|
|
|
Thanks for your post. Could you fill us in about why you have decided not to attend the event, and what it was that made you decide you are an ex-premie? Marianne
|
|
|
|
Good luck to you. I always share with people when I get a chance that right after you leave is a pretty intense time. I hope that you might be able to do some research into finding a therapist with some expertise in leaving a cult. I also have said before to people to try to stay as grounded as you can in the rest of your life right now. All these years later I still remember how scary and liberating and plain intense getting out was.
|
|
|
|
Hi Kabir, Good luck with your Rawat free life ! If you'd care to, could you speculate on the peculiar nature of announcing an event just a week in advance, with no publicity ? From the outside Rawat world looks weirder and weirder, what's your take on what is going on. Nik
|
|
|
|
If there is a logical reason for a one week notice for an event one can speculate that perhaps the the size of the hall is small so a smaller crowd can be accomodated. But I doubt this is the reason. There probably isn't any logic here and those who really want to come to hear M speak for an hour would likely be willing to spend up to $600 to $700 total for this opportunity. The issue of money was a catalyst in helping me to leave. During the last year (2005) I spent a personal record on programs. This made me think in terms of cost/benefits. What did I gain from this expenditure of money and time? About two weeks of bliss. Was it worth it? In the past I would say "yes" because I believed that somehow I was making progress toward the goal of enlightenment. After returning from Amaroo last September I felt the experience diminish rapidly followed by several months when I felt unusally angry for no apparent reason. So in early December 2005 I actively started to disengage from K and M. One of the catalysts here was seeing a video from the Miami 2005 program. At one point Rawat said in what I thought was a petulant manner something to the effect that he is a master and we should just grow up and accept that. I stopped practicing K regularly at this time although three times during December and once in January I waited until I thought I felt thirsty and then practiced. The results were disappointing. Each time I felt a certain calmness but not much more. Come to think of it during most of the 31 years of practicing K I usually didn't experience much more than that except after programs when there was still a residual experience which eventually wore off. Also my belief and expectations contributed to my experience of K. This is why, I suppose, there are always knowledge reviews. Does M think we are so dumb that we forget the techniques after decades of practice? I don't think so. Two of the three programs that I went to in 2005 included knowledge reviews and the other one had a practice session without a review. Somehow the experience of K always needs reinforcement. I no longer practice and I'm enjoying the extra time I have as well as the opportunity to save money by not going to programs starting with the one next week.
|
|
|
|
"Two of the three programs that I went to in 2005 included knowledge reviews and the other one had a practice session without a review. Somehow the experience of K always needs reinforcement." Hi again Kabir, One of the reasons for all these mass knowledge reviews IMO is that Rawat gets paid for doing nothing ( or virtually nothing) for an hour and we pay to sit and do nothing for an hour. LOL. I got out 18 months ago ( received "knowledge" 1973) .What a relief.
|
|
|
|
Very interesting comments, Kabir, this post and the one about intelligence a bit further down. You're oh so right about that pathetic "review" thing. It's rather humiliating being part of this cult as I'm sure it is being part of any cult. When you don't get something, you can't really talk about it and when you do get something -- like those stupid techniques for instance -- you have to pretend that you don't just to get along.
|
|
|
|
Hi Kabir! Yes, that's what happened to me--I suddenly realised that I just can't do this anymore! It sounds like that's what happened to you? Well before I made my exit, I was often upset with how little notice we got for upcoming events! Fine for folks with lots of money and don't have to work and who have put their family, if they have one, on the back burner. No other responsibilities apparently. Yet I have since realised that a full and satisfying life absolutely does encompass having normal human responsibilities! THis doen't preclude having fun at times as well! But the "Knowledge" thing seemed to make me feel bad, or "in my mind" if I considered others as well as myself. Tempting because there are times when you WANT to forget your family and go and play! But running away never solved anything. "Wherever you go, there you are!" Good luck with this new phase--as others have said, it can be very intense and disorienting for a while, but you get your full life back, and that to me is worth everything! ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
for a couple of years the other night.
As she said, lovely guy, very sweet, but he just couldn't deal with problems, and would always go off and meditate, and voila the problems were gone in his eyes, if nobody elses 
|
|
|
|
Very sweet, lots of fun--but BPD, according to a fairly reliable therapist! I still fell for the trip...so no judgement here--just reflection. ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
I don't meditate anymore. Its a modus operandi with a long history I believe, and not just a premie life-technique. love Bryn
|
|
|
|
Surely that is one of the main points abouyt us in the scam, of course we were aiders and abetters in the illusion, I'm sure all from our own weaknesses to start with, but I'd also lay bets that you picked up a superiority and smugness trait while you were a premie that was encouraged by the culture, nay straight from the top. At the same time as he was ripping us apart because we were so useless, he was praising us unlike this crazy world because we actually recognized that the lord was here, or that the imparter and direct link to the most sacred channels of life could only be reached through his knowledge anedd by regularly seeing him to negate the worldly pollution of our souls.
In other words he seriously aided us, to whatever extent each of us absorbed the ego messages from his royal highness, the prince of peace.
You might be a first and prove the rule, but I doubt it.
So yeah I understand your need to seriously work on yourself, but that's also because his side of the equation cannot be addressed while there is no dialogue with him.
|
|
|
|
This spiritual superiority thing is enormous! I mean it is what will start world war three. I just spent the day among a spiritual culture and a bit of the weekend too doing some teaching and performing stuff..I really dont want to name names, but along with the sincere effort to do the decent thing in life, there is the most HORRENDOUS psychic posturing.God help you if you get in the way of any of the major players when they are on a roll; they'll close you down as soon as look at you.You'll find yourself snuffed out, all for the glorious moment for the speaker of feeling like they are in control and "KNOW". They'd kill their grannys rather than climb down. Holy shit! I think they are terrified of some ruthless god of their own invention and the ferocity of their own fantasy can only be avoided by offloading it on to the next man. God is a hot potato! I learned all that religion from his Holiness and it suited my immature nature perfectly to do so. Such a clever side step of his wot to suddenly up sticks and say it never was so."Just a simple life coach/investor Me and you premies all just citizens".And so Premies are left with their Lord of the Universe concept orbiting endlessly in their own private memories with no way out! Trapped.Perfect. Yes and no at the same time. Cunning. I am fascinated with it still, but its sooo wierd. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
and very recognizable.
I think we've all done some of that - it's very difficult not to in such a situation.
A combination of insecurity and much much ego.
I guess in every movement you get the great strident egos and the little humblebums, and of course, grasshopper we all contain both.
Never mind, we are all just situated somewhere on the endlessly unfolding Path where the goal recedes once more as soon as you approach it, ad infinitum, nitum, itum, tum, um??Once you give up the ego trip and realise you're just a pleb, life can be quite nice. Love is where it's at instead of trying to be all-knowing, which is a lesson it maybe takes all life to learn. In any case, I like your posts, bryn (boyo) Best wishes to everyone, Anthony
|
|
|
|
Bryn. Did you ever see the 'Guru Maharaj Ji Gita' which was a rip of of the B. Gita only the converastion was between M and Durga ji? In that conversation Rawat says that "Premies are celestial beings of the highest order".
Modified by Jethro at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 04:02:54
|
|
|
|
Hi Jethro ! That sounds an absolute scream. Was it a piss-take or for real? Written, on tape, video, or what? Any which way, it couldn't fail to be funny... Hope all is well with you these days. Nige
|
|
|
|
If he said it it must be true. Bryn
|
|
|
|
"This is an opportunity to save money and avoid the general hassle of traveling."
I remember "Opportunity" or rather "incredible opportunity" being favourite Rawat buzzwords ! 
|
|
|
|
HI Kabir, Good post below. Welcome back to your life. Can you tell us what it is like for the premies these days? I saw a couple of premies at a health food store about 2 months ago. They literally ran from me! Are all premies that scared? Can you also enter the debate about whether premies still believe in LOTU? If you are struggling with this phase of your life, please go easy on yourself, and please ask for help in your transition. Please don't hammer yourself for the wasted time, money, devotion, etc. You are not alone there. We were all duped. I look around and see people far more intelligent than I that were suckered in as well. We may never fully understand the "why" of being sucked into the cult. I left September 2003 and I am still processing through stuff from my cult years. I really look forward to your posts. Karen
|
|
|
|
Karen, Yes, a lot of intelligent people became premies including, I must say, myself. I had noticed that every member of our local team of which I was a part was very intelligent, many with advanced degrees, mostly in the sciences, the significance of which I'll explain below. Then I started reading the ex-premie sites and found Mike Finch's website. There were other highly intelligent people who had followed Rawat. I think it was John Macgregor who described on the EPO some premies he knew as having "astronomical IQ's". One explanation for the number of very intelligent and educated people becoming premies is that we could see through the contradictions and hypocrisies of conventional belief systems and thus were attracted to something that offered no beliefs, just an experience. This might explain why many intelligent people became premies but it doesn't explain how we had the experiences we did have in meditation and around Rawat. John Macgregor raised this question on the EPO and I'm going to take a shot at trying to answer it. Highly intelligent people are likely to use their minds more than average people. They're good at thinking and are rewarded for it first in school and then during their careers. They generally enjoy using their minds. Solving a difficult math problem elevates the mood of someone who enjoys and is good at math. Anyone who has mastered a scientific discipline where a lot of concentrated brain power is demanded enjoys this process. Their mood is elavated. There is probably just a small sliver of the population as a whole that gets off by using their brains in this manner. Perhaps the highly intelligent develop different brains biochemically and perhaps physiologically through the educational process than do average people. The point here is that cognitive processing creates elevated moods with these people. This might make them more vulnerable to having a belief system altering their consciousness than the average person especailly when the the belief itself is subtle enough to slip through the critical intelligence unnoticed. Accepting and maintaining a belief is totallly a cognitive process and the highly intelligent have brains that already create elevated moods from cognition. Add to this tendency to get high from thought the belief that Rawat is the living perfect master. The result is an experience which then reinforces the belief so that people like me get caught in a loop that lasts decades. Moods are mediated by brain chemistry. This involves endorphins and probably other chemical mediators. So following Rawat has been literally like a drug addiction except we got off on our own brain chemistry. I have felt this most notably after programs as my blissful mood gradually deteriorates to normal waking consciouness. Just like coming down from a drug high. The immortal bliss of heaven wouldn't be experienced this way. Immortality suggests a certain constancy, at least. Since leaving M and K I have realized that this constancy is there all the time, in my heart. It has no great highs nor lows but is the still quiet voice within. As far as your specific questions are concerned I haven't spoken to any premies since leaving, except one who is also in the process of leaving. At first I didn't know he was leaving and over dinner I told him of all my misgivings. He then told me of his. The old time premies I know most likely believe in LOTU although I wonder how they fit this belief into current propagation efforts. Kabir
|
|
|
|
Do we still have **BEST OF*** posts? This certainly fits in to that. Thanks Kabir. Did you believe in LOTU and when did you first doubt? Karen
|
|
|
|
Karen, Yes, I believed in LOTU almost from the beginning of my involvement. At my first program with M in '74 I likely still thought of him as a spiritual teacher, at least consciously. When I lined up for darshan at this program I believed that I was doing something for him by participating in a ritual of paying respects to the teacher. I wasn't expecting anything back and was pleasantly surprised to receive a blissful experience in return. For many years this formed the basis of my understanding that what I was experiencing was not the product of a belief system, or so I thought. But looking back over the time that I was an aspirant which lasted five months I can see that a definite belief system was being laid down. The singing of Arti and the presence of alters with M's picture(s) were important parts of this process, as well as satsang. My experiences at my first and subsequent programs reinforced what we were singing in Arti so I then believed M to be the LOTU. Doubting the LOTU belief came rather rapidly at the end of 2005 when I realized that for all these years the experience was entirely conditional to being at programs and was always an up and down thing for me. Tied in with this was the feeling of being enslaved to the expectation of being lifted up at the next program. I think that a real LOTU would want to free me rather than enslave me. A large part of this enslavement was the obligation to practice knowledge even though a lot, if not most, of the time it was a chore rather than a joy. Money spent for donations and programs was also a factor. One more thought on brain chemsitry. Endorphins which the brain utilizes to elevate mood also numb pain. That is one of the purposes of these chemicals. So I wonder if the excess secretion of them over long periods of time might have contributed to premies' feelings of a certain numbness or at least a lack of being in touch with one's own true feelings, wants, and desires. When someone becomes an ex-premie the endorphin secretion goes down and long buried feelings come to the surface. This may be an explanation. Just a thought. Kabir
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to agree with your use of the word numbness with regard to my former premie mind set.Another word that I assosciate with "that" numbness is superiority. The comfortable feeling of superiority.The glorious conceit of it! You have to laugh- don't you? It's a habit almost impossible for personas like mine (smart ass) to avoid. I think now after five years as an ex and 25(!) as a premie that getting shafted by the lord of the universe was one of the best things that ever happened to me! Oh lordy lordy wot am I saying keep posting, its interesting to read. Bryn
|
|
|
|
I agree to the numbness and superiority. I would also add to that the detachment that the culture of premies demanded. Contrary to the hype of having "no concepts," I found there to be some very strong belief systems, one of which was that everything in 3D was illusion, therefore we were not to get attached. It was applied very selectively and conveniently. Karen
|
|
|
|
I had a bit of an unusual experience last week.I was sitting in the pub with a couple of friends, talking evolution and the New Scientist articles on religion, when a woman seated at the next table who was earwigging got up and came across and asked to join us, as she was fascinated by the subject. We all went into immediate welcoming pub mode, offering chairs and stuff.
She then started telling us about her Buddhist meditation and how what we had to do was forget all about the past and the future, and just remained locked into the Now, and find peace.
She looked blissed, in a mildly fanatical way.
I told her quite firmly that the implications of what she was attempting were potentially very dangerous, as we all live in a continuum of past, present, future, and just trying in some way to blot out (unpleasantnesses of?) the past, or indeed of the other time zones is quite sus, as one should really be in a human situation of being capable of dealing with the entirety of our experience, and living within the continuity of the whole.
This might mean, for example, dealing with past issues realistically, but not wallowing in them (BTW I don't mean people here, I'm just talking generally!), and being able to face the present and future confidently through being balanced, having positive attitudes and some self-belief. She then launched into phase 2, which was to say how all western religion is defunct and we need a totally new vision based on eastern direct apprehension stuff. I told her that was total mythology - western spirituality being totally stuffed, and that quite an interesting spectrum still existed irrespective of the mad fringes which haven't yet managed to overwhelm us. She seemed quite stunned that anyone could question the reality of her two basic propositions. She is actually a highly intelligent person (apart from being beautiful, Polish, an artist and 20 years younger than me), and I would hope she doesn't have to wade through acres of extremist unrealistic bullshit. If I see her again I will suggest that meditation is fine in small sections (if one finds it congenial), along with a sensible outgoing lifestyle, and remind her of the benefits of the liberal western enlightenment, where IMO one can blend a healthy rationalism with spirituality. I wouldn't try to ram this down her throat, however, as each to their own at the end of day, and she might vanish before I get the chance to discuss Dostoyevsky, her favourite author, and an ancient love of mine.
|
|
|
|
"Something in the nature of religious conviction gives believers the chance to experience sharp and intoxicating tastes; those inclined to it can become addicted to the gamey tang of the absolute, the pungency of righteousness, the furtive sexiness of intolerance. Religion grants us these malign sensations more strongly and more deeply than any other human phenomenon." Philip Pullman
|
|
|
|
rather than picking out very available links.It's like eternally saying stuff like where is the scientific research before expressing some opinion on things. Take care of yourself.
You're a great guy, although I must say, only as a value judgement, you understand, that making love with horses remains a possibly questionable notion, unless reciprocity is clearly established. Just a little affectionate joke from the past, as I'm sure you will understand. Bests, Anthony
|
|
|
|
Anth, The Pullman quote was entirely revelant, IMO, and I'm glad cq posted it. Your reply was from another planet...
|
|
|
|
And I'm not sure what you mean by pot and kettle.I posted about someone who recommended people concentrate on the Now to whom I advised the desirability of trying to be in all the time continuums. This doesn't actually (maybe) preclude the possibility of feeling 'centred'in some form of meditation which accommodates normal life activities in any case, but the conversation didn't progress that far. However, to analyse Chris's link: "Something in the nature of religious conviction gives believers the chance to experience sharp and intoxicating tastes; those inclined to it can become addicted to the gamey tang of the absolute, the pungency of righteousness, the furtive sexiness of intolerance.
Religion grants us these malign sensations more strongly and more deeply than any other human phenomenon." Philip Pullman How on earth do you extrapolate from this the validity in this particular case of: 'addicted to the gamey tang of the absolute, the pungency of righteousness, the furtive sexiness of intolerance.' Can you explain your process of analysis here? I note you have till recently been a university lecturer who has doubtless faithfully followed the ethics of rational assessment of data without the temptation of sensationalist deviation. The limited paragraph I have quoted is enough to question your objective processes.
To accept the quotation in full should be deeply embarrassing to an extent I wouldn't really like to emphasise. Could you please respond to this before we possibly approach the other points I made? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Three points, Anth: (1) 'pot ... kettle?' is shorthand for '..the pot calling the kettle black' ie., might you be guilty of of the thing you accuse others of? Sorry if that much wasn't clear. (2) Yes I've been a lecturer and have even heard of 'rational discourse', but on a web forum I've neither time nor inclination to join up the dots if I imagine the point to be self-evident. I don't know whether that makes my brevity 'unethical', but I'm no moral philosopher. (3) If it's ok, I won't bother extrapolating anything since cq has done that very neatly just below, showing precisely why the quote was relevant. Unless some pedant wants to question Pullman's metaphorical usage of 'tangy', 'pungent' and 'gamey' (perhaps he could smell dinner at time of writing?) I don't see anything that needs explaining. Economy beats waffle any day. Nige
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 11:02:46
|
|
|
|
1. "She then started telling us about her Buddhist meditation and how what we had to do was forget all about the past and the future, and just remained locked into the Now…"2. "… phase 2, which was to say how all western religion is defunct". 3. "She seemed quite stunned that anyone could question the reality of her two basic propositions" And there you have it: 1. the gamey tang of the absolute,
2. the furtive sexiness of intolerance, and
3. the pungency of righteousness, QED 
Modified by cq at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 12:15:47
|
|
|
|
Buddhists are a bit like Liberal-Democrats. It’s kind of hard to hate them because, for all their faults, they’re affable and accommodating; middle-pathers who keep quiet, smile and usually don’t proselytise too much. Though in my experience, it only takes one zugzwang (‘no way out’ chess manoeuvre) question to get a Buddhist all hot and bothered: Q: Do you believe in reincarnation? If they answer ‘Yes’, you follow up with ‘Why’? If they answer ‘No’, you follow up with ‘What? You mean to say that the Buddha wasn’t a living Godhead who remembered his past lives, worked out on his fingers under a Bo tree a way to escape the karmic cycle of pain, death and rebirth? Do you mean to say Gautama was just some long-ago foreign bloke with a bunch of iffy ideas with no revelatory value pertaining to a human being's ultimate destiny?’ (Whatever the answer, you can bet she won’t get the last round in or invite you home to have a look at her mandalas…)
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 14:48:30
|
|
|
|
While a more freed up athEIst has no concern with any requirements that might be in the way of an after death plunge into the unconcious oneness thingee, buddhists are plagued with a difficult task. Premie like! You have to attain some goal, without any way to gauge how you are doing. How the unconcious oneness thingee measures the behaviour of a buddhist, how it would even notice you, now as you behave, or when you die and plunge back into it, or not, missing it and like the guy who misses the flying trapeze, falls into the wheel of bad lifetimes again.......but whatever, why and how would the controlling mechanism even get created when there is no god to build it? Why would a nonexistant unconcious non god thingee even have a barrier to you that measures somehow your behaviours, is not covered by buddha. Well what do you know, a gap in the theology. I like them, knowing some like I do, when I tell them this kind of thing, nicely of course, it does not enter. He was perhaps maybe the most harmful to women of any single man who ever lived. The law of karma idea stopped a lot of men from having compassion for thier neighbor in buddhist and hindu neighborhoods. Any doubts about that can be overcome by a little research. When I am in Chinatown in New York City, I always have the thought that the eyes I see there are a result of the buddhist hopelessness. They are all failing the self perfecting goal/burden. They got older premie eyes.
|
|
|
|
"Well, yes, but *any* gap in one's understanding will do, if one's case for a Deity is posited on one's bafflement at the world! The religious sentiment is not dependent on ignorance as such. From a scientific point of view, belief in a Deity is more unnecessary than ignorant. So I cannot agree that the absence of a scientific Theory of Consciousness is *essential* for the god option. It's just another gap in our present understanding.
And the problem with pointing to the gaps in material understanding and declaring See, it must have been God wot dun it! is that, sooner or later those gaps get filled in, and off you have to go in search of another gap. That, or suppress the advance of material understanding.
That's a pretty lofty view, of course. In practice, the more one is able to explain the world in material terms, the less room there is for a supernatural Deity to operate. So I fully agree that a scientific Theory of Consciousness would, in practice, be a heavy blow to religion. To be frank, that is one of the reasons I give the matter so much thought.
One thing I find very intriguing is that Classical science (relativity etc) teaches that there is no universal now. Two events sufficiently far apart in space-time can be seen as occuring either way round, or simultaneously, depending on one's frame of reference. But Quantum science *does* talk about two widely separated events occuring simultaneously.
That is acknowledged to be a flat contradiction. But what's really odd is that both Classical and Quantum science work very well indeed. Each makes predictions that are fantastically accurate. I suspect the resolution may be partly philosphical. There may be two sorts of time. As well as the relative time of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, the time of physical equations, of pendulums and clocks and movement in physical space, there may also be an absolute time. Newton certainly thought so. Although his Laws of Motion all deal with relative time, he explicitly postulated the existence of an absolute time as well. But he wrote and said very little about absolute time. Here is all he said ..." Nice one Jonti, still trying to grok it.
|
|
|
|
I remember in 74 and it is divine added rawats picture to a background that was a science photo of what at that time was the smallest particle photo. It showed what looked like black dots, each dot was surrounded by a bit of a concentric circle that was the photo catching the motion of the "dot". The "dot" whatever it was, was not the smallest dot I am sure, and the "dot" had unseen dots in it. Makeing IT up. At some point I figured that time was the leading edge of motion. Pick a motion, the breath is a good choice for example. Where the breath is in its motion is the leading edge of time. I dont know, just looking........ I do have a thought about infinity, infinity is everything, or, everything is infinite, or put another way, the quality of infinite is in everything. Just guessing from what I sheepishly will claim to be experience, that one person can experience the infinite (temporarily), while the guy next to him is not, and the infinite experience, or the experience of that infinite thing or quality, has qualities about it that include, well first off, someone is there before you. Someone, in urban terms, is "representin", someone has capacities to show you stuff. Someone has experience to give. Someone can lead you to things, and say things to you. Show off places that seem very real, and even let you see through real walls, and prove it, via a witness who is standing next to you and is not in that experience. Thing is, the ruler of experience, exists, so guys like rawat, and all manner of his type, reveal some of the varieties of darkness when they camp in what they claim is the land of experience, and pretend to be the tour guide, the master of it, or worse. Leading others to thier darkened encampment of self attainment. Naturally the ruler avoids the stench and in the brilliance of the dark rawat types, they see no one but emptyness, and feel no reason to fear claiming the territory. The dali lama himself tells his campfolks this "meditate on the emptyness". Uh, no thanks. It took 14 billion years to bring this wonderful planet and life form situation to this point, and we are supposed to "meditate on the emptyness"? Sheesh! What emptyness? There is a price to pay for taking it upon ones self to pridefully lead others to lonely ruin. Notice the experience boundries we are under? No one can escape and become super smart, and those that think they are, become intolerable to those they live and work with. Even those that try to be all good fail to escape the experience boundry and it is all too obvious to see when you watch tv in America, and someone on tv is trying to be "representing" the good and and the ruler, and you can just see that there is something off. Of course that only feeds the rawat types and others that see the limitations, and confuse the limitations with the concepts in a persons head. Imagining that the concepts are the obstacle, and are in fact the boundries themselves. Doesnt matter if we see it or not, in one way at least, seeing is not the solution either. Despite the rather major drawbacks, human nature limitations, or experience limitations, are in our best interest. If there was some rawat type who could lord it over us and say "hey you idiots, get it together, I did", that would be the worst possible world. Despite the reasons to celebrate the world of flawed people, it is the greatest challenge that was laid down long ago, Loving is hard. Even that envelope pushing nun mother teresa, couldnt break through and get to some state where she was always in some constant way. I say hurrah for that. Or "huzzah" in britishese. I dont think I want to reread this post, I probably would erase it. Or add or subtract, whatever.
|
|
|
|
That's really the worst, isn't it? It's rampant among premies, and I was that way as a premie as well. It results in the worst stench, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
"I think that a real LOTU would want to free me rather than enslave me. "
I have asked this question a dozen times. If he is a real 'master' or whatever, why does he bind people to him? Shouldn't the goal be the total freeing from him, not binding to him? Predictably, I am told, "You don't understand." Duh! That's because it's impossible to understand from any sort of logical perspective. Only from a completely taken in perspective does it make any sense. And then, it clearly is a cult. But, since I "don't understand", discussion with me is superflous. Very neat bit of work there, your lardship. How does he get people to that state? Amazing.
|
|
|
|
Ah-Ha! I always suspected as much, but it's been hard to square this with the circle of premiehood I was a part of for 21 years! Thanks, Kabir. I feel a bit less of an idiot, at least, since reading your post. Brain chemistry--it does explain the addictive nature of this trip for so many of us, I'm sure. Look forward to hearing more from you, Shelagh
|
|
|
|
Interesting theory, Kabir. And congratulations on getting free from premieland. You will be so much happier. But as to the relative intelligence of premies, I have to disagree. In my experience, there was the normal distribution of intelligence, pretty much, in premies than with any other group of people I have been involved with, and I also don't think there is any pattern in intelligence among those premies who left the cult and those who are still in. I think intelligence is really irrelevant to that. Maybe, however, people with high IQs make more money than others, and as you say, this is an expensive cult to be in, so maybe there is some selection there. One thing I will say, is that the premies from the 70s were mostly white, upper-middle class, and Jews and Catholics were represented more than in the general population. Few minorities, few people raised athiest and relatively few older people became premies. There was some pre-disposition to religion, and youth. I think I, and many other premies, were susceptible to the belief system and being in a cult, because we were pretty unhappy and insecure kids, and Prem Rawat seemed to offer a simple solution for peace and happiness. And it's often easier just to continue believing and attributing nice experiences to the simple solution instead of objectively analyzing what is really going on. So, it probably isn't that hard to stay in for 30 years, although at one point it became impossible for me, and I had to leave. I lasted 10 years until the contradictions became too much. High IQ, and self-awareness/security are not related, although I think some people think they are. So even really smart people sometimes look for a solution, a pattern, or some simplistic belief, and the Rawat cult is about as simplistic as you can get, as long as you don't think about it too much. Also, how you define "intelligence" is a pretty subjective thing. I'm not sure IQ tells you all that much. But great to see you here. All the best. Joe
Modified by Joe at Sun, Feb 05, 2006, 17:59:01
|
|
|
|
This " superior intelligence" stuff sounds a bit fishy to me It's a complex issue, though, as to why some did and some didn't succumb to the mixed charms and perils of "personality cultism" but I don't think it comes down to the intelligent ones more likely to fall for it and the dumb ones less likely. I knew enough intelligent people - probably more intelligent than myself, at any rate - who blew a raspberry at the whole set-up from day one, including one of my flat mates at the time when I first made hesitant, tentative steps toward cultism.Those first uncertain steps very soon turned into a headlong rush, mind you, once I'd surrendered my mind to the culture of Satsang. The Catholic thing is interesting. I'm sure that played a big part for many people if not, of course, all. Besides being steeped in the mystical, devotional, guilt ridden Catholicism of my childhood I, like most of my peers I suppose, was by then also steeped in Buddhism, Hinduism,and all the " new age" stuff of the time as well as a non-establishment political " conscience" ( as I saw it)- in short a general mish- mash of " seeking and questioning". Funnily enough, I'd given up on Catholicism ( or so I thought) and my first visit to the PoP ( with the pics, fruit laden altar,pranams etc)really turned me off, such was my aversion, then, to the devotion I exhibited from time to time in my childhood and early adolescence.Like I say, though,I soon succumbed. Also, it's odd that Prem Rawat himself was educated at a Catholic school and I'm sure he must have picked up something from that at some point or other. So, in a sense, there was a weird kind of Hindu-Sikh- Catholicism / personality worship from the beginning, I suppose.I'm pretty sure he was aware that a lot of his early Western flock comprised of drug addled, politically angry ( for some), " mystical" seeking bongos ( hahaha) all underpinned by a good dose of Christian worship/guilt just to add to the madness Like I said, though, it's complex. Probably different reasons / explanations apply to different people at different times in their development.It's hard to be emphatic about any of it.
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 11:27:04
|
|
|
|
I also think it's interesting that the cult didn't include many people from the working class, at least not in the States. I have this theory that people who are so much more concentrated on getting by day to day, are less likely to fall for the airy/fairy crap that Rawat puts out, and I think that's true. I think the Jewish/Catholic over-representation is partly because there is the concept of the messiah in those belief systems and that's basically who Rawat said he was. The idea is you drop everything and follow the messiah whenever he shows up, because you never know if you will ever have the chance again. Like you, I had pretty much set aside the Catholic Church by the time I became a premie, but those ideas and the background were definitely there. I recall feeling a sort of urgency, (of course spurred on by what Rawat told us), to not miss the chance of 1000 lifetimes to serve the Perfect Master. That idea was primed by the Catholic Church. I think Rawat just saw the West and Westerners as a great opportunity, and once he got to the West he was amazed at how there wasn't a hierarchy in DLM, and that if he got rid of his mother, or got her out of the way, he could have lots of fun with lots of toys, sex and people doing whatever he told them to do. According to Dettmers, Rawat got married at age 16 to drive a wedge between his leadership and his mother running things, and it worked. The West belonged to Prem, as it were, after that. Otherwise, there was ZERO reason for Prem to get married to an airline stewardess when he was still legally a child. In fact, Rawat wasn't even legally old enough to get married in California. Perhaps that's why he got married in Colorado.
Modified by Joe at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 15:52:22
|
|
|
|
I know I was rebelling a lot - calling my left leaning folks part of the "establishment," and so on. Before I was a premie, I toyed with joining the Weather Underground. Boy! Was I deluded. But looking back at everything I was raised to believe in (The Civil Rights movement, the Peace movement) and seeing it all smashed up, it's no wonder I wanted to escape into a cult! I remember being in High school and telling my dad I thought the world would end in nuclear holocaust. I could tell it really depressed him. Here was a man that worked on the Manhattan Project in college, who turned his back on the defense industry, turned his back on riches, and struggled to get funding at Westinghouse R&D for alternative energy. Establishment, my ass! I think if I really wanted to hurt them I would have become a Baptist. No offense on my part to those of that persuasion, it's just that that's about as far from Unitarianism as you can get. "What to Unitarians burn on their front lawn? A question mark." Karen
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty much an atheist, but at least in San Francisco, the Unitarians are just the coolest religious group. They have great speakers and workshops at their beautiful center on Van Ness Avenue and are just not narrow-minded and regressive, like so much of Christianity. I was raised Roman Catholic, went to Catholic schools, but my Dad was a true lefty, and was openly critical of the Catholic Church like, for example, when the Church failed to come out against the Vietnam War. Also, in the 60s and 70s the Catholic Church, at least at our local level, became kind of progressive. Most of that has been destroyed now, confirmed by the selection of the latest Pope, who is a throw back to the Middle Ages. It's very sad, that. I think I got into the Rawat cult because I was a confused and frightened teenager. I was very successful in school, but like you, I was really depressed at how the world was going under a crook like Nixon and I also thought the world was headed for nuclear destruction and it wouldn't be too long before it happened if things didn't change. That's why I think I responded to Rawat's bullshit about bringing peace to the world. I thought everything else had been tried and there had to be some other way. It's funny that after poo-pooing all that for a long time, Rawat is now trying to peddle the idea that "peace begins in each person" and that's how peace comes to the world. Funny how premies do not seem to be very good examples of people at peace, and the other funny thing is that premies are about the least politically or socially active of pretty much any group I can think of.
Here's a good topic: Can anybody think of a premie who has been active politically or in any kind of social, environmental or civil rights movements of any kind? I cannot think of even one. Premies are about the most politically and socially inactive people around. They take those cues, I think, from their deadbeat master, who not only doesn't get involved in those things, actively destroys the environment flying around on a private jet, transporting exactly ONE person.
Modified by Joe at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 11:05:46
|
|
|
|
I recently read an opinion that this country has moved SO far to the right, that if Nixon were to run today he would have to run as a Green! I hated the crook, but he managed to get more environmental legislation enacted than (I think) anyone, even Carter. Karen
|
|
|
|
Nothing compares to the reactionary neocons running things now, even if they are (finally) very unpopular and scaremongering is no longer working. Yes, when I became a premie, Nixon was an evil guy, and he was, with respect to the Vietnam War, he allowed aboutr 25,000 more Americans to be killed in a war he could have ended in 1969 with the same result. His promise to have "a secret plan to end the war" was just campaign rhetoric in 1968. That was all very disheartening to me, when I read the Pentagon Papers and saw that they all knew they couldn't win the war but were using my friends and relatives as cannon fodder anyhow. Very discouraging. No wonder, the boy guru looked good. But Nixon brought us the EPA, and signed a lot of good legislation from the democratically controlled Congress at the time. Bush wants to destoy the EPA and rape ANWR, but even some of his own party couldnt' stomach that, and I noticed in that joke of a State of the Union Address Bush got the message and didn't mention drilling in Alaska and actually taked about conservation of fuel. I was shocked to hear this comning from Mr.big oil.
|
|
|
|
It would seem logical at first glance that someone with a high IQ could choose a smart belief system to base their lives on. Uh, anyone got a shred of evidence to back that one up?
When I was a kid, it seemed to be accepted that it was mostly the kids with low IQ's that had difficulty reading. Now it is accepted that the situation is much more complicated than that. There are Down's syndrome kids that can read fine, and I know one brilliant fellow who can hardly read a word. Turns out, reading isn't such a highly cognitive activity.
Maybe the way we choose which concepts to base our reality are like that, quite unrelated to intelligence. I have a degree, and have taught at a university, and so on. Pretty smart? Then why didn't I ever sit down and consider the real implications of having the Lord of the Universe living right there in Malibu? It didn't really gel with the theory of evolution I was studying at uni. I didn't even try to rationalise it.
There are smart people in stupid cults, and stupid people not so stupid that they are sucked in.
High IQs : premies - no relationship
Or maybe that's just stupid?
|
|
|
|
Okay, its likely that the small sample of high IQ premies that I know don't represent the group as a whole who run the gamut of intelligence and backgrounds. My point was in trying to understand, first, how intelligent people fell for Rawat and, secondly, perhaps more importantly, how an experience was generated by maintaining a belief system. The mental processing and associated biochemical effects had to happen with every premie as well as the resultant high that followed. Perhaps the most intelligent were more susceptible to this due to prior mental activity. Kabir
|
|
|
|
Yes, it really is something that otherwise smart people fell for the cult. But, again, I don't think it has much to do with intelligence either way. If you want to believe something, you can rationalize all sorts of things and I don't think being smart or dumb helps either way. There probably is some biochemical component to belief systems, and perhaps this kind of "experience" or "high" people get when they believe them. But in my opinion, the "high" people occasionally got probably has little to do with chemistry and very similar to believers in some religions say they get. In my experience as a premie, I can think of a number of "highs," all of which were very temporary and all of which got harder and harder to get. 1. There is a high in having a simplistic belief system that says you are on the right path, finally, and further, that somebody else, and his "grace" are taking care of you. 2. Of course, obviously, there is a "group high" you could get at cult festivals and programs, and a "contact high" from coming into contact with Rawat whom you BELIEVE is some "superior power in person." It isn't coming from Rawat. 3. I got a high from chucking my life at the lotus feet, joining the ashram and owning nothing. There was a certain freedom and a "high" in that, which lasted, maybe something less than a year, combined with the other beliefs that I had been saved and was "so lucky" to have found the messiah, and so superior to all the stupid people in the world who didn't recognize him. 4. I also think there can be a high in meditation, but it's rare, and you would get the same thing from any meditation. As I said, those got increasingly transitory as time went on, and actually, the misery of being a premie was a lot greater than the highs, probably for the last 2 years of my involvement (maybe more), but if you would have asked me, I would have said I was blissed out and so happy and grateful to have knowledge and Maharaji in my life. It took getting away from it to see what a crock that was.
|
|
|
|
Hi Kabir,Here's my take on a couple of your points. how intelligent people fell for Rawat Yes, there are/were lots of intelligent people in the cult. But EV is tiny, numbers wise, so the vast majority of intelligent people that have ever heard about knowledge rejected it. I think it’s worth remembering that! I think it's more likely due to the fact that most premies came from middle class backgrounds and thus benefited from a good education. Also, intelligence doesn't necessarily make us wise - they are separate qualities. Intelligent people are just as capable of making stupid mistakes as anyone. An extreme example of this is the nutty, but genius, professor, who can compute complex mathematical equations in nano seconds, but who can't boil an egg, or drive a car, or whatever. There are different types of intelligence. Bottom line is: anyone can be conned, or fool themselves, whatever their IQ is. IMO there is no connection between being intelligent and making errors of judgement. Successful people often say that they owe their success to all their previous mistakes. They valued their mistakes because they learned from them, which resulted in eventual success. Intelligent people make mistakes. I was always that surprised that Tony and Cherie Blair were such devout Catholics. I thought they were far too intelligent for that. But that's just my opinion, and I hope I haven't offended anyone! how maintaining a belief system generated an experience. I think this happens a lot, in all religions. From the Evangelists, who faint when the preacher touches them - because they believe they are having a profound 'spiritual' experience, - to the regular churchgoers. I think there's 3 main aspects to this: First, the power of suggestion and expectation. This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy, so that we have what we believe to be a spiritual experience (the Evangelists is a good example). But we created the experience ourselves. Hypnotists can influence people to such a degree that they'll do whatever they are told. So suggestion and expectation can be very powerful influences on our minds. Secondly, our projection - we believe that it was "the grace" etc. And we thank Jesus, or M, or Brian, or whoever we thought had given us the experience. Of course, it was us that gave us the experience, not anyone else. If it was blissful, we should thank ourselves! Many people do have what they would describe as blissful experiences without subscribing to any religion or cult. Thirdly, reinforcement. The above just reinforces the belief even further. That, along with the 'sheep syndrome'. That is the thought "if everyone else here is experiencing this too, then I can't be deluded or mad. It must be for real. Especially as so many are highly intelligent people!" Using whatever values are important to us to, to convince ourselves. To think that intelligent people are less likely to make a stupid mistake is illogical, IMO. Intelligence does not = infallibility or wisdom. Think of all the intelligent people you know, and then remember all the times they’ve done things that were stupid/thoughtless/annoying/wrong. Conversely, un-educated, simple people can be incredibly wise. Ghandi, for example. Anyway, I wish you well in your exing process. I hope you are feeling okay. I was a premie for 30 years, and left 2 years ago. All the best Anna
Modified by Anna at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 16:51:38
|
|
|
|
Conversely, un-educated, simple people can be incredibly wise. Ghandi, for example. He studied law in London, worked as a barrister in Bombay and also worked in South Africa, too. So I wouldn't say he was completely un-educated.
|
|
|
|
As I wrote it, I thought, I should research this first! I didn't know Ghandi was a lawyer!!However, wrong example, but my point still stands. Dermot, can you think of a good example for me?
|
|
|
|
My Dad comes immediately to mind but he wasn't that well known ...hmmm, I'll think on it, though
|
|
|
|
I was just thinking about my dad, but not for the same reason. I'm not saying he wasn't wise, it's just not the first quality that comes to mind! I always think of my dad when I read your posts, because his name was Dermot. I've never known any other Dermot's apart from you and my dad, so it's quite special! Anyway, my dad was a great person, and by the sounds of it yours was too. 
|
|
|
|
....Your post was a great read but in the interests of accuracy ... Ghandi was well educated and Tony Blair isn't a Catholic, just his wife.
|
|
|
|
You're right about Ghandi, but not Tony. Blair is a devout Catholic. He 'converted' a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
....because he took communion with the rest of his family in a Catholic Church ,but he denied the rumours.
Modified by Lexy at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 07:46:35
|
|
|
|
It was announced on the BBC news. May be they got it wrong, which is no surprise! Anyway, whether he's a catholic or C of E, is irrelevant really. He is a christian.
|
|
|
|
Normally one has to be somewhat skeptical about the contents of a Wikipedia article, but this one, about Tony Blair is a featured article, that means that its quality is considered very good by many contributors. "Blair married Cherie Booth, a practising Roman Catholic (and future Queen's Counsel), on 29 March 1980. They have three sons (Euan, Nicky, and Leo) and one daughter (Kathryn). Leo (born 20 May 2000) was the first legitimate child born to a serving Prime Minister in over 150 years, since Francis Russell was born to Lord John Russell on 11 July 1849. Leo was the centre of a debate over the MMR vaccine when Tony Blair, citing his family's right to privacy, refused to say whether or not his son had received the triple MMR vaccine or single inoculations. As is usual in what Roman Catholics would term a 'mixed marriage', the Blair children are being brought up in the Catholic faith. Blair himself has attended Mass with his family every Sunday, and has been seen attending Mass at Westminster Cathedral alone. He once even expressed a desire to take Catholic communion, but was advised by Basil Cardinal Hume that the Eucharist is reserved for baptised Catholics. Blair has the closest ties of a British Prime Minister to the Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation."
Related link: Tony Blair according to Wikipedia, 2 Feb 2006 20:37 CET
Modified by Andries at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 13:37:51
|
|
|
|
.....as the " Catholic " vote is important, plus the political implications ( Ireland ,Italy etc).I don't know if there are any constitutional implications as there are some ancient laws concerning Catholics that have never been revised since the days of Guy Fawkes ! Sorry to have digressed from the original point of your post,Anna. I've been enjoying reading this interesting thread but I'm not in the right frame of mind at the moment to analyse and have much of an opinion. I do remember that during the seventies and early eighties there were lots of Irish premies around the Palace of Peace, Protestants and Catholics......some were fleeing the "Troubles" in Belfast after Bloody Sunday and a few still live around that area to this day. Many South London premies were piss poor and didn't come from middle class backgrounds. My experience of those days were that premies were a real mixed bunch as regards their origins and social status.I liked that about Divine Light Mission. Most were intelligent though.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, fancy that, eh?Re my Dad...By all accounts, in his early days he was a fighter, a drinker, a " man about town" and prone to bursting into song at a moments notice. Once he became a father, though, he packed in drinking and fighting completely...apart from the odd little tipple at Christmas time...and settled down to work at his trade, help raise five boys and enjoy simple relaxation whenever he got the chance. In his later years he enjoyed gardening & music. He was never taken in by Roman Catholicism and only went to Mass once a year...Christmas Midnight mass... to keep my Ma happy re the religious side of things. Not that it ever did make her happy, though. An annual gesture just didn’t cut it but at least they’d eventually resolve any and all differences in laughter ,so it wasn’t so bad. For most of his life, by all accounts, he was gentle, kind, caring and non-bombastic and, in the end, faced death stoically . My Mother is/was a lot cleverer and much better educated than he ever was ( and my bros and I probably get any “brains “ we might have from her genes rather than his..if such things are, indeed, genetic. ) but I wouldn't necessarily say she’s wiser So, there you go, a eulogy for a simple working class man. He died a quarter of a century or so ago but I still have the odd lucid dream about him once every while. Such is life, eh?
|
|
|
|
You'd be a natural for it, even if I suspect your music taste will leave a little to be desired, I'm prepared to endure it for the sake of the greater good an all
Waddhya say?
Modified by hamzen at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 20:29:45
|
|
|
|
Drag me into the limelight or something? hehehe... No, seriously...I have toyed with the idea on the odd occasion so now I've received such a gracious invitation from ya I'll let ya know when I'm up for it etc. ( Now when will that be, thinks Ham.. hehe) I must say, I really enjoyed that little spontaneous online " mini music fest" we enjoyed that time but I don't think I've really tuned in much since then...shame on me, huh? Anyway, as I say, now that I've received your invite, I'll let you know when I'm up for it and then if it's mutually convenient...da dar! I'm not under pressure, though, am I ?
|
|
|
|
Be pretty pointless doing it if you weren't right up for it eh
And Dermot, it's a radio station, not satsang, that's what people do innit with radio stations
|
|
|
|
Ahhh...it's all making sense, hehehe... No, you've got a great little set up there...it'll be a pleasure one day. In the meantime: Somewhere over the rainbow
Way up high
There's a land that I heard of
Once in a lullaby Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I?
Some day I'll wish upon a star
And wake up where the clouds are far behind me
Where troubles melt like lemondrops
Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me Somewhere over the rainbow
Bluebirds fly
Birds fly over the rainbow
Why then, oh why can't I? If happy little bluebirds fly
Beyond the rainbow
Why, oh why can't I? Will that go down well? Only kidding, of course
|
|
|
|
She came over on a boat from the Ukraine as a baby, never finished highschool, but was incredibly well read. She cold hold a conversation with anyone. She wasn't famous either.
Modified by karenl at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 23:02:57
|
|
|
|
I know her. Just kidding. Great name though.
My great grandma on my mother's mother's side lived to be past 100. She was an old Sicilian peasant, only had a few years education, but taught herself Latin, Italian and English. She used to read really fat books like War and Peace. And she practiced a kind of Catholicism that looked more like Voodoo to me. Her whole life was like a religious ritual. A very unique person. She didn't speak much though, except to curse at her Great-Grandchildren in Italian. I used to love to watch her eat. It was like watching an alien. What was the topic of this forum again?
Modified by aunt bea at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 14:35:14
|
|
|
|
I feel it was a goofy post sorry guys.........
Modified by Susan at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 14:06:34
|
|
|
|
I have a vague recollection that part of what the psychologists who studied DLM at the cult festival in Orlando in 1975 was doing some IQ testing. I think that even if it wasn't studied in DLM/EV it has been tested and generally cult members have IQ's in the above normal range. But I have not read anywhere that cults are full of people with astronomical IQs. Nor do I believe that based on experience. There was a very controversial book I read ( should I review it on Amazon?) about IQ testing called the Bell Curve. I did not agree with all of the conclusions the author drew but I do believe more than most educators these days that IQ testing does measure what I believe is innate intelligence. I know that belief has fallen out of favor. One of the interesting points made in the Bell Curve was that if one looked at Ivy League schools back lets say about 1900 that there was wide variation among students in IQ. Or wider at least. And that as things have become more of a meritocracy rather than one's family buying a place ( not saying that's gone), but he makes a compelling argument that the highly intelligent are creating a world in which they are mostly surrounded by eachother. And also that they are less in touch with the world at large. I think one example was the academic who says, "how could so and so have won the election I don't know anyone who voted for him". A lot of the book talks about statification of society based on intelligence and how the highly intelligent born into the worst of circumstances tend to rise about them and rich and pampered child with a low IQ is more likely to live a screwed up life than his brother with a high IQ. ( Even I will admit that the current US president appears to be quite an exception to this theory) I got off on a tangent. My point was that our idea of what "average" is in terms of intelligence tends to be the average intelligence of the people we are surrounded by. So if average is 100 that really is damn low and most of us probably don't hang out with lots of "average 100 people". I think premiedom was comprised of lets say "110-120" with smatterings from lower and higher. The studies would then conclude cults had members of above average intelligence. I think, as you said, cults tend to have greater numbers of upper middle class recruits, who will tend to have IQs that average out significantly higher. What I never saw and I believe I am a fairly good judge were all these scientists with super high IQs. There were some. I think we have quite a few people on the board who would test out as geniuses. That may be because of the self selection of people who like to argue and analyze the cult. That being said I enjoyed reading what Kabir had to say about intelligence and using one's intelligence triggering brain chemicals of pleasure. That makes sense to me. ( However, I am editing this post to note that I do not feel my seratonin and norepinephrine flooding in so I guess this really is a lousy post) But I don't think we fell for the cult because we were smarter. I think it has a lot to do with the other cultural factors and psychological factors that may be linked with intelligence but not intelligence itself. I guess I am saying it proves a commonality ( I can't remember the word for this as I am either not intelligent enough or educated enough because Rawat stole some of my education too ) not causation. I don't buy intelligence as part of the causation. Hope I did not sound too much like Eichman or whoever ( I would use the correct analogy except I skipped that class to go to Rome in 1977 ) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0029146739/002-3497508-0045615?v=glance&n=283155 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312172281/ref=pd_sim_b_3/002-3497508-0045615?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
|
|
|
|
( I would use the correct analogy except I skipped that class to go to Rome in 1977 ) Hahaha...well,Susan, you're doing ok for a school drop-out anyway
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 17:48:20
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking about the Orlando '75 program as I've written my posts. The reason is that the song "I Can See Clearly Now" was sung at this festival. It was a hit song by Johnny Nash, not to be confused with Dr. John Nash, the mathematician who was the subject of the movie "A Beautiful Mind". Dr. Nash is an example of a very high IQ person who had imaginary friends. He went through a long painful healing process which resulted in the realization that they were imaginary. Anyway, on the plane back from Orlando I sat next to Glen Carver, a math wiz and another high IQ premie. Kabir
|
|
|
|
You know Glen Carver? Hey maybe we know each other. I once knew him very well. He even stayed over at my mom's house when I was still in high school. Write me an email if you like.
And by the way, my compliments to you in finding your way out of the cult. I was going to say something earlier, but really your thread has gotten so much attention already, and you know, I am such a wall flower.
I can imagine that there might be some difficult times ahead for you. Giving up something that has been so integral to your life for so long has to bring about some sense of loss, perhaps sadness or anger, even feelings of self-doubt (how could I be such an idiot).
Or maybe not. For myself I just kind of drifted away, so it wasn't really traumatic. However in your case, the whole thing seems to have happened so quickly. Or it could be that the process was happening for longer than you realised. I suspect that happens with alot of people.
It certainly was the case for me that I had stopped believing before I even was aware of it. I know for a long time I had these feelings of guilt or fear, I guess because that belief that he was god was still in me in some small way. So for me the moment of great release and relief was when I just said to myself, "if that asshole is god, I'd rather burn in hell." Hence my email address.
Fond regards,
Dan T.
|
|
|
|
Hi Dan
|
|
|
|
Weren't you going on one of your famous leave of absences? Anyway I've enjoyed lots of your posts lately.
|
|
|
|
Dan, Yes, for me the process of leaving was happening for longer than I realized. It was happening below the conscious level and was even affecting my body. My energy level was low for a long time and I felt anger for no apparent reason. When I decided to leave I found that I had more energy, required less sleep, and the anger subsided. Giving up practicing K also meant that I had more time to do other things like exercising. So Rawat's statement "If you don't like it walk" I've taken literally. I spend more time on the treadmill and on nice days walking in the park. Kabir
|
|
|
|
Rawat said if you don't like it take a hike and you are doing so and enjoying the view! Pretty cool!
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm sorry you quoted the Bell Curve, because it is very flawed in its statistical methods, and it's a racist book. Many of the people quoted in the book are pseudo scientists, eugenics nuts and white supremicists. It provides all kinds of excuses about why the white race is suprerior and that's just based on racism. They didn't use IQ tests for the supposed conclusions, and instead used the military qualifying tests as a measure of IQ. But those tests are not designed to be an IQ test. They measure what people have learned in school (which is different than general intelligence). Education does predict outcomes. Unfortunately, access to quality education is correlated with socioeconomic class and race. Just check out any one of Jonathan Kozol's excellent books for information on that. Especially "Savage Inequalities". Acxtually, all the subsequent follow-up studies, using the exact same data that the original "Bell Curve" used, found the exact opposite conclusions: one's socioeconomic background is a more important predictor of outcomes than intelligence. Indeed, the NUMBER ONE predictor of SAT scores, for example is FAMILY INCOME, not intelligence, or IQ scores or anything else. Their statistical methods are terrible and they misuse data and that's why the book received a chilly reception in the academic community. If you would like to read the truth, check out "Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth." It will quickly dispell the myths for you that The Bell Curve caused. I also question how much our society has become one based on merit. GW Bush is a good example of that. He was a bad student, got rejected when he applied to the U Texas Law School, but he had no trouble getting into Yale and Harvard Bus. School because of his family connections. There was ZERO merit involved, it was all due to class privilege, and lots of family money. I also disagree that the distribution of premies intelligence was anything other than average. Anecdotal information is just useless for that. I personally knew a lot of really stupid premies, and i'm sure there were those who thought I was one of them.
Modified by Joe at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 17:08:46
|
|
|
|
I totally expected your response on that as I have read the debate about it, even before I read the book. I should read the book you suggested but have you read the bell curve? It really didn't come off as rascist. It did draw one conclusion that I think was most offensive to people. That was that among races there are differences in average IQ. Very small differences and only an average. Actually Asians came out as having highest IQs as I recall. Don't you think if there were a perfect test and it was factually true that one race had an average IQ higher than another that no matter what people would be up in arms. Maybe as they should be. Because one racial group having a few point higher than another on average really says nothing about individuals and the information could be used as a bias against a race. Did you see I linked both the Bell Curve and a book, for all I know the one your quoted, the refutes the Bell Curve? I don't think it is possible they could do a randomized sampling of premie IQs but I do think someone attempted to research it. I think there is fair documentation that people in most cults do have a significantly higher that average, average IQ. Also, I agree Bush is a perfect example of someone getting everything in a very old school way. However, I believe that there is more of an effort to get good capable students to good schools despite socioeconomic status. I think that although it is still true there are lots of people getting into good schools and taking that slot from a more capable student. I'll read the book you read and see if the myths are dispelled. I would like to read it too. I always meant to. I just tend to be suspicious of both sides. When I read Bell Curve I was suspicious and I will be when I read the "anti" book. The supject of intelligence and whether is can be measured is interesting and has become so politicized that it is hard not to be suspect of anyone's motivations right or left. I knew a lot of very stupid premies too. One of them bragged to me that he was very smart, his IQ was 112 ( or something like that) this was quite a pathetic lack of insight. But there were very bright premies too. Another very controversial book I read was called the "Nurture Assumption" with some similar themes. The main conclusion this woman came to was it isn't parenting that makes a person successful ( though of course AWFUL parenting can make someone unsuccessfu) that the varialbes were peer group and genetics. I am finishing the Pied Pipers book. Its really interesting. The author attempts to analyze destructive cult leaders. Most cult leaders are malignant narcissists and it looks like Rawat fits the bill. However, Rawat's childhood seems so different from some of these other people. I would love to see you read it and tell me what you think. I think you have a very high IQ and would score high on those military tests too. I am always willing to listen to what you have to say.
|
|
|
|
I've seen nothing to give me the idea that premies' intelligence deviats from the norm, though perhaps some other traits might. Anyway, it isn't something I really need to debate about.
But the idea that there is a link between intelligence and race, I just have to comment on that. And I know you are just quoting that from a book, but still...
First of all race doesn't exist. I believe the current figure is that 85% of genetic variation exists within population groups and 15% between groups. Between the so-called major races, this variation is supposed to be less than 10%. There is more than twice as much genetic diversity between Africans than other populations just because their DNA has had alot more time to mutate. The people who migrated out of Africa brought a much smaller gene pool with them.
This lack of inter-population genetic diversity is way below the level where you can start talking about anything like distinct population differences. The amount of genetic variation amongst Chimpanzees living only miles apart is much greater as is that of North American wolf packs.
The differences we perceive between ethnic groups are literally basically skin deep. The genes to express skin colour are very simple. Whatever genetic basis might influence cognitive ability is going to be extremely complex, much too complex to be isolated within a few haplotypes specific to one group.
So whatever those IQ tests are testing, and at best their results can only vaguely correlate to real cognitive ability, it isn't genetically based.
But really, I can't conceive of the idea that cognitive ability can be measured on a linear scale. Even amongst math smarties, which is only one kind of intelligence, there isn't just one kind of intelligence. There are different kinds of abilities just within that field.
Okay, I just wanted to say that.
Modified by aunt bea at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 13:56:16
|
|
|
|
Right Anna, this is another really big falacy in the book.
I think it was Richard Lewontin who has pretty much proved that there is not enough genetic variation around and between the classical races of modern people, to be able to speak of races or "sub species". Even more, in the USA, most African Americans for instance also have European ancestry, and almost half have Native American ancestry. So how should "race" be measured in an objective way? Through self-identification?
The telling thing about the abounding falacies of this book is the avoidance of peer review. Instead of publishing in the professional literature, Murray proclaimed that academics would be "too politically correct", and instead launched his book in a well organized media blitz. As someone said - a lie can get halfway across the world before the truth can put its boots on. Like Intelligent Design, this is not Science.
Modified by Joe at Tue, Feb 07, 2006, 20:15:15
|
|
|
|
Though I'm honoured to be mistaken for such a distinguished member of our online community.
For me the idea of race and IQ go hand in hand. Historically they are both largely motivated by the need for Europeans in the 1800's to justify to themselves and everyone else why they got the power and privilege.
Though to be fair, alot of groups like to think they are superior. The Chinese are another good example. One of the important scientists who helped develop some of the current ideas about human history and genetics was a Chinese guy. While he apparently didn't buy into the party line at the time, in the very controlled environment of Chinese academia, he had to at least look like he took it seriously at first before he could debunk it.
In this case the popular and very politically motivated theory was that Chinese people were at least partially descended from homo erectus. This is a type of regional evolution theory that proposes that different races developed independently from each other from distinct regional early hominids but somehow managed to remain one species. Doesn't make much sense does it? And it has never been observed to happen in any species. But it does give certain people, certain Chinese in this case, the warm fuzzy feeling of being separate and superior. In this case especially because homo erectus is such an ancient species, it kind of gave them the feeling of right of first being there. And you know, since the homo erectus was there so long ago, they had all that extra time to get better than everyone else etcetera.
So what this Chinese scientist did was establish that there was not a trace of any homo erectus DNA in Chinese people and that they just had the same boring old genes as everyone else.
So like it or not, we are very related to each other genetically. We are all descended from what must have been a very small population of early modern humans that lived in Africa between 100 and 200 thousand years ago. This is nothing compared to most species. The poor old Neanderthal lived at least 500 thousand years. Modern chimpanzees have also been around a lot longer. Should I stop talking now?
|
|
|
|
It is really hard for me to throw out the idea that racial groups do not exist. An Ashkenazi Jew has a hugely increased risk for being a carrier of Tay Sachs disease. Though I don't know about africans- african americans are way more at risk for Sickle Cell Anemia. Mexicans have a much higher incidence of gestational diabetes ( though that could be somewhat diet related). Thats just a few off the top of my head. Hard to believe that it would be smart to throw out race entirely because knowing those things can be life saving. I am really sorry I quoted that book. I do stand by whatever IQ tests measure ( be it priviledge or whatever) cult members by many studies tend to have higher IQs. That has been fairly well established. My point was that, and if you look in all the cult literature they always say like 10 points above average, that the difference is meaningless considering that the groups at least Moonies and Premies drew from tended to have that difference too. I was reading that book, and the Nurture Assumption, because I am interested in intelligence and what it is and what influences it. I certainly never read them because I gave a hoot about the racial aspects in the book. If it could be proven that IQ tests measured what they were designed to measure and there were average differences at the levels discussed in that book it would not have any usefulness whatsoever other than to form stupid meaningless stereotypes. Small statistical differences in groups ( be they premies or races ) are of no help when applied to individuals. I also stand by the assertion that though it may be hard to measure, intelligence exists and does have a strong genetic component. There are a lot of studies of identical twins raised apart that bear it out.
|
|
|
|
Hi Susan,
Yes what about those diseases? Of course if a genetic mutation occurs within an isolated population, that mutation will remain within that population. There are all kinds of diseases that have very specific population distributions.
The thing about these diseases is that they are usually caused by the mutation of one single gene, just like skin color. Because of this simplicity, they can easily be propagated within a temporarily isolated group. More complex genetic variations, something that might be intelligence related, take more time and there just hasn't been that much genetic isolation in humans for such major changes to take place. There are a few examples like the Autralian aborigines, which have been sort of isolated for 50,000 years, but even they have had recent immigrants within the last few thousand years. That some of them have left Australia and returned to Asia within that time is also possible.
But back to the diseases. Sickle Cell anemia is largely an African phenomena, but other populations get it too. I don't know about Tay Sachs, but I have another example. There is the Aaron haplotype. In the Jewish faith there is a tradition that all men of a particular priest class are descendant from Aaron. They often have the last name Cohen, Cohn, Coen etc. It has been discovered that 50 % of men who claim to belong to this priest class have a genetic marker on their Y chromosome that can be traced to one man who lived around the time that Aaron may have. Interesting no? But it is also the case that this marker exists in lots of Arab men and also an occasional European man. So much for sticking to their own kind. The fact is that people have been intermarrying and interbreeding with each other at every opportunity for the whole history of the human race. And migrations have not only been in one direction. People have been moving all over the place, back to Africa, from Europe to Asia, from Asia to Europe, and bringing their genes with them.
About intelligence, I don't disagree that there is a genetic component. I just find it difficult to believe that this is going to be the result of one or a few genes. What we understand as intelligence is a combination of many abilities. That is why it can't be the genetic stronghold of a particular population, like a disease or some other minor anomaly can.
Of course anything is possible. Maybe someone will discover a gene that creates a particular protein that facilitates the growth of gray matter. But don't count on it. I'd be happy if they found one that inhibits the growth of gray hair.
|
|
|
|
It's just that throwing race out just yet would make it harder to suggest who should be screened for a carrier status. I would hope people don't start only "breeding" with our own kind. Wouldn't we eventually turn into poodles and rottweilers etc? I personally would like to be a labrador retriever. Jim would be a rat terrier tenaciously ferreting things out. I am afraid I am more like a poodle than a border collie. And they always say mutts are the healthiest and best adjusted dogs don't they? I have also read some of the books about multiple intelligences and I like those a lot too. It's scary to think what could happen if we find too much about what gene is linked to what. I guess when I think about it from the beginning of life. We are at the point where couples using IVF can screen for all sorts of things and I find it frighteningly the stuff of science fiction. I have never heard about the Aaron thing.
|
|
|
|
There is a book you might want to read. It is called, wait one second while I check Amazon (I hope you aren't boycotting them now), ah yes, there it is: Mapping Human History : Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins by Steve Olson.
It isn't exactly brilliant or anything, but it it explains population genetics in a fairly clear and straighforward manner. Kind of like a well-written and very long magazine article.
I find the subject really fascinating obviously, just thinking about how our ancestors would have been roving around trying to make sense of the world around them while shivering in a cave somewhere.
About your idea of genetic screening, I just read in the new Scientific American (well actually I haven't read it yet) that there will soon be tests available for anyone to know everything they want to know about their DNA. But do we really want to know?
|
|
|
|
gosh I like to buy things from Amazon they show up on my doorstep viola the next day and that's just cool. I am just finishing the Pied Piper Cult Leader book and that is VERY interesting. He basically "analyzes" a bunch of cult leaders and their childhoods and what made them into malignant narcissists.
|
|
|
|
There is a concept of race, although it's less defined than many people think, and it isn't genetic, in the sense that the differences in the races are just really superficial, and there aren't differences in things like intelligence or things like that.
|
|
|
|
Racisim in the US isn't overt anymore. It's much more sophisiticated and that's what this book does -- support racism while not appearing to be racist. There are a whole group of people doing that these days -- people like Dinesh DiSousa, for example, and it's exactly what while America wants to hear. Black people don't succeed because they are dumber, is the general assertion, so we dont' have to have affirmative action, or any kind of public education, and it is just a waste of time trying to pull them up by the bootstraps. It's pure racisim, 21st century stye. The problem with testing "intelligence" among large groups of people is you can't control for other things -- like that IQ tests are biased culturally, which they are, like whether IQ tests tell you anything -- like whether intelligence has an environmental component, that people with more education are more comfortable taking tests, etc., etc. The main problem with this book is that it's statistics and sampling are just a mess, but it sounds good. But the methodology really sucks, and if you look at who they quote in the book, it's the eugenics, white supremist crowd. So, there is a big problem there. Actually, if you look at the stats, we are going in the opposite direction of lower socioeconomic groups getting advanced educations at good schools. This is especially true in California. Partly, this is due to the high cost of education and, for example, the republicans just cut student loans, which is one of the most amazingly short-sighted things I have heard about in a long time, both for the students and the country. I read an amazing statistic the other day: in any college class in American of 20 students, only ONE comes from a family with income less than $35,000 per year. That's astounding.
|
|
|
|
"America is going to hell in a handbasket!".. That's what I heard a lovely old lady say, one time, about how things are now. Don't remember her name or where she was from, but that summed it up so well! ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
When M wants to join his luxury motor yacht which is moored in Ft Lauderdale, he then needs a programme there.This is called propogation. This means the fuel on the G5 airplane is paid for from LA to Miami and landing fees.Raji who lives in Miami lends his Merc to M, saves on hiring a car. He can then transport his whole family, do a programme, then cruise the Bahamas for a few weeks, all for nothing. Nice if you can get it.
|
|
|
|
"Money can't buy you love, but it will allow you to park your yacht right next to it."
Modified by Nigel at Sat, Feb 04, 2006, 16:34:12
|
|
|
|
Has he bought a new one?
John.
|
|
|
|
General admission to the Ft. Lauderdale program is $40. Or one could register as a sponsor for $200 and receive preferred seating. Assuming an attendance of 1500 to 2000 this is not bad for an hour to an hour and a half speech.
|
|
|
|
Nice one! Tell us more, if you feel like it. Make yourself at home. Have you been reading the forum much? What's your story? Anyway, good for you.
|
|
|
|
why spend it inside a personality cult for the rest of your life? Though I'm sure many die-hards in the cult will think it far too base and materialistic of you to even stoop to such cost analysis I'd count yourself lucky, if I were you - Dermot
Modified by Dermot at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 07:38:23
|
|
|
|
In my humble opinion, the choice of this weekend for his "event" in Fort Lauderdale is not in any way accidental. It is one more power play by his lardship. Can he get people away from loved ones on Valentine's Weekend? Plan an event, announce it at the last minute-- which always makes something more desirable because, gasp!, you might not make it and even though you just heard about it you just have to get there!--and test the premie devotion.
|
|
|
|
I think you're on to something here. Karen
|
|
|
|
I agree with PatD, this sounds paranoid and unrealistically cynical. Andries
|
|
|
|
Hello, Andries. You may be right. I will not deny that I am hypersensitive to screwball things his lardship does. Announcing a program a week away is a screwball thing to do and seems to me it can only be a power play. But, if you look over his schedule in recent years, it seems there are an unusual number of events on holiday weekends, Father's Day, Mother's Day, July 4th, etc. Valentines's Day is perfect for him. See just how dedicated premies still are. I don't know how he scheduled things in years past. His obnoxious presence has only come into my orbit recently.
|
|
|
|
No reputable organisation is going to book a large conference hall a few weeks in advance, and reputable organisations will be sensitive to attendees' family commitments and will not organise conferences for public holidays. So the venues are available, and the owners are happy to rent them out at short notice for low fees. Premies will come anyway, whether it's Valentines Day or July 4th, the costs are lower, and the income is higher.John.
|
|
|
|
Hi Kabir, It's good to see you posting here. I've been reading the posts about premies' intelligence and what makes people fall for a cultic belief system. Most cults operate the same way and have the same basic characteristics. Generally, people who join cults do so because they are emotionally vulnerable at the time. Smart folks get conned all the time. I don't think it has anything at all to do with anyone's intellect. In fact, I think a cult leader depends on the fact that they're not appealing to anyone's intellect! Also, people from all socio-economic backgrounds join cults. Obviously, it's more favorable to a cult leader to have followers that are likely to give him money. I say "him" because most cult leaders are men. Here's a useful website called reFocus, that explains the characteristics of a cult among other things. It's been around for a while and has good information, especially for people who have recently left a group. It's a fine discussion going on here, but I don't think there's any need to reinvent the wheel, when so many cult awareness experts have pretty much figured it out. Below is a copy of the page from reFocus that describes the characteristics of a cult. They're not set in stone and don't all apply to all cults, but generally give a good representation of what we were up against when we innocently listened to satsang so many years ago. Best wishes, Cynthia Gracie Characteristics of a Destructive Cult:1. Authoritarian pyramid structure with authority at the top 2. Charismatic or messianic leader(s) (Messianic meaning they either say they are God OR that they alone can interpret the scriptures the way God intended.....the leaders are self-appointed.) 3. Deception in recruitment and/or fund raising 4. Isolation from society -- not necessarily physical isolation like on some compound in Waco, but this can be psychological isolation -- the rest of the world is not saved, not Christian, not transformed (whatever) -- the only valid source of feedback and information is the group 5. Use of mind control techniques (we use Dr. Robert Jay Lifton's criteria from chapter 22 of his book "Thought Reform & the Psychology of Totalism" to compare whether the eight psychological and social methods he lists are present in the group at question) Mileu Control: Mystical Manipulation: Seeks to promote specific patterns of behavior and emotion in such a way that it appears to have arisen spontaneously from within the environment, while it actually has been orchestrated totalist leaders claim to be agents chosen by God, history, or some supernatural force, to carry out the mystical imperative the "principles" (God-centered or otherwise) can be put forcibly and claimed exclusively, so that the cult and its beliefs become the only true path to salvation (or enlightenment) Demand for Purity: The world becomes sharply divided into the pure and the impure, the absolutely good (the group/ideology) and the absolutely evil (everything outside the group) one must continually change or conform to the group "norm"; tendencies towards guilt and shame are used as emotional levers for the group's controlling and manipulative influences Confession: Cultic confession is carried beyond its ordinary religious, legal and therapeutic expressions to the point of becoming a cult in itself sessions in which one confesses to one's sin are accompanied by patterns of criticism and self-criticism, generally transpiring within small groups with an active and dynamic thrust toward personal change Sacred Science: The totalist milieu maintains an aura of sacredness around its basic doctrine or ideology, holding it as an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence questioning or criticizing those basic assumptions is prohibited a reverence is demanded for the ideology/doctrine, the originators of the ideology/doctrine, the present bearers of the ideology/doctrine offers considerable security to young people because it greatly simplifies the world and answers a contemporary need to combine a sacred set of dogmatic principles with a claim to a science embodying the truth about human behavior and human psychology Loading the Language: Words are given new meanings -- the outside world does not use the words or phrases in the same way -- it becomes a "group" word or phrase Doctrine Over Person: If one questions the beliefs of the group or the leaders of the group, one is made to feel that there is something inherently wrong with them to even question -- it is always "turned around" on them and the questioner/criticizer is questioned rather than the questions answered directly the underlying assumption is that doctrine/ideology is ultimately more valid, true and real than any aspect of actual human character or human experience and one must subject one's experience to that "truth" the experience of contradiction can be immediately associated with guilt one is made to feel that doubts are reflections of one's own evil when doubt arises, conflicts become intense Dispensing of Existence: Since the group has an absolute or totalist vision of truth, those who are not in the group are bound up in evil, are not enlightened, are not saved, and do not have the right to exist; impediments to legitimate being must be pushed away or destroyed one outside the group may always receive their right of existence by joining the group; fear manipulation -- if one leaves this group, one leaves God or loses their salvation/transformation, or something bad will happen to them; the group is the "elite", outsiders are "of the world", "evil", "unenlightened", etc
Related link: reFocus
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Feb 06, 2006, 16:20:31
|
|
|
|
They're not set in stone and don't all apply to all cults,...........
They all apply to DLM as was & also to EV, no matter how much it's watered down the more obvious aspects.
1.........tick yes
2.........tick yes
3.........tick yes
4.........tick yes
5........Mystical Manipulation: no-one who now understands the disjunct between the man on the stage & his private persona could doubt this.
Demand for Purity: not much emphasis on this one these days, but speaking as someone who gave up bacon sandwiches for many years, amongst other things of rather more intimate importance, they don't get off the hook just because so many premies are serial fornicators, piss artists, dope smokers etc.
Confession: all that satsang where people wept & wailed about how worthless they were.
Sacred Science: all that stuff about the pineal gland & lots of other cobblers which I fortunately can't remember.......no, wait a minute..........you'll never taste nectar if you don't stop putting sugar in tea.
Loading the Language: to most English people the Knowledge refers to what London taxi drivers need to know in order to get their licence. Universally that Place is somewhere you never want to go back to.
Doctrine Over Person: ah yes, Prem Rawat is a mirror, so if , in an unguarded moment, you allow youself to think he's a little prick, that means it's really you...........& probably for a lot longer than just a fleeting instant.
Dispensing of Existence: the infamous rotting vegetable syndome springs to mind here, along with premies general flouting of many of the little social conventions that make life for everyone else just a bit better. Actually, this is one of the more subtle & difficult habits to eradicate in oneself after exiting.
|
|
|
|
thanks for applying this checklist to the DLM and Elan Vital. My brother taught me the rule of the thumb that general phenomena need general explanations and that specific events, persons, or groups need more specific explanations. Andries
|
|
|
|
But can't work out whether or not the colour scheme was deliberate...
|
|
|
|
maybe I should take my computer to an exorcist.
|
|
|
|
Before I got involved wid Mr Porky Pine, I was in a group who tripped together regularly.
There was a certain key phases during those group trips where we would all go into this grok space together, which was 'that feeling', and we called it 'knowing', because that's what it felt like.
And re the pineal gland, it's all about melatonin innit, pretty key hormone in itself, not least because of it's strong connection with serotonin, a key nerve communicator throughout the whole body.
Otherwise with you, cool post.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, lots of strange things happened to me too, none of which I have a rational explanation for, which isn't to say there isn't one.
As has been often noted here, it's surely no coincidence that the majority of premies had done acid, & so had opened themselves up to the then counter intuitive idea that perceptions of reality aren't neccessarily fixed in stone. That was a great primer for accepting that there could be a 'natural' way to access whatever we thought it might be. Of course we instantly stopped discussing 'it', once we were inducted into the cult.
I don't know if this was your experience, but quite suddenly, like over a very short period, no-one was taking acid anymore. I remember wondering why at the time............that would be around a year before I heard about GMJ, so late 1970.
|
|
|
|
I do have a theory about that, all zeitgeist related, and a polar axis of zeitgeist activity oscillating between the "spiritual" end and the groin/external world end of things.
I've found it fairly reliable too through the dance scene over 15 years in tracking down quite early where I expect the next burst of aliveness to be coming from and when I'm expecting it.
And re acid, for def.
|
|
|
|
"along with premies general flouting of many of the little social conventions that make life for everyone else just a bit better. Actually, this is one of the more subtle & difficult habits to eradicate in oneself after exiting." What little social conventions ,Pat? In case I'm doing it!
|
|
|
|
I'm stumped for an answer.
You're right................that was a badly thought out observation on the theme of what a superiority complex can do to your character.
|
|
|
