But Steve, didn't we have a guru or something?
Re: Re: But WAS guilt really optional? -- Steve	Top of thread		Forum

Posted by: Jim ® 08/19/2005, 18:38:50 Author Profile Edit Alert Moderators

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?   I'll tell you exactly how it fits. You guys, bless your fun-loving little hearts, were not good premies.  You yourself admit that you valued your opinion over Rawat's.  That was sacrilege to those of us who took him at his word.  And though you blamed us for being "uptight corporate zealots" we were just people sincerely trying to understand what Rawat wanted and acting accordingly.  You say you might have not done so because of arrogance or stupidity.  I tend to think people who shielded themselves against Rawat the way you seemed to have done, feigned ignorance and stupidity as a survival technique.  I could never prove it but that's my theory.   So now it's quite interesting, isn't it?  The cult has taken that "spaced out" premie justification and run with it.  Suddenly, it was the roque "uptight corporate zealots" that brought in that crazy devotional trip to begin with.  Lies, lies and more lies.  We ashram premies and others who tried to do the full surrender trip were just people caught up in our faith in Maharaji.  Period.

Previous

Recommend Current page

Next

Replies to this message

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 )