|
|
|
I hope Sean is well too. I like Sean and I hope he knows that because I am very stingy with extending my "likes" to people. I'm kind of a recluse, with exceptions. It's not practice to talk all this stuff out. It was some heavy mind-fucking. Even if what I write goes out the window for a premie who's posting here (which I hope it doesn't) I still get a lot out of it personally. Helping others is good, but -- I don't know, I have a lot of hope with Sean. He's a pretty open minded person, who's carrying a lot of weight of the Maharaji Gurujism. He'll come around, I hope. But when it comes to premies on this board, one really has to surrender wanting one's help to stick. They'll come along, or not. Depending. One never knows. Life means one can't control anybody, including cult member, and especially cult members. C
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Jul 05, 2006, 16:57:53
|
|
|
|
then how did it the whole thing start?? Hilltop's thread suggesting that M had a narcissistic personality disorder, linked me to this piece that describes the view from the person experiencing someone else’s disorder. Does any of this fit? Was there a lot of psychological abuse? (http://tearsandhealing.com)
I just don’t like it when he tells me my ‘world’ is crap – it’s mine, I like it just how it is, and he can keep his grubby little hands off it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alice
p.s Hi Aunt Bea 
It might be tempting to think that all the madness in your life is the result of your partner's disorder. But in reality you are experiencing the interplay of you and your partner's disorder. It is only by understanding how you and your partner function, how his or her personality disorder affects his or her behavior, and how you interact, that you can begin to really judge what is happening.
They Spin our Reality: Disordered people can't deal with the reality of their behaviors. On some level they realize how hurtful they are, yet accepting this major flaw in themselves is just too painful. So disordered abusers spin our reality to make theirs less painful. One of the most common defense mechanism they use is projection. In projection, a characteristic of themselves that they find just too painful to accept is projected onto us. And the most frequently projected characteristic is mental illness. "I don't have a BPD. YOU Have BPD." Another common and difficult defense mechanism is blame shifting. It's your fault this happened because blah, blah blah blah...
After a while it becomes hard to distinguish what is real from what is being projected and what is being distorted. We begin to doubt our reality and question whether we're the crazy ones, or whether our disordered SO's (significant others) are really right about what they say.
Another thing I've observed over time is the link to alcoholism. The reality is more likely that alcoholism and other addictions, like pot/marijuana, prescriptions drugs, cocaine, etc, are the result of a personality disorder.
Modified by Alice at Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 08:07:51
|
|
|
|
Ocker is right about the family business thing. And it didn't take long for Prem Rawat to want the family business all for himself. He published statements and letters about it too. Within a few years (around 1974) he sent them all back to India including his own mother, I got a quote by Prem Rawat where he calls his own mother confused. The only one who stayed with Prem Rawat was his brother Raja Ji. I guess he had to have at least one family member on his side. This attachment (And It Is Divine) are early statements from his family supporting Prem Rawat. Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 21:39:44
|
|
|
|
Modified by Hilltop at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 22:10:47
|
|
|
|
According to Elan Vital, Maharaji never told people what the could or could not do in their lives. Riiiiight.
|
|
|
|
Motherf****r! Good catch, Joe.
|
|
|
|
Well written.Nice personal touches and anecdotes. Easy to understand and relate to. Interesting and very relevant links or quotes. Thanks.Lexy. (still struggling out of the mire or maya )
|
|
|
|
Cynthia,Thank you for your very kind post and thoughts.
I am not really used to talking about these things either. Please don't think of me as carrying any weight for
Maharaji or Guru-ism. I am a light-weight in this regard.
And I don't think of myself as a cult member, though
I understand that I may appear to be one. Kind Regards,
Sean
|
|
|
|
The deciding factor is, I think, in whether you regard the Cult leader as your leader. This is regardless of whether he admits he is the leader of a cult or how he defines these.
If you regard a Cult leader as your leader it follows, whether you choose to wear the badge or not, that you are a Cult member. And this is regardless of whether you choose to accept the definition.
The definition is not based solely on this one example but upon the stored information within human resources, which by inferrence, by denying, is clearly not seen as valid or worthy of respectful recognition in the EV/Rawat perpective.
But then, the merely human never is. And this: but one more sign that it is a cult.
lp
Modified by LP at Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 07:33:29
|
|
|
|
My answer then, is no. I don't regard myself as the member
of a cult, nor Maharaji as a cult leader.
|
|
|
|
Would you ever expect a cult member to recognise that they are in a cult? They NEVER think they are.
I didn't call EV a cult till I left, and looked back at what I had left.
I typed 'test cult questions' into google:
- Does the group use tricks, lies or excuses to get members and
to keep them?
- Does the group say that it is "better than all other groups", and
is it organised so that people can't complain, discuss, vote,
criticize, or change the group?
- Does the group claim that the founder knows all the answers, and
tolerates no discussion or questioning of his or her teachings?
- Does the group say that nothing is more important than to get more
money, people or anything else into the group, and that this is
more important than honesty or friendship or families, maybe because
it is such an emergency that the world must be saved right away?
- Is the money collected used only by a few "special people instead of
for the members or the general population You are likely to disagree with question 1 ( I don't ), but how about the rest??
|
|
|
|
I certainly wouldn't disagree that these questions are effective tests of 'cultness' however the difficulty for Sean and other believers in Rawat is that the Rawat cult has a long history of 'answering' those questions using sophistry and legalism, and the answers have long become part of the premie belief system. Perhaps the most pernicious 'answer' is that premies are not 'a group', that there is no 'belonging' and that Rawat is divorced from 'the organisation' and the 'organisation' is divorced from Rawat's "students". Once premies accept this belief, there is almost no basis on which a discussion based on normal processes of argument and exchange of views can take place. Let's hope Sean will give it a shot. Nik
|
|
|
|
You are quite right Nik - presenting these questions as if an honest answer would resolve everything is a bit naive. However,
premies are not 'a group' - what makes up a group? - a name (premies, students, pwk), ownership of a smartcard?? - sounds like a group, looks like a group...
Rawat is divorced from 'the organisation' - I am sure he is to some extent, for tax reasons, and not having to bother his head with details. But we all know he is absolutley the man in charge.
the 'organisation' is divorced from Rawat's "students" - I can't see how premies would begin to support this idea, unless Mr Rawat now personally emails everyone to tell them a festival/program/event is happening.
|
|
|
|
premies are not 'a group' - what makes up a group? - a name (premies, students, pwk), ownership of a smartcard?? - sounds like a group, looks like a group... They are a group, a cult in fact, but the belief-system is that there is nothing to join (as in joining a cult or a mainstream religion or a club). The language has been rigged to support this belief. If there's no group or membership, it can't possibly be a cult, right? A fine twist of logic going on there. But, EV does have membership records for donations and for smartcards. It's a lie that there isn't membership. A good example is the Wiki article. Instead of having a section called "Membership." They have a section called "Numbers of Practitioners of Knowlege." Neat euphemism! In that paragraph, it's explained (along with photos of audiences) that Prem Rawat has engaged over X million people over the years. When I asked Jossi what it means that EV or Rawat engaged X number of people, he said it's not for us to judge as editors, because that's what the Elan Vital website says: "engaged."  Language isn't language in a cult. It's loaded language. Words have particular "inside" meanings and that's how mind control takes place (as you know). Rawat is divorced from 'the organisation' - I am sure he is to some extent, for tax reasons, and not having to bother his head with details. But we all know he is absolutley the man in charge. This is another way Rawat and his inner circle play the mind control card too. Rawat will not/cannot be criticized so when something goes wrong, it's the "volunteers'" fault, the premies failed, not Rawat. His divorce in name from the organizations took place a long time ago in DLM and that was for tax purposes, but the separation keeps the premies from being criticial of Rawat, among other things.
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 06:09:24
|
|
|
|
Isn't it strange? I once thought I was on a 'spiritual path'.
Now if I was trying to follow this trail, I would have difficulty.
Here is where he has covered his tracks, here: a feint, here:
where he hid behind a tree. It is not the trail of a proud human being
who walks upright under the sky or the stars with nothing to hide.
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 09:28:03
|
|
|
|
LP,
Thank you for this post, I think this is very true.
Sean
|
|
|
|
I'm glad you like this Sean, it is my preferred way of saying.
Lp
Modified by LP at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 18:25:50
|
|
|
|
[but] the difficulty for Sean and other believers in Rawat is that the Rawat
cult has a long history of 'answering' those questions using sophistry
and legalism, and the answers have long become part of the premie
belief system.
Yes, sure, good point. But it might be useful to keep in
mind that not everyone reading here has assimilated that belief system – yet.
There may be many who have come here after being hailed by propagation
initiatives etc, are feeling confused and looking for clarity. 13's
input might be very useful to them, as might the restating of much of everyone’s
valuable knowledge.
Alice
|
|
|
|
>13's input might be very useful to them, as might the restating of much of everyone’s valuable knowledge.< Absolutely - I didn't mean 13 was wrong to put the questions, simply that we need to recognise that the Rawat cult has been engaged in providing a propoganda response to those very questions for several decades. Getting premies to engage with these questions requires not only asking the questions but also providing a context in which the cult's pre digested answers are 'deconstructed'. Which actually I think this thread has done reasonably well. Nik
|
|
|
|
Hi 13, I've been reading through these and it checks out on all of them.
especially no. 1. The latest changes over the last few years re: humanitarian altruistic wealthy benefactor type entrepreneur type not god more like a philanthopist business person........etc.. is exactly that. No 1.
He thinks he's god! He thinks he's hiding the fact, what fact? that he's god (sic) or that he thinks he's god? Who cares, that's the mess in his brain.
The funny thing is he's closer to the truth than he ever was before re: not god:... person....
This is weird, trying to even figure it out. He has bought and reiterated the lie that he is god, until he believes it, and now lies to hide his "'divinity'" behind the mask of 'ordinary person' or 'regular generous philanthropist type' because he caught rumours that his god image might be bad for business..
It gives me a headache trying to 'see' it. It's a good job premies have their thinking principle deactivated in terms of quantity of ache between temples, I mean.
Otherwise it's cutting off their only way of escape: i.e.: seeing how ridiculous this all is.
The world moves along O.K. without being made devotees of someone who never was god, anymore than any member of the human race or all life. How could we have been benefitted by putting our minds through such contortions of reality.
And all for four tricks, that I already knew, only then they were innocent aspects of being and yoga, now they are tarnished for this life.
Lp
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 11:26:02
|
|
|
|
>Does the group use tricks, lies or excuses to get members and
>to keep them? Not with me. In this and the following questions I will
speak from my personal history. >Does the group say that it is "better than all other groups",
>and is it organised so that people can't complain, discuss,
>vote, criticize, or change the group? This one is harder to answer. The term "Perfect Master" more
or less implies "better than all other groups". To say
that it was just better than all others for me would be
weaseling out the question, I think. Regarding the second
half of this question, I would say that my ability to complain,
discuss, vote, criticze or change the group has been very
limited, if you are referring my team at work. Perhaps
that is a cult too? >Does the group claim that the founder knows all the answers,
>and tolerates no discussion or questioning of his or her
>teachings? I think this is part of the guru/student relationship,
except that I would say the authority only extends to
spiritual matters. >Does the group say that nothing is more important than to get >more money, people or anything else into the group, and that >this is more important than honesty or friendship or families, >maybe because it is such an emergency that the world must be >saved right away? You have to be kidding, right? Please read my responses to
Ocker in the "Hey Joe" thread below, and all of my responses
to this forum. >Is the money collected used only by a few "special people
>instead of for the members or the general population Once the money leaves my hands, it is not my business
what happens to it. True for taxes, for charitable deductions
and for contributions to EV.
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean thanks again for your patience and perseverance in replying to our posts. I realise it can't be easy, you are one of a kind, as far as your intentions go and your conditioning allows. Beneath your premie training, a fair minded, and likeable person shines through. You are well thought of here, and we care about your inner well being.
I appreciate that you can no more go against your deep mental programming than any of us could once. Nor would you admit that it was such.
The point you missed was that there was no question!
Let me put it more clearly. If he is your leader, you are his follower, and a member of his whatever.
Neither you nor maharaji have the option to create definitions of words. This is done by the whole of society, and a large number of experts are involved in defining meanings according to their world wide general usage by the human race, before they eventually arrive in the dictionary. What he or you regard or consider yourselves to be, is not relevant to the definition as it stands..
Extracts from Collins: cult:
1. a specific system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and deity.
2. a sect devoted to such a system.
3. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents.
4. Sociol. a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp. one characterized by lack of organisational structure.
5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity......
I wasn't asking you or maharaji to define the term. That's been done by the experts. He is a cult leader. he is famous for it and probably was one the Collins team's most useful examples in arriving at meaning no. 3.
My point, not question, was that if you regard maharaji as your leader, you are a cult member. No question.
We are past the point of defining what is meant by a cult, a cult leader or a cult member.
Your only say in the matter, is in whether you regard maharaji as your leader or not. If you do you are a cult member.
As such you have my sympathy and heart felt wishes for a speedy recovery.
* I understand that maharaji is regarded and considered by himself and all his devotees to be above the level of humanity or society that involves itself with the mere defining of terms, and therefore feel entitled to redefine or discard definitions entirely if they want to; in their general contempt for non premies, no matter how professionaly placed.
* (Unless,of course they were likely to be persuaded to take knowledge and thereby to render their purse strings accessible to maharaji as the mind set sets in after a few programme programmings. Then roll out the red carpet..)
Two more reasons why it's a cult.
It must be hard for you to separate my love for you as a brother (in the same delusion that I have suffered permanent life damage from), and my sense of duty to tell you the truth.
I do not mean to be rude and neither does Jim. What do you think would wake people up, warm milky cocoa?
Can't you see? it's all P.R. The've come up with dozens of names for this organization but none of them stick because they've all been grandiose hype. It's a cult.
With the best of wishes, and highest hopes:
Lp
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 05:19:47
|
|
|
|
>If he is your leader, you are his follower, and a member of >his whatever.
As always, you see the important aspects clearly. I agree
with your statement. I am a follower of Maharaji.>I wasn't asking you or maharaji to define the term. That's
>been done by the experts.
Well, that is part of the problem here. I would assert that
the term "cult" is not adequate to explain the guru/student
relationship. Furthermore, in this culture, it is a
pejorative term. Let me give you a similar example.
Buddhists are by definition Pagans. That is, they are not
People of the Book (Christians, Muslims or Jews). Do you
think this is a fair label to apply to them? In the same
way you would have to consider every guru for all of time
to be a cult leader. I don't think this is fair either. >As such you have my sympathy and heart felt wishes for a
>speedy recovery.
LP, your kind words are taken in the spirit that you intended
them, and very much appreciated. Thank you. >in their general contempt for non premies
Please don't include me in that group.
|
|
|
|
"I would assert that
the term "cult" is not adequate to explain the guru/student
relationship."
Semantics. You could try writing to the dictionary people saying that they should allow a special subsection for maharaji.
Exception: this is not a cult, but a mission of divine light, a living force, a company of truth, an altruistic campaign.
They'd probably say: as I do: Sorry to hurt your feelings, you're obviously emotionally involved and quite attached to it, but it's a cult.
"In the same
way you would have to consider every guru for all of time
to be a cult leader. I don't think this is fair either."
I do!
"'in their general contempt for non premies'
Please don't include me in that group"
I know you well enough already, I hope, Saun, to assure you that I do not.
You're too good for maharaj ji, I've seen him scoff at and ridicule people for having as much sincerity as you have. You'd be joke fodder for his X - rated crowd, within minutes. Not that I would be so cruel as to wish that experience upon you. You have obviously led a blissfully sheltered life and still believe (not unlike Julie) in the old fairy tale maharaji. That benevolent guru character doesn't actually exist. He dresses up and goes on stage just like any actor, but like many actors his personal life is not all crowns and malas, nor has it any relationship to meditation or "the company of truth". Now he is rehearsing for a new part he wrote himself. There is no shining maharaji energy radiating out into the world blessing devotees.
There is just a very nasty, greedy, self obsessed man with a serious lack of actual consideration for the human race, but an insatiable appetite for adoration and wealth. No "spiritual life". No magic inner maharajis floating off to bless good meditators in the night. Just the broken snores and mixed up and troubled dreams of a drunken megalomaniac, tossing and turning and searching inside for a way to carry on his indulgent and wasteful lifestyle as his yoga money spinner goes out of vogue: and as his child god act grows stale for obvious reasons. (He is neither!)
I almost feel mean trying to shatter your beloved concepts and imaginings, If you were a young child I would be.
But as we are adults and I know deeply and fully my reasons and my own sincerity in this matter, I can only apologise for how my words may appear, but offer no apology for my intention, which, grandiose enough, is a desire to "save" you Sean.
Perhaps I am still misguided and quite naive and should leave everyone to their fate. As I've said in some form before.
I am not able to sit and watch someone fall down a well that I know to be there and which they do not, without shouting out, and pointing out it's position.
Anyway Sean you will think about our posts now, it is inevitable.
Truth cannot always be propagated, sometimes it has to grow slowly from seed.
Or dawn like the morning sun.
Lp
Modified by LP at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 18:21:39
|
|
|
|
You need help: You need to get sincere with yourself. MAHARAJI RUNS A CULT, HONEY!!!!!
|
|
|
|
I don't regard myself as the member
of a cult, nor Maharaji as a cult leader.
What a crock of crap. I've met a lot of premies and not one of them regards himself or herself as a cult member! Many addicts do not regard themselves as addicts. I can make you a very, very long list of people who don't regard themselves as part of what, in reality, they are. Saying that it's not a cult, don't make it so, Sean. Blow sunshine up your own ass if you want to. The simple fact is, it is a cult. You need to at least be aware of that. If you decide to stay in the cult fine, but do it with full knowledge of what you are doing. Get at least as much information about rawat as you would about a used car you were buying, okay?
|
|
|
|
I do not think that classifying a group as a cult has added value unless you clearly define the word cult first. Andries
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that there is no commonly held view about the meaning of the word cult as it used throughout anglophone countries/communities ? Not every discussion is referenced to an academic debate about an encyclopedia entry - for most people whose first language is English - cult has a clear and well understood meaning - something along the lines of "a closed religious group whose activities are dubious and you wouldn't want your kids getting involved". N
|
|
|
|
...something along the lines of "a closed religious group whose activities
are dubious and you wouldn't want your kids getting involved".
Yea, that pretty much defines cult where I live.
|
|
|
|
okay, but that is a very subjective definition (except for the closed religious group) and if I classify Rawatism as a cult with that definition then it simply means that I do not like Rawatism. That is not very informative. In addition, Elan Vital is not closed, so it is not a cult. Andries
|
|
|
|
Even if you twist my arm, Andries. Here's a post from Joe way down on this page. It's a great explanation of how it's a cult, and btw, EV/Rawat are very closed. Are you kidding? Cynthia
Related link: Mind Control Techniques in Rawat Cult
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 20:34:48
|
|
|
|
Hi Cynthia,Please PMFJI, but I think Joe was posting about mind control
techniques, not cult definitions. For what it's worth, I
could not find anything to argue with in Joe's post.
I think it must be very easy for premies for fall into
this kind of behavior.
|
|
|
|
Sean, Joe based his mind control techniques post on some widely accepted criteria of how cults use mind control to keep people in a cult. There is mind control going on to the degree Joe describes, and that's what makes it's a cult. I think it must be very easy for premies for fall into this kind of behavior. That's because it's a cult of personality, Prem Rawat's personality! You mentioned down below that you never gave money because Knowledge is for free, and you think Rawat is okay with that. First, you don't know what Rawat thinks. Second, all the evidence points in the direction of Prem Rawat loving material wealth above all things, including premies. There are two important things in Prem Rawat's life: Money and adoration, Who do you think has paid for his lifestyle? Premies have, because Rawat has never worked a day in his life. He's never held down a job, Sean. Did you know he has a Gulfstream 5 Jet, free of charge to him, so he can pilot his own jet to programs? Do you know anything about his wealth and how he got to be a multi-millionaire? Not because "knowledge is free" at all. Did you know Rawat had a $7 million yacht, the existence of which was kept from premies? There's nothing wrong with having a 100 foot yacht, but only if one pays for it with their own money. Not Rawat. He strictly uses other peoples' money. Check out these pages on EPO. Explore the wealth of Maharaji and think again about just how free Knowledge and association with Maharji is to any premie. http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/finance1.htm Here's Rawat's yacht (now sold). I guess he did lots of propagation to the dolphins and fishes. 
|
|
|
|
If you've had a look at Sean's answers to my specific questions down below, you'll see that on the evidence of his answers, he isn't a member of the Rawatism cult. He might even think he is but really he hasn't "made the grade". I doubt they'd even bother sending him out any mail even if he was on their address lists.
I suspect he is in a class of his own.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for faint praise! But I think you are right.
In all of the truly important things in life,
with a few exceptions, I have not made the grade.
|
|
|
|
That doesn't sound good. Give yourself some credit Sean. What people think about you matters to some degree but what you think about yourself is most important. You have not made the grade? That sounds really sad to me. Sean... Please give yourself the gift of forgiveness. And be kind to yourself with your thoughts about you. Your self esteem and integrity of mind can be your greatest allies. Build yourself up instead of tearing yourself down. This is important. No one is perfect, not even Prem Rawat. Best Thoughts... Hilltop
Modified by Hilltop at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 03:12:26
|
|
|
|
Sean, you may have miscontrued my words in the prior post. I thought it was plain that I was saying "you hadn't made the grade" according to the Rawatism cult standards of membership. The minimum required standard of behaviour by which you are accepted as a member is to attend the "important" satsangs in whichever format. Naturally, they prefer members who also contribute financially or via voluntary labor but on your own evidence you do not even meet the minimum criterion.It is ordinarily considered a compliment when a person says you aren't a member of a cult. I think you should consider whether you have made the grade in the light of your family's attitudes, not anyone else's.
Modified by ocker at Sun, Jul 09, 2006, 04:10:57
|
|
|
|
Cult? I think a better word for Prem Rawat is simply Greed!
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean, From what you've been writing here, you say have a desire or and idea of a desire to be more devoted. You also seem to have an idea of what it feels like to be very devoted. You can choose to be more devoted to yourself and your family, or more devoted to Maharaji. In the cult, you can't have it both ways, and Rawat himself said this way back in the late 70s. He said (paraphrased) ...a devotee cannot have secondary love (such as a spouse, children, partner). A devotee must only have love for his Master, Guru Maharaj Ji... There's no earthly reason to believe him, especially because so many people who have been close to him have said that he really see premies as a hindrance and a bother to him. He's not our best friend -- best friends know your name, will call you up and will have a conversation with you at the very least. You hang out together or do things of mutual interest. There's real eye contact. No so with Rawat. When I was around him he rarely made eye contact with me and others in a small room and I saw him like that day after day. As far as the meditation techniques are concerned, I was seeing light in my head when I was around eight years old. I didn't know what it was or why I was so interested in looking it, but it was the same thing I saw after getting the K techniques. It would only happen to me at night while I was trying to fall asleep and it gave me a comforting feeling. I also use to go to sleep as a child with my ears plugged, and I heard those sounds, too. It had nothing to do with Maharaji. Maharaji wasn't "always inside of me." That was a fairy tale myth I got from Rawat and other premies who mimiced him (including myself). I think it was my own way of comforting myself because I was being hurt at night. It was a very clever way for me to dissociate and disappear from my abuse. The guruism or avatar cultic belief is that only Rawat can show you the light and is the gateway to the other experiences of the Knowledge meditation. It's simply not true. I saw light and heard music long it before I got knowledge and the "experience of Knowledge," i.e., devotion to the "Master" is especially the bakhti yoga and in our case, the cultic part. No Master is needed in a person's life; there is no grace involved -- that part is the enormous conjob Rawat sells, and I believed it for over 20 years. There is no grace flowing from say, Maharaji in Malibu (or wherever) through an instructor (or now through a DVD tape) that goes into an aspirant and makes them a premie. That was all magical thinking, no less than believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
Modified by Cynthia at Thu, Jul 06, 2006, 09:14:44
|
|
|
|
Thanks Cynthia, that was - dare I say - an 'enlightening' read.
Alice
|
|
|
|
Thanks Alice. Nothing about the child abuse is news to anyone here. That's why I try to keep that part short. I used to write tomes about my difficult childhood on other forums.
|
|
|
|
Cynthia,>From what you've been writing here, you say have a desire or >and idea of a desire to be more devoted.
Yes. >You can choose to be more devoted to yourself and your family,
>or more devoted to Maharaji. In the cult, you can't have it
>both ways, and Rawat himself said this way back in the late
>70s. He said (paraphrased) ...a devotee cannot have secondary
>love (such as a spouse, children, partner). A devotee must
>only have love for his Master, Guru Maharaj Ji... This is not the case for me, and I won't accept this as a
valid dilemma (a choice between 2 contradictory truths).
Let me try to put it a different way. There are only 3
people in the world that I would throw away my life for: my
wife and 2 children. They are not premies. I have no desire
to see them become premies. There is only 1 person in the
world who I would trust the future of my soul to. That is
Maharaji. >There's no earthly reason to believe him
Agreed. >especially because so many people who have been close to him
>have said that he really see premies as a hindrance and a
>bother to him. I think it is entirely plausible that Maharaji considers
the people who compete for attention, and who aspire to
serve him personally as indeed a hindrance and a bother.
I wonder sometimes on the interaction that must occur
when a premie is willing to forsake morality in order to
do what he thinks will please his guru. I understand that this is not exactly what you are
saying. But I think my statement rings true also. What
do you think? >He's not our best friend -- best friends know
>your name, will call you up and will have a conversation with
>you at the very least. You hang out together or do things of
>mutual interest. There's real eye contact. No so with
>Rawat. When I was around him he rarely made eye contact with
>me and others in a small room and I saw him like that day
>after day. I have had best friends in my life. 3, I think.
This was enough, I don't need or want any more. >As far as the meditation techniques are concerned, I was
>seeing light in my head when I was around eight years old. I
>didn't know what it was or why I was so interested in looking
>it, but it was the same thing I saw after getting the K
>techniques. It would only happen to me at night while I was
>trying to fall asleep and it gave me a comforting feeling. Me too, but it started a little later in my life and still
continues. I don't see it when I meditate though. >The guruism or avatar cultic belief is that only Rawat can
>show you the light and is the gateway to the other experiences
>of the Knowledge meditation.
Agreed. >It's simply not true.
But for me, this has been true.
>That was all magical thinking, no less than believing in Santa >Claus or the Tooth Fairy. So, are you trying to tell me something about Santa Claus?!
Sorry, couldn't resist that
Where does magical thinking end, and real life begin?
This is one of the questions I am trying to answer here. My dear and precious friend, you have said something in
your post that I cannot answer. I am so sorry, my heart
and my love goes out to you. Sean
|
|
|
|
Sean, Where does magical thinking end, and real life begin? This is one of the questions I am trying to answer here. Before we continue this discussion, it's important to define the parameters of magical thinking. This is what I am discussing here. Magical thinking is what small children (up to around age 5) do in the process of their development. Children are generally egocentric and have magical thinking. Then they outgrow it and become aware of the world/people around them and their emotional/mental/intellectual life develops accordingly. That's "normally" (as normal as normal is); everybody is different. This is a blurb that explains it: Egocentric and magical thinking Egocentric thinking is the normal tendency for a young child to see everything that happens as it relates to him- or herself. This is not selfishness. Young children are unable to understand different points of view. For example, a preschool child might sympathize with his or her father and try to comfort him by offering a favorite toy or stuffed animal, reasoning that what helps the child feel better will also comfort the adult. Egocentric thinking also can cause a young child to feel responsible if something bad happens. Magical thinking is a child's belief that what he or she wishes or expects can affect what really happens. For example, if a child wants very much for something to happen, and it does, the child believes he or she caused it to happen. If your daughter is mad at her brother and wants him to leave, and he then gets sick and goes to the hospital, your daughter may think her brother's illness is her fault. The only thing I would add is that there's a point in adolescence when 16 year olds revert mentally/emotionally to this egocentricism and magical thinking. Kind of a last ditch resistence to growing up and becoming an adult, but again, "normally" this is a phase kids outgrow in order to survive in the world. I think some of us were stuck in that mode of thinking/feeling when we first heard satsang. We might have been stuck in that phase and vulnerable emotionally, so we unknowingly allowed our magical thinking to take over. Believe me, that's a person ripe for an exploitative cult leader like Rawat. Cult leaders depend upon magical thinking to make their living. At the time you became a premie, part of the process, before and after, was an intense indoctrtination that lead you (and all of us) to believe those the myths you now hold onto about Maharaji. You believe you have an inner Maharaji. That's magical thinking, Sean. There is no inner Maharaji of any kind. It'a a myth. It's magical thinking. He's the only one that says so, except for other cult members, with whom you have no contact. Why are you holding on so tight to those ideas? Maharaji isn't in possession of your soul! He has no power over you, other than the thoughts that you have about his magical powers over you. Give them up already, you're a grown man. He has no power, he's just an Indian/American guy in Malibu who doesn't care to know you or even your name. You don't need to continue believing these things about Maharaji and to do it is without question, indulging in childlike magical thinking. All of the concepts and ideas you hold about Maharaji are merely part of the religious doctrine of Rawatism, and have no basis in reality. There isn't an "Avatar" who is Prem Rawat, and he possesses no special powers. The meditation is just that: meditation. Therefore, your real life has always been there unfolding, until someone named Guru Maharaj Ji came along and had the unmitigated nerve to tell you that you needed only him to find the purpose of your life. It's simply not true. You live well without having any contact with him, which btw, is not what he suggests to any premie, new or old. You're supposed to keep in touch with Prem Rawat, which means funding (participation) and attending programs in order to practice Knowledge as he prescribes. After all these years, now that you're well beyond five or six years old, or even sixteen, with an education and a career and family, why the heck do you think anything Rawat ever said has any validity, other than the fact you were vulnerable during the time you first discovered him? Take some time to think about these things. I look forward to your response.
Cynthia
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Jul 08, 2006, 10:26:11
|
|
|
|
There is only 1 person in the
world who I would trust the future of my soul to. That is
Maharaji.
Are you serious about this? Did you read and think about this carefully? This is one of the most frightening statements I have ever read. Do you mean the future of your immortal soul? Can you be willing to give control of that to any human being? Seriously? Sean, seriously? Your soul? In the hands of another person---any other person? For your own sake, I am going to suggest that you spend some serious time thinking about what you have written. It is impossible to fathom the idea of anyone giving control of their soul or the future of their soul to any human being. And it is frightening.
|
|
|
|
Premie-spouse,>Are you serious about this? Did you read and think about this
>carefully? I may have posted this in an excess of enthusiasm. I promise
you that I will give some serious consideration about
how you and others have responded before I post here again. On another topic, my wife is a premie spouse also. I hope
that I have never given her reason to regret her marriage
because of my personal beliefs. It just seems to me that the marriage and the family must be of more importance than
whatever I may happen to personally believe, otherwise why
bother making the vows? Sean
|
|
|
|
It just seems to me that the marriage and the family must be of more importance than
whatever I may happen to personally believe, otherwise why
bother making the vows?
Exactly my question, Sean.
I don't regret my marriage, but I am bitterly angry about rawat's intrusion into it. Perhaps it is different in your situation. I gather you have not gone chasing off to see rawat every time he gets within about a thousand miles. But, then, he never get's that close to you there in Texas, does he. You might ask your wife how she would feel about you just taking off alone to see the "Master" anytime he got close enough, say within about a thousand miles. Would she be okay with you spending several days away from her and several hundred dollars to go see the "Master", specifically excluding her? Have you told her that rawat is the person you love most in the world? Does she know you entrust your soul to rawat? Do you feel, and is she aware of it if you do, that you are who you are because of rawat?
Your relationship with rawat may be different than most premies. I would be interested to know your wife's point of view about rawat. I would say that you have a lot of things to think about, Sean. Sounds like you may be trying to have everything, and that you may be missing some things and are unaware of it.
|
|
|
|
Sean, Personally, I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, but - hey - different strokes for different folks, eh? And at least you are honest about it. Few premies would make such daring public statements nowadays. >Let me try to put it a different way. There are only 3 people in the world that I would throw away my life for: my wife and 2 children. They are not premies. I have no desire to see them become premies. There is only 1 person in the world who I would trust the future of my soul to. That is Maharaji. What do you really know about the only one person you'd trust the future of your soul with? Do you even know what you mean by 'soul' or its future? Something to do with life after death, maybe? I doubt Prem Rawat even knows you exist, let alone cares overmuch about your destiny. Do you believe Prem Rawat has paranormal powers / functions as some kind of conduit for the Almighty? Not even Rawat would claim that much these days, and denies ever claiming such powers. Perhaps you place too much faith in your inspirational humanitarian speaker and favoured guest of fringe Rotarians. And why don't you want to see your wife and kids' souls entrusted to Mr Rawat of Malibu, if it's that important to you? Take care, Sean - seriously, I think you need to step back and take a long hard look at your life and work out just what it is you believe, and why you believe it. Your every post, however sincere, has the unmistakeable ring of cult-think about it. Nigel
|
|
|
|
If we could accept, no need to believe it, that human beings are all intrinsically of equal value and especially equal 'spiritually' because that subject itself exists only as a mental construct within equally valid human beings.
Once we had seen that it is impossible for one life to be of more worth than an other, we, as a race, would stop enraging each other or harming each other or owning each other or being the slaves of each other overnight.
All these cultish things are in reality but insults to the fact of the equality of mankind.
Cult leaders and followers are just examples of inflated and deflated egos, built in the construction of grandiose yet invisible and unfounded 'spiritual' heirarchies based upon the mistaken idea, that one human being can be more valid or more important than an other.
The concept of a cult leader flies in the face of reality.
lp
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 07, 2006, 06:22:12
|
|
|
