I don’t hope to convince you and your compadres about anything Jim. I can only hope for a fair and rational discussion – which I almost never get with you or anyone else here. You all are so convinced you’ve got it figured out, you leave no room for a rational argument to raise doubt in your minds. As such you never concede anything to any premie, you hunt in a pack for support, and you chant your canned party line whenever a valid argument challenges your certainty. Further, you agree with almost anybody who maligns Maharaji, no matter how irrational and unfounded they base their attacks. You are overly mawkish to stories of woe “at the hands of the big bad cult”, consistently pandering to the “inner victim” in all of you. And the more he legitimizes himself through his very effective PR campaign, the further from rational you all look in the eyes of rational people – especially you mate.

This thread is a case in point. My argument about a movement being defined as a cult primarily by the attitude of the participant is a valid one. I suggested that if a person’s involvement with a movement is devoid of substance, and is merely a following of someone they have elevated to a status above their own, only then can it be called a cult. Again, this is an argument worthy of consideration. Of course nobody on your side would even entertain such an argument because it leaves open the possibility you may not have it all figured out. I could even accept if you challenged the “substance” I claim is inherent in practicing Knowledge. But then you would be obliged to take the discussion into your endless ex-premie loop again by reverting to the tape claiming the substance I experience is self-induced because I’m in a cult. Oh well.