|
|
|
true Cynthia symptoms of Rawatism ..? 'magical belief in an invisible and ever present best friend combined with an inability to criticise or disbelieve Prem Rawat who is believed to be the embodiment of said friend' I am sure others can express it more elegantly ..but that is about the crux of it best Tim
|
|
|
|
Our own minds were quite plainly being kicked out with ignominy: the idea of an invisible and ever present friend was gradually being introduced to take its place.
This is obviously impossible and so, as an idea, could only be introduced slowly. Once these ideas are in place the person is clearly persuaded into a very deluded state, resembling certain psychological conditions.
But now; made unable to criticize the source of the idea: they are unable to switch off the idea itself:- the illusion that their mind is gone and that they have, instead, an active and aware projection of the guru inside them.
Again, impossible, but real to the still afflicted, and an impassable barrier until this belief is broken. Any logical argument will fall against a mind which believes it has gone.
Any attempts to persuade a follower otherwise will now be met with the paranoia of one who believes they are being watched from within or repelled with the imagined desperation of the invisible friend to maintain its presence within its host and the host's to keep it.
Imagining the mind to have gone will only increase the imagined need for this dependency.
Modified by Lp at Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 13:10:56
|
|
|
|
Self, imagined self, other, imagined other, imagined self in relationship with imagined other etc. There is no incentive to stop once the deal with the guru has been done (who did the deal anyway?!)
And it is all on the "religious" level, where as we all know the stakes are hugely high; people die for their ideologies and for their image of themselves.
The esoteric concept of the "doppelganger" provides a bedrock of actual psychic experience, conscious or unconscious, in all this for the whole precarious me/not me thing; and into that wades the Guru full of promises, certainty and fifty-five hours of mind bending video.
Hmmm
Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
full of promises and certainty" feels free to adjust our sets, believing that they are lesser selves. In dreams perhaps is standing, small but defiant, at the lectern within the heart of every devotee, addressing the U.N.
Modified by Lp at Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 16:19:01
|
|
|
|
This imaginary friend/imaginary self thing was the root of so much inner chaos-for me anyway.Truth to tell I'm still not thoroughly healed of the split that I nurtured with rawatism. Of course my tendency was there before the guru, but guruism is so perfect for exacerbating the problem.
Whereever I look your face is before me, was so true for me.
What on earth has that funny little fat indian man got to do with anything, premies?-let alone anything as delicate as your self.
I am as ever amazed.
Love
Bryn who has computer access at the mo.
|
|
|
|
that went on, (you heard about such things). People would ask Maharaji to change the lights, reserve a parking space, get the car to start etc. whispered exchanges under the breath, thanking the ever present friend when things go right. As far as I remember, many premies did it then, for all I know, some still do.
Some mornings all the lights seem green: some days all red, but for premies the world seemed to be an inspiration at times for magical thinking. Interpretations of how smoothly the day went were often taken as proof of how much meditation we had done or not done.
Testing "the power of holy name" was a dangerous pastime on a coast to coast drive across The States. Why was this silly man giving people the excuse to push themselves beyond their normal levels of tiredness and common sense?
I reflected on this a few weeks ago as I sat with a friend here looking out over England from Glastonbury, and wondered how this Indian kid from far, far off to the South East, way beyond many horizons could have had such an effect on so many lives, far and wide, starting his presence in the West from this place.
How odd it was then: and how bizarre it still is, though differently.
Modified by Lp at Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 19:43:05
|
|
|
|
Staring out from Glastonbury Tor produces poetic philosophic musings in even a person as poor in soul as myself but in the interest of clarity I remind you that Rawat's influence over lives did not start at Glastonbury. Actually, it seems he was something of a failure there, wasn't he? Did many people actually even understand what he was saying?
Leaving that aside his influence began when he inherited his father's mantle. If anybody else had inherited the title, Rawat would have ended up as the embarassing youngest son of the former "Perfect Master". If Bal Bhagwan Ji had been a greater succes as LOTU, and if Sophia Collier is to be believed, no, and if Mike Finch is to be believed, yes, and if he had wanted a personal plane and pilot then the kid brother might have got that sinecure.
Funnily enough I don't remember "satsang, service, meditation and keep up an inner dialogue of magical thinking about life and Rawat's power of control over my every whim" being the four commandments but maybe you PAMS were being taught a secret improved version of the "Knowledge". Of course the real commandments were impossible to practise successfullly and the "fruits of Knowledge" were impossible to attain. The fruits of following a minor, unsuccessful, nasty piece of work guru are pretyy common and easy to attain and some people can manage that for a lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Keeping up that inner dialogue wasn't a commandment, but how else do you relate to the LOTU who has revealed to you the knowledge of all knowledges? He was the imaginary friend 'guiding' the lives of many premies. How else could you rely on Maharaji, unless he was always there? The idea that Maharaji was inside, aware of every thought and deed was implicit in much of what Rawat said. We got to programs through grace, and missed them because he was playing a lila. As LP said, even a series of red or green traffic lights could be imbued with such meaning. This mind play was common in the UK throughout the seventies.
|
|
|
|
I just picked up a mailing from EV today and skimmed it and binned it earlier this evening. I recall an article/editorial in it in which some notable says:" I felt I needed to get closer to Maharaji so I started this project". (or w to that e)
What "getting closer to Maharaji" means here is surely not to be understood as a physical/geographical closeness is it?
Its feeling closer inside, surely. Only the rich can ever aspire to get closer on the outside; the rest must console themselves with service and imagination.
Apropos this, I did a public presentation thing recently with Loaf, celebrating the work of two famous in UK TV animators and puppet designers.One of their creations was Bagpuss, a cat puppet, featured in his own TV series. When Peter Fermin, the creatures designer produced the original at the lecture, there was a wierd awestruck gasp of admiration and affection. One person who knew me personally asked me to get her closer to the front so she could actually hold Bagpuss. I tried to use my influence to oblige!
What the fuck is that all about!!?
Answer:
If its been on the telly its more real than real. As I see it,in reality Maharaji has the same emotional status as Bagpuss!
Come on premies!
Love
Bryn
|
|
|
|
Bryn, more real than real ? indeed..surreal in fact. The mainstream view of Rawat from the land with the most of the premies ? ...from bravenet. best Tim
Modified by tommo at Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 18:15:23
|
|
|
|
if customarily scribed on card at the foot of the cot of every new born babe: but immeasurably more aptly placed.
|
|
|
|
I was there ! The power of fame is the power of memory and recognition... in older times, the more people who recognised you beyond your immediate tribe, the more powerful you were and the more likely you were to influence them. A chief who was recognised by other chiefs was endorsed by this, and his tenure potentially more secure. Thats why portraits of English kings were taken on tour around the country, so people in far flung places like Pontefract could identify with them.. then when the actual physical king turned up and you were ushered into the presence.. it wasnt just the setting and status which impressed you, but the added power of seeing them 'in real life' This is the foundation of the Maharaji photo and Darshan show. People get acclimatised to film and 10x8 pics, and then on the rare moments that they see him in person and close up, the REALITY of him knocks them into the recovery room... a reality based and dependant upon the creation of a myth! Bagpuss, dear Bagpuss
Old fat furry cat-puss
Wake up and look at this thing that I bring
Wake up, be bright
Be golden and light
Bagpuss, Oh hear what I sing I have seen hardened business people weep when this has been intoned by Oliver Postgate at events similar to the one Bryn spoke of! Its the stuff of memory and recognition.. and once you are IN there, providing you remain above and beyond fallibility, speak in general terms which hint as if from a larger perspective, people will happily surrender their own confusion to your certainty. 'This life' 'Human beings prefer happiness' Maharaji has made the premies into pompous smug prigs by moving their comfort zone into the realm of the mythical and eternal. At least Childrens Nursery Rhymes and Television programmes belonged in the past!
|
|
|
|
Oooh dear - now McGregor Mathers will be after my tail! Hello BD!!
|
|
|
|
>I don't remember "satsang, service, meditation and keep up an inner dialogue of magical thinking about life and Rawat's power of control over my every whim" being the four commandments but maybe you PAMS were being taught a secret improved version of the "Knowledge".<
As 13 has pointed out, it certainly wasn’t just PAMs that became victim of the inner dialogue phantasm – and from my experience in the early 70s it wasn’t limited to UK premies – it was also part of the whole belief system as expressed by those premie visitors from the US and Oz that I encountered. Where this aspect of belief came from is open to argument – was it a misunderstanding that developed in translation from India to the UK or from Hindi into English ? Whatever, even if it wasn’t intended early on, Rawat certainly played it once it was established.
>I remind you that Rawat's influence over lives did not start at Glastonbury. Actually, it seems he was something of a failure there, wasn't he? Did many people actually even understand what he was saying?<
Arguably the influence that any of us has begins as soon as others become aware of us – a few weeks after conception ! But even if we take Prem’s exalted status from age eight as the starting point – can we actually say that the nature of his influence in populist Sikh influenced pantheistic Hinduism, where adherence to a multiplicity of gurus is common place, was in anyway comparable to his influence over culturally divorced neophiles inured in monotheism ?
I go along with LP’s selection of Glastonbury as the key point at which ‘Guru Maharaj Ji’ was launched upon the world – it was the point at which the myth of the ‘boy satguru’ first found a major foothold in the psyche of a receptive audience that had little cultural resistance to the manipulation that was to follow. It wasn’t necessary for Prem to perform well on the stage at Worthy Farm, just as it didn’t matter that Worthy Farm is not in Glastonbury; his mere presence at the iconic event alled Glastonbury Faire was enough to provide Prem with the spiritual legitimacy that underlay the word of mouth affirmation that brought Knowledge its popularity, not just in the UK, but across the increasingly globalised hippy/freak/new age culture.
Ironically, tickets for this year’s Glastonbury fest go on sale today – all 140,000 will be sold out within hours. Attending Glastonbury is now seen as an essential life event, everyone in the UK has to go at least once, those who have never been are seen as lesser beings. The early days of the festival have been endlessly mythified – and Rawat is now part of that. And the association between Glastonbury and the festival helps sustain numerous myths and religious fantasies – Joseph of Arimathia – King Arthur – terrestrial zodiacs – in the public mind.
Shame no one actually took Prem up Glastonbury tour – there to the strains Jerusalem (the Tor and Wearyall Hill are supposedly the inspiration for “England’s mountains green”) or more fittingly Bowie’s Black Country Rock – then they could have rolled his fat arse all the way down again. “ Tha’ve shewed the gurt whiney liddle sod”
Nik
|
|
|
|
And the association between Glastonbury
and the festival helps sustain numerous myths and religious fantasies –
Joseph of Arimathia – King Arthur – terrestrial zodiacs – in the public
mind.
The town's connection with hocus pocus goes back a long way. In Chaucer's day it was the major European manufacturor of fake 'Holy Relics'. There's a blackthorn tree there which has been identified by the away with the showfolks as the offspring of Joseph of Aramathea's.
It was planted by the Council in 1957.
Interestingly, or not, depending on pov, there is a certain amount of very tenuous evidence that there were trading links (to do with tin) between that part of the world & the Middle East around 2000 yrs ago.
I used to know someone who lived there, who was neither a hippy nor a premie.
|
|
|
|
"I used to know someone who lived there, who was neither a hippy nor a premie."HEY I still live in Glastonbury! Well over 90% of us Glastobarians are neither hippy nor premie. Just don't come here without a crystal  )
|
|
|
|
>Well over 90% of us Glastobarians are neither hippy nor premie.< Yes, but the thing is us north Somerset 'uplanders' have always been a bit suspicious of the level dwellers, and while it's true that it's only the folks of Bridgewater that we definitvely accuse of having webbed feet (and many other deviances beside) - the sense of you all being a bit 'amphibian' never quite departs from our civilised sensibilities 
|
|
|
|
But even if we take Prem’s
exalted status from age eight as the starting point – can we actually
say that the nature of his influence in populist Sikh influenced
pantheistic Hinduism, where adherence to a multiplicity of gurus is
common place, was in anyway comparable to his influence over culturally
divorced neophiles inured in monotheism ?
Yes, that's very important. Reading the Peace Bomb speech last year it really astonished me the way he was ranting about premies not doing propagation and being embarassed about him even then. There is a difference between "social religion" which in the case of Christianity in Europe and Australia is dying and "personal religion" which appears to be continuing in different guises. Many of the 70's premies took the whole message seriously rather than as it is now done where "Knowledge" is part of life and not life is part of "Knowledge".
|
|
|
|
Funnily enough I don't remember "satsang, service, meditation and keep up an inner dialogue of magical thinking about life and Rawat's power of control over my every whim" being the four commandments but maybe you PAMS were being taught a secret improved version of the "Knowledge". It wasn't just about PAMs. Rawat's spouts the concept all the time, and the reason I posted the "Friend" quote was to demonstrate how pervasive to the present day are Rawat's own words to instill this magical thinking (religious belief-system, really) that "...keep[s] up an inner dialogue...about life and Rawat's power of control over my every whim." I wanted to demonstrate that Rawat today is still hawking that particular piece of the belief-system. But, in this day and age, we'd be hard-pressed to get a premie to admit that. It's a discussion reserved for old-timer premie-only conversations. It's what lila was all about, too. In 70s nightly satsang, premies (not just PAMs) always spoke about how praying to Maharaji helped them through their day, and everything that happened to them, good or bad -- a boon or a lesson to learn -- was brought to them courtesy of Maharaji and Knowledge. Outside of formal satsang, premies told each other of the same sort of things happening -- Rawat saving them from a mistep or teaching them a lesson and remembering holy name (remembering Maharaji inside) was involved. It's a trinity: GMJ the person, GMJ the Knowledge that's taught, GMJ the invisible power within people that can actually read their thoughts -- omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-present. The words are in arti: Creator, Preserver, Destroyer/bow their heads and pray to you...any of the stanzas in arti reflect the belief, actually. Also, Maharaji has spouted to people that he could be anything to them, friend, lover, spouse, father, mother, etc. Like I said, that's quite a messiah complex for a cult leader to have and to have successfully instilled the belief-system into followers, well, phew(!) it's a large feat for anyone to rid themself of that kind of powerful belief-system about a twit from India and Malibu, California.
Modified by Cynthia at Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 08:04:33
|
|
|
|
Ocker, Just to add my twopenny worth and say that I agree entirely with 13, Cynthia and Nick on the subject of the magical inner connection with Prem and its fundamental imporatnce. It arose from listening to hours of highly devotional satsang plus the effect of 'constant remembrance' of 'holy name'. ...'Waiting the word of the master..watching the hidden light..listening to catch his orders ..on the very midst of the of the fight'... What do think that meant? At some point ...by looking within....something within could be fully open to guidance from within...would fully understand what he ...or best friend our teacher had so kindly taught us .... and our inner gratitude (devotion) somehow magically flow back and connect with him....and somehow magically the relationship could all be within us and without at the same time. The 'magic' of 'Maharaji's world' (another bit of cult speak) somehow linked the external and internal worlds. And despite all the superficial changes I still believe that this more or less describes the secret core belief of a 'premie'. That is the fuel that keeps it going. best Tim
Modified by tommo at Sun, Apr 01, 2007, 16:57:55
|
|
|
|
The point I was alluding to in a manner that was elusive was that yes the agya was ss&m and constantly remember Holy Name (among other things like donate all the money you can to Prem personally) but that constant remembrance of your breath is probably impossible and nearly certainly nearly totally useless and so most premies replaced that with an inner dialogue which they thought wasn't "mindey" or is that spelt "mindy" cause it was filled with positively Premmish thoughts but was far, far away from any "realisation" or "liberation" from the mind.
I recently read a satsang by the poor, harried Durga Ji, (http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/durgaji/weallneedhelp.html) in which she said "Satsang within ourself is like praying to Guru Maharaj Ji all the time.
I’m always having to ask Maharaj Ji to please help me learn what he’s
trying to teach me, because he’s always trying to teach me, he’s always
trying to teach all of us all the time".
Even the newly rich, much servanted, wife of the LOTU was as f_cked up as most of us at the time.
|
|
|
|
The variations that can be written onto what was essentially a blank page, i.e, the lack of any theology around the revelation, are endless. I never went for the reincarnation spiel which was highly popular for a time, though many did, & though I was a sucker for the 'he can see into your soul when you're in the physical presence' superstition, that was never really defined either.
I certainly never prayed in the Marolyn sense, though I did accidentally put a tape of one of her satsangs onto the stereo during a mixed party of premies, freaks, & political agitators. That soft voice booming out into a houseful of people mainly all gonzo on this, that, & the other, caused a very peculiar atmosphere .
.......but that constant remembrance of your breath is probably impossible and nearly certainly nearly totally useless.........
I got pretty good at the Holy Name, even though I say so myself, which to my mind was the real prayer, & though as you say the 24/7 concentration is impossible, I'm not sure it was totally useless.
There probably aren't all that many traffic lights in yr part of the world, so you can't know. Driving home from satsang in London in 1973, if you hung back until the lights went green at the bottom of the Finchley Rd, & then accelerated to precisely 53 mph, & if there weren't too many dick heads about, you could get all the way to the top (2 miles ?) without hitting a red.
That was in a Ford Anglia, Harry Potter's wheels.
Now that's grace in action.
|
|
|
|
A true experiment would have been doing it "on Holy Name" and with your eyes closed!
Actually, I got pretty good at Holy Name too, and it was really liberating because at least then when I decided that enough was enough I wasn't that intimidated by the thought that I hadn't given it enough of a go. I have a fun theory that there are still many premies around who still think they would expereince the bliss if they only got it together to actually be able to meditate "properly" and they're caught in a Catch 666. Rawatian meditation doesn't work, they think it should, they blame themselves, they're stuck.
|
|
|
|
dead right Ocker...I was in that category best Tim
|
|
|
|
'magical belief in an invisible and ever present best friend combined with an inability to criticise or disbelieve Prem Rawat who is believed to be the embodiment of said friend' I think Maharaji is saying that as a person he is the best friend a person can have, and his implication is that he's also inside of people with that God thingy he claims to reveal. Talk about a messiah complex! From the quote: "Not that will go to a party today with you – not that kind of friend. A kind of friend that will never break the friendship. And on every cross road, they are there, ready to guide us. That's just another way of saying "Even in your darkest hour I will never abandon you." IMO, the problem with the above statements by Rawat is that he doesn't really know how to be a real friend to people so he's misusing the word completely. In fact, he's hijacking the word friend to make it part of the cult's lexicon: Cult speak. Loaded language. The definition of a friend to me includes someone that I know and feel attraction to, and affection for, and feel a certain level of intimacy with. My best friends are people that I can trust and love. I can be honest with my closest friends, but how can Rawat/Maharaji be anyone's friend when they cannot personnally speak with him, ask him a question(s), and even be critical of him? Is it acceptable to ever say "No!" to Maharaji and strongly disagree with him? With Maharaji, friendship is a one-way street. Friends are people I can trust to never hurt me intentionally, and even when I'm not myself (bitchy, sad, lonely, tired, crabby, sick, afraid) -- friends are people that forgive me my mistakes and it's reciprocated. I hang out with my friends and feel comfortable in their company. We share interests. Make chicken soup for them when they have a bad cold. He's co-opting the English language to make it mean something different from the real world's ordinary usage. That's a major hallmark of a cult. I wonder how many friends Rawat has that can be defined in the real world way? Isn't Maharaji telling people that he's a better friend than their own spouse? How could that be? My friends don't tell me to watch a DVD of them if I'm confused. My friends don't ask me to pray to them. I call my friends on the phone and visit them in their home. My friends don't ask me for financial contributions, and they don't put up big, wafting blue tunnel-tents so I can kiss their feet. Maharaji hasn't exactly been friends to ex-premies. Say in his mind maybe, we went astray from his "teachings" and his path. We talk about him, how we left the cult and we criticize him. Has he extended friendship to us? No. Has he offered to talk things out with us? No. Rawat's response has not been that he will "never break the friendship." Rawat's response to us has been that we're mentally ill, criminal, disgruntled, obsessive people, and members of a hate-group. That's not my definition of being someone's best friend. Maharaji's attaches all kinds of obligations to him specifically (not to mention all his conditions) when he talks about his "friendship." With a friend like that...
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 15:07:47
|
|
|
|
Modified by Steve at Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 15:53:06
|
|
|
|
Modified by nomorefootkissing at Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 22:05:13
|
|
|
|
Plus another photo of Prem Rawat with a small quote.
Modified by nomorefootkissing at Sat, Mar 31, 2007, 22:32:34
|
|
|
|
When I left the cult, spirit-broken and confused I sent M a letter explaining my situation and asking for any help or guidance, because at that time I still held him responsible and was very naïve to think that he might have an answer or might care. All I got was a polite noncommittal letter from one of his premies. The ones who extended me a helping hand at that difficult time were my parents’ neighbors, who never heard about knowledge, and were reacting as normal considerate and caring people, not even close friends (cause I cut my connections with those way back as an aspirant).
|
|
|
|
You're welcome Snow-white. When I was in the height of being a premie, I wrote to Maharaji every day. At the time, I never expected replies, but Dot Proctor and Sally Reeder were DLM premies that answered Maharaji's mail at the time. So, I got replies from them -- not from Maharaji. I got to know Dot and Sally when I moved to Miami Beach and lived with them at the Broadripple Ashram. There's no way either of them would have ever made a response to me concerning any problems I ever wrote to Maharaji about. Their responses were always "encouragement" to have faith and trust in Maharaji, and to practice K. They'd also include a quote usually. Maharaji doesn't touch his premies in a personal, down-on the-ground-way. Never has. His feet are lotus, after all! 
|
|
|
|
It was all so confusing, made no sense at all. I believed or was made to believe that M knew everything about everything, and was everywhere, and was aware of insignificant me as well, so why did I write to him, what he knew anyway? We had "the ineer connection". Only when rejecting this myth all pieces fall into place. It was all a delusion, M did not control anything. This inner dialogue of juxtaposing reality with the grace of guru maharaji was also a favourite game premies played in our small country. A premie friend told me once that he got on a flight to a festival without a ticket and without being noticed by the security stuff (in Israel)... and I believed him.
Modified by snow-white at Mon, Apr 02, 2007, 01:45:18
|
|
|
|
..yes indeed no real friend at all ... a complete stranger in fact. But, at the same time, as expressed in LP and Bryn's subthread, an illusion of constant friendship maintained through some strange corruption of the inner dialogue. I suppose that aspect is, in some way, common to all religion? best Tim
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think it is a common thing - the corruption of a persons inner dialogue. That's how people talk to god isn't it?
Those men in white coats with big machines have got in the act of course - measuring the way a persons brain lights up left right left right.
And they say that people whose thought process makes a rapid left right dialogue are physically particularly well coordinated, and those with a slow one are good at thinking.
And that the rate can change a bit at times but generally stays the same.
So I guess next time you wonder why you are having a conversation in your head,.. well you can think it's only natural.
|
|
|
|
Which exists inside for all of us.
I think it's connected with our own inner conscience.
When we ask seriously inside for answers, something seems to come up with these, with a sense of authority and caring.
The problem with cults, it seems to me, is to superimpose itself on this. The cult leader becomes identified with this particular intimate sense inside.
However, the notion of a deep inner caring voice is very old, and probably still real for very many.
It seems to me to be completely part of human nature.
|
|
|
|
I totally concur re caring authorative voice, I'll go even further and say loving, understanding.
And still say that's me.
Hey I must like myself!
No really it is the crux of why I speak out because that identification being tagged onto er what are we calling it? 'particular intimate sense inside' is such a dirty dangerous nasty horrible trick to play on someone.
To drive a wedge between me and me and make me think that fundamental authority and love comes from someone else is well let's just say I think it sucks.
Okay I have, I've had some pretty long conversations with god and well he knew stuff about me that I had forgotten....only two explanations, that really was god or that was me.
"Doesn't it just get you, that that trusted love is how you feel about yourself"
I wrote that in an email when exiting, and then I put it at the end of my journey when I wrote that because I consider it to be the solution for the problem a premie encounters on exiting - how can you leave that trusted love.
You can't and you don't. It is how you feel about yourself.
So I completely agree with everything you say Anthony in your post.
Now I have had seven years of living just me no god, and am discovering that that ability to have an intimate internal conversation is as vital to me as ever and um happens when it needs to.
As you say, a part of human nature. One I am beginning to believe has been hampered from a full expression simply by this idea of an omnicreator...which is a bit stifling really.
|
|
|
|
"One I am beginning to believe has been hampered from a full expression simply by this idea of an omnicreator...which is a bit stifling really." It doesn't have to be stifling - it can actually be quite enlarging, depending on the way you perceive the relationship and how you achieve communion with that inner voice. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." as the Bard would say. So to call the voice self or creator, the love is still within and neither name will change its nature. Sometimes trying to define the indefinable is what causes separation, when in reality we might all be talking about different expressions of the same thing?
|
|
|
|
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." as the Bard would say. So to call the voice self or creator, the love is still within and neither name will change its nature. That sounds like satsang, Annie, because you're stating a belief as fact, the unprovable as proven, and it sounds like what we used to say in the cult: "there are no right words for "it" (K), "it's" an experience...therefore, all the words we use to describe "it" with are correct...it's individual." It's also a rationalization for belief and faith. I've heard these things over the years from cult and from religious/spiritual people. The latest new age craze that's become acceptable and mainstream is to pray to the capital "U" Universe, and lots of new age hucksters are exploiting science (and the people they puke their "teachings" upon) by anthropomorphizing the universe as something that communicates with people, e.g., "the Universe will give back what I give to it" or "the Universe heard me," or "the Universe is in control." As if the real universe is capable of breathing, hearing, talking, be prayed to, grant wishes, reciprocate good feelings, deeds, etc. Rawat constantly anthropomorphizes things, like "your thirst," "your breath," "listening to your heart," etc. as if they are real things that have a life of their own. He does the same for objects. If people think they have an inner friend that created them and talks to them, I'd say they need psychiatric assistance, and quickly. So, one shouldn't assume that when I (me, specifically Cynthia) refer to myself, that it's the same thing as a "creator." Why? Because that's not what I mean at all. What you are referring to are your religious beliefs, experiences, desires, and thoughts. That's fine so long as the distinction is made. I accept that some (probably most) people have a need for faith and belief in a creator and/or higher power. But, to assert those beliefs as the same things as someone's "self" is incorrect, imo. My attention was peaked by your couple of remarks that Jim is arrogant. I don't think that's the case at all. He may eschew anyone's religious beliefs as bullsh*t, but my life experience of religious people is that they are the arrogant ones because it's never enough for them to have and keep and practice their beliefs/religion/rituals, and leave everyone else alone about it. There's always an attempt by religious people, new age or old age, to do propagation and spread it around, while behaving and talking as if they know something that everyone else needs and should have. Believers are very socially accepted and acceptable. Non-believers are not. Even U.S. presidental candidates are rated based on their religious beliefs. No atheist need apply! Love is an emotion all people feel. Words and their specific meanings are very important.
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 12:35:16
|
|
|
|
Cynthia, Lesley was describing an experience she has of an inner voice (or imaginary friend) and she was saying that it could be either god or herself. My response was wondering whether it mattered what she called it since it simply "is" for her. It was more of a rhetorical question than anything I suppose because to me, naming it isn't as important as feeling it. She said it made her feel good about herself. That must be a good thing? So she was calling it a kiwi fruit and I was calling it a chinese gooseberry. But obviously to you, the words are very important, and this might be a reaction to the years of abuse of words by the cult - I appreciate that, or perhaps you have just always been a literal person? I tend to be less literal and more literary - looking for the essence of the meaning, rather than the strict interpretation of the words. Not to say one is better than the other, just different. I certainly didn't mean to say that her experience "should" be called the creator, just asking whether it mattered whether it was or not? If she wants to call it self, so be it. If she wants to call it imaginary friend, then I don't think that necessitates a trip to the shrink - unless the friend's voice is actually a symptom of schizophrenia, which I presumed was not what she was talking about. I was a psych nurse for over ten years so I don't think I am deluding myself about my own experiences, but then again, none of us can ever be totally sure, can we? Perhaps I do sound a little "satsangy" these days. The essence of satsang for me was that a person spoke from their heart - to another listening heart. Sure, some of it was cr*p but I remember a lot of good stuff too, especially in the beginning, before total rot had set in. Saph might remember some of the good stuff too? Most of the reason that I got sucked in was because of the kindness of the premies and the love I felt from them. These were good people who really meant well at the time. I felt I lost something when we weren't allowed to talk about our experiences any more, but now I can see it didn't really matter because the whole thing was based on the needs of a corrupt and manipulative individual and therefore was bound to fail. The great disservice he did to so many was to harden their hearts through his deceit and false promises and to make cynics out of seekers. I do agree that many religious people are arrogant about their beliefs, as are many atheists. The arrogant ones in either group proclaim either that they KNOW for a fact that ---- *there IS a god and their way is the best way to worship him* or *there IS NO god and anyone who believes in one is a fool or worse*. Maybe my parents were a lot more tolerant than I gave them credit for because, although they thought religion was for the masses, they did admit that they didn't know whether there was a god or not since they couldn't prove it either way. I respect them for that honesty. As for Jim, he is arrogant, and he knows it, and he is perfectly happy with himself being that way. It is what I like so much about him. Alan Watts was my "guru" before rawat, and he loved arrogance - said it was more fun than being humble. The word can mean whatever you want it to mean, but I say it with great affection for him. I won't apologize for being happy in my beliefs, only for perhaps expressing myself badly. Personally, my happiness is not dependant on anyone else feeling the same way that I do about anything. I love horses, but if you hated them, it wouldn't really make a lot of difference to my life one way or the other. The same goes for my religious beliefs. It's sort of a "I'm OK, You're OK" feeling. You wrote: "Love is an emotion all people feel. Words and their specific meanings are very important."
Love is an emotion that I hope all people feel but having worked with abused children, and adopted two, I am not sure that all people have been so lucky. And words have the meanings that their author intends, but this is not always clear to the reader, and are therefore subject to interpretation and explanation.
We are hopefully not really so far apart - you have found peace and joy in your life, and I have done the same, but we express ourselves in foreign tongues. I am living in Singapore right now, and every sign is written in 4 languages -- saying the same thing but trying to make it clear to everyone, no matter what their native language. You speak atheist, I speak theist -- apart from that, we are still human beings just trying to cope in this world. As one premie said in satsang over 30 years ago, "We all just stagger and cope, stagger and cope." Let's hope the poor, sweet guy finally escaped!
|
|
|
|
no I'm sorry annie, you've got me wrong. I am saying that my experience and observation leads me to think that believing in the existence of god entails hosting an imaginary friend. and he costs.
sometimes people equate godlessness with a lack of feeling and imagination or use rational thinking as an excuse to avoid some of the deeper implications of their experience.
and sometimes people call themselves agnostic rather than answer the question but then in my view you are going to be believing something anyway and considering the implications in whether or not god exists cannot help but be affected in your thinking and choices.
|
|
|
|
It appears that I misread this statement... "Now I have had seven years of living just me no god, and am discovering that that ability to have an intimate internal conversation is as vital to me as ever and um happens when it needs to" As a person who has internal conversations with yourself, I simply meant to say that this internal dialogue could be called "self" or it could be called "creator" but whatever it was called by the individual, did not change the actual experience (another word that rawat has destroyed for all of us, but I can't think of a good synonym right now). Each one of us is so unique and so independent of another, that only we as individuals can truly understand what we mean by such emotionally charged and context-laden words as "god", "creator", "self", and so on. The words god and experience and knowledge (even with a small K) have been highjacked by the little man so that it makes conversation difficult and stilted. I know that I am often searching for words to use that have no cult connotation, and it is not easy. But many religions have also done this, so a person raised in a particular religion might find it hard to related to certain words like faith. The difference, to me, between an atheist and an agnostic is not in their beliefs so much as in their attitude. Like many religious fanatics, some atheists present themselves as being the only ones who really know what the Truth is. Agnostics, for the most part, appear to be saying, "I am not really sure if a god exists or not but am open to either idea." This was the attitude my parents had, although they had no tolerance for "Bible Bashers" at all. I used to make fun of people who had a "real" religion when I was young because I felt superior to them (I was a little snot when I think back on it). Now I have a lot more compassion about the need for people to believe in something. After all, we exes were naive and hopeful enough to follow rawat for awhile - and to believe that we knew the only way to salvation!!! I used to walk the streets with other premies declaring that the lord of the universe had come!! So now I have a lot more religious tolerance than I used to - "been there, done that" and am totally embarrassed by it as well - lol
|
|
|
|
I certainly didn't mean to say that her experience "should" be called the creator, just asking whether it mattered whether it was or not? If she wants to call it self, so be it. If she wants to call it imaginary friend, then I don't think that necessitates a trip to the shrink - unless the friend's voice is actually a symptom of schizophrenia, which I presumed was not what she was talking about. I was a psych nurse for over ten years so I don't think I am deluding myself about my own experiences, but then again, none of us can ever be totally sure, can we? I think I understood what Lesley was saying and you misunderstood her. I know you were a psych nurse so I'm sure you understand that adults ought not to have imaginary friends. It would make living in society quite difficult and wouldn't necessitate schizophrenia. I wasn't referring to you or Lesley when I made the comment, mostly because it was meant in in humor. Magical thinking and imaginery friends are for toddlers and I know that in child development middle teens indulge in some magical thinking, but it's best they grow out of it into adulthood. Annie, I would never ask you to apologize for your spiritual beliefs. But, as you know, when the subject comes up here, discussions can become weird and they usually lead to misunderstandings. Also, I'm not rigid about language that everything must be literal. However, when writing messages to each other, the meaning of words are so important, especially on a board that's about leaving a cult. Singapore! Sounds exiting and exotic. Be well, Cynthia
|
|
|
|
Misunderstandings due to errors in communication are probably one of the reasons that there is so much anger in the world. I love words and how they can be used, but I agree with you that "... the meaning of words are [sic] so important." So to avoid any further misunderstandings, I won't try to explain what I was trying to explain - lol!
Modified by Annie at Thu, Apr 05, 2007, 00:01:54
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I do sound a little "satsangy" these days.
The essence of satsang for me was that a person spoke from their heart
- to another listening heart. Sure, some of it was cr*p but I remember
a lot of good stuff too, especially in the beginning, before total rot
had set in. Saph might remember some of the good stuff too? Most of the
reason that I got sucked in was because of the kindness of the premies
and the love I felt from them. These were good people who really meant
well at the time.
Some of them weren't even "good people" but they still really meant well at the time. Speak from the heart, it still works for me, even though when I speak of Rawatism the words aren't "lovey-dovey".
The great
disservice he did to so many was to harden their hearts through his
deceit and false promises and to make cynics out of seekers.
Are you sure you aren't confusing experience with "hardness of heart" and cynicism with skepticism? It certainly is an extraordinarily shocking lesson to learn that all the beautiful heart-felt experiences of love, devotion, peace and beauty came from your involvement in a pathetic cult presided over by a nasty, ignorant little boy/man.
There is no direct relationship between "heart" and religious belief as history and your own current involvement in any religious group should have taught you by now.
|
|
|
|
"Are you sure you aren't confusing experience with "hardness of heart" and cynicism with skepticism? It certainly is an extraordinarily shocking lesson to learn that all the beautiful heart-felt experiences of love, devotion, peace and beauty came from your involvement in a pathetic cult presided over by a nasty, ignorant little boy/man." I can only relate my own exit attitudes and both hard heartedness and cynicism were definitely a part of the process. The greatest shock for me, was not reading about all of rawat's misdemeanors (or felonies even), but realizing that I had been gullible enough to give my life choices away to this person. That scared me. If I couldn't trust my own judgment, then what could I trust? So I was very cynical and close-minded to any spiritual or religious experience that anyone described to me. In a way, rawat stole my spiritual virginity. I felt violated by someone I trusted, and also doubted anyone who said anything about god. After one has been raped by "god", then it makes it difficult to ever trust the spiritual life again. This was a good phase for me to go through however, because it was like a total disk wipe, defrag, hard re-boot, etc.. to re-set all systems (can you tell I work with computers? lol) But once the overhaul was finished, I started allowing myself to investigate what was real to me. I was always a contemplative type of person and disagree with your statement... "There is no direct relationship between "heart" and religious belief as history ..." Many contemplatives refer to the spiritual heart when speaking of union with the divine (or self, depending on your beliefs). St Teresa (and many others) describe spiritual ecstasies centered in the heart, and Eastern mysticism refers to the "heart chakra" (although I don't know a lot about this). I only write this, because you seem to think that historical context is important in this matter. If St Teresa was having hallucinations from uterine cancer, or if the Eastern mystics made it all up to make money, none of changes what I have felt. I think that many premies (and exes) might have had spiritual experiences - I know I did, but the evil was that rawat claimed these for his own. I remember once when Bubblegumji (as my brother-in-law used to call rawat's brother) came to Melbourne in the early 70s - Padarthanad had spent a lot of time brainwashing us into believing that bubblegum was the opposite side of the coin to rawat's godhood. As he described it, rawat was the cloth weave one way, and bubblegum was the cross-weave but they were both the same cloth! Thus was the set-up to believe that bubblegum was just as divine as rawat, and I think that was done because rawat couldn't, or didn't want to, go to Australia at that time, and to pacify the mob, bubblegum was sent instead. When the cross-weave finally arrived in Melbourne, I had such an ecstatic experience just seeing him, and it totally confused me because up to that point, I had always attributed spiritual feelings to rawat. This made me think seriously about how the feeling was actually my own, not bubblegum's and not rawat's. Later I saw a video of a young girl having an ecstatic experience just being close to Michael Jackson! That certainly made me think too! In my bumbling way, I guess I am trying to say that each of us has our own experiences but they are because of our own inner life, not attributable to any other person. Just as some songs can move us to tears, some people, places or events can also invoke strong feelings in us (like weddings, graduations etc), especially if the atmosphere is set up in advance (like Paddy did with bubblegum or those long darshan lines for rawat) - but the feeling is in us. How we care to wrap up those experiences is our own choice, an expression of our inner life, belonging to us. So now I have taken all the cynicism I had and directed it at the proper source, rawat. He created a cult of fear and deceit and deserves all the loathing that exes care to direct towards him. He is totally insignificant to me now, but I am thrilled when someone is able to escape his clutches, especially someone like jonas, who hasn't walked far down the path yet. I would have compassion for rawat except that it would be wasted on him - he is either very evil, or very stupid, and wouldn't understand compassion if it bit him in his very large *ss --
|
|
|
|
hum, got me thinking...
Not so sure you can disenfranchise other people so dramatically in the experiences you have.
To take it to the enth, it's like saying that when you have a baby the feelings you experience are not attributable to it whereas it would seem to me that there is a bonding experience that goes on and that should you swop babies on a woman she would notice.
Yet there is something in what you say, still going hummm...
I think it makes a huge difference if you say that that is me or that is god. For a start, much as I might know a fair bit about myself I don't expect myself to be omni anything, god on the other hand I would expect to be able to do or know anything god wants. Plus who knows, god might be having a bad hair day or looking for some breakfast for satan whereas I know I'm on my side.
I've just finished a book which talks about the shipwreck of the Medusa and the cannibalism and betrayals that followed on. People can be reduced. I have seen it myself.
So perhaps it is in the interplay between eachother that we gain the strength to be the people we want to be. Try telling a teenager or anybody in the throes of love that it would be okay to substitute another person. Don't work does it.
Not sure wot to think, still going hummmm..
|
|
|
|
I am one of those people who will never stop thinking about the whole "life, death, the universe" thing. I love Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Monty Python's Holy Grail and yet I also love reading the really deep thinkers as well (not that the former are not deep thinkers, must be careful what I write here - lol). When you posted about the mother and her baby, then I started thinking -- hmmm?? I hadn't thought about that before? But then I say "well, the baby is the stimulus (and not just any baby, but this baby) but the deep feeling is still inside the person, not "in" the baby. Let's ponder some more and see what we come up with. I am running out the door, but you have made me think (and I love that). I would also like to explore the point you raised about god having a bad hair day and therefore not being there for you. Because free will is always something that gets me thinking... I also wonder, if humans are the only ones with free will, then how did satan and some of the angels rebel (going along with the wild assumption here that such things really happened)? Things that make you go hmmmmm... I like discussing things with someone who doesn't feel a need to get upset and angry ... I find everything fascinating! I know that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." --From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
and this make me eager to discuss possibilities with other people. Thanks for your response, Lesley!
|
|
|
|
How about that the quiet inner voice we hear is the Self in psychological terms. Maybe just an aspect of material consciousness, the voice of the subconscious, which has time to work on all of our questions, and consequently, when it speaks to the conscious mind, has a deep gravitas and sense of authority.
Or, that it is the Self in spiritual terms. The 'Self' in this latter context is sometimes used as a synonym for the Soul by spiritual people who wish to link up spirituality with psychology (this goes back generations).
I think this may be because with the advent of psychoanalysis, various psychologists, most notably Jung, were playing with the possibility that the two concepts of psycho Self and spiritual Soul might really be the same.
This sense of Self, the authoritative loving guiding voice, seems to me possibly a part of us through which the divine, if this exists, communicates.
In fact, it seems to me to be the link between our material personality and our divine part.
The Soul seems part of our subconscious mind, integrated with this, so that the same voice resolves everyday dilemmas, acts as an overall guide and personal conscience, and trickles through occasional gems of understanding.
Just my own musings.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes when I read something, my first reaction is "too deep, I can't see!" lol -- that is when I have to go back and read it again, this time using a little more effort. I think I like what you are saying but I certainly will need to ponder it some more. But first I need to check with my new guru to see if I am allowed to think???? lol I have always loved psychology and spirituality - but I thought they were too opposed to each other to communicate -- I did read a lot of Erich Fromm, who tried to give meaning to suffering, but I haven't read enough Jung to really know what he is all about yet. Thank you, Anthony, for something to chew on.....
|
|
|
|
Thank you, my daughter, you are certainly allowed to think - and the more the merrier.
The putative link between psychology and spirituality goes back yonks, most certainly to Jung, maybe before.
I remember, when living abroad donkeys years ago, I was reading Jung and mysticism, and suddenly it occurred to me that perhaps what the mystics meant by universal consciousness was perhaps the same as the human subconscious - that the latter was not just our personal store of experience, but a repository of all human experience which was also interfused with another aspect - a spiritual sense through which guidance was transferred to us.
In other words, what the psychologists call the Self is not just something material, but maybe what the mystics called the Soul, as it is totally we ourself, but also a channel for the divine.
Needless to say, this is only a personal view.
|
|
|
|
-- nothing to do with white supremacy -- that had similar ideas? I didn't investigate it much, but an auntie of mine who was very spiritual said that she followed the teachings of this group. There was a sense of self being connected to a higher power that was united with all selfs - or something like that - I could have it all wrong. I have tried to analyze a lot of my mystical experiences, and sometimes they just don't break down into neat little boxes. It could be that trying to understand the infinite (spirit) with the finite (mind) is impossible (although a lot of fun, and very stimulating). From my experiences, direct perception is possible, but it is in trying to understand it afterwards that I get stymied. Of course, there is no harm in trying, and perhaps the mind is a direct doorway as well, if the right connection is made. You speak [post] very eloquently - have you considered a career in either politics or becoming a new age guru?
|
|
|
|
'if humans are the only ones with free will, then how did satan and some of the angels rebel'
Do animals have free will? ( Not sure where the notion that only humans have free will comes from ). Those chimps that have been taught to communicate with humans can be pretty smart, and they make jokes and do tricks - doesn't this require free will? If you can accept that animals, or some of them, have free will, what does that do to your theology? Does God care about the choices these creatures make? Is there a mini-salvation for them? Is there punishment for bad choices? What does God do with a bad chimp who dies?
There are a lot of questions down this line, and I guess things get pretty obscure unless you draw a strict line between humans and other creatures, and take it as read that the universe is here for our benefit only. Oh yes, we used go with that till Darwin opened his big mouth!
|
|
|
|
That is an interesting point, 13. I have always valued animal souls very highly because I love them so much, but I never actually considered whether they have free will. I just assumed that they were products of the instinct for survival, and this left them very little time to actually stop and think "should I or shouldn't I?" "will I or won't I?" I don't know that I can come to a conclusion about this one without a lot more discussion and consideration. As much as I love animals, I am not really sure that they have consciousness in the same way that humans do. Yes, they have consciousness, but it seems to be a lot more primitive. Most of them certainly don't seem to consider the consequence of their actions, or the future. If they did, I know a lot of horses that acted against their own best interests in their behaviour!! but then I also know a lot of humans who do the same. Oh why did you have to make me think about this? Now I will be awake all night trying to come to some kind of conclusion about it. The one thing I know for sure (I hope) is that animals are too smart to ever fall for rawat's sick game. So maybe they should be the ones running the planet? (Oh yeah, I forgot, the mice are!)
|
|
|
|
'I just assumed that they were products of the instinct for survival'
It might be that that is all our consciousness is, an adaption for survival. This might seem a bleak view, but since we don't know everything, then we have to accept this as a possibility. And there is the redeeming notion that if this is the case, the value of our consciousness isn't necessarily diminished - or do you need God to validate your existence?
'I am not really sure that they have consciousness in the same way that humans do'
If they don't, then there are at least two ways to have consciousness. Which perhaps is more surprising than just one way of having consciousness. The consciousness of a dolphin is different to that of a chimp, and both are different to ours. But both species play tricks on members of their group - doesn't this require some theory of mind, a bit of planning, some regard for the future ( near future at least) and even a notion of fun? Sure, we are the only species capable of doing calculus, but that might be the fine detail on top of something fundamentally the same in all ( higher? ) creatures.
Have you read any of Richard Dawkins' books - 'River out of Eden', the 'Blind WatchMaker'? The first book especially, blurred the distinctions I had always made between mankind and all the other creatures in a most moving way.
|
|
|
|
Well humans are animals and so if we have "free will" why shouldn't they? But really the whole concept of "free will" is so medieval. The great "free will and mechanism" debate is over, it is forgotten, it is in the trash bin of history. It is a "category error".
Wake up and smell the DNA.
|
|
|
|
because I had a pretty ecstatic experience when BBJ arrived down the corridor at Sydney airport and I never had one with Prem himself. In retrospect I am quite sure I was influenced by the first experience I had of being with other people with whom I had something in common who were themselves overcome with a heartfelt feeling of love because that I now see is how nearly all of my peak "external" experiences occurred and as my empathetic experiences with others has become more overt as I have got older.
Then when BBJ gave satsang at a "program" it was terribly disappointing because it was jsut a mish amsh of unrelated ideas and stories and mistaken conflations of different meanings of words like 'energy'.
I repeat: "There is no direct relationship between "heart" and religious belief as history ..." shows us.
The religious history of the world is full of the most terrible evil, murders, pogroms, torture and certainly not only the Christian history but Eastern history as well. Many of the most evil acts were done ecause of the religious belief, not because of the character of the people involved.
I read the autobiography and the Way of Perfection of St Teresa of Avila when a teenager and I don't recall her writing anything condemning the Crusades (sure they were well and truly over by then), the Inquisition, the attacks on the Reformation, the attacks on jews or any of the myriad cruelties and evil perpetuated by the church. Furthermore her attempts at making other Cartmelite nuns live by her strict standards which included regular flagellations were not at all accepted gladly, not that she cared.
Righto, it might not have been caused by cancer but I really don't think there was an angel who repeatedly stabbed her with a golden spear. Why gold, why not iron?
The woman cried to God repeatedly "Give me suffering or give me death" and not "Please release others from suffering, especially the unwarranted suffering of Jews and 'heretics' and others whose hearts are full of love for God but whose ideas are different from the Roman Church's and mine!" I'm not a cynic but if there is anything that would make me cynical it is the lives of saints like Teresa and Dominic and Bernard and Augustine and the other cruel and heartless people of God.
|
|
|
|
The whole bubblegumji thing was weird from start to finish. He tried to be very "scientific" in his discourses and they were so boring. As for St Teresa, she was like all of the over eager, pious women of that age - suffering was their devotion of choice. I guess she had to be careful too what she condemned in those days because of the Inquisition. She was actually called before them herself because she went against the norm in trying to reform the Carmels of her day. She might have gone overboard in that too, which is why she experienced so much opposition, but she was trying to fight the hypocrisy of her day, which had women in covents who lived their lives like rawat! They had money and visitors and spent their days in the parlor with their friends gossiping about others. Teresa figured if a nun was to be spiritual, then she shouldn't be hanging out all day with her parlor friends. She didn't make all the Carmelites follow her way, she tried reforming some, and then started founding her own. She would say that if a woman couldn't cope with the life in her convents, she should go find an easier one to live in. She did a good thing, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean she wasn't subject to error as well. As for the cancer, that is what I read, that she might have had uterine cancer (she did hemorrhage a lot). The pains might have caused hallucinations, I don't know. Maybe she was just waxing poetic. She obviously had mystical experiences, but the way she described them could have been a product of the age she live in as well. She couldn't very well say that she saw an iPod with an electrode going into her side - now could she? Her world was full of knights and angels and romantic imagery. "The religious history of the world is full of the most terrible evil, murders, pogroms, torture and certainly not only the Christian history but Eastern history as well. Many of the most evil acts were done because of the religious belief, not because of the character of the people involved." Yes, that is true, religion has been used as the excuse for heinous crimes against humanity, but there has been a lot of evil done by non-religous people as well (were Hitler or Idi Amin particularly religious?), and great good done by non-religious and religious both. Off hand, I can think of Mother Teresa and Ghandi but there have been so many really good people throughout history. The whole "baby and the bathwater" thing keeps coming back to me. It is easy to focus on the negativity in this world because the media gets more attention with the highly sensational than with the truely good, but that doesn't mean there isn't good in the world... perhaps it is just quieter?
|
|
|
|
There is no direct connection between "heart" and religious belief. There are many people (and not just people who've done evil) who are religious and have about as much heart as Prem Rawat and there are many people who have no belief in God who are full of "heart" that is full of love for others, joy and the energy to do things for others and that is what I believe "heart" is.
|
|
|
|
Ahhh, the penny drops! Posting on a forum is not the easiest way in the world to get a point across. It can happen, but it takes a lot of explanation. I agree completely - there are many people with lots of "heart" who practice no religion at all. And many evil people (rawat comes to mind as just one) who claim to follow a religion. Understood now, oh patient one!
|
|
|
|
I agree with you friend, but I know my dear brother Jim might not, so be very quiet in how you say it! lol
Modified by Annie at Wed, Apr 04, 2007, 06:20:06
|
|
|
