|
|
|
"The Lord is on the planet, he is in a human body, and he is about to usher in the greatest change in the history of human civilization."
I can't remember all his musings but they run the gamut of insane ramblings about the Comet Kohoutek, to Divine Light Mission is being led by the Lord, to (my personal favorite) "Wait until they find out who Bhole Ji is!"
Related link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00001OX01/102-3286966-4391308?v=glance
Modified by Steve at Fri, Feb 03, 2006, 17:08:36
|
|
|
|
Here is Bhole Ji! Before the Holy Family break-up he was promoted as "The Divine Incarnation of Music." Shri Hans had four sons. Bal Bhagwan Ji was the oldest, Bhole Ji was the second oldest, Raji Ji was the third, and Maharaji was the fourth and youngest. Bal Bhagwan Ji, Bhole Ji, and Raji Ji were supposed to be Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva - although I can't remember who was which. Prem Pal, however, was Krishna the Lord of all. Jeez, what a bunch of suckers we were.
Related link: http://ex-premie.org/papers/divinel.htm#sant
Modified by Steve at Fri, Feb 03, 2006, 22:17:30
|
|
|
|
Crap! How did I miss this guy? Good lord, what is it? It looks like an escapee from a third-rate Vegas act. But, it's his lardship's brother, right. Wow. Does the whole family go in for the trick-or-treat look? Or just these two? If I'd been around back then, I'd have bought up the sequin/gold lame market. Good god! My eyes hurt.
|
|
|
|
Modified by Nigel at Sat, Feb 04, 2006, 17:44:13
|
|
|
|
When a devotee makes the outrageous statement that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe, it's cause enough for a chuckle. But it also happens to be true. Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of the Universe and anyone can find out who sincerely wants to know. Get out of that Elan Vital. And for your information I (and many others) spent many years of our lives believing Maharaji when he told us he was 'Greater than God'. How can you deny your own past? Our past? We were all once devotees of 'The Lord'. Some of us have too much integrity to reinvent the past. And do you remember when Maharaji told that story about the non-practicing-premie... he/she died and was bound for hell - then Maharaji showed up in a limo, said 'hop in' and drove him/her to heaven. Well - that just doesn't apply any more, does it, seeing as how Maharaji ain't 'God'?
Modified by Moley at Fri, Feb 03, 2006, 17:32:28
|
|
|
|
Just wait until you will understand who Bhole Ji is .
|
|
|
|
Come on, Rennie. Tell the truth now! Why did you leave the monastic lifestyle / "shelter" offered by your Guru Maharaji, leave the ashram we lived in together and left your devotion of him in the gutter? Prior to your exiting, you were involved and influential in Divine Light Mission, alright, and you were a spokesman for the Guru to the press. Please, don't be gutless now.
Modified by OTS at Fri, Feb 03, 2006, 22:19:18
|
|
|
|
Rennie,
if you do not discuss how you felt about Rawat in the past, and why; and how you feel about *now* and, why, you will be a laughing stock.
That's just the way things will pan out. All your political contributions will be submerged by the aghast reaction of progressive people everywhere when they discover your revisionism and denial of history. Grassroots people power threatens to bury you for hypocrisy via the new media of the internet and online encyclopedias. It would be a bitter irony to contemplate. Courage, man! You've had plenty in the past. Don't let it fail you now!
Anyway, it's your choice. I hope you choose well,
Jonti
--never a premie
Modified by jonti at Sat, Feb 04, 2006, 02:44:45
|
|
|
|
Hi Jonti, It's a funny old, tortuous route that can lead someone from being a left-leaning political activist to 'venture capitalist' in a mere two decades, stopping-off en route to dally at the LOTU's feet, whilst pronouncing aloud your allegiances and convictions at each stage. Is it just me, or does it say something about the innate amorality of Maharajism that I can't imagine anyone progressing through Rennie's sequence of life choices in reverse order?
|
|
|
|
Good point, Nigel. I was just discussing with Karen below, about how Rawat is now going back to his 70s rationale, that his "Knowledge" brings peace to the individual, and that's where peace for the whole world begins. This is the basic bullshit I fell for in the 70s. Little did I know what a crock that was, although eventually I figured it out. First, premies are not peaceful people, and as we have seen, if you criticize their cult they can be downright vicious, as is Elan Vital, the official organization of the cult, in the way they personally attack critics. They do not demonstrate peaceful people. Also, just look at Rawat and how he conducts his life. Obscene materialism, total disdain/indifference for the environment at least if it causes him the least bit of inconvenience, and he never encourages his followers to get involved in any civic or social endeavors. Can anybody think of a premie who is/was actively involved in the peace movement, or nuclear disarmament, or any kind of environmental or civil rights movement while they were following Rawat? I can't think of even one. The whole "peace begins with the person" bullshit from Rawat is just that. As he used to say, the proof is in the results, and they just aren't there.
|
|
|
|
I agree - and I was just in the middle of replying to your post higher up when I spotted this - and it's related... so I'll reply up there, shortly. I also complete agree with your comments on IQ testing and the so-called measurement of intelligence. I've been trying to shut my eyes and button my lip on this subject, as it's one of my 'get very cross indeed' areas of psychology - and I'm not sure my blood pressure can cope if one more person mentions the f**king Bell Curve, or race, gender and heritability of IQ... It's complete non-scientific bollocks (And I know this area really well - I'm just not sure I have the willpower to write the 5000 words I'd like to...)
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 16:06:11
|
|
|
|
Excellent letter John. It really is a test of character how the former X rated or prominent premies handle these questions. Susan
|
|
|
|
I know very little about Rennie Davis, but I guess since he has left the cult, he finds some of his past rather embarrassing. Lots of us do.
Having accepted we made a mistake, I don't see why any of us are obliged to parade the fact at any and every opportunity. It seems to me to be that a valid response is just to sweep it under the carpet and get on with other things. I did that for years.
If people feel differently, maybe we could cash in - we could make some bright yellow armbands with the words "I was stupid enough to believe in the Lord Of the Unverse". And we could sell bells for people to ring as they walk up the high street, to help announce our past mental contamination.
|
|
|
|
(Pardon my extreme example but )do you think that the Israelis should not have brought Eichmann to trial?
Modified by Jethro at Sat, Feb 04, 2006, 04:06:30
|
|
|
|
I guess it is a question of degree. For the most part, a belief in Maharaji resulted in obsessive introspection, the abandonment of some relationships and careers. We never tried rounding up the Hare Krishna folk and marching them to gas chambers.
Modified by 13 at Sat, Feb 04, 2006, 04:15:30
|
|
|
|
If Tom Cruise or John Travolta were to leave Scientology I think the right thing for them to do would be to use that fame to educate people about cults and apologize for the role they played in suckering people into the cult. I am not saying that Rennie was not a victim of it all just like any of us. But he was in a unique position of being the poster boy for the cult for quite a few years. He could still do a lot of people a lot of good if he could just post his "journey" and what he thinks now and answer questions. The same issues came up when Michael Dettmers was deciding whether to talk publicly about his experiences. Though I think it may be wrong to berate these people for not talking I think it is perfectly fine to explain to them the enormous power they have to help others. I think the non disclosure clauses came after Rennie's time but who knows he could have signed one afterward for a settlement of some sort. The enormity of what happens when a person like Bob Mishler, Michael Dettmers or Michael Donner comes forward cannot be underestimated in its value to premies or ex's or even families. The validation these people can give and the explanations for things we never understood is very very significant. I don't know what Rennie Davis might have to say but I suspect it would be helpful to many people. When a person has that much power to help people remaining silent because its embarrassing is less than admirable.
|
|
|
|
Not sure I find the Eichman comparison accurate - Goebals perhaps - or Leni Riefenstall would be better. The point about Davis is that he promoted Rawat - as Susan points out - using his fame. In fact his was a very profound endorsement for the generation of peaceniks and activists who came to form Rawat's core support. At the very least Davis is in the position of some celebrity who has endorsed a product that he him self has found to be inadequate. If it turned out to be not good enough for him he has an obligation to explain why his endorsement was misplaced. The proposition that - all premies are/were equal is wrong - there are clearly some who exercised more influence than others, some who had more control than others, some who still today form the back bone of the cult, while many others are peripheral. We may all have made the same mistake - but some people have caused greater harm pursuing that mistake than others. Those who caused the greatest harm deserve to be identified. Nik
|
|
|
|
"We never tried rounding up the Hare Krishna folk and marching them to gas chambers" Yes my example was OTT. What I really feel about this is best expressed by Nik when he says (below) "The point about Davis is that he promoted Rawat - as Susan points out - using his fame. In fact his was a very profound endorsement for the generation of peaceniks and activists who came to form Rawat's core support. At the very least Davis is in the position of some celebrity who has endorsed a product that he him self has found to be inadequate. If it turned out to be not good enough for him he has an obligation to explain why his endorsement was misplaced."
|
|
|
|
Every day on TV celebrities endorse everything from baked beans to car insurance. They never show up later saying, well, actually, it was never that good. I think it is naive to expect more from anyone just because they are famous.
I too promoted Rawat, and several people signed up because of my endorsement. I don't feel any obligation to get in touch with them and apologise. Do you think I should? I don't!
|
|
|
|
"I too promoted Rawat, and several people signed up because of my endorsement. I don't feel any obligation to get in touch with them and apologise. Do you think I should?" Yes I do. All the people I did get to sign up (ie the ones that I personally know) who haven't left Rawat don't speak to me now as they consider me an apostate, but they do know where I stand and why I shifted. Had I been one of those whose fame had been used to promote Rawat, I hope I would have gone public. I lost my job in education because I dared speak of what I considered corrupt in the very structure I was part of. It was not a pleasant thing to do, just as leaving premiedom wasn't pleasant or easy. However, I am now able to live with myself. Jethro I
|
|
|
|
I am perfectly happy to explain my position to anyone who is interested, but I don't think I should meddle in their lives any more than I already have. First I tell them he's the Lord of the Universe, then I am supposed to go and tell them he's not. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if I just learned to keep my trap shut?
Anyway, I think all the people I intoduced have drifted away themselves. I don't think any are still paying to go to programs abroad. Each of them have quite different attitudes towards the whole thing now. I think most have little respect left for Mr Rawat - the poetry, the videos and the playboy lifestyle have demolished that. Some have stopped meditating, others still feel like it is something valuable. I will give an opinion if anyone asks, but no-one has, for years!
Phoning people up and apologising sounds a bit like trying to right wrongs from my distant childhood.
|
|
|
|
..as long as you've got your health .... ...... :>
|
|
|
|
Rennie Davis was what we used to call in one of my old humanities courses an "opinion leader". He had a special, vaulted position in the youth community and then in our premie world particularly. He made very strong, daring public pronouncements vouching for Rawat and was instrumental in "helping" many, many people entrench themselves in the cult. On that score alone, he most definitely has a public duty to square the circle and renounce those claims. Just like a one-time famous segregationist would have a duty to publically renounce his prior racist views. If there was a chance at all that his opinion might have any sort of compensatory effect, he is morally obliged to at least try. But people like Rennie, or Charles Cameron, have an even greater duty because they are still thrusting themselves into the public spotlight as much as it will have them. Worse, they're doing it in and around the same general themes they once used to help recruit for and sustain this cult with. Their obligation here couldn't be clearer.
|
|
|
|
Wrong? Again??
I made strong, daring public pronouncements vouching for Rawat too. I didn't have such a big audience. What does that matter?
And the fact that they are still seeking publicity is no news. That's what celebrities do. It is just people in thrall to such 'celebrities' that puffs up their status in the first place. Stop puffing!
I could be wrong too though. I'm getting used to that.
|
|
|
|
13, I'm not "puffing" whatever that means. I'm just right, that's all.  Calling these guys "celebrities" isn't helpful but merely obscures the issue which is a very simple ethical one. If you choose to lead people down a path you later learn is wrong and there's any chance people are still walking that path because of anything you said, you have a moral obligation to let them know you were wrong. Especially, if you keep talking about "paths" and such as if you have a voice that matters.
|
|
|
|
'... the issue which is a very simple ethical one.' Really! Black and white eh?
If someone is walking down a path because I gave them some advice, and then I find my advice is wrong, am I qualified to give them my advice again? What if it now seems to me that this isn't so much the wrong path, as that there are no paths at all. What if my original advice was just a stepping stone, and they have moved on a long way down that path, apparently quite happily. Is their predicament my responsibility?
I don't shy away from stating my position in all this. But I don't give my opinion unless it is asked for ( which it has been just once in the last 5 years or so ).
|
|
|
|
You're starting to say strange things, 13. Like that you need to be "qualified" to express your opinion that Rawat's a fraud. Or that following him might not be following a path at all. As for not giving your opinion unless asked, well, first, that's not what you've done here, is it? Besides, what's so great about keeping your opinions to yourself, especially when it's about someone being defrauded? Or perhaps you don't think Rawat does that to people ...
|
|
|
|
If you think about it...Rennie Davis is in a slightly different position to someone like you or me propagating in a small circle of family, friends and acquaintancies, to say the least.We deal with our past in the cult as honestly as we can, don't we? It's no big deal to ask him to clarify his position, especially when he makes public capital out of his past and then his personal evolution but glaringly ( to us) air brushes a big aspect of that public life out of his history. I don't think anyone's calling for him to be lynched or anything but I know what I'd feel bound to do if I had a public persona similar to his.I'd say the " Lord" I praised and proclaimed is just a leader of a personality cult and I now regret my involvement and all my past endorsements. It's no big deal.
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Feb 04, 2006, 14:52:09
|
|
|
|
Word,
anyway he could use it as an example of youthful learning, good pr I would have thought, unless of course it's all front he's selling now, in which case big problemo.
|
|
|
|
I too promoted Rawat, and several people signed up because of my endorsement. I don't feel any obligation to get in touch with them and apologise. Do you think I should? I don't!
I understand that it's rather unpracticial to think of tracking down all the people you brought to Rawat and saying you no longer follow him and why. But what if you ran into one on the street? Say it was someone you specifically recall giving lots of satsang and pro-cult encouragement to. Say you didn't know if they still believed in Rawat. Don't you think you'd have an obligation to tell them where you stand on the off chance that they haven't exitted yet? On the off chance that they might recall how instrumental you were in getting them in in the first place and thus might really be affected by your new opinion?
|
|
|
|
Hmmm - I did run into such a person just last week. He's terminally ill. He said he'd had quite enough of Rawat, after a particularly nauseating program in Nottingham a few years back. (That program turned quite a few people off I hear.) He didn't regret having been in the cult though, since it led to many other things. He still meditated a bit, and valued that. I don't think he's really thought through the logic of his position, but I didn't want to challenge him on that. He's got enough to deal with already. He knows I haven't been to an event for a while, and he didn't ask what my opinion was these days. He wasn't interested I guess. We had more important things to discuss. Death is good for throwing things into perspective.
No, I don't think I have an obligation to express my views. I was evangelical once. I thought I knew the truth then. I believe I know better now, but I don't think it is so important.
|
|
|
|
Your example is of a guy who's already told you he no longer follows Rawat. I was asking someone who might, for all you know, still believe in him. Perhaps you'd feel it's fine to just leave them be, I wouldn't. Like I said, I don't think that's ethical, not if you were involved in influencing them in and might possibly have some futher influence over them again.
|
|
|
|
He still believes in 'Knowledge' to some extent though. Do you think I should have tried to disabuse him of that illusion? The fellow is dying, and he chooses his priorities. If he gets some comfort from his belief in knowledge, I am not going to hit him with my superior truth. I don't think it is so important.
The only people I know who still believe M is the LOTU, don't want to discuss it with me. I may have been a factor in them getting involved, but it was a long time ago, and they have reached their own conclusions. Don't people have a right to be wrong?
Of course, if a premie came to me with his doubts, I would do my best to help them exit, but I am not going looking for that kind of business.
|
|
|
|
He still believes in 'Knowledge' to some extent though. Do you think I should have tried to disabuse him of that illusion? The fellow is dying, and he chooses his priorities. If he gets some comfort from his belief in knowledge, I am not going to hit him with my superior truth. I don't think it is so important. Funny, I just now came back from a funeral. Wife of a colleague and friend, she died at 60 from brain cancer. Lovely woman who took a lot of comfort in her faith, no more so than in the end. Would I have disabused her of her faith if I ever could? No, probably not. And I'd feel the same way with a premie in his or her last days. So where does one draw the line? I think that it comes down to whether or not the person has enough time and energy left in life to 1) adjust to the sobering reality that there is no Santa Claus (Guru Maharaji, Jesus, what have you), and that can take some real time; and 2) enjoy some benefit of the freedom to finally think on their own without the burden of faith. But I don't know. It's a tricky question that's come up from time to time here. But your comment about your "superior knowledge" surprises me. Are you that much a relativist that you don't think you have superior knowledge about Rawat than his ongoing cult members, who live a classic life of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil? Come on, you can't be that cynical, can you?
The only people I know who still believe M is the LOTU, don't want to discuss it with me. I may have been a factor in them getting involved, but it was a long time ago, and they have reached their own conclusions. Don't people have a right to be wrong? With all due respect, 13, you're really mixing things up. This started as a discussion about whether Rennie Davis is morally obliged to take a stand, tell what he knows and thus, presumably, help debunk Rawat. It's not about brow-beating anyone into agreeing with anything although you seem to be shifting the discussion in that direction.
Of course, if a premie came to me with his doubts, I would do my best to help them exit, but I am not going looking for that kind of business. Let me ask you this. Say, for argument's sake, that Charanand (or Mahatma Guru Charanand as I ever knew him) suddenly realized, if he hasn't already, that it's all bullshit and Rawat's a fraud. Do you think he'd have any moral obligation to speak out publically, at least once, so there'd be a public record of his views?
|
|
|
|
'But your comment about your "superior knowledge" surprises me. Are you
that much a relativist that you don't think you have superior knowledge
about Rawat than his ongoing cult members, who live a classic life of
see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil? Come on, you can't be that
cynical, can you?'
I do think I have superior knowledge about Rawat than the cult members. The question is, what do I do about it? I don't believe in a god either. I don't believe in any of the prophets. I'm not keen on nationalism, competitive sports, insurance, royalty - I could go on. But most of the time, I think it is better not to.
'This started as a discussion about whether Rennie Davis is morally
obliged to take a stand, tell what he knows and thus, presumably, help
debunk Rawat. It's not about brow-beating anyone into agreeing with
anything'
All I was suggesting is that I don't see why he has any greater obligation to come out and debunk Rawat than anyone else. Same goes for Charanand. It would be nice if he would speak publicly against Rawat, but I could understand that after realising his mistake, he might think it more appropriate to shut up instead, and keep his opinions to himself.
I don't think Rawat is any less fraudulent than I think you believe. But I've had it with shouting from the rooftops. You go ahead. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
13, Your posts in this thread are laced with incendiary, provocative comments. No one's talking about "shouting from the rooftops" although you seem to favour that kind of exaggeration for some reason. Anyway, if you actually don't think Charanand would have an obligation to speak out, yes, we most definitely have a different view of the ethics involved. Maybe, as you say, it's because of your metaphysical bent. If so, that just makes me feel yet another reason to glad to be rid of that kind of thinking.
|
|
|
|
I am only to exaggerating to try illustrate my point. But it doesn't seem to be getting through anyway.
You are glad to be rid of what you see as apparently useless metaphysical thinking. Well, I am glad to be no longer so certain of my righteousness. Again, it would be nice if Charanand spoke out if he exed, but I wouldn't demand it. I'd ask, that's all.
This thread has gone on longer than I expected it would. You seem keen for the last word - go for it!
|
|
|
|
What's with the evangelic stuff? It's nothing to do with that.It's just about clearly stating where you stand on something now AFTER being so evangelical about it in the past !
|
|
|
|
I'll state it as clearly as I can, if I am asked. And I won't let anyone think I am still a devotee, and I will make it clear that it is up for discussion, but really, no-one asks. There are still devotees in my family, but they don't want to argue through this stuff, and even though I think they are wasting their time and money, well, I think lots of people waste time and money in lots of ways. I don't have to go around telling them all that this that and the other is wrong.
If they want my opinion, they just have to ask.
|
|
|
|
Well that's all well and good. Whatever floats your boat. No one is forcing you to " evangelise" your ex status even though you seemed to imply earlier that that is what others are doing.Back to the main issue, though. Rennie davis used his public image to endorse Prem Rawat. Now he airbrushes that away ( so it reasonably appears) but is still out there in the public arena feeding off his original image as a political activist and now whatever it is he is, hahaha. You seem to be saying it's unreasonable of us to discuss it and to contact him re his airbrushing of his Rawat past and also seem to be saying that your approach is better and wiser. I'm saying there is a clear principle here of public accountability. You're saying there isn't. I think you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
I usually avoid what politicians call ‘shroud waving’, ie, referring to the dead or dying in order to make a point, where people are reluctant to argue back without appearing insensitive or heartless. But now that we’re on the subject… I still haven’t forgiven myself for giving my late brother satsang in a hospital ward in 1978, a week or two before he died. It wasn’t ‘real’ satsang, as I was only an aspirant, but I doubt it was any less poisonous without the kiss of the Master’s authority. If I could rewind time and go back and tell Peter it was a pile of bullshit, I’d do it right now. (If only to convince him his big brother might not be complete twat, after all.) I agree that ‘death is good for throwing things into perspective’. But, for me, it was a good time after the event that a more useful perspective became clear... Your friend might even be relieved a little if you could reinforce the doubts he's obviously already holding (as in, the wholly irrelevant M being one less thing to worry about). Not an easy business, but I think it's important to say what you believe, and put right any damage done by what you've encouraged others to believe, while you've got the chance. Nige
Modified by Nigel at Sat, Feb 04, 2006, 17:12:20
|
|
|
|
13,
I have no doubt that Rennie Davis has a moral responsibility to speak out about his time in the cult, for the reasons that others in this thread have so eloquently stated. Of course, this is based on my own personal understanding of moral responsibility, which I accept has changed over the years. It may change again in the future, but knowing this does not mean I should not live according to my ethical standards now. You have a different view on Rennie Davis's responsibilities, and that's fine. I suspect from my email exchange with Rennie Davis that he also does not feel such a responsibility, but I have a small hope that I am wrong.
John.
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to agree with opposing views? Yes, it is! All the way through this discussion I found myself agreeing with everyone - 13 and Jim and Jethro and Dermot. Everyone is right! ? Or.... everyone is wrong!!??It reminded me of Shakespeare's words: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
-- William Shakespeare (Hamlet) And John I think you've captured that in your post when you said:
Of course, this is based on my own personal understanding of moral responsibility, which I accept has changed over the years. It may change again in the future, but knowing this does not mean I should not live according to my ethical standards now. And that's all any of us can ever do: live according to our ethical standards now. Whatever is 'right' for us at any given time.
|
|
|
|
Hi Anna,
Your post comes as a relief to me! I too agree on both sides. I was playing devil's advocate...
Someone is shouting from the rooftops "The Lord is here". He then finds out that it it's the fraud, not the lord. He can start shouting "No he isn't, it is just a fraud", or he can stop shouting. I tend to favour the latter. Of course I am happy to get the chance to denounce the fellow, but I won't push my views on anyone as I used to.
I can't see that any of the emporers are fully clothed, but I don't feel a huge responsibility to go about trying to disillusion everyone. One hangover I have from the old days is a healthy respect for what we called 'maya', the illusion we live in. I can see right through Mr Rawat's game, but the closer I look at anything else, the less solid it becomes. Sorry to get all metaphysical, but I think this is what is at the root of my reluctance to try to get all strident about it.
|
|
|
|
Hi 13,Did you shout 'The Lord is here' from the rooftops or were you just convincing in your sincerity? I think there is a kind of 'effect' going on here - dependent on how much a person proclaimed their faith in Rawat is how much that person will want to proclaim their lack of faith. Or put another way, however much you have contributed to the emperor's clothing is how much you will want to remove from him. For me it was relatively easy. Posting my journey on EPO has been good. It's like posting a note on the door as you leave because it is there for premies to read. Even if you didn't talk a single person into checking out Rawat, even if your smiling face doesn't appear on one video, just your involvement, your appearance at an event is lending credibility to the belief in Rawat in the eyes of those who notice you there. Once my friends understood that I wasn't having a 'crisis of faith' and would not want to attend an event again they kept away. No, it's my Scottish Aunt who bugs me more, she's very disturbed at my lack of reverence for the baby Jesus. She's very fond of me and will I guess insist on viewing me as having a 'crisis of faith' in our loving Lord God for the rest of her days.
|
|
|
|
...to the two people I had been trying to recruit in my end-days of being a premie. They were both into other things anyway, so it was no big deal and we are still friends. I also wrote a letter to premies in my community for whom I still had some respect and told them I was leaving. I also said that as long as they respected my right to leave, I would respect their right to remain premies. So far (I've been out for 4 years now) I haven't been subjected to any weird behaviour except for one friend I thought was a close friend who is just "too busy" to call, write or see me anymore. I feel sad about that--but these moves show you who your real friends are, don't they? People I recruited a long time ago? I havent seen them in years and don't know if they remained a part of it. They struck me as somewhat "fringe" anyway. If the chance ever presented itself to talk with them about it all, I might--but it doesn't seem likely. ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
and isn't looking back. Yes, I enjoyed seeing all those quotes he made in Lord of the Universe, and remember a lot of them from having actually been there at Houston. He was coming out with stuff like Maharaji's bathroom had faucets in the shape of swans (divine coincidence) and lots of similar type stuff which might seem bongo now but fitted with the general inspiring disruption of the times. I mean - wasn't it delightfully lila-full that the Lord has swan faucets - just another little way he tweaked the universe for our delectation. Rennie wasn't the only one coming out with rococo stuff. I fully remember standing face to face on a swaying bus en route to the Astrodome with an occasional poster here - a guy for whom I have much admiration as a stable and sound character - telling me how Maharaji had just said that if Jesus were around then he would be doing pranam to M. It turned out later that M had said something like if J were about then he M would have respected him. Was it Rennie who predicted the Astrodome would take off? In any case, it doesn't totally surprise me that Rennie himself took off from the premie scene, not extraterrestrially but to some other blissful type scene (one imagines him always with that radiant irrepressible smile, those dreamy twinkling eyes, the preppy type glasses).
He seems the eternal front man and apostle for beauteous world-reforming movements. In fact, now I remember, I never really liked him much anyway. I mean, he was just too neat to be a convincing Chicago defendant. I don't think many UK people would have even known he existed before DLM. I don't suppose he's looked back since about 1975. Not like Michael Dettmers, who stood up on-line, said his piece honourably then went on to other matters. The interesting thing about Rennie is that he seems to be a natural survivor, through his temperament, unlike poor Abbie and others. I suppose we all know people much further down the pecking order who exist in their similar little bubble worlds, and don't do much damage to others, as others don't give them much credence. I don't really see the point of confronting such people, as they sometimes don't have anything else in life. In Rennie's case, I think it is valid to ask him to comment on his role back then, as he was very influential. I guess his response if confronted would be to smile with his twinkly eyes and say how he was young and impressionable as we all were at the time. And that he was continuing at a more discrete level his vocation of commitment to humane philanthropic causes. He would probably be being sincere, too. Although, I think he is a natural survivor too, and prefers not to trumpet some of his past around.
|
|
|
|
Everyday, It's a getting closer
Going faster than a roller coaster
Love like Yours will surely come my way,
A ha..y, a hayhay..
Modified by Anthony at Sun, Feb 05, 2006, 08:32:30
|
|
|
|
Prem has to be Chubby Checker, no? Let's twist again Like we did last summer Let's twist again Twisting time is here.. We go round and round and up and down we go-o-o-o-o Darling don't you know I love you so-o-o-o-o... Let's twist again like we did last summer Let's twist again twisting time is here. -doing the Mala dance...oi!
|
|
|
|
I don't think anyone here is holding their breath on this. It's not like we're all so naive that we, too, don't have a sense of where Rennie's coming from and the many ways he likely has and probably would rationalize saying nothing. John's the one who started this. I don't get the sense that he's staying up all day and night checking his inbox for Rennie's response or that he necessarily expects that response, if he ever gets it, to be meaningful. But I'm surprised that you can compare Rennie so easily with the rest of us who were fully caught up in the bullshit. Speaking as one rank and file premie from then who fits the bill, I'm not saying that I might not have been more influential in helping Rawat trap and mislead people. I would have leapt at the opportunity. Point is, it didn't present itself and the harm and mischief I caused was limited. Rennie had a bigger impact and, as he must know, his word means nothing if he can't address the time it was oh so wrong. But then that's the world, isn't it? Everyone's full of shit, right? We're all just bullshitting each other and nothing really means anything, right?
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure this made clear my take on Rennie (may be wrong).
I'm also sure I said that he is fair game to request his personal response concerning Maharaji.
What do you want?If you talk sensibly about witnesses to the Event, then Mishler, Dettmers and Donner are, it seems to me, in a different class from Rennie (and have testified). Rennie was a butterfly who seemingly flits from one scene to another.
I honestly think he hasn't given Maharaji another thought since ca. 1975. What do I think about him - zilch. Follow your own impressions. 'But then that's the world, isn't it? Everyone's full of shit, right? We're all just bullshitting each other and nothing really means anything, right?' I've asked you not to give me satsang.
Personally, I think you're talking bollocks here, and it's probably meant ironically. This and my previous post contains everything I wish to say about Rennie. I hope you're well.
|
|
|
|
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
-Dante
|
|
|
