|
|
|
JoeSomebody named J. Benaim... I have been reliably informed that is Jossi Fresco, technical wizard, Wikipedia author and general defender of Maharaji's wisdom on the internet. 'Benaim' is his Argentinian name (he lived there for a while). -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 03:01:43
|
|
|
|
that makes sense, it explains jossi's often unrationalized behaviour at wikipediatoby
|
|
|
|
For some reason I remember his 'satsangs' when he would say "All I can see is that this whole world is full of fake satsang ,fake service and fake meditation". I don't think 'ego' is a big enough word for Jossi.
Modified by Jethro at Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 03:00:18
|
|
|
|
look at his wikipresentation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi toby
Modified by toby at Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 03:36:17
|
|
|
|
i know those already, master of the surface one might say. I wonder what he means by "explore". The way the master explored women?toby
|
|
|
|
I have to say there is something rather sinister in these pictures. Look at the eyes...sinister, I'd say. I don't have a problem with sensual, but it isn't that. Also, isn't it often true that an artist puts something of himself into the subject he paints? So to some degree, every "portrait" is a self-portrait. Just my take on what I see. (I don't know this guy at all so I'm just commenting on the pictures). ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Was my reaction as well, and for Toby too, if I'm reading his post right.
It reminded me of a lot of Victorian paintings masquerading as moral and uplifting and so wanting to let out a repressed sexuality. Another thought that came to mind was porn for ashram premies, but I'm sure I'm just being too flippant now 
And as for being a digital artist, well I'm sorry, but I know some high class digital artists, and well, if that guy is including digital artist amongst his renaissance portfolio the mind boggles.
I'm not sure too many years thinking you're the bees knees doesn't curdle your brain in some way.
Creepy and smug was what came through from seeing those, and funny how uncannily like my reaction to mr rawat's oeuvre when he's at his most pretentious when in digital art mode.
Modified by hamzen at Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 20:40:30
|
|
|
|
...under the pseudonym 'red heart'. Oh what lively discussions we used to have.
|
|
|
|
One of my biggest drips was the recognition that premies were not in any way superior to ordinary people--that actually they were some of the most screwed-up people I knew. Certainly, they are no better than anyone else. However, by now this must be obvious to anyone with their eyes open. For a moment there I thought I'd found a premie deprogramming tool... Neville B
|
|
|
|
Hi EveryoneI used to know Jossi well, and liked him. I am posting as the admin, but also as his one-time friend. Can I remind everyone that I think it is quite in order to post about his public work as arch-defender of Maharaji on the internet, but I think his private life is off-limits. I am not saying any line has been crossed so far, but please bear that line in mind. Thanks. -- Mike
|
|
|
|
I gather that post wasn't directed to me, as I had no idea this really egositical, programmed and annoying person Benaim went by any other name.
|
|
|
|
No Joe, to the others posting about his photos and stuff. It looked to me like they were getting near the edge of that dividing line. No blame, no harm, just a gentle reminder. I identified your reviewer as Jossi - I feel he is fair game as Maharaji's internet policeman, but not his private life. I know it is difficult to draw the line sometimes, and his activities on Wikipedia and elsewhere sure do piss us off. Take care -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 13:44:48
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean, Mike. The life of a forum admin can be fraught with difficulties in the cartographical department. My only suggestion is to follow your instincts - which you already seem to be doing. But the private/public question is a bit like the 'Isaac' and ‘Motherwave’ debates lower down. Would we know anything about Jossi's private life if he wasn't making that supposedly private life as public as his declarations of eternal devotion and gratitude to M are public? It looks to me that (in Jossi's Rennaisance mind at least) both strands of his existence lend weight to the other. They are hard to separate. My private life is fairly private because I keep it fairly private. But what I make available to the public is surely open to public comment - I would expect no less. (Anyone who had googled 'Craig Fitzroy', after the mysteriously deranged Rawat poetry enthusiast appeared on Amazon, would learn a little bit more about me and my life, but no more than I had made available up to now. And people the world over are free to comment on that - and have done, in other web environments. 'Craig Fitzroy' is a pen name I have used for at least seven years - I hardly covered my tracks.) And I couldn't really complain if people here started commenting negatively on something I had posted elsewhere on the web. I may be upset - sure - but I would be receiving no more than I invited by giving myself a presence that is accessible from every web-linked computer in the world. As I see it, nobody sets up, or contributes to a website by accident, so it is hardly like the national press door-stepping some unwilling publicity-shy victim. And I wouldn't see it as your job to guard Jossi's reputation or dignity in this one small corner of webland. Whatever dignity he may genuinely possess - and I don’t doubt you - he has already compromised by the way he has chosen to present himself on the web. Libel, obviously, is a different matter, but provided ‘fair comment’ is just that, then where is the issue? (Anyway, that ‘s just what I think. Play it how you like, Mike, but keep up the good work… J ) Nige
Modified by Nigel at Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 15:48:50
|
|
|
|
I do think comments on 'art works' for public display are fair comment.
I can also see it must be hard for you if you were/are close friends with him.
But I was expecting the usual innocuous and vacuous premie fluff straight out of imitation Hallmark cards, ie verrrrry nice. and the kind of beauty my gran probably would have liked.
And instead I found something a bit different.
And I would certainly feel the same about anyone commenting on any of my digital artwork on the net.
It really has nothing to do with whether he was a premie or not as far as I can see.
|
|
|
|
I used to know Jossi well, and liked him. I am posting as the admin, but also as his one-time friend. Mike, Jossi has been nothing but a nasty snake in the defence of his master. So what's the point, really, of mentioning that you used to be friends and used to like him? Are you vouching for his character somehow? You know, if your prior knowledge and relationship with Jossi gave you some greater insights than we'd otherwise have from interacting with him online, I'd say, by all means, please fill us in. Perhaps Jossi isn't at all what he seems, he just seems that way.  In that case, we really should know more to have a fuller, fairer picture. Otherwise, though, I can't see any grounds for protecting him from the very harsh criticism he deserves. We were all friends with various premies. In your case, you were even friends with the man himself. But that doesn't change how despicable these people can be. It might highlight the tragedy of it all, in some sort of Faustian sense, but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
yet i have watched him talking about his former friends, that dared to talk against his god. And believe me, he has no respect whatsoever for all the michaels that left. (isn't it funny that all 3 were named like the archangel, even gorbatchev)? I felt his hate and when he couldn't hold it, he appeared as anonymous 64.81.88.140 where he was expressing his anger.toby
Modified by toby at Mon, Jan 23, 2006, 15:09:00
|
|
|
|
I was not actually 'censuring' anyone. I was not saying that criticizing Jossi's art photos that are public display was over the line. In fact, in my Admin post above I said 'I am not saying any line has been crossed so far.'I was only saying that there *is* a line (somewhere) and we should not cross it. Nigel: You are right, fair comment is fair comment, and there is no issue in your sense. The issue here is that I am saying there may be an issue if we step over the line, and I was (gently I thought) reminding people of that line that no one has crossed so far on this thread, but which might be crossed if I did not post my reminder. Thanks for your kind words though. Jim: I agree that quoting my friendship with Jossi was irrelevant. I think that line between public/private should apply to everyone, whether they are friends of mine, or one-time friends of mine, or I don't know them at all. I personally make that line even with Maharaji, and I don't criticize his private life. I am a newbie admin, and have not quite got the hang of separating my personal feelings from the objective admin perspective. (To be honest, it does not bother me too much if I never do manage to make that separation either.) Jim: if your prior knowledge and relationship with Jossi gave you some greater insights than we'd otherwise have Well yes, actually it enabled me to identify the anonymous premie reviewer 'J. Benaim' that Joe quoted as Jossi, due to my knowledge of his Argentinian connection, and I did post that info in response to Joe's comment. So mosts of the posts in this thread hang off that bit of info. So I tossed Jossi into the public eye over this, and I am also asking that his (like anyone else's) private life be respected. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Tue, Jan 24, 2006, 01:36:28
|
|
|
|
Jossi already knows. He is a frequent reader of this forum and probably was on the other forums as well. He scratched the link to his artwork examles from his wiki profile yesterday already. toby
|
|
|
|
I've come to the conclusion I've just forgotten what it's like to have a premie defensive/superior mentality.
He must have been proud of his work, he put the link in on the Wikipaedia page, so he obviously wanted to share it.
In a similar situation it wouldn't even occur to me to take stuff down after a tiny bit of wary feedback.
I guess if you follow the master too closely you also have to be pretty invisible, either to protect his lordship's gigantic ego by not stealing the glory or to not impede his propagation in even a tiny way, especially with the horned spent matches.
|
|
|
|
watt iss a horned spentt matches,
i no underständ, can you pleaß tell a dshurman?
toby
|
|
|
|
Horned as we always see pictures of the devil woth them. spent mayches - unlit matches, pm's little keyword catchprhrase from a while back who are spent because how could they have any juice in their lives if they've left the safety of the grace..
Is he still using that phrase to describe us I wonder. Wouldn't surprize me, he seems to dislike letting go of key phrases like some of the worst rappers out there.
In fact to be honest I have this recurring dream, where prem comes on like the meanest muthafucka there's ever been, doing his schpiel through his raps, and i always come too with a huge amount of merriment. As you can imagine, he doesn't come over as too real, understatement of the year
|
|
|
|
I dunno--one way or another, I'm just never going to qualify for heaven, methinks. Ah well, all the interesting people are going to be in the other place anyways... ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
thanks, i see. Anyway, matches with halfburned heads will have a hard time to wear horns. An irrational fear so to say. But did the brain paralyzed premies ever realize how stupid this example ever was? Those succcessful matches that helped to burn the fat candle called rawat are the ones that get kicked to ashes toby
|
|
|
|
I think that line between public/private should apply to everyone, whether they are friends of mine, or one-time friends of mine, or I don't know them at all. I personally make that line even with Maharaji, and I don't criticize his private life. Hi Mike, I agree that it's generally wrong to ridicule premies about their private lives unless they've somehow made them relevant (for instance, if someone like Charles Glasser, who accused us of all being drug addicts or mentally unstable, as opposed to him, a self-described successful lawyer from a really impressive law school, turned out to be a little less exemplary, that might be worth comment). I disagree, however, that Rawat's private life is entitled to any similar respect whatsoever. After all, he hides a real person, warts and all, in that private life so he can fool his followers. He deserves to be exposed naked, however ugly that might be. (I'm speaking figuratively, of course).
|
|
|
|
disagree, however, that Rawat's private life is entitled to any similar respect whatsoever.I think that where to draw the 'line' differs which each person, and that with Rawat the line is pretty far off to the side. By that, I mean that much (even most) of what counts as 'private life' for most people is in Rawat's case in the public domain. So that the area of his life that is genuinely private and off-limits (for me) is pretty small compared to anybody else. But it does still exist. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike, I hear you and appreciate your sentiments. You're just trying to be scrupulously fair and I certainly respect that. Having said that, however, it would be interesting to explore just where such an "off-limits" line might arise for good ol' Maharaji. Um.... I'm thinking .... no, give me a moment here. Hm, how about his medical charts? Um, sorry, that, to me would be fair game. Isn't this the guy who claimed he suffered an ulcer to absorb premies' karma in a Christiany kind of way? Anything at all to do with his assets, investments, personal spending habits and the like -- well, for me that's so easy. Some of that's my money, after all, and the part that isn't came from people who he's spent a lifetime fleecing, one way or another. No off-limits there. How about his personal relationships, romantic or otherwise? Certainly nothing off-limits there. We know all the good reasons. How about just his "right" to function privately, to travel undisturbed, to be able to check out a movie in Westwood, if he ever wanted, have dinner at Spago's? Not when there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of people who he's allowed to consider him divine who worship him in every sense of the word and have hung their lives up in chronic suspension for a chance to glimpse his face, even for a second. In that regard, I guess I'd never side with protecting Rawat from the most invasive paparazzi, if they ever took an interest (not that they ever will, thank God!). I don't know. I still can't think of a single kind of privacy this man deserves. Perhaps you can't name one either, right now, but just reserve the right to afford him that protection should the right situation arise. Maybe. But I sure can't think of anything even hypothetically that would warrant an exception. Rawat deserves the third degree. Full-on bright lights, relentless and merciless public scrutiny. If he finds it uncomfortable, so be it. He can always cry uncle, admit the truth and we can all go home. Until then, he deserves nothing.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you can't name one either, right now, but just reserve the right to afford him that protection should the right situation arise.Yep, that pretty much sums it up! As I was writing, I was thinking 'Well, what if Jim actually asks me what I *do* consider off-limits?' and now I come to think of it, I am pretty pushed to think of one. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
A lurch of my stomach has put me mind of Jagdeo. Now there's an issue deserving anything but respect for privacy, no?
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Jan 24, 2006, 15:11:13
|
|
|
|
Concerning the Jagdeo thing at Wikipedia Jossi, Zappaz and Gary D once whiped off the issue by stating something like:
In such a big org 2 or 3 rapes is almost nothing and should be neglected. Imagine that. He has kids himself but he isn't related to any other human being any more. Just the rat.
toby
|
|
|
|
The premies I know do indeed have an ego. It goes with that knowing smirk, that "I'm in on the secret you poor slob and you aren't." But why do so many of them have so much fear, also? It's not quite paranoia, but it's there. I can't figure if they are afraid BellyRoll Rawat will discover some flaw in them. Or they are afraid of some flaw in themselves that makes them 'not worthy'. Or maybe they know deep down that they can never please the MasterBastard....and god knows they are right about that! Or are they just afraid people around them will find out what they are involved with, people who will see it for what it is, and while they dare not leave his Lardship, they don't really want anybody to know about him, either.
|
|
|
|
The other side of the inflated ego is a feeling of fear and worthlessness. The ego that comes from thinking they are "special" and enlightened is kind of in compensation for that. Maybe they are worthless scum who never really practice knowledge right or have "that understanding," but at least they are better than the rest of the world, who are just confused and in their minds, or worse, like us, people who were once clear but now confused. They can look on us with condescending pity, and inflated supreriority. The Rawat cult is laced with fear and always has been. It's the reason premies are scared shitless ever to criticize Maharaji. It's probably also why Jossi removed his "artwork" link because he fears it might just reflect the wrong way on the one he fears most. Think "Stockholm Syndrome" as to why all of this is expressed as "love" for the master.
Modified by Joe at Tue, Jan 24, 2006, 18:01:26
|
|
|
|
First, Joe, thanks again for your kind remarks about my review. It's fun to analyze Rawat as we can see so many blind spots and so much posturing in the guy and we truly have him coming and going. But this thing about premies feeling worthless ... I wonder if any of them still relate to the myths the cult exploited about the youthful, sincere seeker looking for God and not stopping 'til he finds him. Milarepa comes to mind. So does Siddhartha. There were many more. How would a one-time youthful seeker feel knowing that decades have now passed and they've really accomplished so little? My guess is that this is one more reason, besides Rawat's blatant disavowal of the path he once claimed to own, let alone be the master of, that premies can't afford to revisit the lofty aspirations they first brought to the table. Psychologically, one can only say, "What a mess!"
|
|
|
|
I think premies think (or maybe hope is a better word, or have faith) they have accomplished a lot, or at least Maharaji has, their "minds" just can't see it, that's all. It's the perfect catch-22. You are not allowed to judge whether you have accomplished anything, because judging is itself the problem. So, I don't think they see any inconsistency, at least if they are using their "heart" as a means of looking at it. So they aren't looking because they think they have found God. The fact that Rawat does Lilas and claims he isn't God (although I'm not so sure he's done that, really), or claims it for external consumption, does not seem to mitigate those beliefs much.
|
|
|
|
The following is quoted from http://www.apassion4jazz.net/etymology.htmlWARNING - explicit and graphic use of language may offend.
(Maiden uncles be warned!) Etymology of Jazz JAS, JASS, JAZ, JASCZ or just plain JAZZ
"If the truth was really known about the origins of Jazz,
it would certainly never be mentioned in polite society." The expression arose sometime during the later nineteenth century in the better brothels of New Orleans, which provided music and dancing as well as sex. The original Jazz band, according to Herbert Asbury's The Latin Quarter (1938), was the 'Spasm Band' made up of seven boys, aged twelve to fifteen, who first appeared in New Orleans about 1895. They advertised themselves as the "Razzy Dazzy Spasm Band." In c.1900 (see Jazz Timeline) another band adopted the same billing for an appearance at the Haymarket dance hall, it is said the 'Spasms' loaded their pockets with rocks and dropped by to protest the infringement. This prompted the owner of the hall to repaint his advertising placards to read: "Razzy Dazzy Jazzy Band!" If the memories of Asbury's sources were correct (he talked to two surviving members of the 'Spasms') this represents the word's earliest-known appearance in print. 'Jazz' is not a bad word now, but almost certainly is of extremely low origin, referring to copulation before it was applied to music, dancing, and nonsense (i.e., all that Jazz). The vulgar word was in general currency in dance halls thirty years or more ago" (Clay Smith, Etude 9/24). "According to Raven I. McDavid Sr. of Greenville, S.C., the 1919 announcement of the first 'Jazz band' to play in Columbia, where he was then serving in the state legislature, inspired feelings of terror among the local Baptists such as what might have been aroused by a personal appearance of Yahweh. Until that time 'Jazz' had never been heard in the Palmetto States except as a verb meaning to copulate" (H. L. Mencken, The American Language Raven I. McDavid Jr. 1963). "She never stepped out of line once in all the years we been teamed up. I can't sell her on jazzing the chump now" (William Lindsay Gresham, Nightmare Alley 1946). 'Jazz' probably comes from a Creole or perhaps African word, but exact connections have not been proven. The presumed sexual origin is quite in accord with the development of many other related words, most notably: 'boogie-woogie' was used in the nineteenth century by blacks in the American South to refer to secondary syphilis. 'gig' the musician's engagement, probably derives immediately from the 'gig' that is a dance or party, but 'gig' and 'gigi' (or 'giggy') also are old slang terms for the vulva; the first has been dated to the seventeenth century. 'jelly roll' is black slang from the nineteenth century for the vulva, with various related meanings, i.e. sexual intercourse, a loving woman, a man obsessed with finding same. "What you want?" she asked softly. "Jelly roll?'" (Thomas Wolfe, Look Homeward Angel 1929). The term probably derives from 'jelly' meaning semen: "Give her cold jelly to take up her belly, And once a day swinge her again" (John Fletcher, The Begger's Bush 1622). Related expressions include 'jelly bag,' referring both to the scrotum and the female genitals; 'jerk [one's] jelly,' to masturbate; and 'jelly,' a good-looking woman. 'Jelly roll' appears in many blues songs, such as "I Ain't Gonna Give Nobody None o' My Jelly Roll," "Nobody in Town Can Bake a Jelly Roll Like Mine," and "Jelly Roll Blues," the last by Ferdinand Joseph La Menthe "Jelly Roll" Morton (1885-1941). 'juke' The modern 'jukebox' was preceded by 'juke house' which was a brothel to Southern blacks; the basic term coming from a Gullah word meaning disorderly or wicked. 'swing' The now archaic 'swinge' was used for many years as a synonym for copulation ('swive' according to the OED's discreet definition). Note the quote from 1622 in 'jelly roll' above. Or as John Dryden put it: "And that baggage, Beatrix, how I would swinge her if I could" (Enemy's Love 1668). The oldest meaning of both 'swinge' and 'swing' deal with beating, striking and whipping (i.e., the swing of a weapon predates the back and forth swaying of a swing or the rhythmic swing of music). For reasons that are not hard to guess, the conjunction of violent and sexual senses within the same word is very common. In a more modern sense, Swing has been used describing 'wife-swapping' and related activities involving one or more partners of either sex. It has been so used from about 1964 or earlier, depending on the interpretation one gives to Frank Sinatra's 1956 record album Songs for Swinging Lovers. Endquote.
Never mind "That's Entertainment" - that's education!
Modified by cq at Thu, Jan 26, 2006, 15:25:07
|
|
|
