|
|
|
No comparison on the success level is what I mean. TM is so far ahead there is no second place in this 2 horse race. TM does allow for much more of a religion free committment. You really can walk up, pay your money, get your mantra and be gone. I know two people who still meditate after decades who actually did that, much to my astonishment as meditation without reinforcement is not very successful for most people. One told me that if you do anything to do with the Maharishi you must go with your wallet open.
As a religion, it's pretty silly but is huge compared to Rawatism. There's the Maharishi University for example. I used to watch their 24 hour satellite channel occasionally back in the 90's, hilarious, megalomaniacal, they have these "rulers" of the different continents and publicly they never got over their "yogic flying" embarassment. Rawatism is small beer.
|
|
|
|
It's strange how little advertising or "propagation" that Rawat does. And unlike TM, he isn't willing to let others speak on his behalf. So, one is stuck with an intro program in your area once every couple of years, and videos/DVDs of Rawat talking. That's it. Plus, they don't actually advertise the events widely. And the idea of the Rawat cult getting it together to have a "spa," or anything related is just laughable. It's interesting also that TM is advertising directly to the gay community, and has a location right in the Castro district of SF. I just think that if you look at how "knowledge" is being presented these days, it's no different than TM is advertised: "Inner Peace." Also TM claims health improvement and other advantages that Rawat doesn't. And yet, Rawat certainly can't compete with TM if that is what people are looking for. At least when Prem Rawat was running around claiming to be the living incarnation of God, the Perfect Master, and that he was "showing you God," he could claim he was different/better than TM, and if you recall there was lots of satsang about how mantras were limited, and premies looked down their noses at TM. Well, nowadays, they are in an identical boat, just a much smaller, less organized one.
Modified by Joe at Mon, Jul 10, 2006, 17:30:09
|
|
|
|
Firstly there is a regular, currently averaging 3 days a week in the major cities in Australia (see www.contactinfo.net), showing on public TV of something called "Words of Peace" I think.Tiny audiences but better than nothing and premies watch. Then there are reasonably regular intro "events". I've just rung and found out that they're only being held once a month now, there seems to be a drop off in enthusiasm because they were more regular for many years. They've been allowed to have something called "Low Key Advertising" for a few years now after many years of it being word of mouth only.And since the training sessions about 5 years ago premies everywhere have remained in total synchronisation with the brilliant teachings Maharaji taught them and using their current experience of being deep within inside and the enthusiasm they showed back in the 70's have brought tens of thousands of new people to Knowledge. Oh sorry, I started to day dream there for a paragraph. I think Rawat is as least as active as he ever was taking into account how little he used to do. I've often thought I should keep a diary of all the programs and work out exactly how much he does but I'm not real good at ongoing projects, I'm more the spur of the enthusiasm sort of person and then anything to do with him is so boring ... Pretty well everybody in the consciousness business has to talk about inner peace and Rawat is in a catch 22 after all. Premies are aging, boring and lacking in pizazz and excitement. Rawat has to spiel an inner peace that is invisible, that has no effect on health, life's problems, etc, etc etc because he's got all these mid 50's premies with nothing to show for 30 years' meditation but their devotion to him and he can hardly sell that openly. And then he's such an incompetant that he comes up with this huge, boring DVD set to get through as if that will make a difference. There'll still be a huge drop-out rate. To give TM their wacky due they actually talk about outer peace as well and claim that if some tiny percentage of people in an area practice TM then that will effect the "consciousness field" and lower crime rates, etc. Yes, that no mantra thing was a big selling point to me and I should have walked out when Padarthanand said to go 'So' on the up breath and 'Ham' on the down breath but that would have taken a lot more character than I had in those days though to my credit I was prepared to say that I didn't "get" Holy Name and he gave me some personal attention for a while but it was too embarassing to go on with so I said I'd work on it. In retrospect I see that different people can have "cosmic" experiences no matter what the technique under the right setting and others wouldn't if Jesus himself came down from the Cross to initiate you. I should know, enough people have told me about their cosmic experiences. It's not as if TM is the only similar and much larger group. I'm 10 years out of date on the topic but Andrie's guru, Sathya Sai Bab, was bigger than them all before the word started to leak out about his love of young boys' penises.
|
|
|
|
In retrospect I see that different people can have "cosmic" experiences
no matter what the technique under the right setting and others
wouldn't if Jesus himself came down from the Cross to initiate you. I
should know, enough people have told me about their cosmic experiences.
I listened to the 2003 Reith lecture (on Radio 4 UK). The neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Director
of the Centre for Brain and Cognition at the University of California said that they had found the 'God switch' in the brain. Neuroscientists now claim that they can physically stimulate this area of the brain and force people (or prevent them) to believe in God/spiritual something. According to him, some people are born with it switched on, some not.
Alice
|
|
|
|
"By inventing a piece of wired-up headgear that induces "religious" experiences in the people who put it on, Sudbury neurologist Michael Persinger has shaken the foundation of faith and science."
"Now remember, these are subtle effects," says Michael Persinger. "Don't try to force anything. Just relax and go with the experience." I feel him adjust the yellow motorcycle helmet, studded with electromagnets, that I'm wearing. I hear him step out of the soundproof chamber and pull the heavy door closed behind him. If all goes well, I am about to have a powerful mystical experience."
Related link: The God Helmet
|
|
|
|
No, I don't have a link to peruse, but I think it should be mentioned that John Horgan, a former senior writer for Scientific American, and author of the fascinating book "Rational Mysticism" pored over Persinger's research papers in light of the claims that God could be electromagnetically induced, and didn't find one case of a genuine mystical experience. At most there were cases of innocuous "sensed presenses". Persinger, himself, when approached on this apparent disconnect between his research papers and the extraordinary claims of his "God Helmet" admitted that much had been exaggerated. Also, the sober minded philosopher RC Zaehner in his 1957 book "Mysticism: Sacred and Profane", a polemic to Aldous Huxley's claims of mescaline induced mysticism pointed out the obvious, that a drug experience is just that, a drug experience. The classic mystical experience is naturally induced, or sudden, without the aid of mind altering chemicals, so the comparison between drug induced spritual experiences and those not requiring drugs is a non-sequitur to begin with. It seems the meme that the mystical experience can be induced through drugs or electromagnetic stimulation has just grown and spread with little regard for the same skeptical enquiry that is applied to the claims of classic mysticism. But one thing is certain, the two are separate from one another, and it cannot be concluded that because altered states can be induced artificially that those states are the same as the classic, non drug induced or brain stimulated mystical experience.
|
|
|
|
It seems the meme that the mystical experience can be induced through
drugs or electromagnetic stimulation has just grown and spread with
little regard for the same skeptical enquiry that is applied to the
claims of classic mysticism.
Very good point Jerry, & wasn't this just the underlying unexamined assumption that so many of us had about LSD, which then made it not seem inherently implausible that infinity could be accessed via meditation?
We were primed & ready when the 1st westerners stumbled across the greedy Mataji & her holy roller family. That woman would've made a good brothel keeper, & as for her spoilt brat of a younger son............didn't he do well out of the ignorance of others.
It's pathetic that Rawat is now trying to go down the wishy-washy health benefit route taken by the Maharishi, when anyone who isn't totally braindead can now easily find out what it was, & still is for the diehards, really all about.
There was probably a moment round about 72/3/4/5, when the greasy, bearded, Mia Farrow fondler, wondered if he hadn't fucked up bigtime as he saw the child prodigy bursting through the 5 anna donation ceiling & into the sunny uplands of dollars & pounds.
Probably breathed a sigh of relief when Rawat touted him the refurbished 707, as proof that the little guy couldn't handle the higher levels of reverse cultural imperialism, but likely choked when he found out it wouldn't pass the emissions test.
'He sold me a fucking knacker'...........in the argot of S. London. lol
|
|
|
|
You got me laughing, Pat. I was fortunate back in my hippie days. I always got the good LSD and had a fantastic time with it. Premies told me a few times that "Knowledge is better than LSD, it's just real subtle." LOL! "Gotta get me some of that shit," that's what I thought. Rawat hated that B707 from the start. The big banana-colored plane. He must have thought he pulled a big fat super-duper lila on the TM guy selling him a clunker. Now that's two Masters who used a golden throne in the Master Bath. Hahaha! Cynth
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 13:48:32
|
|
|
|
Funnily enough I read that book before I took LSD but his argument was deeply flawed as I remember and I know I shouldn't be able to remember it if I'd really taken enough LSD. And the classical mystical experience is not necessarily sudden and if living in a monastery, celibately and spending all your waking hours in prayer and meditation is natural then so is LSD or at least peyote. Just to make my own habits clear, I take no drugs and do not believe they induce religious experiences.
These days many people equate the so-called "higher religions" mystical experiences with the shamanic experiences which are often induced by drugs. It's a fascinating topic but a bit too OT and takes up too much time for this Forum methinks.
|
|
|
|
That's kind of a sneaky exit, Ocker, to put your 2 cents in and then depart with the statement that it's a little too OT. Are you assuming I'll just let it drop because you think it's out of place? I think it's ridiculous to equate LSD as being akin to a monastic life. Maybe you might not think it's a natural lifestyle, but I doubt many monks who feel at home as such would agree. LSD, on the other hand, is a bambardment of the brain with a foreign substance. It has never been determined that the brain chemistry, or experience, of a monk, or with the many secular individuals who claim having had spontaneous mystical experiences, and mind you, many monks have no such experiences in spite of their most diligent efforts, is the same as a person high on LSD. I don't know where you found Zaehner's book deeply flawed. I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm pretty sure from what I've read that his premise that it should not be presumed that a drug experience is the same thing as a non-drug mystical experience, seeing as the experiences are arrived at in a completely different manner, is a pretty sound argument.
|
|
|
|
Hi Jerry,
I Haven't heard of the book before, but naturally enough have things to say...
We are bombarded with foreign substances all day, from the first cuppa on. Granted, unless you made a mistake picking mushrooms the effects are pretty subtle, but still.
And we are bombarded with 'natural' ie not ingested effects all day long too. Someone yells at you, or kisses you, both will have a not so subtle effect on your chemistry.
Win the Pools and you might never feel quite the same again! Not to mention any of the normal major life events.
I have had serious mystical experiences without ingesting a substance or entering a nunnery. Or wearing a helmet for that matter. Trauma seems to do the trick.
Like those shamans who 'fly with god'. Considering they have hooks in their chest from which strips of rawhide are used to whizz them around, it's not surprising they have such an experience is it.
My understanding is that we make our chemistry out of the materials that we ingest and can somehow produce some pretty amazing effects without having it done to us by the pharmacist should the conditions exist that prompt it to happen.
|
|
|
|
Hi Lesley, There are many ways in which our consciousness is affected. In this discussion the debate is whether drug induced mysticism is the same as non-drug induced. Zaehner's book is a polemic that it's not. I happen to agree with that. I believe there is a God who is integral to a genuine experience of him. He makes it happen, in his time, by his grace. This is the impression that's been imprinted on my mind as a result of my own mysitcal experience. It also happens to conform with the impression of mystics throughout the ages, at least in our culture. We could discuss the apparent disconnect between eastern and western mysticism but that's another topic. The proponents of drug induced mysticism would have us believe that there's no God required, he's a chemically induced phantasm, or else he's just waiting in the wings until we ingest some substance that makes him magically appear, or a simple electromagnetic tickle of the temporal lobes, as if he's there for us to turn on and off at a whim. Please, if that's God to these people, why even call it that? As I said, the impression left on my mind from my own mystical experience is that God is an active participant in our consciousness of him. In fact, he's the instigator of it, not us. That's why I disagree that drug induced mysticism, if it's even properly called that, is the same thing as what God sheds by his grace.
|
|
|
|
I said it was a little too OT, I didn't say I wouldn't go on with it. So if I fly to London then is it a different London if I sail there? If I recover from an illness through rest or recover with medicine is it a different state of health I'm in at the end? If I have a mystical experience after a decade in a Buddhist monsatery is that a different one to a Benedictine monk or an Algerian Sufi or an Siberian shaman?How did this thread start? Oh yes, I was making the point that some people had "cosmic" experiences when "receiving Knowledge", some seeing Prem Rawat, some from Sai Baba, some spontaneously without conceptual background, some no matter how bogus their gurus or techniques may be. You are quite right, it has never been determined if the brain chemistry of a supposedly valid "mystical experience" is the same as that of a person taking LSD and neither has the opposite. However this isn't the 1960's and so we now know that LSD has been taken with no Huxleyan ideas by millions of people who ascribe not the slightest religious or mystical explanation to it though it still carries a fair punch. My complaint about Zaehner's premise is that it should not be presumed that a non-drug mystical experience is not the same thing as a drug mystical experience, seeing as the experiences arrived at can appear to be identical when described by their experiencers. If you know of Zaehner's life then you can also understand why he was so virulently opposed to the possibility. He believed he had had "authentic" mystical experiences and had converted to Catholicism under the influence of these and was horrified by the assertion that these experiences could be likened to the cheap and intellectually trivial 60's acid trips. I also had (might still have) a copy of his Bhagavad Gita translation and he was pretty snotty about Hinduism as well as LSD. But then we Swiss incline to intolerance and narrowness of thought so I understand his viewpoint. My own view is that "real" mystical expereinces are as bogus as LSD mystical experiences. They're normal if unusual states of consciousness and are produced by the brain's electro-chemical states no matter the predisposing factors. There may be a Ground Of Being that underlies the universe and somehow authenticates them but for me the evidence is against it.
|
|
|
|
'we now know that LSD has been taken with no
Huxleyan ideas by millions of people who ascribe not the slightest
religious or mystical explanation to it'
I once spent an interesting night in jail in northern Florida with a bunch of hillbillies ( real cliche ones - just wearing dungarees, and nothing else ). They were telling me of the fun they'd had the night before ( you are just in time to be too late... ) when someone had given them some acid. They had enjoyed it alright, and recounted tales of the hilarious nonsense they had got up to, but they didn't have the slightest notion that the experiences might be mystical at all, and they were certainly just as hick after the acid as before.
Modified by 13 at Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 04:03:41
|
|
|
|
I've taken LSD, and I've had a spontaneous mystical experience. The two were different. I've never experienced God on LSD or through meditation, but I have experienced him through no input of my own. You're wrong to say that drug induced experience is described the same as non-drug induced, and this is the gist of Zaehner's argument. He specifically targets Huxley's description of his mescaline experiences as being the same as the "mystics of the ages", and does a pretty thorough job of debunking him. I'd have to review his argument to go into detail, but unfortunately I think this discussion will be long over before I have the time to do that.
|
|
|
|
Hi Jerry,
Did I say they were the same? No, I've just reread my posts. I rephrased your statement paraphrasing Zaehner's argument to say they hadn't been proved to be different in the same way they hadn't been proved to be identical.
I have no idea what you mean by your own personal mystical states of experiencing "God", understandably but then I don't know what sort of LSD experiences you've had either. I'll get a copy of Zaehner's book contra Huxley, it should be fun.
I originally used the term "cosmic" expereince as wasn't being specific about what sort of things people experience. I am interested in your mystical experiences and how they relate to your involvement with Prem Rawat. Would you like to elucidate?
|
|
|
|
You made a couple of analogies where you might as well have said they were the same, Ocker, so let's not bullshit, okay? It's tiresome. As for how my mystical experiences relate to Maharaji, they don't. I've never had an experience where I've seen the hand of Maharaji at work. If I had I might still be a premie. But, all in all, Maharaji was a big bust for me. I only followed him because of where I hoped he might lead me, but all I got from him was "give more, do more, it's your fault". As you may know yourself, there's only so much a person can take of that before he just says "fuck it" and moves on.
|
|
|
|
Jerry, it may be tiresome for you but it's irritating for me cause I'm sick of being misquoted and misunderstood on this Forum and so I get a little irritated when you accuse me of bullshit. Now the analogies I gave, which you didn't respond to, were in the form of questions. They weren't indications of what I believed but they were asked because in the same way that no-one can "disprove" your mystical experiences it seems to me that no-one can "disprove" someone's drug induced mystical experiences. Not mine. I didn't consider my 30 years ago LSD trips to be influenced by God then and not now either. People also get very touchy when others question their personally important experiences and that's why I was happy to let it go.
I see that you're in the same boat as Zaehner. You have so much emotion invested in these experiences you don't want them compared to and cheapened by the LSD induced experiences you don't accept. And you fully understand the logical step that believers in LSD mysticism don't take. If identical experiences can be induced by drugs and by God then there is a very strong case to be made that God has nothing whatsoever to do with either experience in the first place.
Have you ever read any books by Oliver Sacks? If you don't like the LSD analogies, what about the numinous experiences of epileptics and people with damaged brains? Would God give people epilepsy so they can experience him around the time of electrical storms in their brains? And exactly what Ghost in your Machina is connecting to God to bypass the electro-chemical state of your brain to have a "real" mystical experience?
And apart from removing the "emptiness" you felt, what positive and cumulative effect have these experiences had? Certainly not enough to give you the wisdom to allow you to realise that Rawat was just an ignorant and cheap charlatan and prevent you from investing years of on and off time with him. And what about the billions of people that don't experience existential emptiness, did God zap them in the womb or did he torment you for x years just to relieve you later?
I believe that there's plenty of room on this Forum for atheist, theists, meditators and weight-lifters for that matter. And that your beliefs should not have to be defended aginst the attacks of those with contrary ideas. And that it is valuable to have your understanding of your experiences of "Knowledge" recorded on this Forum infused with your own mystical flavour.
|
|
|
|
So if I fly to London then is it a different London if I sail there? If I recover from an illness through rest or recover with medicine is it a different state of health I'm in at the end? If I have a mystical experience after a decade in a Buddhist monsatery is that a different one to a Benedictine monk or an Algerian Sufi or an Siberian shaman? If somebody asked you these questions in the context of the discussion we're having would you suppose that they're actual questions or does it look more like an analogy in the form of questions in order to make a point? I think I know what you were driving at, Ocker. I'm not as stupid as you look. I see that you're in the same boat as Zaehner. You have so much emotion invested in these experiences you don't want them compared to and cheapened by the LSD induced experiences you don't accept. Thank you for the psychoanalysis, Ocker. It's nice to see you've got me figured out so well. The truth is that I see the logic and the sound reasoning in Zaehner's argument. Maybe someday you will too. The starting point is that drugs are foreign chemicals flooding the brain. How is that similar in any way to a mystical experience that has no foreign substances involved? And that's a real question, not an analogy. If identical experiences can be induced by drugs and by God then there is a very strong case to be made that God has nothing whatsoever to do with either experience in the first place. How do you know they're identical? Aren't you jumping the gun here? It's not a good starting point for your argument that God has nothing to do with a non-drug induced experience. The only evidence you have are some anecdotes from people who think they've experienced through drugs what the mystics of the ages have without them. But that's really not proof, is it? What about the painfully obvious fact that one involves the ingestion of mind altering chemicals while the other doesn't? You probably assume that it's the same brain state somehow, but how do you know? These anecdotes are paltry evidence for concluding that they are. Have you ever read any books by Oliver Sacks? I've perused books by him. I'm aware of the effects that brain damage can have on consciousness. I'm also aware that statistically most mystics are not epileptics and most epileptics don't have mystical experiences. Or so says John Horgan in "Rational Mysticism". Now, that's a book you should check out. Very interesting and it gives a broad overview of modern mysticism and all it's main players. And exactly what Ghost in your Machina is connecting to God to bypass the electro-chemical state of your brain to have a "real" mystical experience? That's your best and most pertinent question yet. First, I don't believe in a "Ghost in the machine". I don't have a Cartesian philosophy. I can't say exactly how it all works, though. And I don't necessarilly think that God is bypassing my electro-chemical state. He may just be altering it. I assume he is, seeing as I do accept that there is a correlating brain state for all human experience. I do object to the assumption that the state induced is the same as that induced by LSD or any other foreign substance. It seems to me that's just a half-assed attempt at discrediting the experience. And apart from removing the "emptiness" you felt, what positive and cumulative effect have these experiences had? Certainly not enough to give you the wisdom to allow you to realise that Rawat was just an ignorant and cheap charlatan and prevent you from investing years of on and off time with him. How do you know that? How do you know the experience wasn't instrumental in my departure from M & K? Let me tell you it was, because I could never see any connection between Maharaji and it. If I had seen a connection there's a good chance that I would still be a premie, because if Maharaji actually had been able to reveal God as he promised, that would make him a very special person with a very special gift, obviously which he could have only got from God, himself. And what about the billions of people that don't experience existential emptiness, did God zap them in the womb or did he torment you for x years just to relieve you later?
I believe in God's mercy, and I believe in his compassion. I believe in all those years that I was ignorant of him and suffering because of it he was aware of me and fullfilling the plan he has for me. And even though I detect a sarcastic tone in your question, you just may have hit on something. I think God just may have made me suffer just so I could be relieved, yes. I believe that God created me to know him. And whatever suffering I went through before that was just part of his perfect plan. Nothing I regret or that I'm angry at God for. That's what I believe, Ocker. Snicker if you like. You asked, I answered. And what God's plan is for anybody else I couldn't tell you. I'm not privy to that information and I don't think it's any of my business. I believe that there's plenty of room on this Forum for atheist, theists, meditators and weight-lifters for that matter. And that your beliefs should not have to be defended aginst the attacks of those with contrary ideas. It's interesting you should say that, Ocker, especially after the shot you took at my beliefs in your previous paragraph, which I'm sure you'll tell me was just your innocuous curiosity, but like most people I think I know sarcasm when I see it.
|
|
|
|
Thankyou for this post Jerry, I enjoy reading it
Modified by LP at Fri, Jul 14, 2006, 05:34:26
|
|
|
|
I've enjoyed discussing Maharaji's canoe with you. 
|
|
|
|
I firmly believe your beliefs should not be criticised if you haven't invited that criticism or invited argument. You began this thread re the validity or otherwise of mystical experience. I didn't want to go on with it but you pretty well insisted.
I'm only going on with it cause I have to sit here while I install WIndows on a hard drive and there's nothing to do in this windowless room. I'm not that keen cause you seem angry enough with me already.
There was no duplicity in my posts and it surely isn't psychoanalysis to say you've invested a lot of hope and belief and emotion in your mystical experiences. You have, haven't you? It was an experience of God, you said. If you haven't invested a lot in those experiences you'd be very strange. And similarly unless you were a realised soul then you'd want to protect the importance of those experiences, wouldn't you? As you are doing with your argument with me. Your 'psychoanalysis' sarcasm ony reinforces the truth of what I said.
Sure I was being a little sarcastic in my second last paragraph but it was more than sarcasm to you. You're a comfortable Westerner who has had some experiences you think are remarkable. You believe these experiences are a direct experience of God and if you are like most mystics you'll consider God is Love or something similar. But most humans have endured difficult if not downright horrific lives of pain, hunger and anguish so I believe a little sarcasm towards this God, and a little to you, is quite appropriate.
I also see the logic and sound reasoning in Zaehner's argument but it takes more than logic and sound reasoning to be correct and the subject under discussion is one that is said to be supra-logical. Aldous Huxley was renowned for his logic and sound reasoning and you probably think his book the "Perennial Philosophy" is full of logic and sound reasoning. I'm sure there are many other very intelligent people arguing with logic and sound reasoning that LSD and related psychedelics (not all drugs) can induce mystical experience in the right subjects under the right conditions but that doesn't prove them right either. The basis of the argument, the facts, the data also have to be correct.
So you appear to agree that many epileptics have mystical experiences even though they don't have mystical concepts. That certainly seems to weigh against the classical mystical theology. Try reading Sack's case study 'The Last Hippie' for another interesting viewpoint on the subject.
I assumed that your mystical experiences must have come before you became involved with Rawat. DId they? If they did then they obviously didn't give you the wisdom to avoid him and his lies. You seem to be saying that you had them while you were practising Knowledge or in one of the hiatus preiods when you were a sort of premie. I'll await your elucidation on this point.
I find your agression and intolerance of other peoples' viewpoints on this subject, which is after all one that cannot be "proven" either way, a very good point against the correctness of your views or at least the validity of your experience of God. I'm pretty sure you haven't been able to convince many people (if you've spoken about it to others) that you have experienced God and likewise people probably aren't flocking to your light asking what is this special wonder you resonate. So in that regard you're in a similar situation to premies. You believe you've had or have a unique experience which is of the utmost importance but that no-one else can see the results of. Luckily you do not appear under much pressure to proselytise from God whereas Rawat gives premies agya which they have to ignore.
The ball is on your side of the net ...
|
|
|
|
Did I say I say I invested a lot of hope and emotion into my experience? YOU did. YOU brought that up which made it YOUR analysis. And for what other purpose could that have been than to question my ability to think clearly on the subject? It was an experience of God, you said. If you haven't invested a lot in those experiences you'd be very strange. And similarly unless you were a realised soul then you'd want to protect the importance of those experiences, wouldn't you? Unless I was a realized soul I'd want to protect it? Ocker, I've got a question for you. What the fuh are you talking about?? Ocker, the topic is this in case you've forgotten. Are drug induced "mystical" experiences the same as those not drug induced? Remember? There's a popular belief that they are because of the anecdotes given by drug users and mystics alike. They appear to be describing the same thing. At least, to some. I've never known a drug experience to describe my own sober experience, though. Far from it, in fact. I don't really want to go off on your little tangents about my emotional involvement in the subject. It's distracting and has no bearing on the reality of the similarity, or not, of the two separate experiences. My only argument is that given the obvious that one is drug induced and the other isn't than it would be a logical assumption that we're talking about 2 different brain states here. How than do 2 separate brain states provide identical experiences? Would you care to explain that, minus your analysis of my emotional, unrealized soul, please.
|
|
|
|
I'm through with this conversation Jerry. I don't need your anger and agression on a topic that cannot be proven either way.
Experiences depend upon brain states. Brain states alter with the electo-chemical mix in the brain. Identical or very similar descriptions of experiences tend to show identical or very similar brain states. You are assuming what you haven't proven that the two experiences have different brain states.
How the brain got into the state is irrelevant to its state at the time. If I am drunk cause I drank champagne my brain is in the same state as if I drank beer.
Good luck with God and yes I am being sarcastic, very sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
I've enjoyed reading your discussion Jerry and Ocker.Thanks. I wonder if Jerry doesn't give himself away by guarding his personal mystical experience so preciously that he gets exasperated when Ocker casts IMO valid doubts on his analysis. At this point I will stick my neck out precariously and state that I like to think that the naturally occuring and chemically induced experiences are one and the same. I see absolutely no problem in this. I thought Ocker's explanation was clear and logical.....that it didn't matter what ( natural or chemically induced)caused the change in the chemistry of the brain;as long as the changed brain was the same in both cases then the experience would be the same. The problem ( and this is possibly one of the diffculties for Jerry to face up to ) is that those of us with religious upbringings of any degree have heard stories or read religious texts where revelations of god or mystical experiences appear to saintly people or those that have done something good in order to deserve them. The idea that dropping an acid tab. is sufficient blows both the "goodly,deserving saint" theory and the "especially graced by God" theory out of the water , and is thus a bitter pill to swallow ( excuse the pun). Personally I feel that the higher power/spirit or whatever you want to call it , is a part of each one of us and when the conditions are right we experience it.
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that they can't really be the same temporally at least as the value attributed to it will be different afterwards and unless all thought is stopped there will always be a slight differnce conceptually. In my own case as (mind you it was over 35 years ago) I also had a religious / spiritual viewpoint and though I didn't ascribe Godliness to itI enjoyed the experience so much that at times I really cannot understand why I stopped doing it. That is until I remember the night it all went bad.
So if people think they are having an experience of God when it's good do they think it comes from the Devil when it is bad? A few years back I was driving through a suburb near where I was brought up and recognised a homeless man as one of the guys from the beach who went too far with LSD and never returned. The light turned green before I could think of anything to do.
|
|
|
|
If I am drunk cause I drank champagne my brain is in the same state as if I drank beer. Yeah, but it's not the same if you didn't drink anything at all. So there.
|
|
|
|
How then do 2 separate brain states provide identical experiences?
I had a go at this question in my previous post on this thread.
To paraphrase my answer. We can produce the necessary chemistry, amongst all the other chemistrys we produce, to get that brain state without the aid of a pharmacist.
Just the fact that we have chemists and pharmacists, like our newer invention, the computer, I think tells us something about our innate abilities and experience.
So I guess my answer to your question is that in terms of chemistry though the mystic has not ingested LSD, he is nonetheless producing the same result. His brain is being flooded with a certain chemistry.
My understanding of how this happens without taking any substances is through trauma. This can be physical, whipping yourself for instance, or it can be purely psychological, too much fervent prayer for instance.
Then of course people get to experience it in the normal course of events. Near death experiences being one that comes to mind.
Or intense emotion from loss of a major loved one can have a remarkable effect. Personally I think this is why we have such a rich tradition of ghost stories.
And it is these, the experiences that come unbidden that are the most memorable and cherished.
I have no more respect for someone who achieves that chemistry through religious practices than through drugs.
My point is this. It only happens in the normal course of events at a time of crisis, it counters the distressed chemistry that preceded it. And trippy as it might be ends up restoring normalcy.
At least the drug taker has just popped a pill, possibly for a thrill, possibly for enlightenment. What has the religious person done to themselves?
Tried to believe seven impossible things before breakfast?
|
|
|
|
Lesley, you can formulate all the theories you want about my inability to accept that someone on acid is having the same eperience as the holiest saint. You can theorize that we can rearrange our chemistry naturally as surely as we can with drugs. But you can't prove that the same brain state has been achieved both ways. You just can't. And as far as I'm concerned there probably is some differential between the two. Do you really think that the mind on LSD is composed of the same exact chemistry as one that's sober? I'd rethink that if I were you.
|
|
|
|
that the only theory I formulated was about ghost stories, not you!
However I will say that my post deserved a more careful read. I am not saying we can "rearrange our chemistry as surely as we can with drugs". But I am saying that given the necessary conditions it will happen.
I am questioning your assertion that the holy saint is sober. If your definition of sober is no alcohol or recreational drugs, sure. If it is being able to walk a straight line and hold a normal conversation, make a comment on the weather and tie your own shoelaces, then at the time of the experience that saint isn't sober is he, he's high as a kite. Probably doesn't know where his own toes are, let alone what day of the week it is.
The experience a person is having has to be a unique event. Whether drug taker or mystic or anyone else. I mean have you ever found two potatoes exactly the same shape and size? let alone skin colour, flesh, age, condition or parentage.
Doesn't stop you from calling them all potatoes though does it.
I am not theorising these experiences are identical, would you not agree even from one holy saint to another, the experience is not identical.
So what do you think is happening with all the near death experiences countless people have described. Is this a mystical experience?
|
|
|
|
I got your post mixed up with lexy's. lesley, lexy, excuse my confusion. I am questioning your assertion that the holy saint is sober. I don't consider myself a holy saint, far from it, but I would tell you that my non-drug induced mystical exerience was the most sober experience I've ever had. By sober I don't mean just the absense of drugs or alcohol, I also mean a state of mind down to earth, clearheaded, serene and at peace, in touch with reality. That's sobriety. That's where my head was at during my experience. I was more sober and grounded then, than I am now, and I'm just getting up from a nap. The only thing I've injested in the last 24 hours is a couple of cereal bars, an apple, and some almonds, but I would consider the state of my mind, now, less sober than while I felt myself in God's presense. I am not theorising these experiences are identical, would you not agree even from one holy saint to another, the experience is not identical. I don't know. I know culturally they appear to be different. But within the confines of each culture the experience seems to be similar one to the next. The western mystic appears to have a more personal experience, as well as a retention of the ego, while in the east that's not the case, although there are accounts where western mystics do describe their experiences similarly to those in the east. So what do you think is happening with all the near death experiences countless people have described. Is this a mystical experience?
Well, that's the problem with the term "mysticism". It's used to cover a broad spectrum of experiences. My own definition of it is reconnecting with the real. I don't associate it with visions, or ghosts, angels, or devils, or any other supernatural beings, although you might say I do because I associate it with God. But God, as I've experienced him, is a being with no form, eternal, the source of all things. To reconnect with that is, in my mind, the pinnacle of the mystical experience.
|
|
|
|
I wondered if you had mixed the posts up.
Jerry as a holy saint, eek! I do like your definition of sober though.
So what do you think is happening in near death experiences? And, if you don't mind my asking, what preceded the experience you had?
|
|
|
|
I think the brain is in the process of dying during a near death experience due to a lack of oxygen. That's what the experts say. Sounds reasonable. I don't think people are getting a glimpse of the hereafter, though, because they haven't really died, they've only come close to it. I don't know what preceded the experience I had. It happenned suddenly through no provocation of my own. I believe God just decided that it was time for me to catch a glimpse of him.
|
|
|
|
This is just an aside for amusement's sake. When you asked me if I would agree "from one saint to another" I at first thought you were referring to us. You know, you to me, one saint to another.
|
|
|
|
however our halos are slipping in the thread above!
I have to say your reply about near death experiences was the same as...time to resurrect an oldie and a favourite...the golden hamster's. Sorry to point that out.
Not the bit about the oxygen, but the bit about their not being dead - don't see why that means the experiences are dismissed. Well obviously Rawat had a vested interest in dismissing them, but in terms of honest enquiry into the nature of life and death, surely they are of interest.
After all like with the holy ones, despite the greater numbers too, there is a lot that is similar in the descriptions. Which, imo, takes it out of the realm of individual aberrance and into the realm of descriptions of human experience like descriptions of how we feel during a particularly beautiful sunrise and that they are a little different at sunset, or being frightened in dark alleys, or the losing of someone or falling in love. The descriptions differ but one gets the sense that the underlying chemistry is the same.
Whatever the cause of your collapse, oxygen deprivation is sure to follow cessation of breathing. But what about in a hospital where they are monitoring your levels and administering oxygen? This happened to me.
I wrote down the experience here is an extract, as you can see it is a little ambivalent re oxygen but not re dying:
"As the nurse clamped the mask back on my face, Bill who was near my head said to the doctor why not let her be, her oxygen levels are good. And he agreed. They helped me onto my side.
I was aware as my heart faltered and stopped. And I was aware as my lungs made their final effort and then stopped. I felt like a factory foreman wandering through the darkening floor, the machinery lying still and silent. I missed them.
Something nudged for my attention. Come over here. I was glad to go into the warmth and light. Time to go. I was having a conversation with a golden bird, so lovely, making the most beautiful movements. And I felt wonderful."
Preceding this experience I had been having a swim at a friends house and was about to have lunch. I didn't notice until just before collapsing I had a tick on me.....story of my life!,lol.
Can you not remember what you were doing?
|
|
|
|
I don't know what to make of near death experiences. I've never had one and I was just parroting what I've read by the skeptics, Susan Blackmore amoung them, probably the most notorious advocate of psi now an outspoken critic of it. Who knows, maybe Maharaji was reading what the skeptics have to say as well. He should read what they have to say about him and talk about that. I imagine your experience made a lasting and positve impression on you. I can understand that. My experience of God did the same for me. As for what I was doing at the time I was smoking a cigarette out the window. Yep, I was at an aunt's apartment who didn't like me smoking in it, so I went into the bathroom, opened the window and was puffing away when... No lie. I've read many an anecdote by people that relate similar experiences. William James book, "Varieties Of Religious Experience", is filled with them. I identify strongly with them. So you see, you don't have to be a saint who lives a life of austere self denial for these experiences to occur. Interestingly, there's no guarantee you'll have one if you do, and there's a chance if you don't live such a life you might. Who can explain it? My assumption is it's out of our hands. Some other force is behind it that we have no control over. I believe that force is God.
|
|
|
|
I have heard of Susan Blackmore, probably read a book of hers.
I've had a few of these experiences. So I don't quite understand what there is to be sceptical of. It happens.
One time I am thinking of was probably the simplest in that I was alone in a mercifully cold bathroom in the small hours of a winter's night. Having gone unconscious I woke up. Again an intimate conversation, this time with a pair of golden hands that held me, while a pair of silver hands were wrapped around the outside.
It was a gradual return to normality.
My view is this, in anaphylactic shock most of your capillaries open all at once, your blood drains into your skin which gets very hot so the cold around me was the silver hands.
The golden hands or the golden bird, the conversation is all in me. I can't direct or orchestrate it any more than I can my liver, but I am grateful for it, perhaps I should be more grateful for my liver, but I don't even know where it is!
It seems to me that the very experience itself is the antidote if you will to the chemistry which precedes it.
Can you remember what you were thinking about? Now that's too nosey isn't it! lol.
|
|
|
|
PSI is a common term for the paranormal. I think it might be an acronym, but if it is I don't know what it stands for. I wasn't thinking of anything in particular. It was quite sudden. It's made a lasting impact. I've tried to understand it ever since. For awhile I took the skeptic stand and wrote it off as just a phantasm of anomalous brain chemistry, but that just cheapens it and it's the stand taken by people who haven't had such an experience, or if they did, not one so important to them where it changed their lives.
|
|
|
|
Just writing of them was a big enough experience, I needed an extra long sleep.
We've wandered off the edge of the page here so I guess it's time to stop, rather than press on with the conversation.
When I asked what you were thinking about I did not mean so much what thoughts you were having just before so much as what was on your mind at that time in your life, what was happening how were you feeling the whole kit and caboodle really... remembering what you were thinking can sometimes place all of that.
Here's a last little quote from me -
"I continued to feel rather wonderful for about three days. The thing I was grateful for was knowing that loving warmth and kindness was there. In me. For me."
And as an ex-god believer I will add I am grateful not to have that tied to a god.
All the best, Jerry, it's been nice talking with you, Lesley.
|
|
|
|
Hi JerryYes, I agree with you completely. For me, the essential value of this kind of experience - whatever you call it, mystical, spiritual, meditative, acid, helmets - is twofold: 1) It leads to a better life, in the deepest sense of that phrase - helps you be more emotionally intelligent, more loving, more in control, more focused, more happy, more free, more kind to oneself and others. 2) The experience and those feelings it produces that allow you to live well, can be built on going forward. In other words, they are cumulative, they can increase and expand. Whether acid highs and external neural fiddling allow that happen in general, I don't know. I do know that for myself, they don't. Acid and drugs may have allowed me to see possibilities that I might not otherwise have seen, but they do not create or even allow that essential carrying forward that I characterize with my two points above. To be honest, I think a lot of traditional spiritual experiences (I don't like the phrase), mystical meditative whatever, also fail that test. But not all. I think that within all the philosophical mystical spritual meditative stuff that is out there, it is possible to pick out a strand, a meditation style if you like, that allows my 1 and 2 to take place. That certainly is where my interest lies. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 04:30:46
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike, You've expressed on several occasions that you equate the value of a spiritual experience, or program, with what kind of person you become as a result of it. Hmm. I just think that there's a natural inclination in us to get to the truth of our lives, why we're here, and to connect with whoever or whatever is responsible for our being. I feel I've made that connection in my own mystical experience, although I can't say I'm a better person for it. I can still be quite a prick, although I do try to be a nice guy. But I don't think the validity of a mystical experience is determined by how much better of a person we are. I think the validity of it is determined by how deeply we sense that we've been touched by reality, or the "ground of being" as Ocker calls it. I guess we just have our own take on it.
|
|
|
|
Hi JerryI don't think the validity of a mystical experience is determined by how much better of a person we are. I think the validity of it is determined by how deeply we sense that we've been touched by reality... Of course, I cannot say anyone else's experience is invalid. The issue, though, is that I myself have on many occasions in the past thought I have 'touched reality', or solved the problem of the universe, found the meaning to life whatever, and however great a buzz I had at the time, most often a short time later the experience seemed pretty mundane. And certainly I see others around me saying how meaningful such-and-such an experience was for them, usually (but not always) after drugs or alcohol. So I am not defining an experience as 'mystical' by saying it must be transformative, only that for me those are the only experiences worth much. If I am thinking 'I have touched reality', but actually I am not transformed by what happened, then that is just one more buzz. there's a natural inclination in us to get to the truth of our lives, why we're here, and to connect with whoever or whatever is responsible for our being. Yes, I agree, but wouldn't that be the most transformative thing imaginable? And if we had such an experience, but it changed nothing for us, wouldn't that make us think the experience was not what we thought it was, after all? -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Yes, I would agree that a true, or valuable, mystical experience would be transformative. I don't connect that with being a better person though, insofar as desiring to be a more productive member of society, although it would certainly mean you feel better about yourself as a person. It would mean that the experience made such a deep and lasting impression that it's become the central focus of your life. The experience I'm talking about that I had in my life occurred over 20 years ago. It gave me new life, and made me feel whole again after years of feeling nothing but emptiness. I've experienced nothing like it since. Absolutely, in my mind, the most important and transformative event I've ever had in my life. And the skeptics would have me write it off as just so much anomalous brain chemistry. I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
I think we are saying the same thing. I am not saying the mystical experience needs to make you a 'more productive member of society', though it probably will. I did not use that phrase, or even mean anything like it. However, we seem to agree on the word 'transformative' - let's leave it at that! And yes, what you describe is the most 'important event'. Absolutely. Take care -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Well, it's nice to end this discussion on an aggreeable note. Until our next cyberchat, cheerio, Mike.
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike,
'Transformative' and 'cumulative' in those two words I think you've summarised what I believed when I first came to DLM and also why I left. I was attracted by the claims of transformation and the beliefs that the sky was the limit. Though I found the initiation to be disappointing I considered the path to be worth pursuing because of it's transformative potential. Unfortunately after what I considered a reasonable time (after all you can trust for ever and be mistaken) it became obvious there was no cumulative effect, only the initial conversion experience. I judged this on the overall premies that I knew and 25 years later my initial judgement has been reinforced multifold.
That's one of the things I find so interesting about Elan Vital. Most of the honest premies that I've known accept they've had no changes in their consciousness even after 30 years of meditation. Is it just premies? There seems to be an honest discussion in some Western Buddhist groups about the inability of meditation to do what it has been historically claimed to do at least in terms of healing problems. If it was just Elan Vital you could argue that the techniques are just too basic and the guru just too ignorant but as you say many "traditional spiritual experiences" fail the test of transformation. I held on to the concept that transformation must occur and no doubt some premies would argue that I "was in my mind" or whatever jargon they now use.
You seem to be more idealistic than I am. I've given up on the whole idea that this is anything but an evolutionary relic from our time on the savannah but as I've said before please tell us all if you discover a breakthrough.
|
|
|
|
Hi OckerI've given up on the whole idea that this is anything but an evolutionary relic from our time on the savannah... I agree with you that evolution is the only explanation needed for anything, and introducing mysterious spirits, energies and gods to do our explaining is a backwards step. But I don't accept that the 'this' you refer to (a genuine transformative spiritual ongoing experience) is thereby excluded. (I use 'spiritual' here to mean essential, in the same sense as we say 'the spirit of the law' or something to mean its essence, or the alcohol brandy 'spirit' as the essence of the wine). Most of the honest premies that I've known accept they've had no changes in their consciousness even after 30 years of meditation. Is it just premies? There seems to be an honest discussion in some Western Buddhist groups about the inability of meditation to do what it has been historically claimed to do at least in terms of healing problems. Meditation is a huge topic, and there is a huge range in practices that might be called 'meditation' but are as different as chalk and cheese. It is like using the word 'sport' to cover tiddlywinks, soccer and cross-country skiing - very diverse activities all grouped together under the one name. Yes, in my opinion much (most even) of what passes for meditation, or spiritual endeavor, however you want to say it, is not transformative and certainly fails my test of being of much value. (It goes without saying that Maharaji's Knowledge falls into this category.) But I have not given up. My project, if you like, is to pick out from the various meditative traditions some strands, and forge them into a practice which is genuinely transformative, repeatable, cumulative, needing no belief in anything other than ourselves, rational and absolutely without any hint of religion. Oh yes, and which fits in to the western philosophical and cultural heritage. You seem to be more idealistic than I am... but as I've said before please tell us all if you discover a breakthrough. Well, I have certainly discovered something from this project that is of great value to me. As for writing it down in some systematic way, that is for the future. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Thu, Jul 13, 2006, 04:13:13
|
|
|
|
The physical/mental experience I had for the first time attending a DLM program in London circa 1972 was the most amazing, unexpected real/natural thing I had as yet then experienced. Enter stage left the most beautful,perfect, exquisite human being - this was what a human being should look like I thought - whatever he had I wanted it,he was just a premie. I was blown away by this person, when he finally looked at me I got a huge blast of something - eyeballs rolled back, huge rush of energy, clean lifted me off the floor. My profound reaction was to exclaim 'what the f**k was that! I assumed all these DLM ers were like that and most definitely wanted IT myself. Was this energy/kundalini rush not necessarily religious/spiritual/mystical? People experience similar David Bowie/Franz Ferdinand concerts for example? Seeing Prince Charles/Lady Diana? One doesn't sanctify it, elevate to something which may lead to understanding God/Truth. I have no idea what God is, why God is; what a human is or why or even when or how. Purported Mystical/holy experiences can be explained as biological/neurological reactions to intense longing/feeling - or 40 days fasting etc. But you can't say they have anything to do with the big question? This is another crack in my fairy light. Nice talking to you all Zed
|
|
|
|
Well that's a fantastic idea (in the sense of great and wonderful and not fanciful). Mind you, it probably is fanciful but congratulations anyway.
It should keep you busy for the next 20 years. My idea is just to help a little bit in adding to the knowledge of how and why humans accept the dreams of a Divine Light Mission and continue to accept their evolution into a Prem Rawat Foundation. Yours is definitely more inspiring, mine probably a little more achievable.
|
|
|
|
That is an interesting article especially for me since I experimented with hallucinogens while I was a student at Johns Hopkins. I was also the subject of my experiment. Kabir
|
|
|
|
Or maybe the message got garbled. Sure they might be able to create a numinous experience in a person through direct stimulation of the brain but that does not necessarily mean you will then "believe in God". If anything, quite the opposite as you realise that numinous experiences can be created purely by brain "chemistry and electricity". But then that's a lesson we should have learnt back in the 60's with LSD.
As we ("ex-premies" all know, experience is one thing, beliefs and concepts about those experiences another thing altogether.
|
|
|
|
experience is one thing, beliefs and concepts about those experiences another thing altogether.
That should be the title of this forum!!
Alice
Modified by alice at Wed, Jul 12, 2006, 03:13:23
|
|
|
|
Firstly there is a regular, currently averaging 3 days a week in the major cities in Australia (see www.contactinfo.net), showing on public TV of something called "Words of Peace" I think. I think this is happening some places in the States, however they are nothing more than a video in a hotel conference room. Nothing else. Plus, no follow-up. If you are "interested" you have to go to "the keys." These events are not advertised to the public either, unlike TM and they have virtually no budget, not that Rawat wouldn't have the money if he wanted to spend it. They also show videos on public access TV in the States, but if SF is anything to go by, it's at a time most people probably wouldn't watch, and there are a dozen other gurus on the cable access channel as well who are a lot more compelling (or nutty depending on your viewpoint) or at least a lot less boring and vague than Rawat. I think one of the big differences was that in the old days there were mahatmas and a lot of other premies who would go out and speak and do programs for introductory events, so there were many, many more events and we used to advertise them. That no longer happens. It's either Rawat in person, which is really, really rare (and also not really advertised), or it's a boring video in a hotel room once a month, maybe, also not advertised. I went to one a couple of years ago. It was the deadest thing imaginable, and no real follow-up whatsoever. If you were a "new" person, all you could do was try to hook up with somebody in the audience, to try to figure out what to do next. TM has it all mapped out for you. How many people received knowledge in Australia last year? I thin in the UK, with 5 times the population, it was 23.
Modified by Joe at Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 11:54:56
|
|
|
|
I don't have any secret sources of info and I'm not doing much chatting about EV with premies any more but it seems a bit early for anyone to have got through the "Keys" yet and I think I remember that people were put on hold for quite a while before the "Keys" became available. No doubt some are making an extra effort to be ready or to have "received Knowledge" for the 40th Anniversary event at Amaroo later this year.
The 40th Anniversary of what you might well ask.
|
|
|
|
I guess it must be the 40th anniversary of mythical, contradictory and claimed divine event in which Prem Rawat received the divine tongues of fire/knowledge which decended on him from the ethers and made him the Perfect Master of Our Time, Balyogweshwar, whatever, and the "superior power in person." These were supposedly supplied by his father from beyond the grave, after he fell in the bath and died (sorry, left his mortal body) (or had a heart attack, or got slapped too hard by Mata Ji, or whatever.)
Modified by Joe at Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 17:55:38
|
|
|
|
http://contactinfo.net/events.cfm
Monday
September 25, 2006
- Friday
September 29, 2006
|
| Australia |
|
|
Peak Crossing
| Amaroo 2006
Maharaji has accepted an invitation to attend a 5 day event at Ivory’s
Rock Conference Centre, celebrating the 40th anniversary. Everyone who
has been taught Maharaji’s techniques for finding peace within is
warmly invited to this event.
Venue: Ivory's Rock Conference Centre
Location: Amaroo
|
|
|
|
|
I just think that if you look at how "knowledge"
is being presented these days, it's no different than TM is
advertised: "Inner Peace." Also TM claims health improvement and
other advantages that Rawat doesn't. And yet, Rawat certainly can't
compete with TM if that is what people are looking for.
I know a shocking amount of Prems whose lives are in tatters after years of no focus on worldly matters (ooo, that rhymes). Seems to me that there are a lot of similarities in today's Rawatism and TM's world peace blurb. Maybe Rawat's problem is trying to modernise/lighten up his business, whilst trying not to alienate any more of his 1970's devotees. Tricky one.
Alice
Modified by alice at Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 04:54:29
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that there are a lot of similarities in today's Rawatism and TM's world peace blurb. Maybe Rawat's problem is trying to modernise/lighten up his business, whilst trying not to alienate any more of his 1970's devotees. Tricky one. I agree. I think this is the reason everything is so schizophrenic in the Rawat cult. Since Rawat's first goal his to maintain his lifestyle and money, he can't really avoid placating the 70s premies to some degree with darshan, and devotional allusions because they are the source of his money. But if he goes too far in that direction, he turns off anybody new. Hence, most of the most cult-like activities occurred in places like Amaroo, or at donor events.
Modified by Joe at Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 11:41:24
|
|
|
|
I'll never forget the day I saw some TM experts put on a display of "levitation". It was on national television, I don't remember if it was on Oprah or Donahue's talk show, one of them, and I was expecting these guys to rise up in the air like flying saucers. Instead they start hopping around like a bunch of bunny rabbits, in full lotus position, no less. I couldn't believe it. How f**ked up can you be? The funny thing is that nobody called them on it, but it was clear that everybody thought these f**kers were out of their minds. lol.
|
|
|
|
TM has always had a more secure business model, even though Maharishi has frequently caused chaos with his mad edicts - he recently issued what amounted to a fatwa against the UK and it seemed as though TM activities here were to all but stop. Of course we've had the Natural Law Party (TMtm) standing in elections here since the early 1990s and there's all sorts of associated businesses. I think it's all pretty unpleasant and the ex TM movement is to be commended for its persistence. But yes premies must wonder why on earth if Rawat's message is so powerful it has not at least emulated the success of TM. Nik
|
|
|
|
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Jul 11, 2006, 06:45:49
|
|
|
|
I made quite a bit of prgress here. Trouble is, the only time I levitate, is when I also go invisible. If only I could separate these two powers, someone might believe me.
|
|
|
|
Hmm, have they got their invisible friends to hold them up? 
|
|
|
|
Did anyone see a clip about TM where they teach Levitation and these idiots are crosslegged and pushing themselves up in the air ? Why don't they just do it on a trampline ? You see a trampline would be western technology integrated with eastern quackery .
|
|
|
