Re: But WAS guilt really optional?

Re: But WAS guilt really optional?
Re: But WAS guilt really optional? -- Jim	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by:
Steve ^®

08/19/2005, 14:57:14
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators

Rawat set out some firm, strict expectations for all his premies. This included, in various forms, a certain amount of mental self-flagellation and guilt. So some people balked, put up various filters, as I put it, doing whatever they could to resist the full impact of Rawat's poisonous program. This made them necessarily bad premies. There's no two ways about it. They let doubt come between them and their guru. They were not good devotees.

Somewhere in the winter of 1977 I remember going to this guy’s house after satsang where we smoked hash, drank espresso, and took turns reading from the Tao te Ching. Sounds kinda corny now but we were both completely blown away by the experience.

I can clearly remember thinking then that the uptight corporate zealots in the ashram would never have the guts to do this, and that is why we were the true premies. No guilt whatsoever - in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit. So how does that fit your theory?

Now, since I currently believe that the whole guru thing is one sick, delusional trip, I fully concede that those people might have some inherent strength I lacked. Or maybe not. But I won't agree that there were optional ways of being a premie in Rawat's opinion and that, as we know, was the only one that mattered.

I don’t think my attitude was from any inherent strength on my part. Arrogance maybe, maybe even stupidity. I simply valued my personal experience over Rawat’s opinion. My experience was the thing that really mattered, and ironically that’s why I considered myself a "true premie". There were other premies who thought this way.

It's no big mystery Jim. Remember back in school? The "serious" students were in the library studying and the ne'er-do-wells were smoking in the boy’s room. It was the same with premies.

Like I said – a spectrum. Different strokes for different folks.

Modified by Steve at Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 16:49:45

Recommend Current page

Replies to this message

....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:36:29 ) ( 718 bytes ) +1

Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 21:53:51 ) ( 878 bytes ) +1

Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 07:00:18 ) ( 649 bytes ) +1

Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 08:53:34 ) ( 1377 bytes ) +2

The point is, it wasn't a popular view with RAWAT --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:25:16 ) ( 236 bytes ) +1

Re: The point is, it wasn't a popular view with RAWAT --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 16:45:14 ) ( 422 bytes )

Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 18:01:38 ) ( 1599 bytes ) +1

Re: ....in fact an odd kind of spiritual conceit....... --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 19:05:40 ) ( 421 bytes ) +1

Thanks for the clarification Steve --- PatD ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 20:52:17 ) ( 519 bytes )

But Steve, didn't we have a guru or something? --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 18:38:50 ) ( 1988 bytes ) +1

Re: But Steve, didn't we have a guru or something? --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 19:48:50 ) ( 3943 bytes ) +2

In a cult, only the leader can decide who's a good follower --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 20:00:31 ) ( 1080 bytes ) +1

Re: In a cult, only the leader can decide who's a good follower --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 21:46:19 ) ( 4239 bytes ) +1

This is a BIZARRE argument (but you're still wrong) --- Jim ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 22:23:02 ) ( 4702 bytes ) +2

Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but seriously) --- paddy ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 22:59:06 ) ( 217 bytes ) +1

Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but seriously) --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 11:52:04 ) ( 266 bytes )

Re: This is a BIZARRE argument (but you're still wrong) --- Steve ( Fri, Aug 19, 2005, 23:41:19 ) ( 3251 bytes ) link +1

Sorry, but that's NOT what "devotion" meant --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 11:37:46 ) ( 1854 bytes ) link +1

Let's agree to disagree --- Steve ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 17:35:21 ) ( 2987 bytes ) +1

Steve, if you can look at this fairly and dispassionately .... --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:37:33 ) ( 1251 bytes ) +1

P.S. --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:49:03 ) ( 988 bytes ) +1

Re: P.S. --- Steve ( Sun, Aug 21, 2005, 17:57:57 ) ( 931 bytes )

Teachers always have different categories of followers --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:14:38 ) ( 4104 bytes ) +2

Sounds like you weren't a good premie either --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:33:33 ) ( 1519 bytes ) +1

Can Roupell come to the party? --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 13:31:36 ) ( 338 bytes ) +4

Re: Roupell was scum --- paddy ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 17:35:54 ) ( 510 bytes ) +1

Oops --- Tempora ( Sun, Aug 21, 2005, 08:21:49 ) ( 699 bytes )

A decent guy --- Marianne ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 18:33:40 ) ( 249 bytes )
Are you drunk? --- Jim ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 21:52:56 ) ( 338 bytes )
Re: Can Roupell come to the party?:..sure --- Jethro ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 22:09:12 ) ( 185 bytes )

De (no text) --- Tempora ( Sat, Aug 20, 2005, 12:43:54 ) ( 0 bytes )