|
|
|
Here's how I think it works: Prem has a real difficulty with the idea that other people are having real thoughts about real things and coming to conclusions about real life. For Prem the only real thinking is what goes on in his head. Of course there are scientists and technologists and lawyers and accountants who do clever things but they are just part of the machinery of the world - its only Prem who is there having original thoughts. So Prem sits in front of his wall sized TV and lubricates his autistic fantasy with copious amounts of alcohol, watching the Discovery Channel. Shazam ! there's revelation and understanding - for the first time in human history someone (our hero Prem) has completely grasped the true meaning of evolution. Sure Darwin described it but Darwin is just a mechanical - and an off stage one at that. But now Prem knows all about evolution so he'll do the great and magnamious thing - he'll explain it to the world. At least he'll explain it to the premies who all go - "you are so wise, how would we ever manage without you, Maharaji you are our inspiration " etc. etc. etc. Prem Pal Singh Rawat sure has a whole lot of markers as someone on the route to a major mind quake. Still IMO it's most likely his ramblings about biology are much as they would be for any pompous egocentric drunk. N
|
|
|
|
If the (former) Lord of the Universe is just a pompous egocentric drunken autist, what hope for the rest of us mere mortals? Gawd help us
|
|
|
|
I think Nik has it about right. But Rawat has always said really ignorant things. Remember when he said that oil came from dinosaurs? It was at a really big international program in Miami around 1979, during the oil crisis in the Carter Administration. He knew there was some kind of problem, which was, he said, that we were running out of oil because there weren't enough dinosaurs. It was really stupid and I think most of the premies knew he was off the wall, but I think some premies find it endearing and kind of funny that their lord is such an idiot. You know, he's a child and all that -- needs to be protected and defended and poor thing has to deal with the cruel world and he's so pure, and childlike, it's, like, hard. I remember in that same "satsang" he also pronounced "dinosaurs" wrong and instead said "Dina Shores," you know the actress/singer from the 50s and 60s who had her own variety TV show and used to date Burt Reynolds? Maybe he was drunk at the time, not sure, but, really, I think that's what he actually believed, and who around him was going to tell him he just said something really stupid? That would be like saying the emperor had no clothes. Anyhow, Rawat and his cult have always been completely anti-intellectual. Rawat once bragged that he had never read a book. He is in many ways just a child with a short attention span. He loves things with wheels, gizmos and gadgets, likes flying neato airplanes, and maybe even has some knowledge associated with that, but that's about it. Remember how 12 year old boys like to put together models and build crystal radios? It's in that realm. Any kind of philosophical or intellectual analysis of anything is just way beyond him and always has been and I think he resents people who can actually do that. He feels inferior, so he criticizes it as meaningless. All he's got is what he gleens from TV, or rehashes from Hindu mythology which he apparently picked up from his Father and the mahatmas. So, that's what he talks about. He would likely say a bullshit theory about evolution because, like Nik said, it's what he picked up from TV, directed at someone with an 8th grade education, but he doesn't get quite the whole thing because he has the attention span of a child. In fact, I think Rawat has become more stupid and isolated over the years, such that he has even less perspective on how he comes across. Hence those embarassing attempts at "poetry" and "music."
Modified by Joe at Tue, Dec 20, 2005, 17:50:20
|
|
|
|
Hi Joe I think Nik has a good take on maharaji and his mix of pseudo scientific philosophy, except maharaji probably freaks at the mere mention of philosophy. It is after all the domain of the intelligent and he appears to be afraid of such perspectives, as you say. Unfortunately, and without any disrespect he lives in a country in which theories of "intelligent design" are being aggressively propagated despite the recent setback described in the link below. It is worth watching the video linked to in the upper right of the page and the incredible condemnation by TV evangelist Pat Robertson. I suppose maharaji will ride the wave of ID for what it's worth. Gives him something to say.
Related link: Setback for Intelligent Design in Dover
Modified by MarkT at Tue, Dec 20, 2005, 18:43:42
|
|
|
|
True, we also have a president in somewhat the same vein as Rawat, at least in the sense that he's anti-intellectual and "faith based," but I don't think it's the popular culture that is the cause of Rawat being such an idiot. I think it's an inferiority complex, and the fact the history of the cult is one of rejecting rationality. In fact, you HAVE to reject rationality to some degree to even accept the belief system of Rawatism. BTW -- "intelligent design" is not as widespread as you might think. I know there was that court decision yesterday in Pennsylvania, but the people in that area had already voted out all of the "intelligent design" idiots from the local school board and put in the board members who were going to delete the "theory" from the curriculum. And this was in a conservative, fairly rural, school district. So, the court decision was kind of gravy, but I'm glad to see it. But the American people aren't quite as far gone as the press might indicate.
|
|
|
|
I am sure the majority of Americans do not adhere to such creationist beliefs to the extent that they consider the argument for ID to be scientifically superior but it does seem strange to see the issue receive so much publicity. In this country we have religious schools in which the particular faith is central to the corriculum but my understanding is that they still keep science and religion separate. I think there is a higher proportion of people in America that do believe in some divine deity though and considering the level of wealth relative to the rest of the world it is an interesting combination. I haven't read the ID argument to be honest but understand that they seek holes in the evolution theory but what maharaji is spurting out seems more like Nik says, the result of watching some TV channel.
Modified by MarkT at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 06:00:47
|
|
|
|
You are right that probably more Americans than Europeans believe in creationism, but there is a huge, huge variation on what people mean by that. Those who believe the world was created in 6 days, and is only about 10,000 years old is a very small minority. However, many people, including most Christians in America, believe in "creationism" in the sense that a God created the world, including, perhaps, that God created the system called "evolution," for that to happen. "Intelligent Design" is just a ploy to try to get creationism in the schools -- it's a more palatable idea, and if you don't dig below the surface, it's something probably most Americans believe. And they might get that from television, which, as with most things, covers issues on a really simplistic, "sound bite" sort of way, and tends to give equal weight to both sides or arguments, even if one has no merit whatseover. So, ID gets a lot of air time it doesn't deserve. But the insidious nature of ID is that it really is just a ploy. If you can, read the judge's decision in the Pennsylvania case from yesterday. Her really lambasted the dishonesty of the ID proponents.
|
|
|
|
I've heard the theory that when a young person becomes addicted to mind altering substances, that their emotional growth stops at that age. Perhaps both rawat's emotional and intellectual growth were stopped when he came to the West and began to imbibe - or did his addiction begin in India? Who gave "Him" his first drink? Since addiction tends to run in families, my guess would be that it was dear old dad. I remember the Dina Shores and thought it was cute in a silly way. What a fool I was. Karen
|
|
|
|
Who gave "Him" his first drink?One story from the old days was that Rawat was flying back to the US from the UK not long after his wedding, and he opened a present from George Blodwell, who was the coordinator or some such title in Scotland. The present was a bottle of good single malt Scotch whisky. The story goes that Marolyn, who was with him, expressed concern as he'd never drank whisky before, but the way the story was told the concern wasn't serious as Rawat was the Lord and the creator of all things, including whisky. George was later the ashram secretary in Leeds, and was the nicest ashram secretary I knew. Last I heard he was dressing the rich and famous in LA. In 1980/81 I met him in Miami and he told me he turned down an invitation to a Rod Stewart party to come to the program. Rod Stewart/Lord of the Universe? - Hmm, difficult choice! John.
|
|
|
|
Hi Joe,Here is one example where Prem Rawat does mention dinosaurs and ofcourse more. "And it's just like, it's very, very simple." The attachment is from the Divine Times - April/May 1977 - Volume 6, Number 4, Page 19. It's from Prem Rawat's talk at the Holi Festival ~ Miami Beach, Florida, Sunday, March 20, 1977. It's called "Love: A Plentiful Reason"
Modified by Hilltop at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 01:34:34
|
|
|
|
Thanks Hilltop What a load of utter gibberish and total bollocks that talk was, and look at the size of that crowd hanging on his every word. As I said before... "when the disciple is ready the master appears"... we encouraged him. Jeez, we were so gullible. But crazy as it all seems now, there was a sincere desire for this to be real, certainly on my part, and there was a vibe that held it all together. It makes me wonder.
|
|
|
|
This is accurate: "there was a vibe that held it all together." I shall capitalized Vibe to give it its proper importance, an importance that continues to this day in Premie Land. It goes by other names: Holy Name, the "feeling of satsang," or simple "that feeling," you know - THAT feeling. That feeling is real. And Rawat's trick is to acquisition that feeling as being his Knowledge. Premies become premies for that feeling. But Ex-premies know that the feeling is nothing more than the natural result of being in a small group of people who are listening to each other attentively, or the natural result of meditation, or the natural result of a large group of people focusing on a performer of some sort. Premies attribute the Vibe incorrectly, in exactly the way the guru directs. Here is how currently practicing premies describe it on the website Prasad Wallah: "In 2006 Maharaji will celebrate 40 years teaching humans how to connect with this beutiful feeling within. Robert Best, a retired businessman from Northern Ireland who had flown to Delhi to attend the event, said: “It’s a long way to come, but there’s something special about staying in a place where life becomes a moment-to-moment enjoyment, away from the humdrum and politics. The peace process I hear about back home seems to have lost its way. Prem Rawat offers one with a difference, because it starts with the individual taking responsibility for peace in their own life.” Jean-Luc Marechal, a management consultant from France, commented: “Much attention has gone into creating a pleasant and focused environment. Being here with Prem Rawat helps me to experience the beauty within me. That is such a joy. It gives me equilibrium and strength.” People from all walks of life came to hear Prem Rawat talk about finding peace and contentment within. Kathy Quaill, a hairdresser from Australia, said: “The people here are so heartfelt. I find it humbling because a lot of people have so little, yet they all have smiles on their faces. I feel that I’ve grown on the inside, in my heart. Prem Rawat has shown me such a gift. It’s truly an anchor for me.” For Shikha Jashi, a student from Chandigarh, it was eye opening “to meet people from so many different countries who enjoy an experience of peace within. I enjoy seeing the similarity between them and me.” Alex Shay, a real estate broker from Miami Beach, said: “In my everyday life, my business is all about money and the material world, which I know isn’t going to last forever. When I come to see Prem Rawat, it feels like a reprieve.” Among the many people who have been learning from Prem Rawat for some time, Ron Bator, an investment consultant living in Thailand, reflected: “Seeing Prem Rawat is always a transformation for me, one that happens in the realm of the heart. Being here is a celebration of life like no other anywhere in the world." end of quotations The illusion of Premie Land is just this last sentence: "Being here is a celebration of life like no other anywhere in the world." It simply is not true, in many ways. First of all, the guru puja festivals that Rawat puts on are identical in all major aspects to other gurus' events. Secondly, the celebration of life and the feeling of peace can be felt by anybody, not just premies. Premies are so narrowminded and self-absorbed. When a premie opens his eyes to the larger reality of life (not the idealised inner Reality that he seeks and misses), he sees the narrowness of Rawat and the impossibility of Rawat's way making any real contribution in this world. All they have is Premie Land - a tent city ruled over by a fat little fraud. But they obey the main rules - be at peace, be responible for your own peace, retain the positive and let go of all the negative (doubts, etc.), choose joy, not sadness. It's really all so juvenile in its cultish workings, but the vibe itself, or the feeling, is not juvenile. It feels good, and good in a worthy way, a way that remains pertinent throughout life.
|
|
|
|
Actually, I thought the stuff with the dinosaurs was pretty funny. It is obvious that Mr Rawat is not talking literally here, because he suggests that God might have to fix things by making it rain more oil.
He could have been more literal and talked about the forests turning into oil, but it is more fun to refer to dinosaurs, and God with the calculator with the flat batteries and so on.
Now I have no idea whether he really thinks rotting dinosaurs are the source of oil. Maybe he thinks God uses a calculator too. But there was some charm to these images wasn't there? This kind of stuff made me laugh. Unfortunately, it also kept me tied in there for longer. I'd certainly have left earlier if it wasn't for the jokes (though I am certainly not saying he is the greatest comedian - I'd have done better putting my money into buying a ticket for an Eddy Izzard show).
|
|
|
|
>He could have been more literal and talked about the forests turning into oil, but it is more fun to refer to dinosaurs, and God with the calculator with the flat batteries and so on.< But doesn't this leave the situation as one where nothing Rawat says can ever be subject to the normal analysis of the real world ? Every time someone points out an absurdity or an inconsistency or a falsehood or puts something that Rawat has said in to a wider context - the apologists bring in multiple layers of revisionism - he was joking - it was a parable - it was a 'Zen' style juxtoposition etc. Rawat is being sold as some non philosophical, non religious proponent of 'universal peace' - so if there's no philosophy and no religion involved why is there all this extraneous 'joking' or sub Darwinian exposition of the nature of economics, geology and biology ? To appreciate (trully, trully apreciate) Rawat's jokes or his widom or his inspiration 'you gotta be there' - and being there means being a Premie 'in that place' nudge nudge, wink wink. The only way to judge Rawat is by the normal rules of social interaction and commonly understood language - if his orations have to be subject to 'explantion' to make them intelligible, then far from being the 'great speaker' that TPRF sells him as - he is in fact a poor communicator with an obscured message. In short he's a fraud - even at the most revisionistic level. N
|
|
|
|
It is easy to pick holes in what someone says when it is taken out of context - I guess words perhaps don't even have a meaning without context.
I could easily imagine talking to my kids about there not being enough dinosaurs, which is why there isn't enough oil. That kind of talk keeps their attention - they have to watch out for the tricks in the language, the little games inserted just for the hell of it into 'normal' speech.
I agree - To appreciate Rawat's jokes or his wisdom or his inspiration 'you gotta be there' - I am just saying some of those jokes, within that context were good!
But don't ask me to try defending the context! That's where the trouble is. And if he was such a crap speaker, how did we manage to spend so many hours listening to it? And we were often moved by it.
Now I am out of that context though, I doubt I could bear to sit through a whole speech.
|
|
|
|
And you don't make much sense, either. You can read the "context" above, which Hilltop has posted. It's clear that Rawat said some stupid stuff about oil coming from dinosaurs and it wasn't just a joke, either. He was always saying stupid stuff like that, and the premies defended it in the same way you are now, however, underneath what they said was the axiom that whatever Rawat did or said was just fine, because he's God, which he also pretty much says in the same ramble. Rawat is a "crap speaker," and most people who aren't progammed premies will tell you that. I, at least, sat for hours listening to him because I believed he was God, and I had to suspend my brain and just left it waft in. Having said that, I was usually completely bored by him, and berated myself for listening to him with my "mind" instead of my "heart." Did you ever try to read his reprinted satsangs? That is something I could never do, because there is no there, there. If you remove the content from the "high" of a program, there isn't much there.
|
|
|
|
I agree he is a crap speaker. I have listened to a lot of his tapes since exiting and there is next to nothing there. Sometimes he was good, but usually when he was talking about how we are just a speck of dust and if GMJ closes the door we are finished, and other dramatic stuff - I must admit that was the sort of stuff I lapped up.
Even for bizarre versions of the theory of evolution, Glen Whitaker was much funnier. In fact, I wonder if Rawat got his education from Glen?
John.
|
|
|
|
I recall it was fashionable in the earlier days of the Rawat cult in the West, to spout pseudo-scientific theories that supported the cult belief system. There was the crap about the pituitary gland, about how light and matter we being found to be the same, that everything is energy in the universe, that God is energy, that plants have a secret life and are "conscious," that knowledge is rewiring the circuits of your brain, that brain waves were tested during meditation with some "astounding" results, that "nectar" was medicinal, that acid changed your chemistry and made you ready for knowledge, etc. The basic idea was that "science" was just beginning to discover what we already knew as premies, and that in the years to come "science" would fall in line to support the Lord of the Universe.
|
|
|
|
The context in which what Rawat says makes sense is something bigger than the page Hilltop posted. If what he says is regarded within the context of him being the LOTU, well then everything he says is full of sense, and if you don't understand that, then there is something wrong with you. That was the way it was for me and a lot of people, unfortunatley.
Now it is different. Now I can't even bring myself to read a whole page that Hilltop posts - it is too awful, too stupid.
I know he said some really factually inaccurate stuff - someone mentioned in this thread how he once talked about what John the Baptist wrote in the bible. He talked about that many times. I know, because each time he said it I was amazed that no-one had mentioned his error in the meantime.
I know, there were some much funnier speakers - John mentioned Glen Whittaker - he cracked me up a lot, and Anth too.
Scuse me, I just thought the way he would talk about dinosaurs and oil was pretty funny, and whether he knew about where oil comes from didn't matter much. He was correctly pointing out the error in our reliance on oil, that's all.
You're saying that absolutely everything he ever said was 100% crap? You never laughed in any of his speeches?
|
|
|
|
Saying something is funny is one thing, but saying something is funny as an excuse for something really stupid, uninformed, and just plain wrong, is something else. I also think that many premies found what Rawat said sometimes funny beacuse it was "in" humor, which was specific to the cult. Another reason premies found Rawat funny was because they believed he was God, and they were always relieved when he would lighten up, and not be berating them for being just meaningless, ungrateful, scum. So, it was humor, but more relief. Out of that context, even his jokes were mostly not very funny at all. It's only the cult mentality attaching significance to them (or rather the humor in the incongruity of the LORD cracking jokes in the first place) that made them that way. My point wasn't the Rawat had to always be factually correct. My point was the easy acceptance that premies had for his really stupid statements. Plus, this idea that he was wise or you relied on him for "guidance" etc, when he obviously wasn't all that bright or informed, so this guidence idea had to exist despite evidence to the contrary. I didn't say what he said was all crap. I said he was a crap speaker. Like every schister and con man, there is some truth or at least common sense in the things he said, which were mostly simplistic platitudes stated as if they are universal truths that everyone intuitively knows to be true, mixed in with a bunch of buzz words that don't mean what they do literally, like "knowledge, truth, that love, that peace, that experience, that joy, fulfillment, thirst, heart, mind, love, master, within inside, meditation, practice, etc." They all are loaded buzz words in the cult, that premies nodded to each other about having these "in" meanings, but which really are a bastardization, misuse of language. No one ever defines terms, no one questions the paltitudes Rawat pronouces about what everyone wants, and how human beings are, and he never even says why "the creator" gave them screwed up minds that torture them, and requires they find an obscure, fat, rich, playboy to free them from the torment and give them "peace." It all sounds like a cruel joke of "the creator" if you think about it, and a premie better not too much, or that premie is likely out of that cult.
Modified by Joe at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 15:46:56
|
|
|
|
Oh no sir, definitely not a cult since 1971
|
|
|
|
At the end of this page from the 1977 Divine Times, Rawat says "have faith in Guru Maharaji, have faith in me," and continues using the first pronoun. This is a rare example in contrast to his usual practice of referring to Maharaji or "the Master" in the third person. I should add here that despite Rawat's verbal ambiguity, there was never any doubt between him and his audience about where the faith was supposed to go. It most certainly was NOT to go to God, or to our own experience of the Inner Light. The whole point of the Master is supposedly to provide a manifestation of the Beyond. Unfortunately, this particular manifestation so effectively disguises Itself with the mask of human stupidity (dinosaurs/oil, tree evolution, ad infinitum) that His poor faithful eventually morf into the worst kind of religious idiot possible. The only alternative is to renounce faith itself, which is what I did. Faith is one of the many man-made miseries that mankind dishes out to itself. Which brings me to Intelligent Design, and so far I don't see any evidence for intelligence, just remarkably lucky stupidity. (Just kidding, I'm actually a Behe fan).
Modified by Will at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 10:20:39
|
|
|
|
will be taken as gospel by the " true believer ". Remember, we lost it a long time ago and no longer realise the "truth" : ) I can't recall the exact context but I do remember him once getting John the Baptist mixed up with John of the Gospel. Maybe he was talking about " in the beginning was the word" or something. Of course I knew he'd got it wrong but the Premie in me was quite willing to surrender that certainty and concede that, in the great scheme of things, he probably knew best anyway. : ) Like, you know, he obviously knew more about Jesus and the Johns because ....well, he's in the same league, nod, nod, wink, wink. Then again, there were times when he was so obviously wrong about things that no concessions could ever be appropriate. The only thing to do then was gloss over it.....forget it...an irrelevance quickly dismissed. The ways of the world and the ways of the devotee....never the twain shall meet : ) Cheers Dermot Ps …hi to folks here. Doubt if I’ll be posting much on any of the Prem topic forums but you never know . No doubt I’ll be reading them from time to time though. Anyway, catch ya later …
Modified by Dermot at Wed, Dec 21, 2005, 08:16:13
|
|
|
