You're absolutely correct...
Re: Regarding the ashram rules and M's alleged drinking, etc. -- eMpathE Top of thread Forum
Posted by:
Will ®

08/26/2005, 09:57:31
Author Profile

Edit
Alert Moderators




You're absolutely correct from a devotee point of view.

If Prem Rawat is the living Perfect Master, the one true Maharaji of our time, then he can certainly do whatever he wants to do and who am I as His ashram devotee to get angry about it.  He, as the Master, is not subject to the ashram rules or the householder rules either. 

Obviously, Guru Maharaj Ji is above ordinary societal rules because he is enlightened.  He also does not have our ordinary limitations.  I remember those of us in the ashram telling ourselves the story about our Guru Maharaj Ji that he once took LSD and it didn't effect him at all.  That little myth was told about other gurus as well.

And I, as the ignorant piece of dust that I am, am very much confined by my own limitations and actually need the restrictions that my Master has so benevolently placed upon me (Bolie Shri Sat Guru Dev Maharaj Ki Jai).

But now I have abandoned my devotee point of view and have adopted another point of view, namely that Prem Rawat is an ordinary human being who is only pretending to be enlightened.  He is a fraud and it pisses me off that I was so extremely stupid and naive to ever have believed him to be what and who he claimed to be.  Outrageous.  Somebody slap me.

From my new point of view, Prem Rawat is indeed subject to having to act like a normal, decent human being.  And he has NOT behaved like a normal, decent human being in many, many ways and on countless occasions.

As far as the smoking and drinking and fornicating in particular, what really gets me angry is that he didn't have the balls to smoke and drink, etc. in front of his devotees but hid it away, and for those devotees who shared in his little escapades, he forced them into a secrecy agreement, a process he called xing.

I've been had.  And I'm not happy about it.  I'm angry.  Granted it is in retrospect and with a different viewpoint.

Now do you understand?






Modified by Will at Fri, Aug 26, 2005, 10:01:44

Previous Recommend Current page Next