|
|
|
"Imagine it's 1971. You have just seen Maharaji and received Knowledge. How would you go about letting people know, given that you now also have the resources of 2006?"Assuming the challenge was not simply to let people know it was 1971 (tee hee) - I'd talk to them. Face to face. That's what we were once encouraged to do. In my day it was called "giving satsang". And we knocked on strangers' doors (often under the excuse of requesting jumble donations) knowing that the really important thing was that they got to hear about Guru Maharaj Ji. That's one of the reasons Rawat got so famous so quickly. It was the human contact that did it. And the heartfelt sincerity with which we propagated the message - and of which we were so fervently convinced - helped to make those encounters with strangers all the more memorable. Today, the only person allowed to "give satsang" is the Maha himself. And, while he can fake sincerity pretty well - at least sometimes - his approach lacks so much that we had. And what did we have? Conviction that he was God incarnate. Perhaps that was a conviction he had too, once. But I'd like to hear him explain, in his own words, once and for all, WHY he presented himself as "Lord" all those years ago. AND why he no longer chooses to. Doing so could only help to make the "inner peace" he keeps talking about all the more real - not least for those premies who remember the old days.
Modified by cq at Thu, Jun 22, 2006, 14:42:30
|
|
|
|
That's true, but it was 19-f**king-71 and he was the publicized Lord of the Universe. He did say 1+1 = 11 when people propagate and the word spreads in some LOTU-mathematical way. With competition like Depak Chophra, a real medical doctor and plus sort-of cult leader with best-selling books and a reported $15 million a year in income, plus former TM guy, how is Premmy Rawat ever to make it as a self-help guru? Premmy Rawat would never go on Larry King Live like Deepak does (like every other month or more) for discussions on everything. Larry likes Deepak. He pulls in a pretty penny in the guru-business. Oh well, I babble to much...
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Jun 22, 2006, 16:27:39
|
|
|
|
Premmy Rawat you call him.You know, I'd never before thought of him as a premie. I wonder if, to his daddy, he was one. And if he thinks of his own children as premies? Could be a whole investigation here into the mindset of the 'guru'/'inspirational speaker', if only one would come clean and offer themselves up for scrutiny. But that would be against their interests, wouldn't it? As if a self-professed guru (or even an ex-guru) would permit any light to be shed on his/her innermost psyche! Now there's an article Wiki could expand on (like the one linked to below).
Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_food
Modified by cq at Thu, Jun 22, 2006, 15:42:17
|
|
|
|
I'm just being playful, Chris. Premmy is a nickname I thought up for him. Like "Cindy" for Cynthia, or "Jimmy" for James or "Chrissy" for Christian or Christopher would be like, you know. Not premie, although Premmy did put himself forth as the ultimate "premie" as Goomrodgie, fulfilling his "voices in his head" agya from Shri-Hansi-Daddy-Guru, that he, Premmy, so often spoke about, like: "It's my agya from My Groomrodgie (the big-guy in the sky). "Spread this Knowledge to every land." Remember? Rawat's agya from Daddy-poo. I don't know if Premmy actually heard his father say he should be doing all the spreading of K in a Gulfstream V or a $7 million dollar yacht and palaces on every other continent, but hey, Premmy improvised. No, Premmy's a metasphysical genius, didn't you know that by now, cq? Sheesh! He's Prem Rawat, a/k/a Maharaji for goodness sake. Just a simple Master of Love. We're having lovely, perfect, off the scale, lush Vermont summer weather here. I'm giddy-playful with nature right now. It doesn't get better than this in life, ever ever. 
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Jun 22, 2006, 16:53:56
|
|
|
|
Hansi, lying nigh
Tell me what you see,
If you could talk to me
What news would you bring
Of "voices in my head"
NO, NO...... I will not wreck a perfectly good Moody Blues song! I won't do it! Larkin might, but I can't do it.....
|
|
|
|
I can never hear another perfectly good (well, pretty good) Moody Blues song, 'A Question Of Balance' without thinking of the Passages revisionism. That's probably because I didn't hear the album back in the 70's cause I'd already joined DLM.
It's not the way that you say it
When you do those things to me.
It's more the way that you mean it
When you tell me what will be.
And when you stop and think about it
You won't believe it's true.
That all the love you've been giving
Has all been meant for you.
I'm looking for someone to change my life.
I'm looking for a miracle in my life.
And if you could see what it's done to me
To lose the the love I knew
Fortunately my feelings for "Get Together" by the Youngbloods were set in stone in the '60's and can't be effected by that dreadful, deceitful, revisionist video.
|
|
|
|
I do like the Moody's and always have. Fortunately, I was exposed to them long before I was exposed to M. Seventh Sojourn was already out and planted in my psyche before I had even heard M's name. So I don't associate anything they have done (in the initial seven albums) with M. I DO associate them with brain chemistry tinkering, but that is entirely different But I know what you mean. There are other artists who remind me of M and there is just no way for me to enjoy those...... ugghhh!
|
|
|
|
I'm a little different. I still love much of the old DLM music which I associate with my youth, the premie community and the search for sat, cit and anand. It's because I first heard that song in Passages that I associate it with premies lying and the decadence and deceit of EV that I don't play it. The evolution from youthful idealism to middle age untruthful revisionism disgusts me. I mean he may be God but doesn't that mean you've got to tell the truth about him?
|
|
|
|
Just 400 or so aspirants in the UK of
which so far this year just 23 have received Knowledge it could be so much more. Yes, that's probably true. It's so funny. Nothing much is happening, and all that is happening is just (hopefully) seeds for something else that might actually work, and the cult is dead as a door nail when it comes to being attractive to the unindoctrinated. I think Chris has it right. In 1971 and for a few years after that, we just told people God was here on earth revealing himself and the whole world was going to change as a result, so we excitedly told people to get on for the ride. That drew a lot of people because it was honest and enthusiastic. It was false and insane, but at least it was honest and full of energy. But since about 1976, Rawat has told premies to basically lie to people, about what they really believe, and that just doesn't turn anybody on. Even if it's a lie, if it's truly believed, it comes across as something exciting and attractive. Hedging just doesn't do that. So Prem both tells people to do propagation, but also not to tell the truth, and to be very afraid of making a mistake, by "spreading concepts." No wonder not a damn thing is happening. I frankly think the vast majority of premies gave up on "propagation" years and years ago. None of the supposed "new phases" has resulted in anything. If you want to see the Rawat mixed message on propagation (as well as to see him blame the mahatmas for all the "concepts" and his irritation at still having to explain what happened in the 70s (as if he had nothing do to with it)), watch the Atlanta Training video from, I think, 2001. He scared the shit out of the premies when it came to propagation. Oh, yeah, he also said that propagation in the USA was going down the toilet. That was funny.
Modified by Joe at Thu, Jun 22, 2006, 16:52:30
|
|
|
|
I suspect, given all the evidence that what he values most in life is his obscene wealth that he'd play the scam all over again.... great post Joe.
|
|
|
