarrassing to me. I didn't even fall for a guru with class.
Modified by aunt bea at Thu, Apr 20, 2006, 15:53:39
|
|
|
|
I havnt drifted an inch James or Nigel. I never said that his subtlety was as subtle as a very very dry joke... BUT when you compare how he operates now to the 70s, his 'hook' is insidious and less blatant. He appears to be asking for nothing. It is possible that the people who go and see him in the last few years are not seeking world peace, or a movement to join, but are instead offered a sweet tasting tablet. People are charmed by him. I want to help them to understand that what happened to them at the Event which they have attended wasnt a matter of divine blissful intelligence, but something more staged and constructed which needs some gentle deconstruction. The journey away from M for me started with ascribing his 'effect' on me, the bliss I undoubtedly felt - to a source other than the mysterious. What he does anyone could do, given the support he is given, and I dare say they could do it a lot more efficiently, but me describing him as a charming, witty, subtle and human speaker, with enormous control and poise and dignity and presidential self esteem is in truth me trying to cover a few bases as to how he seems to those who are partial to a bit of an instant fix infantile flattery. Happy now?
|
|
|
|
Loaf, If you're talking about how premies see Rawat, or even people who've been pumped up by premies and are sitting there in anticipation expecting to be impressed, sure, he's all those things. If you're talking about how he measures up in those respects on any arm's length basis, or to a "cold" audience as I put it, he's not. You seemed to be describing him objectively when this all started. If you'd qualified the statement with "that's how he seems to those who are partial to a bit of an instant fix infantile flattery", you probably wouldn't have gotten much of a rise out of anyone. Agreed?
|
|
|
|
Yes, but now that I have insulted the flattered.. Ive blown my cover
|
|
|
|
I agree Nik I thought I had replied , but have lost track now. Nice to see you.
|
|
|
|
As well as listening to old tapes, I have watched Rawat on Sky several times recently. One time with my cousin from the US, which helped remove the background devotional filtering. His content is poorly constructed (I think you agree on that), but his delivery and appearance are also poor compared with other tv evangelists.I have to agree with Jim that your praise of his charm is misplaced. Only the charmed find him charming. John.
|
|
|
|
Only the charmed find him charming. EXACTLY! Lets not stop talking to the charmed but not yet committed. Thats all I am saying. Give peas a chance.
|
|
|
|
I too, Loafster would once have described the man's performance as you do."charming, witty, subtle and human .. with enormous control and poise and dignity and presidential self esteem." What was I thinking?? I was in a devotion cult and that situation had perverted my perception of the leader. All the opposite signals are there for the awake. Sure he is confident, hugely so, a bit like a stage hypnotist, and that is all that is needed at the level that he is operating. I think the extra dazzle comes from the "vibes" of the meditating audience who are totally but secretly convinced that contrary to all cultural norms, he has shown them "god" in their meditations. They sit there just longing to here a hint or two from him at that level.He feeds on their expectations. I agree it would be interesting to hear something articulate from the recently departed but..well I suspect that their "devotion" is now so slick, sealed and silent and so unaknowledgeble in public that they probably don't know it is there. The love that dare not speak its name sort of thing. Blessings to all the premies except Mrs D Wallmington, of 24 The Groves, Hanfield, Exeter. EX4 9OG
|
|
|
|
Ray was recently fired by Alan Saunders and Colin Dixon from a company called Illustra Research based in Sussex UK. The company is part owned by M thru Chuck Nathan in Miami . Ray was a writer for them but also wrote for another company.Illustra did not like that even though Ray was freelance. True to form Illustra pays a few staff well and keeps them close, the rest are used and abused. Based very much on how M operates..
Alan was an old Instuctor, many moons ago.
|
|
|
