|
|
|
Evidence of what? Poor taste and poor judgement, Ocker, IMO. Sorry, but many here will find your post offensive, even though you have done your best to justify it. Some exes reading will probably be similarly 'disgustingly fat' in your eyes. Do you imagine they will have the courage to challenge you on this? I doubt it, if they are self-conscious about their weight. My second best friend is bigger than Rawat, and I am neither disgusted, nor make judgements about him on those grounds. He doesn't run a cult, but so what? How would you feel about thin premies attacking fat ex-premies? Disgusted, I hope. Nigel, the worryingly thin.
Modified by Nigel at Sun, May 14, 2006, 12:28:57
|
|
|
|
I hope I didn't sound over the top, there, Ocker, or unnecessarily confrontational. I have to concede that when I first discovered EPO, it was like a breath of fresh air to talk to other exes after all these years about the previously unmentionable question of Margie's weight, after all that cult conditioning about 'worshiping his perfect form'. But I don't see much point in making an issue of it, or, as you put it 'use it in evidence'. As I see it, exes have important questions to make public and focus upon. 'Being fat' is not among them.
Modified by Nigel at Sun, May 14, 2006, 13:04:13
|
|
|
|
Quite so Nigel.
Whilst 'little fat bastard' trips easily off the ends of one's typing fingers, it's what's going on in his fat head that's more pertinent, although I really don't want to think about that either, much, anymore.
As someone who will never see a 34'' waist again, might I suggest to Ocker that there's an Italian tailor called Armani who can do wonders for the fuller figure. I used to own one of his numbers myself, but sadly all I can afford now are chinos.
That's ok though, as I don't have to get up on a stage & pretend to be God.........lol.
|
|
|
|
>Whilst 'little fat bastard' trips easily off the ends of one's typing fingers, it's what's going on in his fat head that's more pertinent, although I really don't want to think about that either, much, anymore. I envy your economy, Pat. No irony. You said it all in that one paragraph. Neat! Lol, indeed  "May your waist elastic never snap before the corn buntings nest" (Old Irish proverb that I just made up)
|
|
|
|
....before you became politically correct, didn't you write that "big ,fat paki in the sky" song ( which I dutifully sang out loud to my P.C.) ? or is my memory playing tricks or was it a dream ?
|
|
|
|
...except it wasn't Loaf, it was Bryn who wrote the words before Loaf added the F-word. I just provided the chord sequence and strummed along. 'Honest, officer, I was only playing cards with them...' 
Modified by Nigel at Sun, May 14, 2006, 18:23:57
|
|
|
|
"I just provided the chord sequence and strummed along." but although you didn't post the chord sequence or the melody .I just knew it had to be sung to "She'll be coming round the mountain when she comes" so that's what I did.... oops .. was that last comment a freudian slip?
|
|
|
|
I have resolved to put 'Great Fat Paki in the Sky' online tomorrow, so we can have a campfire singalong. I will post a link once it's done.  I was actually more troubled by the 'Paki' than the 'fat' but Bryn has persuaded me that where he comes from, 'Paki' is a neutral label you can use without being an outright Nazi. Talking of campfire singalongs, this one is rather good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/soldonsong/whatson/springsteen_live.shtml
Modified by Nigel at Mon, May 15, 2006, 13:24:16
|
|
|
|
When I lived in saaf London a long time ago...."paki" or rather "The paki" really was a term of affection as in " Just goin' down the paki to get a packet of fags" or "Are there any shops round here?" " Yeah, there's a paki just round the corner" We really weren't being racist...just grateful 'cos the paki ( general store run by an Indian or Pakistani family and open all hours) stayed open late and sold fags and booze and just about anything else. A long time ago....
|
|
|
|
...or colloquial term, like going for a 'Chinkie' tonight. I think 'Paki' became offensive to the 'Pakis' themselves when skinheads and right-wing oafs got into 'Paki-bashing' back in the seventies. I don't know - but I am sure grateful for the abundance of middle-eastern and asian grocery shops you get in this blighted corner of Albion...
|
|
|
|
Hi, Nigel,I've heard what you have said about paki being an acceptable term to some, but it still seems to me that putting on-line your song about Big Fat Paki in the Sky might possibly be difficult for outsiders reading here. This is entirely up to you, and regardless of other threads. It's completely your choice, but this is an opinion. Bests, Anthony
|
|
|
|
...is not my song (or at least not my lyrics). When Loaf first sang it to me in a Liverpool bar I squirmed a bit at the 'paki' and the 'fat', but, at the same time, it was hard to stifle a chuckle. Breaking cult taboos etc. I was trying to be conciliatary here, re. Ocker apparently upset with my moral-high ground stance, and then Lexy reminding me of my own involvement in non-PC ex-premie statements. I think I will have to disengage from this discussion. And, no, I won't put the song online if it's going to cause more trouble that it's worth. Nigel
Modified by Nigel at Tue, May 16, 2006, 17:57:59
|
|
|
|
As 13 says below there is plenty of good reason to criticise Rawat amongst them being his claims to spiritual virtue and his indulgent
lifestyle. But his obesity is a direct result of his indulgent and
unhealthy lifestyle and negates his claims to spiritual virtue. I don't
have a problem with thin premies "attacking" fat ex-premies as long as
it's just with words. I'm one of the latter though certainly not in the
obese class of Rawat.
I am quite sure that the majority of people being told about Rawat's
claims - remember he does claim to be the only person on the planet
able to reveal the source of life and inner peace within - and then
seeing him or a photo would go: "What a crock". That fat geezer reveals
the source of ...., bullshit. But those people who have a little more
discrimination and who think "But can these nice people telling me
about him be wrong, am I just having an unreasonable prejudice against
fat people?" should be re-assured. Yes, he is disgustingly fat and yes
that certainly agrees with all the evidence that he's a crock of ....
Ira Woods was certainly never inhibited about discussing the source of fat and it's final destination.
Surely to become as fat as Rawat appears in that video, you must have a
medical condition, a psychological condition or an unrestrained and
unrestrainable desire to stuff food into your mouth at all times and
not to exercise. That's two of the deadly sins there, sloth and
gluttony. It also seems impossible that he could sit and meditate for
any length of time, isn't meditation supposed to ameliorate problems
like unhealthy lifestyle?
So if you're offended just meditate on Holy Name but anyway if either
of Nigel, PatD or 13, or anyone else for that matter who have seen
Rawat in the last decade or two maybe you can answer my question: Is he
really that fat?
|
|
|
|
Body shape as a basis for criticism is pretty lame - but those who live by the sound bite, press release and PR spin can't complain if the grim reaper employs the same tricks of the trade. The reality is that Rawat is sold as being 'attractive', at least as a 'speaker' - and Rawat's media people are very particular about the lighting, camera angles and the whole presentation package of 'the speaker'. With a message that is wholly dependant on the question of whether it is 'genuine', any fakery - even the question of whether Rawat wears a corset - becomes salient. And Rawat has chosen to make 'food' an issue by buying PR segments of Charity Food operations - and wrapping himself in the UN flag makes 'consumption' an issue because of obvious questions about the share of resources and rich v. poor - north v.south - developed countries v. un(der)developed countries. Perhaps most telling is that so incapable are premies, of acknowledging Rawat's defects that they would never include under (unfair) criticisms - Rawat is Fat - because even if it is an unfair criticism - it's a simple statment of fact that no one in Rawat land dare admit. Rawat is not a 'happy fat man' - he's seriously over weight and very, very vain - so no one on the cultside will dare point out he needs to do something damn quick if he wants to make his fifty year aniversery as a Guru. High blood pressure, heart disease, arterial disease, diabetes etc etc are going to prove far more lethal to the Rawat cult than ex premies unless Prem starts losing weight soon. I wouldn't make this a point of ridicule - but it is relevant to any critique of the Rawat cult. N
|
|
|
|
>So if you're offended just meditate on Holy Name but anyway if either of Nigel, PatD or 13, or anyone else for that matter who have seen Rawat in the last decade or two maybe you can answer my question: Is he really that fat? I don't know and don't really care how fat he is. That wasn't my point. I just said using obesity as a basis for ridicule will be offensive to many reading, and in my opinion, counter-productive. As 13 pointed out, being overweight isn't necessarily a symptom of self-indulgence, sloth or gluttony as you seem to imply. Your use of the word 'disgustingly' maybe reveals more about your prejudices than Rawat's sins of indulgence - or that's how it seemed from first reading. Is fatness disgusting by definition?
Modified by Nigel at Sun, May 14, 2006, 17:34:57
|
|
|
|
I should not say something because it's counter-productive to making people understand the truth about Prem Rawat? Hell, now that's the sort of thinking that has got Elan Vital into it's truly disgusting deceitful public relations' stories and revisionism. The truth in this case is more important than the possible offense.
Obesity as a basis for ridicule of normal human beings is something that reasonable people leave back in the kindergarten playground.
Obesity as a basis for exposing the truth about the most unique and most realised and most God-conscious person on the planet is something that people should be doing and if it involves ridicule, well so be it. Being overweight to the extent shown in that video of Prem Rawat (remember I'm still asking is that an accurate representation?) isn't necessarily a symptom of self-indulgence, sloth or gluttony, which I don't believe or state, but in Rawat's case it nearly certainly is and I am open to evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
I can't quite follow your reasoning, and don't see how being a cult leader even comes into it. 'I just called to say I love you' was a pretty horrible record, but not because Stevie Wonder was 'disgustingly black' or 'disgustingly blind'. It was just a crap song. Rawat runs a crap cult and talks crap. Let's start there.
Modified by Nigel at Sun, May 14, 2006, 18:49:35
|
|
|
|
I don't know when and what your involvement with the cult was but in my day "Maharaji's Knowledge" was supposed to make you at least as happy and healthy as all the other forms of meditation being proselytised and advertised and then something more that none of the others had because this was the true Knowledge as revealed by all the other Perfect Masters and actually they are still making the same claims albeit in diifferent language.
So it still seems to me that there is a logical connection with claims being made for Knowledge today and the fact that the Revealer of the True Knowledge shouldn't be such an obese and unhealthy person. If you claim good things about your unique Knowledge of life but look like crap then the claims are nearly certainly bogus. Now we alrady know they're bogus but it would make it easier for new folk if they saw what a bogus bogan Rawat is before tehy were in the clutches of Elan Think.
|
|
|
|
I happen to agree with you, Ocker. Maharaji sells Knowledge as the source of true happiness, but how happy can Maharaji be if he stuffs his face to the point where he's obese? I might be wrong but I think the only way you get that big is if you eat your way to it. And if you eat your way to that weight it's because you're looking for food to fill a need other than nourishment. You're trying to fill holes that, supposedly, only Knowledge can fill. So, yes, I would say Maharaji's weight is evidence that Knowledge isn't what it's cracked up to be, at least not for Maharaji, it's chief proponent.
|
|
|
|
Hi, Jerry, It’s mathematically true that the size of your body correlates with calories taken in vs. calories burned. But some people’s bodies don’t appear to burn calories in the normal way, even though they don’t eat excessively. "A genetic link to obesity was strongly inferred by the results of studies involving twins who were raised apart. The study allowed the influences of genetic make-up and environment to be distinguished. These studies determined that genetic factors contribute to about 40 per cent of obesity variance in twins. " As 13 said above, of all the reasons for finding fault with Rawat, being fat is the worst. If we can’t do better than that, then what’s the point? For people who characterise EPO and ex-premie forums as a ‘hate group’, this thread is evidence that will probably be quoted on one-reality.net pretty soon. But, as PatD, said ‘little fat fuck’, trips effortlessly off the tips of the typing fingers and brings momentary non-pc warmth to our otherwise blameless hearts. But that probably says more about us than it does about Rawat, IMO. Nige http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/genetics/obesity-genetic-factors-wog.html
|
|
|
|
Hi Nige, I suppose it could be misconstrued that Ocker is trying to denigrate Maharaji for his weight, but the truth is something different. If it is true that Maharaji is merely genetically obese, than the fault isn't his own. But if he's obese because he uses food to fill an emotional void, than what would that say about the effectiveness of Knowlege, for the "Perfect Master", no less? I guess it's anybody's guess, though, why M is overweight.
|
|
|
|
>I suppose it could be misconstrued that Ocker is trying to denigrate Maharaji for his weight, but the truth is something different. If it is true that Maharaji is merely genetically obese, than the fault isn't his own. But if he's obese because he uses food to fill an emotional void, than what would that say about the effectiveness of Knowlege, for the "Perfect Master", no less? I guess it's anybody's guess, though, why M is overweight. Yes, it is anyone's guess why M is overweight. And guesswork is probably the problem, here. Plus Ocker's use of the word 'disgustingly' that stirred me from my nest...
|
|
|
|
Original claim after all.
Balyogeshwar -- Born Lord of Yogis -- I envisaged some Milarepa type character: who can demonstrate with his own being the method of yoga, as if it were, (and actually no ifs.. over there!) .. his own birth right.
But there's these convenient new proverbs he brought with him:-
"Do as I say, not as I do"
"If a drowning man struggles; push him under"
Heres one glove that should fit!
"When one finger points: three fingers are pointing right back!"
lp
Modified by LP at Mon, May 15, 2006, 16:22:54
|
|
|
|
Someone else mentioned that Rawat got his propensity to being fat from his mother and that seems fair enough. The genetic factor contributes about 40% of obesity variance, not 40% of obesity. The genetic link has gone down to his daughter also by the look of that video in which he sings, see http://www.ex-premie.org/video/4days.html
But having fat ancestors or at least ancestors with a propensity to efficiently convert food to energy and store it only provides an increased risk of obesity and for Rawat to have got that fat nearly certainly means he has eaten to the point of gluttony and as he has access to the best medical treatment we can be pretty sure if there is a problem it is psychological not medical.
Shelagh who has seen him recently at Amaroo thinks that he's not quite as fat as shown in the video and someone else pointed out he's only 5'2" and so could appear fatter than he is.
My point is simple, there are lots of far more important reasons to judge Rawat a fraud and a nasty one at that but there is nothing so obvious to a "new person". When you're in a group of true believers eg at an "introductory Program" there is strong pressure to conform and if everyone there is accepting of Rawat as being qualified to expound on true inner peace and the source of life within that has a strong influence. If on further enquiry, re the net, you find straightforward, even sarcastic, criticism of him as a Fat Bastard, totally and ridiculously unqualified to preach about Inner Peace that could be helpful to people.
I know his appearance, poor language skills and ignorance were huge problems for me back in 1973 but I allowed myself to be convinced these shouldn't matter because of the health, vitality, enthusiasm, sometimes brilliance and breadth of knowledge amongst the premies of the time.
No-one has to use such methods if they don't want to.
|
|
|
|
> propensity to efficiently convert food to energy and store it < Nice idea - shame no one has yet come up with any clear metabolic data to show that this has relevance to more than a small percentage of humanity. Eating habits may be inherited - but most probably are learned from parents - as are exercise habits. Whatever the 'politics' of body shape, for 99% of humans there is a simple equation between activity and energy requirement - and that equation runs pretty much within the same metabolic limits for all of us. >there are lots of far more important reasons to judge Rawat a fraud and a nasty one at that but there is nothing so obvious to a "new person" < Who is to say what is important in this circumstance ? Most people employ a simple 'first 30 seconds" impression to make judgements about others - when dealing with cult leaders, spivs and con artists - this first instinct is frequently valuable. If Rawat's body shape wasn't an issue - his publicity wouldn't do so much to disguies the fact that he's an obese Danny Devitto look a like. So yes it is an issue. AND Rawat is selling 'inner peace' - his propaganda maybe that his message is simple and no one should question him about anything but Knowledge - but in the real world other questions apply. Most people would expect 'inner peace' to translate into some external expression - they certainly would be confused to find that the great master of inner peace lives a life that vastly increases the likelihood of suffering: Type 2 Diabetes Coronary Heart Disease High Blood Pressure Osteoarthritis Rheumatoid Arthritis Cancers: of the Esophagus and Gastric Cardia colorectal cancer. Renal Cell Cancer Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Chronic Venous Insufficiency Deep Vein Thrombosis End Stage Renal Disease Gallbladder Disease Gout Hypertension Impaired Immune Response Impaired Respiratory Function Liver Disease Sleep Apnea Stroke etc, etc etc, Obesity is a serious challenge to individual and public health in much of the developed world - anyone selling a panacea for 'the human condition' can be reasonably challenged as to why their panacea offers no impact upon the obesity pandemic. Nik
|
|
|
|
If you eat well and do none you'll end up like Rawat, which is odd considering what a respect he has for life supposedly, another of those little lila oddities I guess.
But hang on, it's not lila anymore, cause he's just a regular guy, well sort of etc etc
|
|
|
|
There is plenty of good reason to criticise Rawat, but surely the
size of him must be the worst. There are lots of reasons that people
get fat, and sometimes it isn't in their control.
To criticise him for this devalues the much more valid criticism of his
claims to spiritual virtue, his use and abuse of his devotees, his
disgustingly indulgent lifestyle, the revisionism and so on.
What a shame.
|
|
|
|
I don't care if someone is fat but when that someone is pretending to reveal the source of life, inner peace and happiness and gift it to people through his grace and inspiration then his obesity becomes something that should be used in evidenceFair enough, and I agree. Yes, Ocker, Rawat really is that fat! The camera doesn't lie, and those pictures reveal the Lard as he really is. I think you make a fair point: that his weight (and therefore his lifestyle) can be called into question, because he claims to be the master of perfection, and the purveyor of peace. Likewise, his smoking cigarettes/spliffs, drinking bourbon etc. are all relevant too (and not that they are necessarily linked with obesity, or wrong, either). But premies don't see any of this as relevant. I didn't when I was a premie. What I DO see as relevant is his behaviour towards other people, and the way he deals with premies, people around him and situations in life. All the evidence suggests that he is seriously challenged, and that he is apparently so full of his own self-importantce, that normal day to day demands frequently reduce him to an angry wreck. That he is arrogant, abusive, disrespectful and a liar, lacking integrity and self respect, is far more relevant and important, imo. Also, that he lies about his lifestyle, and hides it from premies, (his smoking and drinking etc.) says more about him than the lifestyle itself. If it's okay to drink and smoke etc. then why hide it? Clearly he thinks it's NOT okay to live like that, or he wouldn't keep it secret and have ex-rated premies sign confidentiality contracts, restricting their freedom of speech. How premies square that one is a mystery to me. But then, most premies are exes now. What's the fall out rate? 'Bout 95% I think, so there you go! Most premies see through the bullshit, sooner or later.
Modified by Stardust at Sun, May 14, 2006, 18:09:47
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that eye-witness evidence.
I agree completely that he being arrogant, abusive, disrespectful and a liar, lacking integrity and self respect, is far more relevant and important than he being obese. But his obesity is something obvious and immediate and to find our the rest you need to hang around a fair while or be particularly discriminating in which case you probably wouldn't be toying with the idea of "receiving Knowledge" these days anyway.
So in terms of helping people avoid being involved in the first place (and there is still a fair push for propagation going on on public TV and the internet) bringing his physical form to the attention of the public is the quickest and simplest method of anti-propagation. Something like the old Nixon 5 o'clock shadow poster: "Would you buy a used car from this man?"
|
|
|
|
Rawat's weight isn't high on my list of priorities when it comes to things to criticize him about. Lots of people are fat, especially in the U.S., and people don't have to be filthy rich to get fat -- all that takes is a fatty, starchy diet and no exercise. People who live in poverty can get fat so I don't think it has much to do with someone's income level. Our news reports are filled with waist-down-only camera shots of obese Americans. Rawat's always had a weight problem and I remember hearing about a few diets he's gone on over the years (rumors that filtered down from residence staff). It's obvious he inherited his body shape from Mata Ji, because she had a pot belly, too. Not everything is under someone's control in the weight department. Basically, I think it's mean and a cheap shot. I've called M fat names myself, and like I said, it's just too easy, when there's so much more about him that's wrong.
|
|
|
|
I understand and respect your position but when I consider the mean and cheap and even untruthful shots that you've detailed EV have taken at you in the past I don't see why suc mean and cheap and true shots shouldn't be taken at him. Hey I'm not asking anyone to repeat these truths, I actually asked is he really that fat. Thanfully someone answered.
|
|
|
|
If Prem Rawat were thin, I'd still have plenty of criticism to send his way. But, I'm used to the fat jokes about him so they seem superfluous to me now. Others disagree and that's fine. I understand and respect your position but when I consider the mean and cheap and even untruthful shots that you've detailed EV have taken at you in the past I don't see why suc mean and cheap and true shots shouldn't be taken at him. Because I try not to use "tit for tat" as a form of criticism or reply anymore. One of my sisters calls not using the "tit for tat" method as "taking the higher road" in an argument. I'm not always successful in doing it, but when I do take the higher road, I always feel better about myself. That said, I have no objection to anyone calling Rawat fat because he is fat and he's also a public figure, he promotes himself in the public arena, so just like any celebrity, he's automatically opened up to all public or private scrutiny.
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, May 15, 2006, 07:05:34
|
|
|
|
The fact is Rawat presented himself to us as God in human form, invited us to kiss his feet and to worship him in every possible way without any reservation whatsoever. Therefore, when the veil comes off our eyes, it's completely fair for us to acknowledge we were kissing a goat. but ... The fact is Rawat is a person just like any other and, as we all know, it's entirely unkind to mock or ridicule someone just for their personal appearance, especially when they're likely suffering from a bit of a bad hand at the genetic poker table. It's impossible to reconcile these two positions so take your pick. I'm kind of partial to the first myself. Oh my! Did I really kiss that ugly little toad? What waaaaas I thinking?!
Modified by Jim at Sun, May 14, 2006, 18:59:18
|
|
|
|
Didn't you see him recently or weren't you allowed into the hall? If you did get in, is he really that fat?
And hey I'm not mocking him just for his personal appearance, I'm mocking him because he claims to reveal the secret of inner peace and happiness but he looks like a fat, sick, unhappy toad.
|
|
|
|
Hi Ocker, No I haven't seen him for about 25 years. I went to a program in Vancouver a few years ago but obviously wasn't welcome so I stood outside and gave out little EPO fliers.
|
|
|
|
I mean really, are you just having fun at my Aussie naivete, taking the piss as we say or did you really stand in the street shouting into a megaphone, sandwich boards over your shoulders, pushing flyers onto everyone whether they wished them or not and creating a public disturbance.
Vancouver you say, who could have seen you in the fog and the rain? Where can I get some of these flyers?
|
|
|
|
"did you really stand in the street shouting into a megaphone, sandwich boards over your shoulders, pushing flyers onto everyone whether they wished them or not and creating a public disturbance." It's just like the kind of service we used to do in the seventies and even early eighties !
|
|
|
|
Ocker, I happened to be in Vancouver anyway for some court appearance or another. It was a bright summer day, by the way. We get those here. Anyway, I made up some flyers advertising EPO and saying something along the lines of "It's time to learn the rest of the story". Can't remember. Something like that. And I, along with this friend of ours, a woman who's about 30 now and ain't never been a part of no cult but who happened to be in Vancouver as well and needing a lift back to the island, and who is/was always game for a little fun, if that's what this was, went. The "show" was at a cheap, middle-of-the-road hotel by the airport. (I note, by the way, that Rawat's going to be back in the lower mainland next Wednesday, although this time he's been invited to speak in an even worse part of town, New Westminster. We're talking world's apart from downtown Vancouver where we used to invite him and each other to speak at events.) Honor, my friend, and I stood outside the conference room driveway and offered these little fliers very courteously and discretely. As I was one of the early members of the Vancouver cult community, I noticed a bunch of my old friends who, like you, probably, have all gotten fat. I tried to say hi to a few but this was a very, very savvy crowd. No one was about to get tricked into my anti-cult cult that easily. First it's "Hi Jim", the next thing you know you're being love-bombed in the back of some atheist's living room. Sadly -- and I really did feel this, by the way -- some old friends I hadn't seen in decades, even, pretended they didn't know me at all. Who knows? Perhaps I was getting fat too. During the program, Rawat's old security guy from Texas asked Honor and me to join him for a drink in the hotel bar or restaurant. Of course he wanted to sound us out, see just how apostatical we were. We had a decent enough time and he promised to keep the cult brass off our ass. Which he did. Some of the more earnest members were trying to get the hotel to kick us off its grounds but this guy stopped that. It was a sign, I'm sure of it. After the program, we stood outside the doors in the driveway again, offering these little neon flyers. This time the cult members were a little more "assertive". One took one flyer, bunched it up rather tightly and threw it at my head. Hard. I know it sounds like nothing but it was definitely an assault. Did you know you can take an eye out with a picture of a guru? Well, you can. Another guy ripped all of Honor's flyers out of her hand and -- I can't recall -- either threw them out or threw them at her. One or the other. A few told us to f**k off. It was nasty. So then we left. On the ferry we stumbled upon a gaggle of premies, people I knew from years ago for the most part. One or two were friendly so we naturally sat down. Which lead a couple to tsk tsk and take off. They were nervous. We made a little small talk. It was very stilted and uncomfortable. So that was it. I felt that after supporting Neville's brave stand at Amaroo the least I could do was something small and civil along these lines. It was a one-off and nowhere near as much fun as I'd expected. Two things that struck home now that I could actually see all these people was that a) they're all getting pretty old already; and b) these are lifers. Defection will henceforth be a mere trickle. People who've been beaten away from logic, truth and critical thinking, who've been smothered by the tit of syrupy, cultish feeling, whose whole life is built on the vain hope that Rawat wouldn't really f**k them over (would he?), who can't envision making any real friends all over again, these guys are lifers for the most part. Gone are the days when a sincere, intelligent Western premie can say they had no idea that there is, in fact, another side to the story. So I won't be going to New Westminster next week. Why bother?
Modified by Jim at Mon, May 15, 2006, 17:26:24
|
|
|
|
Hi Jim,
I wish I could have been there. But between ourselves I just said that stuff about being fat so I wouldn't seem to be too, you know, "thinner that you" sort of uppity and sniffy and fattophobic. Hell, I'm already known as a homophobic, cowardly cult blackmail caver-inner so I don't need to upset too many more people with worthy agendas.
The people on this forum are sometimes so damn decent and determined to take the high road that I don't feel part of the followers of the Jim Heller anti-cult cult at all. Just my luck. I only ever join one group and it turns out to be a cult in which people worship the fat little boy guru, someone I find obnoxious, so I hardly feel at home therein and then when an anti-that-cult group emerges on the net the "members" are mainly too nice and decent for me to feel at home there either.
Is the universe giving me a message that I'm too deaf to hear? Can I sue?
|
|
|
|
... but I don't want to talk about the law. I want to talk about losing weight. See, I, too, am having one hell of a hard time justifying my 34" pants. I broke down last week and bought my first 36" and, Lordy, Lordy, aren't they just a little more comfortable. A bit big, mind you, but, well.... A few years ago I was bitching about this to Joe who advised me to go to the gym. I need to do that. I have a court vest that I'll be damned if I'm going to replace. My next big trial's in the fall. I need a regimen. But you were asking about suing the universe? Where? In Queensland? I know a great lawyer who even does house visits.
|
|
|
|
Look it seems I owe you and Prem Rawat a huge apology. I've had a look and it turns out my pants are all 80 around the waist. And they must all be Made in China cause they all say 80cm. It turns out that I must be just as obese as Prem Pal Rawat and I don't even have the worry of being Lord of the Universe. When I raise my right arm I just create hot air and not galaxies. I'd publicly eat humble pie but apparently pies aren't appropriate on diets.
|
|
|
|
I hardly think so, Ocker. Pretty-well everyone takes some or other moral stance on every thread, yourself included (Remember your comments re. Roupell's sources of income?) I wouldn't worry about the 'fat' thing - there's as many people here who have agreed with you as disagree. (Even I agree, up to a point ) I just see the fat thing as a trivial side issue, and a bit of a distraction. And 'anti-cult cult' is a phrase straight out of Catweasel's lexicon, and so inapplicable I assume you must be joking?
Modified by Nigel at Tue, May 16, 2006, 17:44:43
|
|
|
|
I certainly was joking in a very sincere manner but then if I was one of you high moral stancers (which I'm not as I condemn Roupsy and laugh at fatty) I might think far more highly of the anti-cult cult but these days I agree with either Oscar Wilde or Groucho Marx: I wouldn't want to join Heller's cult unless his standards were so high I couldn't make the cut.
I've upset some ex-ers in the past by stating that those of us who joined in the 70's were hardly the brightest of the brightest shining stars of 60's youth else we would have joined other cults and I'm pretty sure standards of people joining Rawatism these days must have slipped a fair bit since then. It's hard to believe that people could be so naive in this day and age.
|
|
|
|
I have probably inadvertently upset a few good people over the years, and it's depressing 'cause it's usually about something said to somebody I don't know, about something I have no strong feelings about. And it then takes a few days to explain yourself, unruffle feathers etc. That's the trouble with web forums, where you have no eye contact or 'tone of voice' to rely on. An exchange that, face to face, over a pub table would be sorted in five minutes, followed by a fresh schooner or two gets unnecessarily protracted. And emoticoms don't help much here, 'cos people use them sarcastically. But, you're right that standards have slipped in the quality of raw Rawat recruit these days. How many young premies are there? Now there's a thread...
|
|
|
|
Considering the excesses at the top end of extremes that seems pretty fair to me.
To any readers who try to see us as a 'hate group'; see how concerned people here are to draw the line of criticism fairly and squarely at the level of his basic humanity.
They resist criticism 'below the belt' as it were. The undeniable fact that there are plenty of worthy subjects above the line, and only inevitably, at least temporarily some excesses below the line, yes one or two references to his human form are made.
These are not undue (as my absent spanish friend (who was neither premie nor ex-premie) always pointed out) but "Reasonable attempts to return the stakes to a level playing field, to redress the balance in the self esteem department."
When one has been forced into a position of severely reduced self worth, while the perpetrator sees himself in a supreme position; able to order all to: "Not criticise, or else! I'll.. I'll..... (turning red)": one is justifiably indignant and secretly amused.
Under such provocation it is only human nature, particularly among those recently unchained, to shyly snigger, even to a point of poking a little harmless fun. Admittedly; like meerkats goading a large and dangerous snake; they are still wary: and this un ease expresses itself in acts of bravado and rebellion.
Forbidden to criticize, by he who once figured he owned one's life, a healthy heat rises from within and it feels like a kind of courage when one finds at last the words forming on one's lips: "But he's fat" (meaning human). Many ex-premie careers began that way. I myself have, personally, lost many old friends like that. (It is not aimed at a particularity of humanness).
Something reasonably uncouth usually accompanies the dawning moment when one realizes one has been had!
This is normal, human natural defence mechanism, to bring dictators down to a manageable size. Criticism, while mostly above the belt, does; to lighten the mood; or to release deep seated human trauma; occasionally slip down to include some quantities below the belt. The famous Colonel Bogie song to name one or two! For Example.
Those temporarily tempted to jest at the person should be understood, and only then; judged, in the light of the long periods of time, during which this harsh code of extremes, in terms of uneven distribution, of the bulk of human esteem: and paucity of worth with which we were served; was in place over us, by this or that person.
Once our new found freedom has been thoroughly digested our criticism will, naturally, reduce to a more manageable size.
Les Protein
p.s. Nor does 'fat' in any of these cases elude to the more serious matter of his puffed up appearance being, in the eyes of those who peer through their eyelashes: proof that he had somehow absorbed large amounts of our energy, to become so full and shiny in appearance; known, in some singularity of loner's circles, as the krishna beachball effect.
However that form of fullness is reducing and being replaced by the fullness usually associated with the "world" as in "wordly things."
The fact that followers cannot criticize is a far more serious matter.
pps I refer to mental manipulation or hypnosis, auto suggestion, brainwashing, will reduction and the usual every day forms of psychological abuse here.
When therapy for such conditions is sought the unwillingness to speak out against one's protagonist is seen as one of the major obstacles. Conversely the ability to bitch about same: a good sign.
We're not just doing this for the benefit of our health! Well, yes, actually we are!
Modified by LP at Mon, May 15, 2006, 08:22:59
|
|
|
|
LP, you have hit the nail. The ability to see he is a little fat fuck and say it over and over and over is a little freeing!. We were forbiden to say what our eyes saw and twisted ourselves into knots of denial. For 30 years I never shared with anyone the techniques, even when I should have been telling my eye doctor. Last week I showed my eye doc the light technique.............very freeing! My purpose for posting on this site my be a little different than others, I do not want to create a PR campain against Rawat; I want to purge him/transform the experience for myself. I am taking out the knots.........you little fat prick....hmmmmm lighting did not strike me down.........maybe he's not really GOD after all?
|
|
|
|
Hi Stephen,
So the eye doctor...............what did he say?
|
|
|
|
Hi PatD, I got a clue that Elan Vital probably monitors this site. I prefer not to post on the record any longer concerning this topic. I will request your email to share my findings. Stephen B
|
|
|
|
.....I shook with fear.Some idiot then posted me a message on the forum using "Guru Maharaj Ji" as their name.For a short while I thought it really was.....him....Voldemort,all seeing ,all knowing...just waiting for me...infinitessimal me... to enter the ex-premie forum. For the next couple of weeks (and still now sometimes) I thought I would meet with a fatal accident .( like Bob Mischler). Sometimes I feel a bit like L.P. seems to. Can we ever shake this damn thing off !
|
|
|
|
Yup, I think we can. For me it is about seperating out the internal positive from the crook/con man/liar/cheat that is in the very lumpy gross body of Prem Rawat. Let's face it, something in us that may be the best of who we are was used to hook us in. I will not let that part of me go because it was once attached to the image of Rawat, kind of a baby and bath problem. Nice to know I am not the only one......kinda weird that after 30 years the strictures against shareing the techniques were still in me. Stephen B
|
|
|
|
Yes, for me the baby in the bathwater was me too, what it meant to me, what I made of it. So it has been a big process of laying it all out sifting and sorting, cleaning and untangling.I think of it more as a question of digestion of our experience rather than shaking it off. Not only do I not think we can shake it off - it happened, I wouldn't want to. Ahrrr no she sez, resting on the handle of her garden spade with a little grin, I goes for the composting method mysel'. After all tis not so long before the poo is pushing up fresh daisies.
|
|
|
|
..when I first posted to the EPO forum back in 1997, Lexy. >I shook with fear.Some idiot then posted me a message on the forum using "Guru Maharaj Ji" as their name.For a short while I thought it really was.....him....Voldemort,all seeing ,all knowing...just waiting for me...infinitessimal me... to enter the ex-premie forum. For the next couple of weeks (and still now sometimes) I thought I would meet with a fatal accident . (like Bob Mischler). I was angry then - an outlet valve, at last - and always got paranoid the next morning, reading back what I had posted. Not because I thought Marge could zap me with divine magic, but because he was rich and had thought police and lawyers patrolling the web. And (like you say) threatening troll posts just increased the fear. The internet was still new to most people, so knowing what you can or can't say online was a grey area. In time, you come to relax about it all. I have always posted under my own name (full details easily traceable), yet, strangely, have never been subject to premie attacks from the CAC sites, or one-reality, in spite of my instigating the ELK scam back in 98. And I keep saying pretty foul things about Jossi Fresco. But nobody seems to take any notice... What's the opposite of paranoia? (I mean people who think somebody ought to be out to get them but aren't) To your point, I don't think any of us has to 'shake the damn thing off', like a dog just come in from the rain. It will dry out naturally by the fireside...
|
|
|
|
It wasn't a Troll who posted to me using the name Guru Maharaj Ji.It was someone's idea of a joke.They meant no harm.They said something like "The door is always open" ( to go back) but at first I thought it was a real post and I was disorientated. This is some of the problem with this forum.There is a difference in the understanding of those who left the cult 25 to 30 years ago, and those who remained a part of it for 20 to 30 or more years.A bit of a chasm of a difference IMO.Maybe I'll start a thread about this and it can be discussed further. I have felt very little paranoia about real problems that might arise from real people/premies because I post here.I didn't know that it might be unsafe to use my real name ( Alexandra) here but I just thought Lexy was more fun.I did once receive a weird message on my answerphone soon after I first posted here but it may not have been related to that. Most of my fears are of the magical/religious thinking kind.Fear of being struck down dead , being punished in some obtuse way,never getting "myself" back.Never "realising" the knowledge,wasting this precious human life in this precious human body after god knows how many incarnations. Now I think that whole "rotting vegetables",manmut trip is just the natural result of having one's identity rather brutally tampered with whilst still a teenager. Heaven forbid that I should ever reveal the tecniques !The wind might change and I may turn to stone
|
|
|
|
As you've left Prem Rawat and spoken out against him it would hardly be fair if you were the first Westerner to "realise Knowledge." As a matter of fact it would be a complete travesty. What about all those people who have remained loyal? Shouldn't they get a chance to be the first?
There is only one person I've ever heard of claiming to have "realised Knowledge". That is the young Prem himself and if he is an indication of what realising Knowledge does to you physically and mentally then you're better off unrealised. Oh damn, slagging him off for being so fat is what started all these people criticising me before. Won't I ever learn?
Actually that's going to be my next controversial post. I'm going to demand everybody post revealing the techniques as they were taught and by whom or I'll say they're fat too. Heaven forbidding won't stop me though John Brauns and Mike Finch might.
|
|
|
|
Idene Klapper, then married to Dr. Mike Klapper (and thus a mere householder) realized The Knowledge in Vancouver in 1974. She did it with Mahatma Tejeshwaranand's help. (He helped her and a number of sisters that spring). She went from being a typical premie to someone who gave satsang saying that she now saw Guru Maharaji in every last thing. She was beautiful in a whole, new way. She got to give satsang every night. Mahatma Ji did something really, really special with those sisters. He moved us all out of one ashram to the one next door so he could have a little privacy. He even secretly flew up the Philadelphia housemother to "make food". One of the sisters later went stark, raving mad. Idene and Mike split up. My friend, Dave, hung himself. Mahatma Ji went back to India.
|
|
|
|
"Admittedly; like meerkats goading a large and dangerous snake; they are still wary: and this un ease expresses itself in acts of bravado and rebellion."
Exactly,L.P. Frankly I couldn't care less that he's fat but it's gloriously naughty to sing about it, especially after all those "Focus on the form of Guru Maharaaaj Ji" type songs I used to reverently warble.
|
|
|
|
Rawat is only 5' 2" and maybe even shrinking as he ages. Just being this short (as a shortie myself) the weight only spreads out. It seems like Rawat has been overweight since he came to the States (too many donuts). And yes, I agree with Cynthia, that genetics comes into play. But I would think with all his money and access to his own personal gym and any other equipment made, he could work on his weight problem and take those nice long walks on the Malibu beaches. And let's not forget personal trainers to get him in shape as well. He definitely has not aged well and I'm sure his indulgent lifestyle doesn't help. And if he is downing those $500 bottle of fine brandy, that goes to his hips and tummy as well. I lost 60 pounds in one year, with exercise and a good diet, so it possible.
|
|
|
|
Hi Ocker. You asked if someone who has seen him in the last ten years could verify if this is a true picture of Rawat's excees weight. In all honesty, to me, the video-clips you show here looked somewhat distorted and compressed to me, so I would say it's not quite as bad as that. I last saw him at Amaroo in 2001, and because there was darshan at that event, I came pretty close to his personage--I was more dismayed by the slit eyes than any body bulk--and because he was sitting on a platform above us, it would have been hard to tell. But my honest appraisal is that he that he was somewhat but not hugely obese at that time. I agree with the folks that say this issue is the least of our worries, but also agree that we should be able to discuss anything on this forum that helps us deal with the question of what a person who has claimed to have the ultimate enlightenment should be demonstrating by his own appearance, health etc. It is relevant in this context. I have a very dear friend who has struggled with a weight issue all her life. She swims, eats healthy, is very active in Amnesty International, writes articles for the Master Teacher organisation, has spent years counselling troubled youths, and is an all-round fantastic and active person. Bright and dedicated in so many ways. So obviously the weight thing isn't a sign of self-indulgence or greed or anything like that with her. But then, true--she's an ordinary mortal. We expect much more from someone who has raised himself above the ordinary mortal status. Cheers, Shelagh
|
|
|
|
The benefit of talking about, making fun of, etc., Rawat's weight, or any other of his personal aspects is that it takes some power away from him. Obviously that is power that only exists in one's mind, but it is, nevertheless, real. For that reason, there is a benefit to it. Do any posters here honestly feel obesity is a thing that should be used against everyone who is overweight? Of course not. This is not about "making fun of fat people." It's about removing some of the power of the person who was billed to be "perfect". He's not, never was. But, having evidence of that imperfection so obvious and blatant can be delightful!
|
|
|
