|
|
|
Hi We was all a part of the most primitive outlook , who was high - who was low ? . thats the nature of brainwashed people , when you leave being human behind you , everything can happen - and it surely did . I think Bryn , is very clear in this , all the way to the bank - its importent reading , but it really hurts to understand how far we went wrong . Best wishes Poul
|
|
|
|
I agree with Bryn and Cynthia about the forumlaic satsang and the "themes" that got used because they were recent flavors of something Rawat said, or the initiators said. But I have to say there was also a lot of aggression in satsang, and like any blind belief system, some premies in the cult used satsang as a kind of bludgeon of other people (often for their own, personal advantage). One way this worked was usuing satsang to belittle somebody else, or something they did or didn't do, faith they didn't have, or whatever, which made the "giver" feel superior, blessed, or more the recipient of Rawat's "grace." One of the "gifts" of being indoctrinated into a cult, is you get to feel superior to people who aren't in it and people (like us) who got confused and left it. Tsk, tsk, I am so lucky I'm a premie. I'm so lucky I know Maharaji and love him. Those other people are so confused. But there as also a certain ego-boost by feeling superior to other premies, and "satsang" was the language/instrument used to create that. First, there was the "I am (select one or more: clear, humble, blessed, select, gifted, the posser of deeper "experience," etc.)" and more so than those other premies." This can just be a feeling of superiority, or it could be taken to the level of people like David Smith, Ann Johnston and Jagdeo, in a kind of waving finger, judgmental, diatribe. Second, was a much more cynical, but no less egotistical feeling. It was that the premie had a better "understanding," and had been "selected" by Maharaji and hence was exempt from all the normal requirements of the rank and file sheep of the cult. So, these premies maybe had high positions, maybe even worked at the "residence" or had some kind of special position, and they understood that Maharaji wasn't about the practice of knowledge or surrender, really, it was about having a good time and being free to do whatever the hell you wanted, and the ordinary premies were hapless miserables, who think it's a religion. Jon Knight and some others come to mind as purveyors of this kind of aggressive satsang.
|
|
|
|
Hi Joe, Sounds like you were living close to the heart of darkness and maybe that's what goes on there. Sure, even out in the outer circles of South East Qld (and this was before Ipswich became the center of the Oz premie world) it was never pure bliss and love and peace but premies were kind and friendly and satsang was nearly always nice. There was lots of positive reinforcement for those people who were unhappy and confused as long as they "stayed on the boat" and there was lots of inspiration being shared and friendship and people were young and so there was lots of interpersonal love. Of course this was all before satsang was ended by orders of the LOTU. I don't recall satsang as being that "formulaic" but maybe Australians are more individual and further away from agya. I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few people who post here who recall satsang as being very enjoyable and 70's premie communities as being very emotionally warm and lots of fun. I can honestly only recall one time hearing "belittlement" of other premies in satsang (apart from the LOTU's satsang) and that was a person had become an initiator and had returned to Brisbane where he had formerly been a community co-ordinator. Please don't accuse me of being homophobic again but he was a bitchy camp queen then and he still is when it comes to attacking ex-premies or journalists (other than John MacG) who have the temerity to write about Rawatism truthfully. As for feeling superior to non-premies I am reminded of one of David Lovejoy's favourite sayings that he was forced to use quite often to explain why "Knowledge" wasn't working. He likened the 70's premies to the wettest logs that have to be drawn up close to the fire before they can ignite. The metaphor doesn't need explanation though how he and other premies started believing the "Knowledge" does work against all the evidence of another 25 years of "practice" certainly does need some explanation, at least for me
|
|
|
|
Hello Ocker, he and other premies started believing the "Knowledge" does work against all the evidence of another 25 years of "practice" certainly does need some explanation, at least for me So why the hell did we stick around so long..? I certainly did and I don't think it is a point that can simply be dismissed. That would be disingenuous. I think it was loyalty to a dream. IMO Rawat has been astute. Over the years he has talked, re-packaged and re-presented a 'message' that does indeed approximate to 'what everyone wants'. i.e. the 'possibility' of being in touch with a divine 'purpose', being in love, gratitude, at peace, clarity, kindness, experience of beauty, childlike vision etc etc. Rawat does have the ability to speak evocatively and apparently honestly about things that feel important. Of course that is not the same thing as his having any special legitimacy, key or gift to impart. However repetition, repetion and repetition is a powerful tool to keep the focus on these hooks..and, of course, to inextricably tangle them all up with the belief that Rawat has the key to fulfill them. However, especially in these latter 'DVD years' I think you coud best account for continued belief in Knowledge as just a lazy comfortable habit for many folk? best Tim
|
|
|
|
Hello Joe, But I have to say there was also a lot of aggression in satsang, and like any blind belief system, some premies in the cult used satsang as a kind of bludgeon of other people (often for their own, personal advantage). One way this worked was usuing satsang to belittle somebody else, or something they did or didn't do, faith they didn't have, or whatever, which made the "giver" feel superior, blessed, or more the recipient of Rawat's "grace." Not just aggression, but arrogance too. I know I felt a particular specialness, which I now know was arrogance, because I spoke well and was chosen a lot to moderate the satsang mike. My career as a public speaker, ugh. I had special services assigned to me early as an aspirant so that added to my feeling of specialness. Some of us were total zealots on the satsang stage, no question about it, but there was that "groovy peace and love" thing going on, too. The warm and fuzzy icing on that satsang cake. Go ahead, premieji glatten my self-esteem with the beauty of it all.
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 14:56:34
|
|
|
|
No time to join in right now. Bryn
|
|
|
|
I never really realised before, until Bryn pointed it out in terms of 'somebody elses audience/throne etc' what a strange phenomenon is the power given to religious types. Blessings to BD! Satsang gave us the opportunity to gain approval. Being picked to speak was quite a thing in itself, and how entangled with the petty hierarchies of group acceptance was the business of appearing blissed out or clear, even when you werent. I can definitely remember thinking I had got away with it a few times, when I wasnt feeling particularly inspired, but it was a rare soul indeed in my era who got into the chair and said 'I feel confused/hurt/angry/lost/fed up' So much for the company of truth huh! Can anyone else also remember talking yourself into a feeling? Sometimes I would feel flat and uninspired, sit in the chair, close my eyes against the focus of all those eager faces and actually meditate for a few seconds.. and sometimes we would just start talking and hope that some sort of second wind or grace of inspiration would catch us before we finished. I still seek the company of truth... moreso now than then it seems... but these days my definition of 'truth' is a little more honest. It seems counsellors hear truth, whilst as premies we heard what we wanted to hear.
Modified by loaf at Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 03:24:44
|
|
|
|
Yes I definiutely that deliberate mood change. You're in usual "flustered" mode broughtby the general maelstrom of normal life and the recent invitation to step the the Chair. You do some "holy name" you remember what Tulsidas or Kavir are said to have said, ... something like
"One remembrance of holy name removes the sins of a thousand kalpas"
and with a quick rush of absurd and unwarranted confidence, launch the satsang paper hat into the flood drain of holy company.
Lp
|
|
|
|
a car stopped, without thinking, I rose, opened the door at exactly the moment the postman's hand outstetched towards me with the book of, probably, my oldest and dearest old premie friend.
I hold in my hand an unopened hardbook copy of BABA by RAMPURI. (For some reason, My copy of Dawkin's: The God Delusion, which I ordered; as ordered  a month ago has not arrived.) ' Teach me to use the used option.
Lp (now to see what young Sita Ram has to say.) Thanks; Falcon. I sent him an email.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 04:36:09
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if you know but SitaRam did post here some ago.down to the woods soon? :>) love Jethro
Modified by Jethro at Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 05:47:41
|
|
|
|
Fingers still crossed. days now.
Re: Sita Ram , yeah I did read his posts a few years ago , I was relieved 'cause, I heard of the exagerated rumours first.
I felt a strong urge to post then and say:
"Rumours of my lobotomization are also, well, slightly exagerated."
Modified by Saph at Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 07:03:58
|
|
|
|
I heard plenty of people being honest about that, and giving very dour satsangs. On the one hand I liked the honesty, but I did wonder where their joy from the experioence of k was, so I was just a sporadic attender increasingly so over time, although over time I almost stopped going to the main programs almost completely, which just seemed overhyped, and pressurised groupthink, and pretty damned bogus most of the time, except for occasionals which were were it was all about I thought.
I specially remember one satsang from the Palace of Peace where just about the ugliest person I'd ever seen in my life got up on stage, and was obviously having some kind of very real, very glowing experience of the practice of k, to such an extent that by the end it had blown my concepts of ugliness because he looked beautiful.
|
|
|
|
...who has conveniently forgotten about Elvis! And come to think of it so had the audience! Love and thanks for the Blessings,I will try to work it into the act. BD
|
|
|
|
I haven't followed every bit of this discussion - so apologies if I'm merely repeating what others have already written. The 'satsang' of the Rawat movement was perhaps its weirdest and most contradictory practice, and while I agree that it undoubtedly served a 'policing' role, and within the hierarchy conscious environment of DLM/EV it enabled point scoring, bullying and oppression by those so inclined to make such use of the process; I also think that satsang was an important element in maintaining premies' emotional health. The very fact that satsang could be aggressive shows that it was a process not totally subject to either cult sensibilities or to fulfilment of individual self perceptions. Bullying may not be very pleasant but its expression tells a truth about the relationships within a group. Without satsang having taken place could not now look back and have the material evidence to identify dynamics that would otherwise be hidden. Most premie satsang of course was not 'front of stage' but was propagation talk, or nightly 'satsang circles' in ashrams and premie houses, or premie to premie 'pep' talks. It is in those more intimate environments that the weirdness of the practice was most stark. My memory is that the satsang giver was aiming to achieve a kind of speaking trance - seeking to immerse themselves in the Breath Technique while at the same time opening themselves up to an only partially conscious flow of words. Failure to be adequately 'entranced' was to be 'in one's mind'. Many premies when 'immersed in the flow' would speak with their eyes closed, would adopt a singsong lilt, and use stylised often rhythmical gestures as though they were conducting a particularly placid piece of music. Premie satsang was not merely the fulfilment of a 'duty' it was an integral part of the practice/experience of Knowledge and I'm sure for many it was a legitimised space in which to express emotions that were otherwise inhibited. It was certainly a psychological charged process. My abiding memory of how peculiar premie satsang was, comes from around 1980 at a time when I was almost completely separated from premies. I and my very much not a premie partner were being touristy in a West Country town when we bumped into an old premie friend of mine who invited us to her stone built, roses round the doorway cottage for a cup of tea (and as it turned out - satsang). At one level this meeting was just a clash of cultures - me and my companion, post punk politicised anti Thatcher - my old friend, Laura Ashley, hippy, peace and love etc. After the initial niceties of "what have you been doing. lovely house", and the herb tea and local honey had been served, my premie friend dropped quickly into premie mode and a classic satsang circa 1972. I suppose my discomfort was largely a mirror of my partner's almost immediate irritation - she fairly bristled at what she later said she felt was an attempt to indoctrinate her; and I hadn't been part of that cultish behaviour for sometime and for the first time I found it really rather creepy. I don't think my premie friend understood why the atmosphere slumped, and why we left so rapidly. I do remember her seeming quite crestfallen and I guess maybe she was lonely and had just wanted some premie company. I was also quite sad because even without the emotional loyalty to my partner in play, I knew I was never going to regain that bond with another premie even though at one level it was something I craved. Of course within a couple of years of that experience Rawat had banned premies from giving satsang and I can only imagine that many premies must have experienced a terrible loss in giving up the only legitimate means they had to express their internal premie world. Nik
|
|
|
|
I was at a premie wedding recently. When the the groom got up to do his little speech, I was partially transported back a couple of decades.
There was a lot of stuff about love being right under 'our' noses ( he really meant his nose, but he kept talking as if it was a human condition to be making the same misjudgements ) and how we keep missing it, but finally, it was all now possible ( not achieved apparently, just available ). There was even a bit of the eyes closed, singsong thing that Nik described. He went on, describing the experience of marriage in the same terms as I am sure he has previously described 'knowledge', in that meandering, spontaneous, ever so sincere way.
How ingrained it all is!
I must have been like that ( a bit anyway - I never did the shut eyes and singsong, honest! ).
Apologies to all the premies.
Modified by 13 at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 10:35:33
|
|
|
|
From my readings here satsang not only changed over time, but was forbidden? I would just like to add that each event and each speaker would lend a different experience. While I remember some bullying, I remember some joy, some sorrow, some indoctrination, and some closness. It was not all one thing or another, but a broad sprectrum (that's why it was effective). It was perhaps the most powerfull element of the scene. I hate to give Elan Vital ideas, but might the problems they are now facing in recruting are probably due to the tight control they are evidencing in forbidding satsang? If they brought it back they might be more succesfull, heaven forbid!
|
|
|
|
There's nobody left there who can give satsang, they've all left.
|
|
|
|
I had forgotten.....I went to a satsang on a Saturday night at the Kitteredge Building in Denver (that's where DLM Offices and AND IT IS DIVINE was published) It had grown to double on weekends as a satsang hall, maybe 60 70 people, microphones and all. Charles Cameron had been at the satsang I had given a few months earlier... (described below) He dragged me up on stage and told everyone what wonderfull satsang I had given and ask me to proceed. I was in the thros of exiting and was very conflicted, I proceeded to tell everyone how they had to follow their hearts and if that took us outside of the structure of DLM and Maharaji, that was OK, I was very angry, I talked about how peer presure was being used in satsang to keep everyone under control and how it stiffed life and creativity.......and got many people in the room upset....they gave me the hook. That was the last time I ever attended any formal function with DLM. I hunch that I may have been marked after that......never stuck around to check. Hey, I am going to let that be a heroic action! Until now, I have just felt bad about it, nobody loved me up after that! But I did get to tell them all. COOL!
|
|
|
|
as one of those bongo premies who dared to leave room for doubt in his mind. You'll be telling us you delayed in attending satsang sometimes next.
Do you remember satsang in the Indian Centre in Denver?
"Until now, I have just felt bad about it, nobody loved me up after that!"
They were probably afraid it was contagious.
Modified by Saph at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 14:48:53
|
|
|
|
Yep, that one with really bad ventilation. Ironic, the Indian center was really for American Indians, not Eastern Indians. That building is now gone. You wouldn't recognize the neighborhoods. Gentrification has taken place, all those funky old Victorians have been re-habbed and are worth 1,000,000s High Rise condos from 500,000 and up are popping up all the way to downtown Denver.
Modified by Stephenb at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 13:54:17
|
|
|
|
I used to like that place. On a sunday night you could hear the American Indians upstairs: several playing round a large horizontal drum at the same time. Booom boom boom boom Booom boom boom boom ..
I used to go up there and hang out with them till late sometimes. Did a sweat lodge with Wallace Black Elk. He had steerhorns on the hood of his pick up truck.
And why not?
Modified by Saph at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 14:08:50
|
|
|
|
They rehabbed the whole downtown area closed off the street in front for 10-12 blocks and created a number of street side restaurants, shops and cafes. The only thing retained at that location was the Paramount Theater. I seem to remember that M returned to the scene of the crime in the 80s and spoke there again.
|
|
|
|
In which I go in disguise to Charles's poetry circle in Malibu, and remain unrecognised until I read a poem, meet an old friend by chance, who posts here, frighten my landlady, who to this day no doubt swears I had a weird hippie friend staying in the flat., get evicted and end up with my own canyon hilltop residence. The higher up you go in the Santa Monica Mountains the hotter it gets.
Modified by Saph at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 19:45:26
|
|
|
|
Who are these people, & why have you posted their photos. I don't understand.
|
|
|
|
and i just learnt how to work a scanner
The first one is me in halloween disguise, the second is me a short time later on a friend's land high on a hill above Malibu, (B' dog the dog went to live eventually with Bob Dylan's similar bull mastiff,) the third photo is Charles Cameron putting baccy in his pipe, Halloween '83 or '84 at his poetry group.
I must admit i thought they'd come out smaller. As to why I thought it was a funny series of events, it's the one and only time I have ever done anything because it was Halloween, we didn't have it when i grew up in England. I first encountered the phenomena in the States. I always got caught 'cos I never remembered it was Halloween, and forget to get stocked up with sweets and treats.
Still this year , it could have been '83 someone had this wig and beard left over ......
And this is the second time in my life I have ever diliberately done something because it was Halloween. At least I had a few belly laughs myself doing it.
If I've over celebrated feel free to request any offensive material be removed if I've gone over the top: sorry.
Modified by Saph at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 20:05:42
|
|
|
|
And I know, because I'm a first prize winner in the best Halloween costumes department. Don't ask. No really, it's creative and scary. Meets all the criteria.
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 16:16:10
|
|
|
|
Cheers Cynthia,
from a one time Pt. Dume poet.
Modified by Saph at Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 02:09:24
|
|
|
|
.... particularly, I thought, the skelingbone with the slug of Heineken and teashirt hat, still in the low 100's Fahrenheit at sunset..
Modified by Saph at Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 06:49:54
|
|
|
|
We all have different memories and had different communities, etc. I cannot remember ever having someone "share satsang" out of "formal satsang" act in the way you've described. Your "speaking trance" is spot on though. I recall it (for me at least) as being more like meditating until there was something to say, leaping into it and going on until that flow of words ended and then waiting for the next "inspiration". As a person who was a shy kid I found the process liberating and after I left the "Mission" discovered I'd become an outgoing gregarious chat-with-anyone sort of guy without using any of the meditaiton stuff.
The difference between "formal satsang" and "informal satsang" was that off the chair you listened to what the other person said (in Holy Name and Nectar) and at appropriate times or pauses if you were "inspired" you replied. I don't recall too much guilt over chit-chat but then I'm notoriously irresponsible so maybe everyone else was guilty about it but they sure didn't look like it. I was never an ashram premie though.
I do remember the embarassment of meeting a gushing premie at work one day shortly after Rawat had been to Brisbane (maybe as late as 1984/5). She didn't know I was an ex and "gave me satsang" about how wonderful the program had been and was expecting me to reciprocate. I can't remember what I did now but the whole thing was very uncomfortable as I didn't want to hurt her feelings.
|
|
|
|
There certainly was a period when chit chat was frowned upon by 'serious' premies. I can't remember when but I am pretty certain it came directly from Rawat, so, like other impossible instructions from him, premies tried to follow it. At the time, I remember feeling 'in my mind' when I spoke about anything that wasn't satsang. I also remember the feeling outside formal satsang when another premie was giving satsang I should listen as I would in formal satsang. I think this was during the ultra devotional period of trhe Kissimee programs, as I have a memory of t-shirts with the text 'I'd rather have satsang'. I think the culture sort of faded away. Well it did for me anyway.John.
|
|
|
|
John, Definitely true for me too . ..rather isolating and destructive of friendships... ...not much you could actually discuss with other premies after returning home from Kissimee 79! No commentary allowed. The eventual effect on me was that I felt more comfortable with non-premies than premies. best Tim
Modified by tommo at Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 14:26:14
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I lost my faith between Kissimmee 78 & Kissimmee 79 so what was it you couldn't discuss after Kissimmee 79 because no-one discussed it with me.
Yes chit-chat directly after satsang was frowned upon and if it comes to that I was one of those who mightn't have frowned but preferred not to indulge but over here most premies lived in group houses and there was oodles of chit-chat at all other times, even though most of it was DLM chit-chat. I certainly don't remember indepth dicsussions of current events.
|
|
|
|
Ocker, According to the satsangs that Rawat gave starting in about 1978, chit chat was not allowed. It didn't just apply to just after satsang. That meant no chit chat all the time, especially when around other premies. Initiators reinforced that agya in ashrams. I remember Barbara Kolodney, in particular, enforcing that agya at the Hartford ashram where I lived and that was in 1978.
|
|
|
|
Yep it was definitly agya at some point, and you are probably correct that it was about 1978 or therabouts. However it really started much earlier. There was a very strong community wide edict starting from the top (Rawat) down that we should not be 'spacing out'. And for sure there was a lot of guilt tripping that was associated with that. I recall many a time when we felt very guilty in not going to satsang on occasions, rather going to see a movie or whatnot. Lots of self reinforcing behaviour went on. T
|
|
|
|
Absolutely, T. Not only were premies shunned who spaced out, they were "in their minds." The ultimate taboo in the cult. How are you? C
|
|
|
|
I'm just fine thanks Cynthia, we should catch up soon on the 'phone sometime. That would be nice. Yes 'being in one's mind' was a real speech stifler one could use. Anything untoward being said or done and one could simply hurl that accusation to the alleged offending party and that would shut them up pretty smartly. Yikes, we were all creeps then, I'm glad that we grew up. T
|
|
|
|
Spaced-out premies shunned! No way! Over here they were love bombed by their very caring brothers and sisters with lots and lots of caring and sharing satsang. Of course that probably bored them sh__less and sent them on their way as fast as they could go.
|
|
|
|
From Prem Rawat's talk called "The Essence of Everything" 1978. As printed in The Golden Age - Feb. 1979, No. 51, Page 13.
|
|
|
|
...has he always looked greasy?
|
|
|
|
What couldn't we discuss? ..apart from not wasting this precious life on chit chat.?....Well certainly not any meaningfully discussion or dissection of anything that Rawat had said. It was in 1979 that I finally 'understood' that K was really about a one on one inner relationship between me and Rawat. I was on my own. Other premies also always talked in those terms. It didn't involve anyone else so there was really nothing to discuss with anyone else. Rawat was 'Guru Maharaji' so you couldn't take what he had said at Kissimee and really 'thrash it out' with other premies to try and make sense of it. It was just his gift for me. What greater authority was there than Maharaji? How could anyone else help more or advise better? What other friend could I need? etc. etc. It created a situation where each premie felt in their own 'inner bubble' and almost felt that they didn't want to intrude on the private experience of others....no sharing or meaningful discussion about K or Rawat at all. ....only discussion about 'ways and means'...fund raising, propogation etc. etc. The strange thing is that exactly the same applies currently in premiedom. In fact the same mindset is taken even further. OK Rawat now describes himself as an inspirational speaker...or incategorisable on Wikipaedia. However he is still treated as a de facto divinity. People now come to K through building a kind of one to one imaginary relationship with Rawat on the videos and DVDs. From square one, he is the single authority. There is no questioning or discussion of anything that Rawat says or does and neither any question of his possible inconsistency or fallibility on the subject of K..or anything else for that matter. Indeed in a DVD driven process there isn't even anyone to have a discussion with. As has been mentioned many times before the logical inconsistency is so obvious ....an inspirational speaker who behaves and expects to be treated like an infallible divinity. Tim
|
|
|
|
Well no wonder no-one discussed it with me unless they were having imaginary discussions with me along with their imaginary relationship. Actually doesn't that show the incredible compassion of Prem Rawat? From what I've seen on the Atlanta Training tape, he is not a person you'd want to have a real relationship with.
|
|
|
|
We was all a part of the most primitive outlook , who was high - who was low ? There definitely was a lot of judging going on in premie communities. Who was clear, spacey, boring, gopi-like, intellectual. Satsang was supposed to be the pure expression of the experience of knowledge and the perfect master with K/Rawat flowing through us. Looking back, it wasn't anything of the kind. After all, we altered our content all the time in order to gear our satsang to new people, aspirants, fellow-ashram premies, the general community. I'm sure I was extra-devotional when giving satsang in the presence of an instructor. We were a bunch of trained monkeys.
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 14:33:33
|
|
|
|
I'd forgotten the use of that word "judging". Remember it was being used as someting we shouldn't do. In the normal world (and the premie world was no different) understanding other human beings and their attitudes and ideas and emotions is just a normal part of life giong on constantly. Premies were at least trying to do it to each other with love and compassion, weren't we? And I don't know that altering the content of individuals' satsang was so common. Where I lived they chose the people to give satsang on Sunday nights (the public night in the late 70's) carefully, people who were middle of the road so as to not "freak-out" any new people. There was a common understanding about what sort of satsang people would give at different times in their life, after all we knew each other pretty well and "shared satsang" 7 nights a week. It seems to me that your so-called "monkey training" back in the 70's worked hardly any better than the recent trainings. Revisionism can be done from many perspectives.
|
|
|
|
The judging I'm talking about is that premies were often brutal when discussing other premies and their level of clarity and commitment. Then there was the gossip about personalities, people's inability to be consistent followers due to personal circumstances, whatever they were. Premies are notorious gossipers and the closer one is to the inner circle anywhere in the cult, including the community coordinator, the juicier and more judgmental the gossip got. The church lady crowd. Then folks would say, "Oh but we shouldn't judge, it's all lila, by his grace," close our eyes, get centered and give "real" satsang. And I don't know that altering the content of individuals' satsang was so common. It happened all the time. You altered what you said for the audience. I'm not saying it was purely on a conscious level, but those premies who were plugged into the community and aware of the agya of the day, and communications from DLM, knew what kind of satsang was to be geared up for new folks or aspirants. It wasn't revisionism it was lying by omission. Sure, the "right" people were chosen for the task of intro satsangs and aspirant satsang, but, they were always people who "understood" what was not to be said in order to be sensitive to the recruitment needs. In fact, during the time right before I was selected to work at DECA, I was go gopi-ied out in my head that I couldn't give anything but lotus-feet- worship type satsang and was never asked to give satsang to aspirants or new people. I was popular among the gopi crowd. then I'd get up and sign my heart out!! It was sort of a joke among us: Giving Cindy the hook when I started weeping at the mike. What I mean by trained monkeys is that satsang was the basic means by which we were conditioned through repetition to learn the Rawat religion. The feeling was there, but the words are what indoctrinated us. I firmly think it was a form of group hypnosis. Everybody had a different style, but the content and thrust was the same: follow agya, do satsang, service, and meditation, why we do that, surrender, devote, practice, don't space out, trust M above all else.
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 16:00:19
|
|
|
|
I agree that it was "group hypnosis" though I'm not sure exactly what that means. I know I (un)consciously modelled myself on the premies that impressed me and was most inspired by those who seemed the most intensely, "deeply" meditative. However, within those constraints there was still an enormous amount of individuality and if anything there was more satsang about why the person giving satsang wasn't surrendered enough rather than exhortations to others to get their "act together". I don't remember much preaching more like close their eyes, meditate, get centred and give "real" satsang.
I didn't hear that sort of brutal discussion you're talking about then but that is something I've noticed over the last 20 years. While the public story is that "knowledge"gives inner peace and contentment and I even know a few people who think they've attained some sort of upper level of consciousness other premies don't necessarily agree.
Premies are quite content to speak about other premies critically but you cannot criticise the one who reveals the Techniques of Knowledge and was once thought to be the Lord of the Universe but that was just a mistake of the premies and Prem Rawat certainly didn't teach that. Which reminds me, premies once used to say that Prem Rawat had made mistakes but I don't ever remember any of those mistakes being specified. Does anyone know of any of his mistakes being discussed by premies?
|
|
|
|
I agree that it was "group hypnosis" though I'm not sure exactly what that means. I'm not sure either, but my theory is that the effects of meditation combined with listening to satsang played a large part creating a group high because there is an array of feelings to be had by meditating and satsang was suggestive to say the least. The source of the experience was always stated to be Maharaji. That's magical thinking. The Maharajism definition of satsang was that it "wasn't the words, but that feeling," so there was a hellavua lot of suggesting going on and, courtesy of Rawat, we were training ourselves daily and in a structured way (nightly satsangs) not to have the wrong concepts, but the fact is that hundreds of Maharajism truisms and religious concepts were being repeated. I read an interesting article in Seed Magazine that discusses hypnosis called "Science Finally Tackles Hypnosis." Here's the url if you're interested. http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/science_finally_tackles_hypnos.php I don't remember much preaching more like close their eyes, meditate, get centred and give "real" satsang. I was talking about outside the satsang hall. Straight up gossip. I'd be surprised if it wasn't happening everywhere. Rawat constantly preached that premies shouldn't chit chat (talk about anything besides M&K), as did the mahatmas and western initiators, but we're human, so the rule the best way to keep chit chat in check was to remind ourselves in informal settings repeatedly to always be centered on holy name (closing eyes, then talking), and satsanging about K and M. I remember initiators saying that if one couldn't focus on holy name then one should "pray to Maharaji for help," or simply think about him until one got centered. I'm not kidding. It's always been taboo to criticize the master. No one did that without being ostracized, shunned, or being labelled a bongo. Criticism is never allowed.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 06:42:12
|
|
|
|
I liked to listen to one premie giving satsang. His s were so different from the conventional ones, which used to start with a sie “oh, maharaji is so so beautiful”. They were almost abstract in their complicated descriptions. I don’t remember a word of them, but they were full with metaphors. I think that his subject was mainly the tricks of the mind while he tried to meditate, but it was really a piece of art. His voice was very quite and he looked a bit of an alien. In the boring wasteland of satsang his were a challenge to the intellect. I wonder what happened to him, he was married and had kids at the time. The rest of my feelings regarding satsang is kind of a blur.
|
|
|
