|
|
|
Hi Ocker,Here is but one example of Prem Rawat's words from the past. (I'll post the dates, ect. tomorrow.) Take a Look See! Who's Knowledge is it? Not yours! Not mine! It's His Knowledge ofcourse!
Modified by Hilltop at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 01:08:58
|
|
|
|
Best Thoughts! ... Now that we have a mind to think with! Sincerely, Hilltop
|
|
|
|
Prem Rawat's talk at Holi, Miami, April 8, 1979, afternoon. As printed in the Divine Times May/June 1979 Volume 8, Number 3, Page 16. The next shorter post comes from page 15 ~ same Issue.
Modified by Hilltop at Wed, Jul 05, 2006, 20:27:03
|
|
|
|
My friend, You did not have to post to Joe.
Nor do you have to have to ask me tricky questions and then
catch me in a contradiction. All you had to do was to ask me
directly, "What is the depth of your hypocrisy?"
For example, how can I claim to believe these things, yet not
teach my children in order to save their souls? Or, how can you
possibly believe in a Christian God and a Radhasoami Satguru at
the same time? Well, you did not ask, but I will try to answer
anyway. I don't think I can separate thought vs. belief here,
so please bear with me. I make a distinction between Maharaji the person and Maharaji
within. I have never at any time in my life for one moment
wanted to be in Maharaji's physical presence (other than
darshan and holy breath), wanted to do service for him
personally, or wanted to hang out and smoke pot with him.
Perhaps that is why I am still a premie today, I don't know.
What I call Maharaji within, is to me one of the most
important parts of my life. Approaching Maharaji today and suggesting that we would all be
happier if he changed his ways is not something that I could
ever do. But you bad premies, you bad people, make me feel that
if he ever asked me, I should tell him so, so good on you. If
Maharaji makes errors of judgement and action, well so do we
all. I am not asking you to agree with this, I am just saying
that is how I feel. And I am not making excuses for Jagdeo. I am a father, and I
have a daughter. I have some strong feelings about this, none
of which will ever appear in a public forum. I am sorry, I meant this to be a rational or at least consistent
response. I am afraid it is just a mess. Sean
|
|
|
|
I truely hope Joe doesn't mind me posting a few by him. I've saved many Posts by Joe, because they are that good! Hilltop
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with you, Though recently acquainting myself I have seen many very well written, informative, yet fair and well balanced posts from Joe.
If I have omitted to say so before Joe, I'd like to tell you how much I appreciate these well structured pieces.
Thanks, Hilltop, it is sometimes difficult or impossible for me, at my present stage, to read much of the posts of maharaji et al speeches, somewhere in my head they're still remembered, I find myself knowing what is coming next, like deja vu, except here I actually did vu it deja.
I therefore read avidly when you yourself say something, or send pictures. Thankyou for knowing where to find these and for having the memory and the organisational skills to lay your hand upon such posts as these.
Lp
Modified by LP at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 03:41:38
|
|
|
|
GDay LPLike yourself, I know them all off by heart. I occassionaly see Rawat on TV. Every word is predictable. Let us not forget that these posting by Hilltop allow anyone who wants to check out Rawat to see his whole verbal history including that which Rawat tried to have destroyed. Jethro (Sun is booming down here today) :>) PS did I tell you that I am alive!!!! Honest!!!!
|
|
|
|
Good day! Jethro. Sun here too; some cloud.. good point about the postings, I don't have to read them, but I'm glad we can show others, the "forbidden" words.
The news of you're being alive is extremely excellent!
I love words for their own sake some times: but with Rawat
"Every word is predictable".
He was this; and that in itself was boring, bordering on empty. And Joe's post mentioned:
Inexplicable. That we should be fooled
"he's just a strange, fat guy,
who says boring, meaningless things that are just a bunch of simplistic
platitudes, and it just seems inexplicable how premies react to
it like it's the precious waters of life."
But now, it would be even more inexplicable if they believed this unpredictable shift in his message.
If they believed he was a business success who could rub shoulders with people who are really rich because they really worked.
His own wealth is numbers of premies, his only real asset. He has no commodity. No basis for spreading wealth, his money is scavenged from his loyal surviving premies.
All he has is this trick. A way of talking people to sleep and implanting his absurd fake reality into our subconscious minds so that when we guiltily jerk awake and look around; the next thing we hear is virtually the same.
Thus it has the ring of truth and our falling asleep has the ring of guilt. I think that looks like the missing piece of my jigsaw.
At the risk of sounding inexplicably predictable; I'm sure I've been hypnotised, or he collected on the mind I'd promised, while I dozed. Yoink! 
Lp
Modified by LP at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 09:54:31
|
|
|
|
For being the great archivist of Rawat's actual words. It's a really valuable "service" you perform, that's for sure. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
I like Joe's writing style and his perceptions are always interesting. He gets to the heart of issues very well.
|
|
|
|
I posted to Joe because my post was meant for Joe. Joe and I have an ongoing disagreement about the lives of premies and I thought/think that you provided a pretty good example of the lives and thoughts of many of today's premies and that might give him insight into my attitudes.You think I asked you "tricky questions"! Sean, my questions were straightforward. Because your answers contained contradictions doesn't meant the questions were posed to try and trick you into giving them. Listen, I wonder if you could read the rest of this post, have a think about it and tomorrow in Texas after my next morning awakening, read them and answer them. Firstly, I am not interested in debating you or catching you out with tricky questions or "revealing" that you're reasonably confused about your experience and beliefs. That's pretty obvious and there seems little point in pursuing it. But you do have one singular quality. You appear pretty honest and open and prepared to answer questions about your actual experience of Knowledge, your history in the cult/ movement/ mission/ whatever directly. These are not qualities so easy to find in premies who tend to obfuscate and prevaricate, presumably to protect their Master though from whom and why I'm not sure. You also seem interested in thinking about your lfie in Knowledge and the wider questions this poses. Most premies (at least that I know) either don't want to think about it and that is very understandable or I am too embarassed to ask them questions I think they'll find difficult or embarassing or painful to answer.
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, I guess you might feel like an exotic specimen under glass given the curiosity you have aroused on this forum. So far, the hostility you have aroused appears minimal, but when heated exchanges do occur between exes and premie visitors, it mostly comes down to the unwillingness of premies to address direct questions directly. Evasions, revisions and denials of facts being more the norm. But unlike many past premie posters here, you (as others have noted) seem genuine and pretty honest. Which started me wondering about this theory I have, and where you would fit in… So at the risk of making you feel even more like a lab rat, J here is a piece I wrote recently titled ‘The Impossible Triangle’, which attempts to explain the essential premie dilemma. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/redcrow/CULT/The%20Impossible%20Triangle.htm The link goes to a watered-down rewrite which I made for one of Mike Finch’s essays to quote. (My original forum post was more forthright: ‘Irish Rose’ is Julie Smyth – lately of this parish; ‘RM’ is Jossi Fresco, Maharaji’s webmaster and chief arbiter / falsifier of the truth about Rawat on Wikipedia.) Q: If we use ‘devotion’ in its mildest sense, say, to forbid oneself from criticising Maharaji, or comparing him negatively to other inspirational speakers, or, perhaps, to question his necessity in your life… And we use ‘rational’ do denote a willingness to draw appropriate logical conclusions from compelling evidence… And ‘honest’ means never writing or speaking a word you don’t 100% believe, then… In relation to Maharaji, would you see yourself as an A+B, an A+C, or a B+C? I am sure you would prefer to be an A+B+C (as we all would) but, being a premie, you might find it impossible. This forum provides you an opportunity to prove me wrong, if you are up to the challenge?  Cheers, Nigel
Related link: The Impossible Triangle
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Jul 04, 2006, 12:55:00
|
|
|
|
I hope I am up to the challenge, but I don't think I
like my answer. I am an a+B premie. I put the rationality
in lower case because I am not fully comfortable with the
rigor and completeness of my rational analysis of
premies, Maharaji, and myself. Others on this forum
occasionally refer to this as "confusion".
The devotion is the hard part for me. I have not done a
very good job of it, but I am still trying. If I ever
become A+B+C I will let you know.
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean
My mind has gone blank, why are you trying to achieve devotion? One either loves someone or one doesn't, you can't "work on" loving them.
Nor it is very easy to stop loving if one finds one does. If one has achieved "love" by a kind of self hypnosis, the outcome can only be harmful to oneself and those one convinces to do likewise, and it is not real love anyway.
lp
Modified by LP at Wed, Jul 05, 2006, 05:45:23
|
|
|
|
>My mind has gone blank, why are you trying to achieve
>devotion? One either loves someone or one doesn't, you >can't "work on" loving them. In my humble experience, love is not a visceral reaction
over which we have no control. It may start that way but
it won't last unless there is will, action, practice and
dedication. Not speaking of knowledge or Maharaji here,
just of marriage  Devotion is different. I don't think I understand it well
enough to talk about it yet. My real devotion has always
been such a small part of my life, sometimes it barely
seems to exist. I am doing my best not to let that little
flame go out.
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, Prem Rawat called those of us who left his mind abusing cult, who didn't want to be a part of his scam anymore unlit matches. Prem Rawat is not the flame that keeps you alive and your breath will work just fine without him too. So this attachment is for Prem Rawat and not you. It's an old joke by now... Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 01:48:57
|
|
|
|
LOL Hilltop! I had not seen that before, and
I am going to steal that jpg You are not
unlit matches to me.
|
|
|
|
But re:
"Devotion is different. I don't think I understand it well
enough to talk about it yet. My real devotion has always
been such a small part of my life, sometimes it barely
seems to exist. I am doing my best not to let that little
flame go out."
The flame might be little but not it's importance to you, it sounds to me.
Why? Why do you want it? What do you think it will provide in return? What rewards for your family or for yourself or for humankind as a whole? What expectations for life after death? What expectations of maharaji being pleased with you?
We really appreciate you being here, you know.
We ask not challengingly, but to stimulate areas which we know are conducive to healthy growth when stimulated into honest introspection.
The sense that maharaji is looking over your shoulder is a tough one and needs thinking through.
How much of what we are so sure of is just, in the end something someone else said.
Lp
ps
Just thought Sean, in all due respect,
perhaps the flame is the pilot light on the gas boiler of your expectation of an easy way out of the world, and into an imaginary maharaji world made out of recycled stage props from the "Peter at the Golden Gates" sketch.
No offence intended..
Best wishes, you are in an exciting stage
Just one letter 'C' to get to exiting stage. What could that stand for?
I'll go for;
Commitment, in the name of this C we gave everything; did everything; went everywhere; said everything; said goodbye to everyone and everything; endured everything; saw and said nothing about everything; felt everything; and gained nothing good whatsoever!
My guess: if there were an intelligence overarching the whole of creation; and it cared to comment, it might be telling you: Sean that the only obstacle between you and a liberating, life giving realisation is your Commitment to maharaji.
Modified by LP at Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 09:39:56
|
|
|
|
some kids were playing and one says, "I bet you all your marbles, that I can make a light come inside your head".
"Bet you can't". So the first boy clamps the finger and thumb tripod on his brow and eyes. "See!" grabs the bag and runs off.
"Hey that's cheating, come back with my marbles."
Only that was long ago and over the centuries it got out of hand.
Read the small print, especially at auctions.
|
|
|
|
I find these questions difficult to answer, I don't think I
have ever once asked them. >Why? Why do you want it?
I think it is key to the meditation working. I want to be
devoted. Partly I suppose this is what I have been told.
Partly it is my memory of my life in the mid 70's. >What do you think it will provide in return?
>What rewards for your family or for yourself or for
>humankind as a whole?
I don't think the words "devotion" and "rewards"
go together. Do you? >What expectations for life after death?
I don't think our memories or personalities continue
after death. I believe something does continue, call
it a soul if you like, but nothing with my name on it.
This is not a very comforting thought, so I trust
God has worked out the details. >What expectations of maharaji being pleased with you?
The person of Maharaji living in Malibu? No expectations.
The thing that I call Maharaji within? Pleased is
the wrong word. It is my hope that devotion will
put me more closely in touch with Maharaji within. LP, thank you for asking these questions. Sean
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you were not aware of how well you answered my question.
You want devotion because you think it is the key to the meditation working and you want the meditation to work.
And "partly" because you have been told that.
I think this is more accurately stated as:
You want devotion (entirely) because you have been told that it is the key to the meditation working and you want the meditation to work. You want this because you have been told it will put you more closely in touch with maharaji within.
A complex reward which I doubt you will achieve.
I.E. I doubt strongly that you will find any link between devotion and meditation, nor any increase in it's working with increase of devotion.
Only maharaji stands to benefit from your devotion, and then, only if in your attempt to be more surrendered, you begin donating more, or offering some tangible form of service. Without these I doubt he could care less about your inner experience.
And inner guru maharaji? No such animal! You think he has the ability to send out little duplicates of himself to sit inside people? That's more horrific than "Alien".
Drop off the key; Sean, and set yourself free,
it's getting painful, even from all this distance away.
Limited Patience
Modified by LP at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 14:13:18
|
|
|
|
>The devotion is the hard part for me. I have not done a very good job of it, but I am still trying. If I ever become A+B+C I will let you know. Sean - thanks for reply. Why not go for an easier life from now on and ditch the 'devotion'? Whose good does it serve? Not yours, not anybody's. Why hasn't Prem Rawat devoted his life to you? He probably has good reasons for not travelling too far by private jet to hear you speak. Do you have better reasons for devoting your life to him? Love the people you care about and tell that stupid idiot guru to go to hell on a one way ticket, and take back control of your own life. Just do it as a personal thought experiment, off-forum if you prefer, but just do it. Brighter blessings all round, guaranteed. Nige
Modified by Nigel at Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 14:55:21
|
|
|
|
You're absolutely right, Nigel. Devotion's terrible poison for the mind. But premies like Sean don't really even aspire towards devotion anymore. Not really. They just like to scratch against it. It feels good and allows them to stretch a bit. Funny what people get used to. Oh well, I guess it could be worse. Sean could be drinking shoe polish.
|
|
|
|
Jim,You are intelligent and facile with a turn of phrase,
but you are also disrespectful and rude to other people
who you don't even know. The former qualities do not
excuse the latter. Sean
|
|
|
|
>Why not go for an easier life from now on and ditch >the 'devotion'?Because I don't think it would be an easier or even
a better life if I did that. >Whose good does it serve? I don't think it is supposed to serve up goodness to
anyone in any quantifiable way. >Why hasn't Prem Rawat devoted his life to you? My two dogs are devoted to me in their way, as is
only one of the three cats. The hedgehog has other
concerns besides large noisy humans. I have more
than enough devotion to myself already >Do you have better reasons for devoting your life to him? Yes. >Just do it as a personal thought experiment, off-forum if you
>prefer, but just do it. Early on in these posts, I tried one or two thought experiments
when suggested by others. The results are personal, but I
now think it is not generally a good idea to put myself up for
experiment, however well-intentioned.
|
|
|
|
I guess that is why we are all so interested. You seem like you can tell the difference between answering a question and dodging one. I was about to say Rawat is lucky to have you....but thats sort of weird. He doesn't deserve you? You don't deserve him..? well, no one deserves him. But I guess he would be the first to say that...he thinks we were and are all lucky to have him. I still am interested if you would care to comment on how he kept sending criminal Mahatmas back to India. What did the Indians do to deserve THAT.
|
|
|
|
>I still am interested if you would care to comment on how he
>kept sending criminal Mahatmas back to India. What did the
>Indians do to deserve THAT.I think it was an error in judgement. I think
that we see examples of this today, when the Catholic
church protects pedophile priests. I am trying to say
that this seems to be a behavior that occurs in
organizations, even in ones that intend only to do good;
there seems to be a certain amount of self-protective
"closing of the ranks" that occurs.
|
|
|
|
I agree, it's not different at all from sending the pedophile priests on to a new unsuspecting community. But a lot of people feel it was far from just an error in judgement. It was protecting the Catholic church is more important than protecting the children. What I am saying, is it was more important to protect Rawat from embarrassment than to do something substantial about the criminal Mahatmas. Also, there was no sign that at least in Jagdeo's case any effort was made to keep him away from Indian girls. One word that has been used to describe Rawat is a coward. I think it fits.
|
|
|
|
>I posted to Joe because my post was meant for JoeOK, sorry I saw my name and leapt to the conclusion
that it was intended for me, my mistake. >That's pretty obvious and there seems little point in pursuing >it. Thanks and the same to you, it is always a pleasure to
exchange posts with someone to whom my confusion is so
apparent as to be unnecessary to comment on
|
|
|
|
Sean,
What I said was your confusion was "pretty obvious and there seems little point in pursuing it." I didn't say it was unnecessary to comment on it. And your confusion is so obvious and your attitudes so extreme in some ways and lackadaisical in others that I doubt your bona fides a little.
You claim (not necessarily overtly but by your answers to questions) to hold yourself to the most extraordinary standards of humility and aspiration yet you excuse the actions of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat in a cavalier fashion. You use the disreputable actions of Rawat, which you accept as true, as a homily on your own hypocrisy as if that is as far as you need to think in that area.
So what questions do you think I could you ask you that would help reveal what differentiates those people who go on accepting Prem Rawat as their Master (no matter how many caveats you wish to place upon that) and those who decide that the failures of his "Mastership" and the limitations of his so-called Knowledge do not warrant any further connection or practice.
I think a potted biography of your "Life in Knowledge" would be a good start. Think of me as the host of one of those corny TV shows: "This Is Your Life" but you provide the details.
So you "received Knowledge" (I only use that terminology as a shorthand) in 1973 by Rajeshwar. What did you do in the early years apart from consider yourself unworthy? Ashram? Attendance at satsang? Service? Constant meditation?
What did you do and think, if anything, after the break-up of the "Holy Family". What do you think about the millions of Indian premies who went with Mata Ji?
What did you do during the period of the first ashram closings?
What was your involvement during the super-devotional period up to 1982? Did you do the festival circuit? Satsang? Service? Were you single, an initiator / instructor?
What did you do and think during the 1980's hiatus? Manage to keep meditating? Attend any satsang? Service?
Did you attend the Rejoice revival meetings of 1987? What did you think of the change in meditation techniques? Did you stop trying to remember Holy Name constantly? You'd never done that anyway? Was there any change in your life and attitudes? Were you receiving regular satsangs, darshans, service? Part of a small community?
What did you do and think during the 1990's? Manage to keep meditating? Attend any satsang? Service? Are you part of the organisation with a First Class logon? Were you part of a community?
Why didn't you attend any of the Training Sessions? Have you been to Amaroo? Do you attend Rawat's speeches in the USA? You mentioned Jan Hus (pbuh), have you made any studies of cults? religion? spirituality or been involved in any other groups bar the Lutheran church? (Pastor divorced 3 times, bloody hell, even Protestant Christians don't have any standards these days).
Let's leave it at that for a start, shall we? Oh, just in case it matters. I've maintained friendly and loving relationships with premies for 25 years since I became realised and liberated and I think the "Gospel According to Joe" is a little ridiculous. To me, premies enjoy Knowledge to a greater or lesser extent depending upon their personalities and committment and it's no worse a false religion than many others. But then I'm pretty lackadaisical myself and I believe that only actions matter and it doesn't really matter much what religion you have though certainly it's better not to waste your devotion on a person who doesn't deserve it, but then again, who does?
|
|
|
|
Ocker, If I twisted your words, it was not intentional, and
I apologize. It is my experience that internet BBS's are
of such low informational bandwidth that misunderstandings,
flames and worse are almost inevitable. I hope this was
just one of those cases. If you or anyone doubt my bona fides please contact me
directly. I gave my work email to Mike, and it's OK
with me if he gives it to anyone whose motives he trusts.
Others who are sufficiently persistent can just google
me based on the information I have already posted. >You claim (not necessarily overtly but by your answers to
>questions) to hold yourself to the most extraordinary
>standards of humility and aspiration yet you excuse the
>actions of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat in a cavalier fashion. It is not who I am, it is the person I want to be. >I think a potted biography of your "Life in Knowledge" would
>be a good start. My friend, I have spent the past two hours considering this one
sentence. Just trying to put the events in sequence have
brought back so many precious memories. One part of me does
not want to share even one, they mean too much to me to let
them be held up for comment and ridicule. But I will share
one memory with you. I was living in the Albany NY premie
house in early 1974. That is still deep winter in upstate
NY. I was washing dishes and looking idly out the kitchen
window, onto a back street. Our housemom was a 5' tall slip
of a girl who would not let us eat anything that was not
from a 100% vegetarian macrobiotic menu. Broccoli, brown rice,
bulghur, miso, or equivalent, day after day. Once a national
premie came to visit (I don't recall his name) and we had
brownies, made with carob and molasses no doubt, but we scarfed
them down like there was no tomorrow. Anyway, on this day, I
looked out the window and saw walking down the street a girl I
did not recognize. It seemed to me that she was carrying
diamonds or jewels, she seemed so lit up with grace and beauty.
After a second I realized that it was just Ronnie, one of the
sisters who lived in the house and who I saw every day; I just
had not recognized her. Very Best Regards,
Sean Leary
|
|
|
|
Ocker asked you a number of excellent questions. Instead of answering them you offer this vague recollection which has no value beyond nostalgia. Don't get me wrong. Nostalgia's as valid as any other feeling. But here you seem to be just avoiding things. Face it, Sean, if you're just here to show us how your toy duck floats in your tepid spiritual bath water, forget it. We've all had our own rubber duckies. Nothing you can say will impress in that regard. Frankly, we've grown past that shit. Either you want to engage in honest, no-holds-barred analysis or you don't. That's the only way you have any hope of getting out of your comfort zone -- which just happens to be all false -- and getting on your own two feet for a change. Think of it as waking up. At first it's disturbing but that's because you're asleep.
|
|
|
|
Hi Ocker,
Here is a better try at your questions.>What did you do in the early years apart from consider
>yourself unworthy? Ashram? Attendance at satsang? Service?
>Constant meditation?
I lived with premies from December '73 until sometime in
1976. No ashram. Regular satsang, service and meditation,
which progressively became less regular over time. >What did you do and think, if anything, after the break-up of
>the "Holy Family". What do you think about the millions of
>Indian premies who went with Mata Ji? I did not think about it much; it seemed serious, but
of no day-to-day impact that I can recall. >What did you do during the period of the first ashram closings? Nothing different. I am not even sure which year you are
talking about. >What was your involvement during the super-devotional period
>up to 1982?
The same. Living by myself or with non-premies. >Did you do the festival circuit? Satsang? Service?
Yes. >Were you single, an initiator / instructor?
Single householder. >What did you do and think during the 1980's hiatus?
I must have been on hiatus too. Manage to keep meditating?
Yes, about the same. Attend any satsang? Service?
Less as time went on, and much less after I got married
in 1985. >Did you attend the Rejoice revival meetings of 1987?
No, I don't think so. >What did you think of the change in meditation techniques?
I am OK with the change. >Did you stop trying to remember Holy Name constantly?
Yes, although occasionally I still try. Not constantly,
just when I happen to remember. >You'd never done that anyway?
Yes, I think early on I did try constantly, not sure. >Was there any change in your life and attitudes?
Yes, but mostly because of marriage. >Were you receiving regular satsangs, darshans, service? Part of a small community?
No. Very irregular practice. I last saw Maharaji in
person around 1987 in a presentation in Chicago. >What did you do and think during the 1990's?
About the same. Even less regular. >Manage to keep meditating? Attend any satsang?
Yes, a little. Service?
No. Are you part of the organisation with a First Class logon?
I don't even know what that is. Were you part of a community?
No. Why didn't you attend any of the Training Sessions?
I did not know about them. Have you been to Amaroo?
No. Do you attend Rawat's speeches in the USA?
Last one was in 1987 I think. >You mentioned Jan Hus (pbuh), have you made any studies of >cults?
No. >religion?
No. >spirituality or been involved in any other groups bar the >Lutheran church?
I am involved in historical Jesus studies, not formally,
just on my own. I am also reading up on Radhasoami. Regards,
Sean
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, I'll try to get some more specific answers."Regular satsang, service and meditation, which progressively became less regular over time." Does this mean, progessively less up to 76 or after 76? Regular like 7 nights a week, or regular like 2 nights a week. "What do you think about the millions of >Indian premies who went with Mata Ji?" You enjoy speculation so think about this. If "internal Maharaji" has some connection with Prem Rawat, what happened to the experience of millions of Indian devotees who shifted their allegiance from young Prem to Mata Ji and Bal Bhagwan Ji? Many had been meditating for decades and had received Knowledge from Shri Hans. Where does Prem Rawat and "Grace" enter into their lives? 1980's. Manage to keep meditating? "Yes, about the same." Every day for 2 hours and lot's of Holy Name or occasional formal meditation and infrequent breath meditation during the day. Did you do nectar technique during the day? "I last saw Maharaji in person around 1987 in a presentation in Chicago." Even I have seen him since then. So was this "presentation" what was called 'Rejoice' where Rawat taught the new techniques and if it wasn't how have you learnt the new techniques? Have you had Knowledge Reviews since then by instructors? Or recently by DVD? How many KR's (if any) have you had? So you've pretty well had no connection with Rawat or Elan Vital since 1987. Have you "kept in touch" and "stayed synchronised" through donations and videos / cable TV / DVDs? Which lineage of Radhasaomi? What books?
|
|
|
|
"What do you think about the millions of >Indian premies who went with Mata Ji?" You enjoy speculation so think about this. If "internal Maharaji" has some connection with Prem Rawat, what happened to the experience of millions of Indian devotees who shifted their allegiance from young Prem to Mata Ji and Bal Bhagwan Ji? Many had been meditating for decades and had received Knowledge from Shri Hans. Where does Prem Rawat and "Grace" enter into their lives? If I were a premie trying to maintain anything of the myth of "inner Maharaji" -- actually the arguably most important, if currently least admitted, core belief in the cult -- I wouldn't want to have to answer it. Sean?
|
|
|
|
>Regular satsang, service and meditation, which progressively
>became less regular over time." Does this mean, progessively
>less up to 76 or after 76? Regular like 7 nights a week, or
>regular like 2 nights a week.I just checked my social security records and based on that I
would have to say at least up to mid 1977, when I started to
actually have an income worth taxing. Meditation 7 days
per week, 2 hours per day. Satsang 7 days per week, not
sure how many hours per day, but some of those guys could go
on and on. I will guess 2 hours daily plus Arti, but Joe can
probably remember better. Service 40 hours per week. Service
ended when I left COLL. Satsang and meditation declined
gradually. >"What do you think about the millions of >Indian premies who
>went with Mata Ji?" You enjoy speculation so think about this.
>If "internal Maharaji" has some connection with Prem Rawat,
>what happened to the experience of millions of Indian devotees
>who shifted their allegiance from young Prem to Mata Ji and
>Bal Bhagwan Ji? Many had been meditating for decades and had
>received Knowledge from Shri Hans. Where does Prem Rawat
>and "Grace" enter into their lives? This is completely unsubstantiated speculation on my part,
worth exactly what you paid for it, i.e. nothing. I expect
that most are still following Bal Bhagwan Ji, are perfectly
happy with their choice, and I would not be surprised if they
felt much grace in their lives from their new guru. I don't
wish any of them ill, and in fact what I speculated is
exactly what I hope for them: the best. >1980's. Manage to keep meditating? "Yes, about the same."
>Every day for 2 hours and lot's of Holy Name or occasional
>formal meditation and infrequent breath meditation during the
>day. Did you do nectar technique during the day?
Occasional formal meditation, perhaps a few hours a month,
sometimes much less. Hit or miss during the day, word only. >"I last saw Maharaji in person around 1987 in a presentation
>in Chicago." Even I have seen him since then.
LOL! As I said, being in Maharaji's physical presence has
never felt like a priority to me. >So was this "presentation" what was called 'Rejoice' where
>Rawat taught the new techniques and if it wasn't how have you
>learnt >the new techniques?
You got me. It's likely, because it did include a knowledge
review. OTOH I could easily have learned the new version of the
techniques in a review session with an instructor afterwards. >Have you had Knowledge Reviews since then by instructors?
I think I have had 6 or less knowledge reviews, total.
I am pretty sure that the last was before 1995. >Or recently by DVD?
No. >How many KR's (if any) have you had?
6 or less. >So you've pretty well had no connection with Rawat or
>Elan Vital since 1987. Have you "kept in touch" and
>"stayed synchronised" through donations and videos /
>cable TV / DVDs?
I have never heard the term "synchronized" before I
read it in this forum. To me, synchronization is what
you do during handshaking when 2 networked devices
form a connection. Regarding donations, I took Maharaji
at his word when he said knowledge was free. I have never
paid to hear him speak, in person, on satellite or video.
I don't think I ever would, and I don't think he wants
this. IMHO. >Which lineage of Radhasaomi? What books?
So far just "Radhasoami Reality" by Juergensmeyer. Tonight
I also downloaded "Paramhansa Advait Mat", which I would
note was damned hard to find. All of your links are broken
and I had to resort to entering likely URLs before I found
it. This one looks like heavy going, so I am not sure if
I am going to read the entire book. No matter, I will probably
be several more weeks before I finish RR.
|
|
|
|
I’ve often thought that the thing you fail to understand, or at least accept with tolerance, is that premies are in the main, slack in practice and not very interested in the criticisms of Prem Rawat and his “Knowledge” and not very logical about the whole thing. Well, actually, I hope I didn't give you that impression, because I actually agree with that. One caveat is that I think lacking in interest and dropping out of logical thinking is in itself a kind of mind control. So, no, I don't disagree with that. I think where we disagreed was that I saw you contending that premies are just normal people living normal lives and aren't engaging in cult mind control. I disagree with that. I think they MUST engage in it in order to remain a premie, even if it's by mere avoidance, feigning or engaging in apathy and disinterest or convenient memory loss. I think it is impossible, however, for a premie to be a premie, to not believe down deep somewhere that Rawat is some kind of a supreme, or at least very advanced, being, that he is the originator or creator of the experience of knowledge, and that he in some ways IS the experience. Of course, "the experience" boils down to be anything that's good or pleasant, all of which is attributed to Rawat, while all that is bad or unpleasant is attributed to the mind, confusion, lack of dedication, lack of practice, or something else. I think Sean and many premies are indeed sincere and good people. But I think Sean and many others still engage in mind control and rationalization. Sean is different because he is actually engaging in it verbally. I think most premies, as you say, do not do that.
|
|
|
|
I sure as hell hope that we haven't been mainly arguing about words for which we have completely different definitions again.Where I come from "hippies" and the "counter-culture" were interchangeable terms. You argued that most of the early premies weren't "hippies" but later said that they actually came from the "counter-culture" so it turned out that was really a non-argument. Here, it appears that you use the term "mind-control" as if it something that: "lacking in interest and dropping out of logical thinking is in itself a kind of mind control". Now premies don't stop thinking logically about everything, they're going on being teachers, businessmen, etc. They just use a "higher logic" wherein even thinking about the Rawatism topic too carefully and worrying about the inconsistencies, the deceits, the vulgar wealth, etc is inappropriate. But to me and I'm sure to the world at large "mind-control"is something much different. Firstly, by definition it refers to an external agency controlling a person's consciousness, their thoughts and feelings. It is distinctly different to normal methods of persuasion, education and indoctrination. Now I think an argument can be made that back in the 70's DLM inadvertently used a combination of techniques that could be construed as mind controlling or attempted mind-controlling but it was quite explicit and not hidden and if someone voluntarily began going to meetings 7 nights a week and concentrating on the speakers without careful discrimination (as people were advised to do) and then meditating an extra 2 hours a day and living in a group (sometimes fed with not enough protein) that shouted as loudly as possible that they were devotees of the Living Lord and the Perfect Master they could hardly later say they were being deceived. Since 1982 Elan Vital has been using deceitful methods of attempting to attract followers but their techniques of almost, maybe "mind control" have no longer been functioning. So to me the idea that "mind control" has a part in the continued belief in Rawat and his "Knowledge" is not required. Once people become believers in a religion then they can go on remaining believers no matter how often their expectations are not met. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Adventists are obvious examples of this and they've let the end of the world slip by many times without all of them apostasising.
|
|
|
|
AWhere I come from "hippies" and the "counter-culture" were interchangeable terms. You argued that most of the early premies weren't "hippies" but later said that they actually came from the "counter-culture" so it turned out that was really a non-argument I see a difference. A "hippie" was/is somebody who "drops out," from the society. While a "hippie" is definitely also "counter-culture," I see that term as much broader, covering people who haven't "dropped out" but do and think things counter to the prevailing culture. So, a college student grows his hair long, smokes dope, protests the war in Vietnam, refuses to engage in established "dating" rituals, has group sex, becomes a vegetarian, and wears dirty military clothes, experiments with Eastern religion or meditation, etc. I did a lot of that, but I was also a straight "A" student on full scholarship. In my mind, the latter is not a "hippie" and I was not a hippie. And I still believe that most premies were not "hippies" but many of us were "counter culture" to varying degrees. And like somebody pointed out, as with most things, "counter-culture" eventually became mainstream part of the culture. Here, it appears that you use the term "mind-control" as if it something that: "lacking in interest and dropping out of logical thinking is in itself a kind of mind control". Now premies don't stop thinking logically about everything, they're going on being teachers, businessmen, etc. They just use a "higher logic" wherein even thinking about the Rawatism topic too carefully and worrying about the inconsistencies, the deceits, the vulgar wealth, etc is inappropriate. That is not how I use the term "mind control." As I have said many times the "mind control" I am referrring to, is primarily just in the cult area. In the rest of the person's life, it mostly does not apply, but of course, you can engage in mind control in other areas as well, but usually not as extreme. For example, read my essay on EPO as to why Rawat is the leader of a cult. In the last paragraph, I make it clear that in other areas of my life, I did NOT engage in mind control, only in the cult area. This is why premies can look normal, but when it comes to the cult they most definately are not. But to me and I'm sure to the world at large "mind-control"is something much different. Firstly, by definition it refers to an external agency controlling a person's consciousness, their thoughts and feelings. It is distinctly different to normal methods of persuasion, education and indoctrination. That is not "mind control," that is brainwashing, and premies are not brainwashed. But the cult engages in mind control all over the place. "Mind control" is anything that keeps you from analyzing, judging, doubting or evaluating what you believe about the cult, what your "experience" actually is, and whether you are really getting out of it what you think you are. These techniques are everything from "never leave room for doubt in your mind," to "listen with your heart" to "don't listen to your mind," to "Maharaji is perfect and I lack understanding to judge him." All of those mind control techniques are used in the Rawat cult. In the same essay I mentioned, I talk about 8 of them, but there are a lot more. And I think vagueness, memory loss, illogical thinking, passivity, and avoidance, are all mind control techniques as well. And I disagree completely that "mind control" isn't still underway. But remember, it exists between the ears, not outside someplace. The cult just reinforces it. A lot of it is based on fear. I'll give the best example and I think I have asked this before. Have you ever heard a premie criticize Maharaji? Ever? And I don't mean on the way out of the cult. I mean still a premie, but criticizing Rawat. It just doesn't happen and it takes a lot of mind control to avoid it. Have you seen the contortions premies who post have done to avoid the cirticism? It is impossible for me to believe that somebody could be a premie for 25 years and have never let a critical thought of Rawat enter their minds. But one would never know it. Sean is critical of Rawat, which is unusual, but I think the "external v. internal Maharaji," rationalization IS a somewhat desparate mind control technique. Again, it's done to protect the belief. To avoid the criticism or questioning of the ultimate belief. I think with Sean, that is the "internal Maharaji," whatever that is.
Modified by Joe at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 17:00:33
|
|
|
|
1. The Commandment Against Doubting.
Cults almost always forbid or discourage their members from doubting anything about the Cult, and especially the Cult Leader. Maharaji was especially explicit about this. For many years, Maharaji had a "Commandment" that his followers were supposed to follow, which was to "Never Leave Room for Doubt in Your Mind." I know he doesn’t have "commandments" anymore, but I think the principle is still there, and I read a transcript of Maharaji speaking in Argentina in which he again lambasted "doubts" as a detriment to your "experience." I know that some PWKs say that the commandment actually meant something else, but I find the explanations absurd. It says what it says. Moreover, in my experience, doubts in the Maharaji cult were always discouraged, with or without the existence of Maharaji’s "commandment."
So, after you receive knowledge, after the repression of your thoughts that it took to get to that point, Maharaji gives you a commandment that says you aren’t supposed to doubt and that doubting interferes with the "experience." Obviously, this makes it nearly impossible to look at knowledge or Maharaji objectively.
2. No Critical Question about the Leader or His Teaching is Legitimate.
One of the true tests of whether someone is in a cult is whether he or she can criticize the Cult Leader. It’s nearly impossible, indeed is impossible, to get a one of Maharaji’s followers to do it. Of course, they will say there is nothing to criticize, because cult thinking will not allow those critiques, those "doubts" to enter, and if they do, they are immediately repressed. It causes a cult member great discomfort to think of questioning or criticizing the Cult Leader and if they have such thoughts, they would NEVER say it publicly. This is because the Maharaji cult is really a personality cult, although it retains some "Eastern spiritual cult" overtones. Obviously, if you attack the "personality" what do you have left? Some PWKs can bring themselves to criticize Elan Vital, and various leaders of that and other related organizations. I did the same thing towards the end of my involvement. But mostly, I just blamed myself for even having any doubts in the first place.
Once you are out of the cult, believe me, you will have no problem criticizing Maharaji. All the critical things you have thought about him, about his "efforts" as master, or about knowledge, or about your experiences as one of his followers, all of which have been repressed, will come out like a raging river, and it feels wonderful.
3. Criticism of the Cult and Especially the Cult Leader, in any Form, is Seen as Lack of "Understanding," or "Confusion."
In my experience, if you express criticism of Maharaji, or any of his decisions, or Knowledge, or anything related, you get the cold shoulder by his followers and his organization and will be considered "confused" or not "synchronized." It’s group pressure, really. And if you do so, you can usually forget about moving up in the organization, getting close to the Lotus Feet, getting a good seat at a program, being invited to "the residence," or getting a good "participation opportunity."
If you do it too much, you might even be categorized as a "bongo." Try sitting in your next "participation meeting" and say some negative stuff about Maharaji or what he’s doing. See how open and tolerant your fellow followers are to such statements. It’s unlikely they will encourage you to air your opinions and vigorously discuss your "negative" views. [By the way, being labeled "negative" is about the worst thing that can happen to you in the Maharaji cult and this is yet another form of mind control.]
4. Threats of Dire Calamity if They Abandon Knowledge/Maharaji.
I could go into the "tons of rotten vegetables" and other things Maharaji said as threats of what would happen if people abandoned the cult, but that isn’t really necessary. Basically, this is internalized in most PWKs, such that they cannot imagine, and fear, what their lives would be like if they left Maharaji. Since Maharaji has been portrayed as being exclusive in his "perfect master" position, PWKs fear there is no place else to go. This is basically phobia indoctrination. It’s the irrational fear of ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader’s authority. Basically, the PWKs (and this was also true for me), cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being a follower of Maharaji, and Maharaji reinforces this in just about everything he says.
As a premie, I described this psychological dependence on Maharaji or at least my image of Maharaji and the fear I had of rejection by him, as my "love for Maharaji," despite the fact that I never even met the guy. Obviously, this is about as far from "love" as you can get. Also, somehow, if I said I "loved" Maharaji, it gave me some comfort that it was less likely I would ever unconsciously reject him, or that he would reject me.
5. There is Never A Legitimate Reason to Leave/Shunning Those Who Leave.
It’s difficult for a follower of Maharaji to see how someone can legitimately leave "that place" and not be miserable. Ex-premies have heard it all, and I thought much the same when people left the cult when I was still a member. People who leave are labeled as "confused," "lacking the proper understanding," having gotten into the cult for "the wrong reasons," wanting a "Hindu spiritual trip," "undisciplined," "never having practiced knowledge," "negative," or seduced by money, sex, rock and roll. You name it. We have heard it all. Just check out Pia Grunbaum’s and Charles Glasser’s websites, if you want to see it in print. And as for being shunned, how many of us lost our premie "friends" when we left? Now that some of us are notorious ex-premies speaking out on the Internet, that "shunning" has evolved into open hostility. It even extends to attack websites, like those of CAC, Charles Glasser and Pia Grunbaum. "Please Consider This" is just a lot more diplomatic on that score, but is essentially and attempt at the same endeavor.
6. The Cult Leader and the Cult Make Followers Feel that Any Problems Are Their Own Fault and Never Maharaji’s.
This, in my opinion, is the essence of the Maharaji cult. The axiom is this: All that is good is due to Maharaji, or at least ultimately due to him, while all that is bad is due to the PWK, because of the PWK’s lack of understanding, always getting distracted, or "forgetting that place," his or her own confusion, etc.
If you want to see examples of this, just read the Maharaji cult websites, and see how the writers thereon engage in logical gymnastics to keep from ever blaming Maharaji for anything that ever happened, but are quite willing to place responsibility on themselves or Maharaji’s other followers.
7. Information is Not Freely Accessible/Information Varies at Different Levels/Leadership Decides Who "Needs to Know" What.
Elan Vital and Maharaji are notoriously secretive. Very little is disclosed, even to members. And of course, we all know how secretive Maharaji has been about his personal life, with people being "x-rated" in order to be around him. And even PWKs complain of the paranoid secrecy within Elan Vital and Maharaji’s organization. This kind of information control, especially when it involves information damaging to the perceptions of Maharaji and knowledge, is very important in the Maharaji cult, and always has been. This is partly why EPO is seen as such a threat, because it exposes information the cult is trying to keep secret, and information is empowering to people, and even encourages them to look critically at things they accepted as truth in the past.
8. Lots of "Loaded Language" (AKA Thought-Terminating Clichés).
These are basically terms that have normal meanings to most people, but to people in the Maharaji cult, they have loaded meanings, that evoke an instantaneous "understanding" such that no further thought about what is being said is necessary. Just to name a few: mind, heart, knowledge, breath (that’s a big one these days), that love, that peace, that experience, that gift (really lots of words with "that" in front of them to convey special meaning), understanding, thirst, negativity, doubt, participation, gratitude, and my personal favorite, "synchronization." Maharaji can use these words peppered throughout his speech and end up really saying nothing, but sounding profound, with appropriate nods from his followers |
|
|
|
