|
|
|
>So Sean believes that Prem Rawat has cheated on his wife. The truth or falsehood of this statement is of no interest
to me. It is not part of what defines me as a premie.
Please don't take this to mean that I am trying to
suggest that what a premie thinks about Maharaji having a
personal life is off limits as a topic. It is not off limits.
I just think that there are ways to talk about this without
descending to the level of gossip. >And you think this is funny? I think I was not very clear in how I said this. I was
trying to take Hilltop to task for thinking it was funny.
I still think that is why he used those topic titles.
I felt his posts were out of line. I may have read too
much between the lines, but I have not yet seen him post
to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
>So Sean believes that Prem Rawat has cheated on his wife. The truth or falsehood of this statement is of no interest to me. It is not part of what defines me as a premie. Please don't take this to mean that I am trying to suggest that what a premie thinks about Maharaji having a personal life is off limits as a topic. It is not off limits. I just think that there are ways to talk about this without descending to the level of gossip. And thus you convenientally sidestep the issue. Really, Sean, you're starting to sound a bit pompous. What high-minded ways are there anyway of discussing whether or not Rawat has cheated on his wife that don't "descend to the level of gossip"?
|
|
|
|
>What high-minded ways are there anyway of discussing whether
>or not Rawat has cheated on his wife that don't "descend to
>the level of gossip"? I can accept as accurate from his point of view the
posts of Mike Dettmers, who I briefly knew at COLL and
whose honesty and integrity I trust. I am willing to
talk about this. My request is that we stick to Mike's
comments about Maharaji and leave his family out of the
discussion. Will that work for you? Reference: http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/best.htm#MD
|
|
|
|
My request is that we stick to Mike's comments about Maharaji and leave his family out of the discussion. Will that work for you? No, in fact, it won't and I can't see any reason for it either.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your candor and your respect of this forum. I appreciate both very much. Sean, you received k in the early days. Have you seen the "Passages" video? If so, what do you think of it? If not, I hope you will take time to watch what is available in the Gallery. I am very interested in your reaction to what is said in it. Could you tell us how you found EPO and this forum? How long have you been reading? Have you read the section of the EV website which discusses Rawat's enemies (the ex-premies)? How do you feel about EV making public attacks against ex-premies? This is a lot to ask, but I am very interested in your response. Thanks, Marianne
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your kind reply. I had not seen Passages, so I went
to the gallery and viewed the individual scenes, per your
suggestion.I very much enjoyed seeing and hearing Gurucharanand.
Otherwise, if there was something damning in the videos,
I must have missed it. Please don't take this as
a case of a premie willfully ignoring an obvious statement
of fact. I accept that Maharaji now represents himself much
differently than he did in the 1970's. I agree that
this contradicts something that I had held to be true
in the 70's: that Maharaji is the lord of the universe in
human form. I found this forum by searching the internet for "Guru
Maharaji", in early 2000 I think (or it may have been
a bit earlier. I read and posted for a few months
back then. Try June 20 2000 in the archive, and posts by
premie-lurker and/or sean, both of whom were me:
http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bof06202000153550.htm There is another set of posts around that time too, but
I have not been able to find them, where I exchanged
greetings with Joe Whalen, who I knew vaguely from COLL,
and Jim Heller, who convinced me to read "The Blind
Watchmaker". Yes, it is still on my bookshelf. No,
it did not cause me to renounce my belief in God.
I have read some of the EV website, mostly when linked by
posts here. I think there is a lot to be desired regarding the
content in EV and in the posts on this forum. I concede
that it is a lot easier to challenge content here than on
the EV site.
|
|
|
|
I read The Selfish Gene first. And I think that helps when it comes to understanding what Richard Dawkins is saying in The Blind Watchmaker which was his next book.
I'm replying to your post Sean, because I was struck by the timing - I exited premiedom in April 2000, it seems like such a long time ago.
And you've just done six more years as a premie. What's worse is you've done it knowing all the stuff here.
Ah well, hopefully you've been getting yourself organised because from the tone of your posts I gather that your integrity matters to you.
I found and read EPO in 2000 too. I can honestly say I had forgotten what was said in the early days. Reading it reminded me exactly how I had become a premie in the first place.
Well so was he The Lord of the Universe or not?
What did the Mahatma do in your knowledge session?
|
|
|
|
I love the title, "The Selfish Gene". I may have to
buy and read it now, although my intent was to get
"The Ancestors's Tale" next.>I found and read EPO in 2000 too. I can honestly say I
>had forgotten what was said in the early days. Reading it
>reminded me exactly how I had become a premie in the first >place. Me too, but I had not forgotten. The webpages in
ex-premies.org are a treasure to me, I hope they
never take them down. I hope that the EV site someday
decides to put them up. >Well so was he The Lord of the Universe or not? That is the question, isn't it? I don't think I
can answer your question. But I would like to make a
public statement. From what little I understand, that
seems to count for something. I credit Maharaji with
teaching me how to meditate and I will always be grateful
to him for this. I don't think anyone else could have done
this for me and I think it saved my life. But I have chosen
to give my life to Jesus Christ, so today when I perform
devotional service, it is to Jesus. I understand that this
is a philosophical approach to life that people like Jim
Heller would characterize as incoherent, or worse. >What did the Mahatma do in your knowledge session?
He told us we must give our lives to Maharaji
(I am paraphrasing). About halfway through the knowledge
session, during the prep satsang, Rajeshwar looked
directly into my eyes and said loudly something to the effect
of, "If you are going to fall asleep, you better leave
right now!". I, and the 10 or so aspirants around me
looked around as if he must be talking to someone else,
and he eventually relented and did not kick anyone out.
I don't recall any transcendant experiences except one.
My heart and soul were focused 100% percent on wanting
to be a good premie. Whatever happens in the future,
I don't think I will ever forget that day.
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, The webpages in ex-premies.org are a treasure to me, I hope they never take them down. I hope that the EV site someday decides to put them up. I'm sure you're not the only premie that appreciates that EPO has a tremendous archive of the early material from DLM/EV. It isn't likely that Elan Vital, TPRF, or Visions International will ever make the Prem Rawat archives public. However, what do you think about the fact that you have to go to Ex-premie.org, (a website critical of Prem Rawat) in order to see the old material, when Visions International, on behalf of Maharaji, solicits funds to keep the Archives Project going, which is dedicated to preserving all of the publications, films, videos, etc., material in a library to which nobody is ever going to have access? This is the link to the Visions Archive Project: http://www.visionsinternational.org/archive.php Below is the link to the page that solicits premie money to fund the project: http://www.visionsinternational.org/sponsorship.php#archive Thanks in advance for your answer. Cynthia
|
|
|
|
>However, what do you think about the fact that you have to go
>to Ex-premie.orgI think it's unfortunate, and not the choice I would have
preferred. I appreciate that it is at least available
here. However, I don't think Visions would go to
the trouble of archiving and restoration if they did not
intend to make it available at some future point. Just
my opinion.
|
|
|
|
I have a fear Sean that at which date Rawat dies that this will be when things like that are released. I am also concerned that the grief premies feel when he dies could be turned into anger toward us. That time scares me. We need to tell the truth no matter whether he is alive or not. But being mortal....it will happen. Do you think premies will focus a lot of anger toward us when that time comes? I wish Rawat were not a smoker and drinker and lived a healthier lifestyle. I am not anxious for this to happen at all. I wish what he would do is answer all the questions about his past in an upfront way and not blame the mahatmas and the premies etc.
|
|
|
|
I think that any kind of premie backlash would never ever
happen for a number of reasons. The most practical being,
the median age of premies is increasing. As this natural
process occurs, we start to reflect on our mortality and
others. It is something I have given thought to,
regarding Maharaji and also myself, and I expect most
premies of a certain age have as well. I would feel better
if Maharaji would start preparing a successor. But he is
only a few years younger than me, so I would expect he
will start soon.
|
|
|
|
I would feel better if Maharaji would start preparing a successor. But he is only a few years younger than me, so I would expect he will start soon. And I take it you will accept whatever successor he gives you, no questions asked, right? I mean, what questions could you ask? You gave away all your power, Sean, and now you're just a sheep. Baa-a-aa-aa-h!
|
|
|
|
Jim,I never said that. I don't intend at this point in my life
to follow any successor. Why do you make these assumptions?
I just said that I thought it would be better if he
appointed one. Sean
|
|
|
|
What IS it with premies that they've got themselves so dependent?If you think the techniques of meditation are so great, well, get out there and show people how to benefit from them! Of course, if doing so really requires a figurehead like Rawat (who's never given any practical advice about meditating in his life!) then it's all too obvious - it's still a cult of personality! (and what was that Zen quote about "If you meet the Buddha on the way ..."?) Enjoy these challenges, Sean. They might seem a bit heavy at times - a bit alien to the kind of unquestioning acceptance that EV and Rawat have pushed for over the decades. But I'm sure that a strong majority of posters here (probably nearer the totality) would like to see you regain your freedom to ask the questions and challenge the assumptions that have been swept under the carpet over the years. Best wishes,
Chris
Modified by cq at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 13:14:48
|
|
|
|
"(and what was that Zen quote about "If you meet the Buddha on the way ..."?)" Sean may or may not know the quote.I don't ( thinks...and surely I'm not the only one who doesn't). So cq,what was that quote ? You also say cq "But I'm sure that a strong majority of posters here (probably nearer the totality) would like to see you regain your freedom to ask the questions and challenge the assumptions that have been swept under the carpet over the years." Well I don't know if I want see Sean change at all.He seems a perfectly ok guy with his life chugging along as nicely as any of us could hope for. Why in our arrogance should we ask him to rock the boat ? There's about 50% of me that would like to mosey along,blissfully ignorant and full of happy optimism ,to the programme in Brighton unaware that Prem apparently isn't the LOTU and having never read EPO nor posted on this forum. Lexy the confrontational (who would love to see her old friends)
Modified by lexy at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 14:20:04
|
|
|
|
Lexy, Most ex-premies are bothered by the fact that Rawat maintains any hold at all on people and would like to see each and every premie free of it all, partly for the premies and partly because Rawat doesn't deserve to have devotees. No one does. And if you're that close to enjoying the warm bath of cult membership yourself, why don't you just go ahead and try it and perhaps tell us later if it's really no great shakes whether or not one stays in the cult or leaves?
Modified by Jim at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 14:20:03
|
|
|
|
"And if you're that close to enjoying the warm bath of cult membership yourself, why don't you just go ahead and try it and perhaps tell us later if it's really no great shakes whether or not one stays in the cult or leaves?" mmmmm....well....the reverse psychology did make the prospect horribly unattractive all of a sudden. "50% of me" was an exaggerration....but there is a sneaky 15% or so that feels drawn towards the poisoned chalice every so often. I've still got my "how much will it make me smart?" card.
|
|
|
|
I've still got my "how much will it make me smart?" cardYou have, Lexy? OK, bend over ...
Modified by cq at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 16:09:12
|
|
|
|
I agree with your sentiment as it is stated. However, just like I wouldn't want to convince my grandparents that Catholicism is false, although I have nothing but disdain for that religion, I can't say that I would want to unequivically take all premie's religion away from them. I think that the first step has to come from themselves, and to that end we can provide information and support.
I don't know much about Sean, but I don't think it would do Julie much good for example. I just wouldn't want to bring someone to a point of unrequiting despair, even if that means that Rawat very undeservingly maintains a few followers. I think for me mostly it is a question of the old-timers, for whom Rawatism has become a major life investment. I'm not sure all are capable of the transition, even though many are surely battling their own internal conflicts at this point, as my grandmother often has with the Catholic church. I certainly wouldn't like to see any new followers joining up though.
|
|
|
|
.......for putting my feelings into words especially the "unrequiting despair" part. Some people's Mums received knowledge  and they are now possibly too elderly to disillusion. Back in the seventies I dragged my Mum to the local Town Hall to listen to a pink robed mahatma.To say that she wasn't impressed is putting it mildly.She could sniff out a money making racket from a thousand paces.
Modified by lexy at Wed, Jul 05, 2006, 03:58:50
|
|
|
|
I've heard of unrequited love, but I'm really not quite sure how despair can be unrequited.If you open the door for a bird imprisoned in a cage, the bird might just prefer the familiarity of its cage rather than risk freedom. And what then of the despair of its would-be liberator?
Modified by cq at Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 17:56:45
|
|
|
|
I fully agree with Aunt Bea. I think that it is fine to try to inform people politely and sensitively, but I think that people should not be spoonfed, because some people simply cannot make the transition at a certain moment. I could not make the transition, but due to special circumstance I was forced to. I think the SSB movement contains relatively many people who were or are unable to make the transition, but had to make it anyway. This is due to the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that they are well documented so followers may feel moral duty to investigate them. However at the same time they can be hysterically devoted to SSB and have invested everything in him and his movement. Andrie
|
|
|
|
How embarrassing. I meant to say "unrelenting despair" though probably "hopeless despair" would be mo better. Living in Germany too long. Even if we are helpless, we should never be hopeless.
Modified by aunt bea at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 04:54:24
|
|
|
|
The Zen quote is:"If you meet the Buddha on the road - kill him immediately!" And I won't insult your intelligence by giving you someone else's interpretation of what that means, not before you've had the chance - the freedom (?) - to think about it for yourself. The half of you that wants to go back to your guru after two or three years is not to be denied. What's more, I'd say that you MUST entertain that possibility, regardless of what others would like for you. Otherwise you'd just be joining another group because of ... because of similar reasons to why you joined DLM in the first place? I wonder.
|
|
|
|
"Otherwise you'd just be joining another group because of ... because of similar reasons to why you joined DLM in the first place? I wonder." You mean I tried the "love" group so now I'll try the "hate" group ? ( only kidding...not to be taken seriously ) No, once you're a manmut or a rotten vegetable that's it.You can't go back.You have eaten of the tree of real knowledge and what's done can't be undone.The spell has been broken.EPO snaps it's fingers and you are cast out of the hypnotic trance of Eden to wander in the wilderness of separation for ever and ever. (amen) here endeth the lesson
Modified by lexy at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 15:45:02
|
|
|
|
I never said that. I don't intend at this point in my life to follow any successor. Why do you make these assumptions? I just said that I thought it would be better if he appointed one. Boy, are you ever confused! You follow Rawat now but you don't intend to follow his successor even if, presumably, that's exactly what Rawat ordered you to do. And even this bit about your thinking it'd be better if he appointed one .... why? To perpetuate the religious pablum for people like you who like to nibble baby bites from different jars? "What's here? Peach! Oh yummy!"
Modified by Jim at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 13:56:52
|
|
|
|
Jim, thanks, your posts set my teeth on edge but they do
challenge.I don't think of myself as some kind of new-agey person
who takes a sample from this tray, and a bite from that tray.
I think I was that type of person in my late teens, and
would recognize it if I became so again.
|
|
|
|
And has been for some time. The backlash against ex-premies started several years ago and has been vicious. I was witness to several premie conversations where Jim was discussed, for instance, and if you think anyone on this site has ever directed a harsh word toward poor innocent premies you have simply been blind to the other side of the coin. What it is about m that can turn reasonable and likeable people into a pack of nazis I don't know - perhaps you have some insight. But please realize: behind that pair of big sincere eyes and the we-love-everyone-even-Jim rap is a person who would happily smack a cosh over your head if you say bad things about the lard. Susan has reasonable fears that are grounded in fact and history, and she trusted you with her thoughts about it. Your saying, "tut, tut, that couldn't happen" is unsupportive, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
Quite a treat, premie-ex. Starting with your nom-de-guerre. (?) By the way, I just got a bike. This town is so great to ride in, I'm just killing myself for waiting all these years. Might even lose a little extra Jim in the process. Who knows? Call sometime.
|
|
|
|
"I credit Maharaji with teaching me how to meditate and I will always be grateful to him for this. I don't think anyone else could have done this for me."I'd really like to know what makes you think that, Sean. Meditation is taught by many people, and no way can Maharaji claim copyright on the 'pick-and-mix' smorgasborg techniques his father filched from Patanjali's original 2nd Century BC teachings ( http://reluctant-messenger.com/yoga-sutras.htm ). I think the imprinting of all the years of devotional satsang have made you unwilling to view Prem Rawat in anything but a positive light. OK, that may be your choice, but by denying their collective past, EV and Rawat are being (to put it mildly) less than upfront and honest about their history. Could it be that, having trusted Rawat with your very soul, you're unwilling - unable even? - to face the fact that your trust might have been misplaced? This is just one of many difficult questions that are part of exing from the belief-systems which permeate being initiated into "knowledge". And it's a stumbling block which keeps many a premie adhered to the non-"Lotus Feet" they once believed in.
Related link: http://reluctant-messenger.com/yoga-sutras.htm
Modified by cq at Sun, Jul 02, 2006, 07:34:56
|
|
|
|
>>"I credit Maharaji with teaching me how to meditate and I
>>will always be grateful to him for this. I don't think anyone >>else could have done this for me.">I'd really like to know what makes you think that, Sean. I do agree that meditation can be taught by many people in
many ways. Is even the role of satguru restricted
to one person at a time? I don't know, but it seems not so. I was not very clear in what I said in your quote, so let
me try again. As a seeker of truth, I did not have
very good prospects. I had tried TM and tried some yoga
and zen meditation techniques, but found them intolerably
boring. Looking back, I can see that I lacked maturity,
insight, discipine, commitment and much more. No money, education or career, either. I can't imagine any
teacher who would want to have me as a student. Were there other gurus or teachers who could have saved
me from the dead end I was in? Perhaps, but I never found
them or they never found me.
|
|
|
|
"Looking back, I can see that I lacked maturity,
insight, discipine, commitment and much more. No money, education or career, either. I can't imagine any
teacher who would want to have me as a student."
Well, no insincere one anyway.
Modified by LP at Mon, Jul 03, 2006, 01:42:38
|
|
|
|
"Is even the role of satguru restricted to one person at a time? I don't know, but it seems not so."As you seem to have accepted Prem Rawat as your satguru you could at least go to the trouble of finding out what he teaches. Both his father and Prem agree that there is only ever one Satguru at a time because it's basically the same Satguru. Have a look at: http://www.ex-premie.org/video/pages/satguru.html to get the not so Secret Doctrine from the horse's mouth or read the whole interview at http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/interview_1973.htm just to ensure he has not been selectively misquoted because that would be ugly
|
|
|
|
In all seriousness, unless he pressed your eyeballs, personally, then he didn't teach you anything. One of his mahatmas may have, but not him. Does he even know how it's done? Sometimes I wonder.......The point being, you are just holding a belief. M didn't teach you how to meditate. As far as I can tell, he hasn't taught anyone anything. He "acts" like he has, but where's the proof? Did he run any K-sessions in the early days? Not a chance, bucko. His "satsangs" never taught us a damned thing. Platitudes and fluff..... nothing substantive in anything he ever said. What's my point? You are thanking the wrong guy. Whoever sat with you in the K-session is the one who "taught" you how to meditate and that is the fact. You are giving him undeserved credit.
Modified by NAR at Mon, Jul 03, 2006, 17:42:21
|
|
|
|
Agreed, Maharaji did not teach me with regards to the
techniques. The rules of the game as I understand them
are, that the techniques only work with devotion.
Maharaji was the person who presented himself to be the
object of my devotion. I trusted the satsang that told
me this, and practiced it. I do not regret this, even
today, I just wish I had done a better job of it. I did not
receive enlightenment, although I did expect that at first,
as I think many of us may have.
|
|
|
|
Sean, You continue to spout Rawat cult and more general spiritual inanities while at the same time blithely explaining that you know this stuff is all beyond the rational mind anyway so there's no point trying to understand any of it. And then you keep bowing down to some imaginary audience -- your God, I take it -- with this overblown humility. Altogether, it's a rather ridiculous presentation, Sean.
|
|
|
|
>Altogether, it's a rather ridiculous presentation, Sean. Jim, I know I don't have all this right, I am just trying to get
there. Sometimes this means putting my ideas up and letting my
peers tell me what they think of it. The opinions of the other
people on this forum happen to be very important to me.
I am willing to listen with an open mind to other points of
view. If you think this is rediculous, well then that is what
you think. Sean
|
|
|
|
Sean,
If you think "devotion" is needed for the techniques "to work," then might I recommend that you devote yourself to something else? M is a poor recipient for your devotion. He uses, he abuses and his personality cult are not good for your "health." I would recommend devotion to someone/something disembodied, so if that person/thing wishes to speak with you, it has to be done in a way that leaves no doubt. My opinion, but given your apparent willingness to listen to others, I think you might actually get something out of this idea. M blows chunks, his organization blows chunks and he is not worth your "devotion."
|
|
|
|
The Selfish Gene was one of the first books I read as an ex. I didn't want it to end, not only was the content so interesting, I was enjoying being spoken to in a measured intelligent and respectful way. It was SO different to satsang!
Another thing I did was find my copy of the 'peace bomb' satsang. Well of course supposing it was said by Rawat at the tender age of 12 it would have had to be translated from Hindi to English.
And then the ideas expressed in the pamphlet, now that I wasn't eighteen anymore, I could recognise as more complex and adult than boyish.
So, though I don't have any firsthand knowledge of how that pamphlet got printed, I have concluded that whatever Rawat might or might not have said, the 'peace bomb' speech which was touted as evidence of his wisdom and divinity was likely to have been penned by the mahatmas.
Way back then at the start of the cult in the West, Rawat really was a child and as he has exhibited no signs of genius as an adult since, I think we can in all likelihood determine that it was the mahatmas who started the ball rolling. Who established the link with those first westerners wandering through India and played it through to a ticket to London.
Is he the Lord of the Universe or not? gee I don't think that's much of a question. I can't help myself. I've got another question. Is Jesus Christ the Lord of the Universe? What about God is God the Lord of the Universe or not? Oh I know, perhaps we all are, lots of little lordlings.
I mean, it is not a hard question to answer. You go on to say that you give your devotion to someone else these days, so surely you must have answered it with a no. I mean The Lord of the Universe, has come to us this day and he's come to blah blah blah is not an entity to turn your back on simply because you prefer someone else.
So why did you do it? I'm going to guess here that you find the church more respectful and kinder on your devotion than Rawat was. By his own admission he 'burns people out' who serve him.
I liked your story of Rajeshwar. That's them ol' time mahatmas alright. Adharanand pulled a similar stunt in mine. Just before he was to reveal the last technique he stopped and rather dramatically pointed to five people of whom I was one in a room of 30 - 40 people.
Come here he says and gets us to sit right up close to his feet, he was the only one in a chair of course. And he gets us to do the so hung technique.
"Do you get it" he said over and over in a percussive way.
Nothing like a little scare to get you focussed.
So who exactly showed you to how to meditate?
Adharanand showed me. I hadn't done any yoga, meditational or otherwise beforehand. You could argue that because he was employed by Divine Light Mission they had a hand in it. But our guest speaker, the then fifteen year old Rawat wasn't even in the country.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, Thank you for your insightful post, it has given me a
lot to consider. >So, though I don't have any firsthand knowledge of how that
>pamphlet got printed, I have concluded that whatever Rawat
>might or might not have said, the 'peace bomb' speech which
>was touted as evidence of his wisdom and divinity was likely
>to have been penned by the mahatmas. I have never heard this before, but it is such an intriguing
idea. Maybe, but maybe not; I can imagine a compelling argument
either way. For example I think you could argue that he was a
child prodigy; IMHO there is no rule that states the adult must
continue in the trajectory that was started by the child. And
to me at least, there seems to be no harm, no fault whichever
case is true. I will think about this. >Is he the Lord of the Universe or not? gee I don't think
>that's much of a question. I can't help myself. I've got
>another question. Is Jesus Christ the Lord of the Universe?
>What about God is God the Lord of the Universe or not? Oh I
>know, perhaps we all are, lots of little lordlings. I tried to explain my feelings about these titles in a previous
post, but based on the response I don't think I succeeded. I
think there are words and phrases like "Lord of the Universe"
that are opaque to rational analysis. Let's use a less volatile
expression as an example, that Jesus was resurrected from the
dead. This is one of the central and most ancient pre-Gospel
traditions, that is shared by all of orthodox Christianity
today. See for example Paul, who wrote half the new testament,
yet has precious little to say about the historical person of
Jesus, aside from this fact. What does resurrection really mean, and by what mechanism did
it occur? I would assert that there is not a Christian who has
ever lived who could give a rational answer to that question.
In a similar way, what do terms like Lord of the Universe,
satguru and perfect master really mean? They point to ideas
that are not in the domain of the rational mind, IMHO.
This is what I mean when I say I don't understand what these
terms really mean. But yes, I did sing "Lord of the Universe"
and many other songs in those days. >So why did you do it? I'm going to guess here that you find
>the church more respectful and kinder on your devotion than
>Rawat was. No, this was a different issue. I agreed with my wife that
we would raise our children as Lutheran. Then a few years
ago she was called up for active duty in the army and deployed
overseas, so I had to be the sole parent for a year. One of
the things I learned is that I could not send them to church
and Sunday school and expect them to be committed to the
church if I was not there too. And it seemed to me that this
was not a case where I could tell them a well-intentioned
lie. I either had to believe it 100% or I should not even
try. That is what got me started into Lutheranism. >So who exactly showed you to how to meditate? Rajeshwar showed me, but my understanding, if not on that
day then certainly in later satsangs, was that without
Maharaji, the techniques would not work.
|
|
|
|
Wow that is really interesting. I commend you for doing that for your kids and your wife. My "understanding" of Maharajism while I was a premie would not have made it possible to be in any other religion. In fact, my mom forced me to go to a Methodist church for a few weeks to see if she could get me out of the cult of DLM. All I did was satsang the poor Sunday school teacher all the time and act IMO now like an ungrateful brat. I could see that now, with "K lite" you could attend a mainline Christian church. I guess the problem would be if you started to really believe all the Christian things wouldn't you start to want some real answers from Rawat? I joined an Episcopal church, I was even confirmed but I have not been attending lately. Maybe I would fall into very fringe Episcopalian? I don't know. But what I did like about my confirmation class was that no question was taboo. I asked a lot of them. It was so much NOT like the Rawat cult which was my one and only other "religion" I had ever believed in. Don't you ever feel a need to fire questions at Mr. Rawat? Don't you want to know what did happen to Jagdeo? What did he think, what did he do? Don't you want to know why he danced in the Mala? Why did he accept all those trust funds of all those premies? If knowledge is so great, and he is the one giving it, why is he a heavy smoker and drinker? Can't it help him overcome those addictions? I agree, there are lots of things about Christianity that just don't make sense. But my feeling is the difference is, you could talk about that with your Lutheran friends, or my Episcopal friends, and say, hey I don't understand this. Talk about why you don't....no one would shut you up. That isn't true about all Christian denominations. But some are cults, and some are cult like in some ways. The thing I feel Sean, truly, is if Prem Rawat has anything to do with what God really is I don't want to know God. If God isn't good than why would I follow God. Its a sort of by his fruits sort of thing....and for me....the Rawat fruit is rotten indeed.
|
|
|
|
"For example I think you could argue that he was a
child prodigy; IMHO there is no rule that states the adult must
continue in the trajectory that was started by the child."
Sure, but the commonplace explanation would be that the child was not a prodigy, simply promoted as such.
"What does resurrection really mean, and by what mechanism did
it occur? I would assert that there is not a Christian who has
ever lived who could give a rational answer to that question."
I think you're right about that. My question to you is why do you think that is so?
All I know about Lutheranism could fit on a postage stamp. Martin Luther was the guy who successfully challenged the grip of the Church and started protestantism wasn't he?
"Rajeshwar showed me, but my understanding, if not on that
day then certainly in later satsangs, was that without
Maharaji, the techniques would not work."
Oh yes, grace was the term if I recall correctly which I do! So what do you think now?
|
|
|
|
>>"What does resurrection really mean, and by what mechanism
>>did it occur? I would assert that there is not a Christian
>>who has ever lived who could give a rational answer to that
>>question.">I think you're right about that. My question to you is why do
>you think that is so? Because I think there were certain persons, in particular
Mary Magdelene and the Beloved Disciple, whoever he was,
who would not lie about this, and who would not let untruths
in the first written gospels go unchallenged. In my humble
and ignorant opinion, I think Jesus was done away with
in a very expeditious and efficient Roman/Sadducee way.
I think he disappeared one day, and his remains were
unceremoniously deposited in some unnamed cave shortly
after. I think he appeared to his followers in
the days following, not as a hallucination, but as
real, at least to them. I think I may have strayed
in the last few sentences from the domain of thought
to the domain of belief, but that at least is my
analysis, flawed though it may be, so far. >All I know about Lutheranism could fit on a postage stamp.
>Martin Luther was the guy who successfully challenged the grip
>of the Church and started protestantism wasn't he? Luther was, I think, a person of his times. He was anti-semitic
for example. Jan Hus was probably a better exemplar of
the spirit behind Protestantism, but he was unfortunately
burned at the stake, so he is not remembered so much.
As I see it, take Catholicism. Remove the pope, celibacy
of priests, and the authority and institutions of the church,
and you pretty much have Lutheranism right there. Just look
at my name, I am the product of about 1500 years of Catholicism,
so I hopefully have a right to an opinion about it  >Oh yes, grace was the term if I recall correctly which I do!
>So what do you think now? Grace is a good word for this. God gave me grace and saved,
not my soul, since I don't know what that means, but my self.
Yes, I still believe this.
|
|
|
|
Er Sean, grace came into the conversation because we were discussing what Mr P. 'Maharaji' Rawat had to do with what happened in the knowledge session.
|
|
|
|
>Er Sean, grace came into the conversation because we were
>discussing what Mr P. 'Maharaji' Rawat had to do with what >happened in the knowledge session. Yes, of course, I recall that now. Sorry, I think grace is a button-word for me, it just set me off. Edit: Because I did not answer your question. Yes, I believe
that the reason why I was able to get something from the
techniques was because of Maharaji's grace, and also
because I had a little bit of devotion. I don't have
any proof of this.
Modified by sean at Wed, Jul 05, 2006, 01:08:26
|
|
|
|
Hi Lesley,Are you Australian? Ordinarily I find I agree with what you post but in this case I disagree strongly. I'm thinking you read the 'Peace Bomb' satsang about 5 years ago. Do I have your timeline right? I have a copy in front of me as printed in the Golden Age magazine. The intro says he wept for nearly an hour before beginning speaking to 1 million devotees. Judging by DLM/EV's usual statistics I'd say this meant an audience that could have been 1 million who had probably gathered for a Hindu religious festival or holiday (maybe Diwali) and came along due to the publicity about a 12 year old divine incarnation. I'm sure lots of the crowd actually were premies. The speech is actually very Hindu based and is mainly made up of stock Hindu stories he would have learnt from his father or other teachers. Plus lots and lots of berating of the Indian premies for not doing propagation and being ashamed of their Guru and their religion (sound familiar?) and very grandiose if not megalomaniacal statements about his power and glory and calling himself the "saviour of humanity", "I will give you liberation", "I can control the whole world", "give me the reins of your life", "the very same Knowledge Lord Krishna geve to Arjuna and Lord Ram gave to Hanuman", etc. Naturally he talks about how he can drive a car and he also sings the praises of his Guru Maharaj Ji and finishes by telling the crowd Bhole Ji will now sing a bhajan and Mata Ji will then give satsang. So Mata Ji gave the final satsang. We have no idea what words he actually spoke in Hindi and how well he expressed himself. Whoever translated the speech into English no doubt added a sheen and as much intellectual gloss as possible as English editors were still doing 10 years later. Sean certainly twists himself inside out to say something positive about young Rawat the prodigy developing into old Rawat the intellectually stultifying and boring. I'm happy to post a copy if you don't still have one.
|
|
|
|
Six years ago, but who's counting!
What exactly are you disagreeing with? If you think I was suggesting that publicised occasion did not happen, I wasn't.
The copy I read is the one that came out in the early days in the form of a booklet. I've probably thrown it out by now. and I don't want to read it again. Once I had 'exed' I decided that after having listened carefully to so much that Rawat had to say for so long, I would give myself the luxury of not doing so any more.
The only drawback to this has been that I have barely read a Hilltop post!
Yes, I am Australian, this is a warmth in my heart.
I was born in London which is where I joined DLM and where I met my husband.
We arrived in time to watch The Lord Of The Universe, swathed in red and gold, dance at the opera house. And to hear that the Governor General had just sacked the Whitlam government. Can't remember who was winning the cricket.
|
|
|
|
Hi,
No I disagreed that the ideas expressed in it were adult and complex but were childish. I suppose I should have actually stated that, sorry.
Holy shit, he danced at the Opera House. Well I was a long way back and up high but I'd forgotten (repressed) that. Are you sure?
I know a premie who was working at the Opera House that day and that was his first introduction to the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see what you mean. Still not prepared to reread though! But working from memory Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you such a peace as will never die. That's not average 12yearoldboy conversation.
It contains ideas of peace v lack of it, self determination v capitulation, mortality. I am quite prepared to believe he said it or similar in Hindi, but not that it was something he was saying from himself. At that age I could recite quite a lot of The Ancient Mariner for example, but knew little of what it talked of.
Yeah, he did, well not a waltz or anything, that swaying back and forth a few times before leaving the stage. - wasn't the ground supposed to tremble at each footstep?
|
|
|
|
So does that mean you're a male Lesley whose schoolfriends weren't future LOTUs or a female Lesley who doesn't know what boys talk about at school?
Well the speech does contain those important ideas that youth ponders over but I doubt young Rawat understood that. Mind you, we had such school conversations at that age or close to it, but then I was one of the disturbed eggheads.
Sure young Rawat had been taught the things to say or had picked them up from his Dad. And he go lots of positive reinforcement from the adoring premies for saying them and to give him credit he certainly seemed to believe it.
I once recited one of those incredibly long poems from heart at 10 years age in school cause our teacher said anyone who could do it next morning would get a shilling. Boy was I shocked when he said he hadn't meant it and I didn't get the shilling. That was just one of the disillusionments that sent me on the path to "Knowledge".
Thank heavens he only waved his arms a little and that was all it was. I heard that universes were created and destroyed depending upon his arm motions. Might have been the initiator who used to be the community co-ordinator in Brisbane who told us Rawat said that. What is his name? Used to be married to Carmen Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
He said, breathlessly, as he watched another flower "unfold."But, I need to adjust your thoughts just a little: As premies we weren't lordlings..... we were lemmings! Both start with the letter, "L" and both end with "ING," but the meanings are a bit different. Other than that, you aced this quiz!
|
|
|
|
And her tail waved from side to side as she regarded the little beastie between her paws...
Scrratch a lemming and you'll find a lordling, scrratch a lordling and you'll find a lemming....
Couldn't resist! Thanks, Nar.
|
|
|
|
Sean, do you think it is ethical that the people in the Passages video blame "the sari brigade" for Rawat being called the Lord of the Universe, when it was the people in that video who were themselves responsible for that sort of propagation? What do you think about the section on the EV websites about Rawat's "critics", which call us criminals and mentally ill? Thanks in advance for your anticipated reply! Marianne
|
|
|
|
Marianne, I have no axe to grind in this conflict. As one who is hopefully an objective observer, I think
both sides have made poor choices when posting content
on the internet. Regarding the EV content, I would just
say that I try to avoid contact with the criminally
insane, even on bulletin boards; I would not be here if
I thought it was true. I read that EV page and I think
they were wrong to post it. The "Sari Brigade" sounds like a Gopi version of
Charlie's Angels; these are people I would be happy to meet!
|
|
|
|
Sean I have no axe to grind in this conflict. Well, I think you do have an axe to grind, Sean, but you're not grinding it on the Rawat side, but you've been grinding it here. No only that, but you're trying to set the parameters of the conversation, i.e., the limit you set with Jim above, which he rejected outright. Why not complain to Maharaji and Elan Vital, too, not just here? Why do you feel the need to limit the conversation here? Btw, the link that you gave to Jim above to Dettmers' testimony does include conversations about Prem Rawat's marriage counseling and an intervention that was set up for Prem Rawat. As one who is hopefully an objective observer, I think both sides have made poor choices when posting content on the internet. Regarding the EV content, I would just say that I try to avoid contact with the criminally insane, even on bulletin boards; I would not be here if I thought it was true. I read that EV page and I think they were wrong to post it First of all, none of us are really objective. To the contrary, you've complained here from the outset, mostly about posting Marolyn Rawat's old satsangs. I'm not criticizing you for your complaints -- you're free to make them, and that's fine -- but I want to point out that this is probably the only place where people can come and complain or discuss Prem Rawat openly. What do you think about that? Finally, if you have an opinion about the EV webpages about ex-premies, why haven't you contacted Rawat and EV to tell them your opinion (stated above) about the webpages that calls ex-premies criminally insane and a hate group? Thanks again, Cynthia
|
|
|
|
Cynthia,>Why not complain to Maharaji and Elan Vital, too, not just >here? Why do you feel the need to limit the conversation here? I won't carry the ex-premies' water. This is your battle,
not mine. >Btw, the link that you gave to Jim above to Dettmers'
>testimony does include conversations about Prem Rawat's
>marriage counseling and an intervention that was set up for
>Prem Rawat. Yes, this is true. However, I also would note that Mike's
initial posts stated clearly that he would under no
conditions engage in gossip. Jim seems to have had no
problem with that condition at the time. I would ask him
directly, Jim, what is different now? >...but I want to point out that this is probably the only
>place where people can come and complain or discuss Prem Rawat
>openly. What do you think about that? It's possible that tide may turn, and the consensus of
opinion may be that I and my posts are no longer welcome.
I don't like to talk about this because the past days
have been so magical for me that I didn't want to ruin it.
Before that happens, I wanted to say how much your, and
other's posts have meant to me. I can't express in words
how important this has been, to finally be able to talk
about these things with people who actually understand
what I am talking about, whether they agree or not.
Thank you so much for being here and responding. Sean
|
|
|
|
I won't carry the ex-premies' water. This is your battle, not mine. I wasn't (and wouldn't) ask you or any other person to carry my water, that wasn't the point of my question. The point of my question was to ask you, as a premie, why you wouldn't feel comfortable criticizing the organization (or complaining to them) that supports Rawat's work. I asked this because most premies won't complain yet will come here to voice disatisfaction with how the things are run. I picked up on the specific question that Marianne began and used it as a example. That's all. Cynthia
|
|
|
|
>I wasn't (and wouldn't) ask you or any other person to carry
>my water, that wasn't the point of my question. The point of
>my question was to ask you, as a premie, why you wouldn't feel
>comfortable criticizing the organization (or complaining to
>them) that supports Rawat's workOK, thanks for clarifying. I am not a member of the
organization and I don't think I have any standing to
criticize.
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, Wow, we're giving you a mental workout! It's good for the brain. Even though I'm blunt and sometimes too "brutally honest," I really do like you, Sean. I think you've been making some decent attempts to answer folks' questions here and you've been very respectful, which is not something I can say about many premies who have posted here over the years. Okay, that said... I am not a member of the organization and I don't think I have any standing to criticize. You can criticize the organization here if you'd like to. I get the sense that you degrade yourself way too much for not being devoted enough or not being somehow deserving enough to say anything to Maharaji or EV people. That's just not true. I think it's important to be skeptical, not necessarily cynical (unless warranted) about everything and everybody with which/whom a person becomes involved, including Elan Vital and Maharaji. Why not? The world won't fall apart if you were criticial and you might just find that it feels good to do it. It's quite freeing to open up your mind and let your thoughts about all of this stuff go. Sean, you are a valuable human being. You deserve and have the right to be able to voice your opinions, if EV, TPRF, and even Maharaji don't satisfy your standards of how things should be run. I don't think anyone should be so naive to think that those orgs that support Maharaji are not controlled by him. To separate those two is foolhardy because it's my experience (and that of everyone who's ever spent time around Maharaji) that he does have his finger in every pot. That is to say he does control how things are run from the top down. He's a micromanager and that's just the way he is, so to avoid being criticial of the organizations in deferrence to Maharaji, is to miss the entire picture. Food for thought, no? Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Jul 05, 2006, 12:16:05
|
|
|
|
Sean, I'd have to see the conversation again to know just what Dettmers said and how I replied but I can say off-hand that he's in quite a different position than you. Don't forget that, rightly or not, he signed a confidentiality agreement the legal ramifications of which he must take into account. You're just being all religiousy nicey-nice. I've seen it before. Who hasn't?
|
|
|
|
....Sean may be remembering the oh so convenient "No chit-chat " rule, used by DLM to stop us communicating with each other and expressing our observations and opinions.
|
|
|
|
I don't really want to get involved with this, but I just wanted to say that I have a big Charlie's Angels poster hanging in my agency. The originals of course. Also one of our very important questions to employee prospects in their interviews used to be, "who is your favorite Angel". We had to stop that practice though when the younger employees had no idea what we were talking about. Hope that helps.
The right answer is Sabrina by the way. And I have to say that the test really works.
|
|
|
|
Hi Steve,Thanks for asking and then reminding me, this is exactly the
type of post that I think it is important for me to respond
to, yours just got lost in the flood. I will try to address
this now. >You want consideration given to the innocents here huh? >Well Sean who exactly are the innocents? The innocents are Maharaji's family. They are also the
"gullible premies who just wanted to spread peace and harmony
in the world". They are also any children who were placed
in harms way by well-intentioned but ignorant premies. >Back in the 70s you didnt know what terms like "lord of the
>universe", "satguru" and "perfect master" meant? Well jeez
>there Sean, you sure don't sound like you were a very with-it
>devotee. Please let me clarify. Back then I imagined that I knew what
it meant. Today, I realize that I had no clue what it
meant. I was not with-it then, nor now. Best Regards,
Sean
I get angry when I read these satsangs from Marolyn and Maharaji, which according to EV never happened. I don't find them funny at all. IMO, Maharaji and his family took four very practical and useful meditation techniques and attached all kinds of nonsense to them. What a load of bullshit they dumped on us naive, unsuspecting, seekers of truth and love and light. WE were the ones hurt! Do you still believe that Maharaji "gives you your breath" and that Marolyn is "your new mother?" What do you think about this baloney? And please don't respond by saying that you are not sure what the word believe means?
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry but what titles? Aren't they: "What a Wife Said About her Husband"? Did I miss someone talking about Prem Rawat cheating on his wife that wasn't you? "The truth or falsehood of this statement is of no interest to me." But you were the one who said it. Isn't the truth of falsehood of what you say of interest to you? My apologies if I've somehow got this all wrong but I am confused now about your replies.See you remind me of a premie who used to ring our home and whenever I'd answer, he'd ask me who I was. I replied, "You've rung me and it is your role to identify yourself and the reason you've rung, not to question me?" Do you see the point. It is not Hilltop's role to post to the contrary of whatever anyone thought he posted for, especially if you are the only one who is doing all this reading between the lines and seeing offense where none is due. And here's a Lutheran quote for you: "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?" You're saying Hilltop and by extension others who post here are mean spirited because he's posted her old satsang but there's not a hint of criticism from you about the real ethical dilemma which is hers and the other complicit premies which I won't repeat again.
|
|
|
|
>My apologies if I've somehow got this all wrong but I am >confused now about your replies.Thanks for asking. I did not make that post with my
premie hat on. I was speaking as a human being, asking
that some amount of respect and consideration be given to
another human being. >You're saying Hilltop and by extension others who post here
>are mean spirited because he's posted her old satsang but
>there's not a hint of criticism from you about the real
>ethical dilemma...
I don't know how to respond to this. I do criticize premie
behavior here when I think it is wrong. IMHO premies are
not so privileged that they can never make mistakes. For me,
it does not follow that a premie who is merely devoted and
believes in Maharaji is also complicit. Or if I have
misunderstood, please let me know what criticism of other
premies I am lacking.
|
|
|
|
So far I can't see any disrespect in posting those old satsangs. Certainly there is an implicit accusation being made which is that Mrs Rawat and other premies fully understood that Prem Rawat was claiming to be God incarnate. Now they not only accept his claims that he never said so or acted so but do not protest when he and other premies attack those of us who tell it like it was. That's way worse than the "mean-spiritedness" you thought you saw. Beside how can these posts hurt Mrs Rawat, you don'tthink she reads ex-premie Forum, do you?You posted below: "I do believe that there is a connection between Maharaji and an internal experience that premies sometimes refer to with terms like "Maharaji within", "experience of perfection", etc. I also believe that it was necessary for a person of some exceptional quality or ability to teach me to meditate.
I don't understand how either the connection or the teaching
works, which is why I refer to them as beliefs." Well you've had this "Knowledge" for 30 years and doesn't it seem to you that after 30 years if this experience was an "experience of prefection" there would have been some noticeable effect in the lives of Prem Rawat and premies by now? My own belief is that most premies are quite normal people whose actual life experience is on a par with their neighbours. I've sometimes insulted some of my premie freinds by assuring them they are perfectly normal and exhibit not the slightest sign of being even a tiny bit happier, calmer, etcterer than anybody else. And Prem Rawat, have you seen him lately? There is one unhealthy looking person. In all respects, premies exhibit the signs and behaviour that other people in minor religious cults do. They think they have somethign special but it's just not there. Do you think you and other premies have something special that just tuns out to be invisible to the rest of the world? Your co-workers, do they agree you are some special shining light in the world? BTW, have you spoken about this to your pastor?
|
|
|
|
>Besides how can these posts hurt Mrs Rawat, you don't think
>she reads ex-premie Forum, do you?In this one case, I hope to God not. I think that I was
well intentioned. But in hindsight I can see that the effect
was to magnify what was probably a forgettable sequence of
posts into something that has so much ugliness in it I can
hardly stand to read the posts. If any non-posting persons
are reading this, I apologize for setting this off. I
should not have done it.
>Well you've had this "Knowledge" for 30 years and doesn't it
>seem to you that after 30 years if this experience was
>an "experience of perfection" there would have been some
>noticeable effect in the lives of Prem Rawat and premies by
>now? Speaking for myself, yes, there has been a noticeable effect
in my life. If you knew me at the age of 21, you might agree
as well. >Do you think you and other premies have something special that
>just turns out to be invisible to the rest of the world? If you mean invisible to rational analysis, then yes, I would
agree. >BTW, have you spoken about this to your pastor? My pastor, bless his heart, is on his 3rd marriage. He was
not able even to confront his co-pastor when I brought up
a family issue to his attention. But I think he is a good
man, and he was able to teach me the essence of elca
Lutheranism (Missouri Synod definitely not included).
I really don't think these are issues I should burden him
with. OTOH, I think in this forum I am talking exactly
the people I should be bringing up these issues with.
|
|
|
|
Well I wasn't really meaning rational analysis. I was referring to the holistic reaction we have to people we know and meet on a regular basis. And life works like this. Human beings' happiness and inner peace is visible to everyone they meet and know. Premies have absolutely no visible extra happiness or peace than anyone else. Actually it may no longer be true but there were definitely a higher percentage of unhappy and disturbed people as premies 20 and more years ago and that's only to be expected as happy people are far less likely to be looking for happiness and inner peace than unhappy and discontented people. So you've got yourself a cocoon of concepts where you and other premies have the invisible inner peace provided by a miraculous connection with a person who looks like he actively doesn't have peace, who looks sick. Actually you're wearing two sets of sunglasses. You're wearing one pair that allows you to see (and feel) invisible inner peace in yourself that nobody else can see and you're wearing "criticism of Rawat is ugliness" sunglasses. But you also seem like a decent person. That's life, people are strange combinations. Can we do an experiment. I'm walking down at the beach and I meet two people (these are real people). One is a gainfully employed family man and dedicated teacher who puts his heart and incredible enthusiasm into his work and is genuinely liked and admired by all who know him. He's also quite possibly the happiest guy I've ever met and is fit for his age and still gets out on his long board. The other has lived on the dole (that's unemployment benefit) for decades and is dedicated to Prem Rawat and does "service" an awful lot of his time. He's not doing too badly even though he's lived alone for these decades and continues to have personality disputes with other premies and drinks more than is good for his health (that's alcohol) often to excess and is overweight and does not appear to be all that healthy. Now I probably could have thought of two people where the health and happiness benefits were on the premie side but it doesn't really matter. According to you the second guy has this invisible extra quality which must be inner peace according to the guru but not only is it not visible to rational analysis, it's invisible to irrational analysis. Mate, with people like you doing propagation the world is safe from Prem Rawat. And here's a funny quirk, as a premie you also able to see all this invisible ugliness coming from the posting of real, true speeches by the wife of that person you used to call the Perfect Master but don't any more. Ugliness that is invisible to rational analysis. Go figure. 3rd marriage, poor guy. Martin Luther must be rolling in his grave. But I guess the pastor said "Ich kann nicht anders"
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, It's only funny to me because it is so outrageous. "And also in this marriage He's made me your new mother." This attachment is from the publication called ~ Coming Together. September 1974. Page 11. Your right though it really is more sad and sick than anything else and that's the real truth... Hilltop
|
|
|
|
Hi Hilltop,Thank you for responding and clarifying your posts.
I humbly apologize to you for misinterpreting the point
you were trying to make, and to Marolyn and her
children for causing them to be a subject of
discussion here. I am sorry. Very best regards,
Sean
|
|
|
|
"I humbly apologize to you for misinterpreting the point
you were trying to make, and to Marolyn and her
children for causing them to be a subject of
discussion here. I am sorry." Hi Sean, I have found your posts here interesting and the replies very helpful.Thankyou for posting. I don't feel you have to feel "sorry" for anything you have said here and nor should you have to be so "humble". Are you afraid of your God ? That is the impression you give me. I am also still afraid, and there are things that I know and that happened to me as a premie that I have never talked about or mentioned here.This is because by talking about these events I may be recognised by "Maharaji" and some weird divine retribution may happen for my sin. Rationally I know that all these ideas and imaginings are pathetic and that nothing will happen to me, but the effect of belonging to a cult for over 30 years has left me like this.I read here to try and get over it all. I have nothing against Marolyn and her ,now adult, children.I met her once and she seemed unhappy ( as if some of the life had been sucked out of her.....too humble) but very ordinary and pleasant. Her Gopi-esque behaviour and words were what we aspired to as '70s and early '80s premies and ,in the light of our past being denied by EV, it's important that these satsangs are remembered. There was a time when I felt uncomfortable about Hilltop's publication of these satsangs because of FEAR .I now think it's totally ok ; so you could say I'm slowly freeing myself from the cult's tangled and confusing web. Best wishes to you Sean. Lexy.
Modified by lexy at Sun, Jul 02, 2006, 06:48:16
|
|
|
|
>Are you afraid of your God ? That is the impression you
>give me. Sorry, I try not to change my posts after I make them,
but my reply now strikes me as phony (or precious?)
so I deleted it.
Modified by sean at Mon, Jul 03, 2006, 00:43:44
|
|
|
|
I have to say, Sean I find your honesty and straightforwardness very refreshing and quite un characteristic of the usual premie responses I have seen, while scanning back at previous posts on the EPO forum archives. I would like to thank you for that and look forward to further communication.
This subject is personally painful to me, on this thread, I have said all I intend to say on it; but I look forward to exchanging with you on the more general subject of god, the universe and everything as it pertains to our mutual past experiences as premies.
sincerely Lp
Lp
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, Thank You too for understanding my position on this. I'll be the first to admit that many of the things I post from the past are not that enjoyable or pleasant to read. I post them only as a reminder to the things Prem Rawat (and his mind abusing cult) has said. I just want to keep things honest about the past. I think everyone here and anywhere else for that matter deserves that at least. Do you think Prem Rawat cares enough to talk about the past? Truthfully? I doubt it. After all, He likes to blame everything from the past on others, from what I've read. If only he could come clean and admit the real truth about his "Lord All Powerful" statements. Now that would be really refreshing. Talk about satisfying that thirst! Anyhow Sean, Thank You for your words to me... Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Mon, Jul 03, 2006, 22:25:03
|
|
|
|
>She was obviously a very sincere and deluded young woman whose beauty (and let's neither overrate nor denigrate her beauty or character) and sincerity put her into a very strange situation through no fault of her own.< A 24 year old marrying a 16 year old against parental wishes is hardly the equivalent of 'tripping over the kerb'. I'm sure the legallity issue was coverd by having Charnanand named as Rawat's guardian - but the morallity involved remains profoundly questionable. Marolyn remains a key figure in the creation and enrichment of the Rawat cult - whether she acted out of gullibility, stupidity, cupidity or fear is open to opinion and examination. But she can not avoid culpability. Nik
|
|
|
|
I can't feel she has no responsibility in it either. If you read Mishlers interviews, Marolyn had a lot of trouble dealing with the reality of Rawat. It sounds like that resurfaced again at the time of the San Ysidro Ranch intervention. There are just a lot of contradictions in the picture I have of Marolyn's character.
|
|
|
|
I was and probably still am looking at it from her point of view - I mean my idea of her point of view then - and I imagine all four of your emotions(?) played a part in her decisions. But then, once again I imagine, that she didn't seduce the LOTU but that he had the hots for her and really what could she say under the circumstances? He was the LOTU after all but it is obvious from here 70's satsangs that she was deeply conflicted else she must have been a very fearful California girl. Most of her satsangs seemed frightened though I still have a copy of something I digitised of hers back in the early 1990's, possibly the first tape I digitised which was positive: "You and I are one, we're one heart loving our Lord". (I haven't listened to it for a while so I might have the words not 100%)
'Culpability' means criminal responsibility, surely that's going too strong. In later 1970's years I discussed the possibilty of having sex with 'Maharaji' with some of my premie lady friends, the more overtly liberated ones. I was quite shocked by the percentage (it was a small sample group) who were sure they would take the opportunity to have sex with the LOTU if given the opportunity and I have no doubt he would have felt the same way about them.
|
|
|
|
culpable doesn't of itself imply criminality - it's synonymous with 'blame worthy'. Which in my opionion Madam Rawat is. N
|
|
|
|
He was the LOTU after all but it is obvious from here 70's satsangs that she was deeply conflicted else she must have been a very fearful California girl. What's being a California girl got to do with it? She was 24 when she married a 16 year old boy. She was an ashram premie and a gopi, and got herself pulled a very tough situation. She's also has lived high on the hog off of our money for over 30 years. It's been 30 years and now not a peep out of her. Waited on hand and foot, she has been treated like the Queen of the Universe, the kids little princes and princesses. And she had great influence over premies and how premies thought and believed. Even if she didn't know it at first, she must now, or else she's just a bimbo blonde. I don't think that though. I think she's carved her own niche very well. I'd especially like to know how "Mom" let the Jagdeo get all trusted to "Dad" to handle. If she had a spine, she would have stood up at satsang at a program and said something -- anything -- about it, to warn premies so that their children could be safe. Marolyn Rawat failed the children of premies and badly. Btw, any gopie would have sex with Rawat if that was his desire because the Lord's desire is his agya.
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Jul 02, 2006, 18:59:21
|
|
|
|
Hi Cynthia, firstly, love and best wishes to you.
I said I wouldn't post on this thread, but just two little points
"What's being a California girl got to do with it?  "
It's the weather. Anyone living in California, for any length of time, without even trying, develops a deep tan, and even light brown hair gets bleached almost blonde by the sea and the almost year round sun. This applies to boys and girls, the immediate effect is a complementary one. Look at our Hollywood stars. But of course, the sun does a lot of harm in the end.
I think Marolyn ended up in this position, purely because of an attractive quality she had. I will share a little more.
There was a film being made, was it "Who is Guru Maharaj ji?" She featured in it giving a short satsang from the inside of an airliner.
Maharaji came to the editing room in disguise, saw the film and said I want to meet that girl.
Word got back to Marolyn. M booked a flight on her airline some time later, she heard about it or saw the passenger lists and changed her flight assignment, swapped with a fellow stewardess, I imagine, and got on the same flight.
She spent the time serving only him, there were complaints, she lost her job.
Word got back to maharaj ji. He invented the idea of having a cabinet of certain special premies, she being one of the first to be invited to be on it, (a new job). (I heard)
My other point is made plainer by referring to a post here from lexy where she speaks about irrational fears. I would cite those and add that I also experience actual fear, and I am several thousand miles away. I have no way of knowing the extent of m's corruption or deviousness, but I cannot imagine being always under his gaze. As a cuckolded wife, her situation, and feelings are impossible for me to even imagine far less empathise with.
She was never my "Mom", just a good, decent ashram friend. I'm afraid I put the blame squarely on maharaj ji for the changes he has wrought in her life. She was his devotee, she did not intend her attentions to be interpreted as personal, I am sure. But as such, how could she decline, as you point out it was agya?
I don't see how she could, even think thoughts, counter to maharaj ji, without being afraid, let alone posting or a more "Mishleresque exit." If she is thinking such thoughts, she must be very afraid.
Not that I, in any way disagree with you, I have no other memories of her, really, I began exing from this time on, but spent too long completing the process.
Those days: the programmes with them all on the stage made me feel sick. the unconditional devotion of premies seemed misplaced and turned my stomach. They started to irritate me, but I continued to believe in premies as people, I still do, so I remained close to communities until I started to speak my mind out loud, of course, then I was out on my ear.
lp
Modified by LP at Mon, Jul 03, 2006, 07:22:47
|
|
|
|
I had not heard that was how they met. Although the part about the movie sounded familiar. I had no idea what you meant about the cabinet. So they drove up and whisked her away. To me, it doesn't sound like she manipulated her way into Rawat's world anymore than any other Gopi type might have. Mishler's tapes say she didn't deal well with "the man behind the curtain" ie drinking and stuff.....I am not sure I my thinking she is some sort of Mary Kay Letourneau is fair at all anymore. He was the boy god, she was the gopi, he only choice was to snap out of it and run. Because to me, once they had those kids, she never really had a choice to leave again. Well, until now, they are adults now. But the picture I get of her is a pretty broken spirit. It makes me sad. My impressions of her were always that she was a devoted mother and really trying to be there for her kids. Anth said the same thing and he had up close time with the kids and Marolyn.
|
|
|
|
Some of the blame lies on the shoulders of my gender.
It is often not easy for a wife to leave her husband.
Men are at their most devastated at such times, and probably their most emotional and irrational and are not easy to leave.
If one has had the misfortune to need the services of the C.A.B. one will have become bored waiting and eventually come round to reading the poster about the effects of demoralization in wives. For a man it is sobering to realize that we are not perfect. Particularly men with drink problems.
Women quite often, I believe, in such cases, resort to a kind of silent, stoic desperation, their spirit might be broken, their self esteem might be at an all time low, but the instinct of a mother prevails. (Please pardon me for any blaring male naivety.)
When a husband with a drink problem has a guru/devotee hold over his wife, I can't imagine it. It's too awful to contemplate.
Modified by LP at Mon, Jul 03, 2006, 17:02:08
|
|
|
|
Well said, LP. I'm often hard on Marolyn but I sympathize with her to an extent, too. I don't take it to the extent as Susan does and expend energy being concerned about her or the kids, because she's a grown woman and has many more resources than most women who are in relationships where their lives are at risk. But, it took my mother 38 years to leave my father, so I understand intimitely what a broken spirit looks like and it's very sad. She allowed her kids to be brought up by a drunken megalomanic. It was her choice ultimately. She could have run to the press, the police, anyone and everyone, to get herself and her kids out. Now she puts up with a mistress. I'll never know the answer to this, but I often wonder why she had so many kids. Maybe she still believes he's divine and it's her cross to bear as a premie. We'll never know.
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Jul 03, 2006, 18:16:00
|
|
|
|
Wish I had the time to post more than a simple joke.
|
|
|
