|
|
|
"It has to do with the phallus being an organ of Imagination before it was ever an organ of sexual reproduction" "Incest is the ONLY defense that a human race has against complete and total disasterous annihilation and eternal damnation. Period..... Full stop.......... End of Story. This is a truth that is absolutely unassailable." "Prem Rawat, the most perfectly good man who has ever existed in any universe that has ever existed in any dimension" All praise to the internet. How else would we come into contact with opinions like these and the minds of their authors.
|
|
|
|
Well, Isaac (Jeff actually) has something in common with Prem Rawat (Maharaji) in that he thinks that women are in some way inferior to men. As 'Shri Guru Maharaj Ji' said way back in 1972: Q: Guru Maharaj Ji, have there ever been any women Perfect Master?
M: Very good question, but I don’t understand it because you are limiting Masters in their bodies. Q: It’s just that all the famous Perfect Masters have always been men.
M: What do you mean “a famous Perfect Master”? You see, God gives women a great thing, because He takes birth from women. And to equalise this He comes in the human frame of a man, and that's what we don't understand. But in my heart, personally I have great respect for women because even God has to come through a woman. So He mustn't favour women more, he comes through a woman but takes a man's body. You see? He equalises! Understand? Now women mustn't be proud of this and shouldn't waste their time just being proud of it. They must take the privilege of it. But people do get proud – they take the Rolls and put it on a turn-table, on a glass piece, and stand and looks at it. “Oh, I’ve got a Rolls,” and never drive it. After some time it becomes junk and it is finished.
Nope, I don't get the Rolls-Royce reference either. Is Maharaji saying that women should not be proud of being women, rather they should just get on with it and have babies? T
Related link: Maharaji on women
Modified by T at Fri, Jan 13, 2006, 06:16:51
|
|
|
|
Hi T! It's so nice to read "equalising" gems like this! I guess he's saying that women are like Rolls Royces. Not a bad analogy, except that either way (driving them or admiring them in a showcase) they are used as objects that will inevitably get worn and then dumped! Now how have I lived this long without knowing this particular piece of "enlightenment"??? God who qualises...hmmm...seems like this would be to admit he made a mistake with his creation if he had to fix things afterwards like this...hmm ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
It appears daughters are missing out entirely on the paedophilic fun: >And the only answer is the one perfect answer. Mothers MUST raise their sons with the intention of becoming their sons' lovers so that they encourage rather than discourage the proper development of their sons' sexuality. Fathers must wish to be the lovere of their sons and for their sons to be the lovers of their mothers, and the mothers must concur, or human life fails. Period. Humans are made to be lovers with the parents who make them, and the lie that human life is other than this comes from Allah and the enabler of Allah who is Satan, the man with the alcohol. Grrr! - uncork me a bottle of Satan, right now... I feel safer with pink elephants.
|
|
|
|
I've seen this guy's site before, and publicising it, and laughing at it, are clearly appropriate responses.
At the opposite extreme, ex-premies who want to forget their involvement, and are not involved in a similar 'spiritual' scam, are, in my opinion, entitled to their privacy. Also, premies who enjoy Knowledge and Rawat and are not publicly involved in either promoting Rawat or attacking his critics, are also entitled to their privacy.
Now, I have no doubt in my mind that any premie who is publicly promoting Rawat can fairly be publicly challenged, but even then if they do not bring their personal lives or employment into it, then no one else should.
I also have no doubt that premies who publicly attack Rawat's critics, such as Charles Glasser or Jossi Fresco, can also be publicly challenged, but again, if they do not bring their personal lives or employment into it, then no one else should.
But what about ex-premies who have gone on to make a living in the 'spiritual' sector but do not mention their previous allegiance to Rawat, or rewrite their history Rawat-style? Is publicising their previous involvement ethical or not?
Discuss.
John.
Modified by JHB at Fri, Jan 13, 2006, 07:42:26
|
|
|
|
Good point John, especially with you being more in the public frame than me. The problem for me is not one of ethics really though I see what you mean, its more to do with effect. Discourse is useless. I don't think public language is now capable of sustaining the kind of rigor that would be necessary to conclusively unmask such a new age proto guru type. People who have been nurtured under the master know enough to flip and flop with meanings so as to evade any tight corners. Rawat has now all but rendered himself invisible in the minds of his flock, recent dialogue with premies shows this.In their view they and I (an ex) are in the same place. We all stand alone now (they say). And with that, thy skip off safe and smilling under the umbrella of new age relativism and liberal tolerence of minorities etc etc.The more ex-s hammer on about inconsistencies the more exes are drawing attention to their own lack of ability to live and let live, that latest accomplishment that the newly liberated premie flashes so publically! The moral high ground John is lost! Maha's vanishing act is a thing to marvel at at least from the outside, but to the faithfulI imagine it must be ultimately deeply unsettling. Comforting but unstable.The trouble is the only way to get at that depth of discomfort is to overstep the bounds of politeness to such an extent you feel like a Jesuit Inquisitor! For me, I know what PR said did and didnt do, and what effect it had on me at the time. I stand consciously free of it and knowledgeable of the details of my journey. I go foreward now under my own guidance.Premie Ji on the other hand, (who I was for 25 years) though s/he may stand similarly empty and unencumbered by his/her picture of the past, does so solely by the grace of charming Prem Rawat and his executive decision to extract his mission from a sticky situation. My question to premies is:What,o Premies, might he say next? Whatever it is you're going to have to go along with it. You've got nothing left to base your resistance on ie your memory., he's taken your past. The only reall "affirming" option now for people in this position I think,is to set up as guru themselves and do the same to others (if they haven't already done it first!) To propogate in a hit and run fashion and avoid the direct question. Don't let me put you off John, just letting rip here a bit. Been getting to grips in the Minster library with the epistemology of mysticism and it's driven me bonkers! I'm on the run now. All the best and chop that wood. I do. Ash is best by far. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
'Rawat has now all but rendered himself invisible in the minds of his flock, recent dialogue with premies shows this'
What do you mean by this, Bryn? I haven't had any dialogue with a premie for a while, so I am curious as to what this new context is like.
|
|
|
|
Yes I have had some interaction recently and I wouldn't be surprised if they were all reading here now! So isn't this cosy. The mind set seems very much as I say above: The LOTU is dead and furthermore he never existed.Its an inner thing, to do with private inner centres and identities-a bit too "mystic meg" to sound sensible here but what the heck here goes. When I left (5years ago) wherever I looked His face was before me and that was the way devotion was supposed to be, but nowadays the erasure has taken deep hold. Wherever yer 2006 student looks-nothing at all, transparency, just free choice and open minds for all:a universal openess, a take us or leave us situation that floats; "We are all alone now","We can be Ourselves (that self?!)" . The look that goes with such statements says:"and wasn't it always this way oh ye of little faith". And a private inner aside murmers dreamily:" And it all just came so wonderfully out of nowhere" The Filament's directive has worked so perfectly now that in the private physic world of the devotee the mental image of the master has been purged completely. But bad news from me , premos, the image may have gone, but a huge presence clearly remains! Devotees, may have had their inner "Lord" screens wiped, they may talk more freely and egotistically now, the presence after all has no specific face to let slip, But actually, premos its worse than ever! To one who hasn't made the inner surrender of memory to their master, your situation is awful to behold, in a word, your haunted! The master still looks out from his devotees eyes, only you think he's not there just because he's told you he isn't!. Waffle and spin as you may about new found independence, there he is still,as large as life, if anything deeper than before. I can see it. I think I'd better stop before I get a reputation for being another "Isaac" (see above). Its reading all these mystics-Meister Eckhart, Angelus Silesius at the mo.They are so explcit about their inner stuff. It spins me off but I like it. Hello to all our readers.Pity all we can do is skirmish. How can we talk when so much is deemed not to exist. Love Bryn
|
|
|
|
" The master still looks out from his devotees eyes, only you think he's not there just because he's told you he isn't!. Waffle and spin as you may about new found independence, there he is still,as large as life, if anything deeper than before. I can see it. " Reminds me of a book of 22 short stanzas, one for each letter if the Hebrew alphabet. This was supposedly channelled by Krishna, and in the Eighth verse(field of chet); Krishsa says how after we discover Him in the light we will be forced back into the darkness, only to discover Him there with more light than before.......(not a cult!) Cheers Bryn, nice writings ..tks 
|
|
|
|
Glad you relate. I thought I might have gone out a bit far on the thin branches there, and my sensible person's licence might be in danger of being revoked. All the best Bryn
|
|
|
|
For god sakes we either thought Prem Rawat was the Lord of the Universe, or we were open to the possibility he was.
I don't always follow your posts easily, but always find them intriguing.
And re premies, pretty much mirrors my experience on the premie forum recently before my presence created too much of a ruckus.
Well fascinated to see how that goes over time in terms of reconciling the conceptual problems they so obviously have, any exes who are still registered there incognito and are prepared tp share that info will be gratefully appreciated from my end.
But also see it as a vast improvement in breathing space for them, a hint of normality if you will, and definitely reduces the pressure on any newbie premies which has got to be for the good.
|
|
|
|
Hi Hamzen re premies, pretty much mirrors my experience on the premie forum recently They have to give the EV pr line on the public forum. Privately, they all think M is the lotu. Premies will lie for M - nothing new! Btw, I enjoyed reading your posts over on the premie forum before they deleted the thread. You came out way better than the premies did, in the whole discussion, and I think the premies made themselves look bad. That must be why they deleted it all. If they'd come out looking good, I doubt they would have deleted it all. I'll let you know if I come across anything of interest, but I don't read there very often. Anna
|
|
|
|
" The master still looks out from his devotees eyes, only you think he's not there just because he's told you he isn't!. Waffle and spin as you may about new found independence, there he is still,as large as life, if anything deeper than before. I can see it. " This type of rhetoric gives the devotees permission to 'legally' lie. This concept is alive and well in many cults that I have come across. Iskonians & Moonies & some Islamic groups(used to?) call it 'divine deception' which is the idea that lying for 'Truth' is ok. I have had close encounters with all of the above ) (In fact when I lived in Wetherby Rd ashram, I 'saved' a couple of moonies from their cult and got them into ours :> ) The only cult groups who I have found to be honest about what they believe are Jesus-based cults who say what they believe and Sai Babaites who compeltely believe in that person's Lordness, even to the extent of being proud that SB has touched up their children; Jagdeo would have been a hero if he had SB as his guru. I find it very sad that card carrying premies cannot have any real dialogue. Cognitive dissonence rules. With a bit of luck, maybe their kids will tell them some home truths. all the best, Jethro
|
|
|
|
Hi Bryn,The mind set seems very much as I say above: The LOTU is dead and furthermore he never existed. Not my experience at all! Just the other day a premie friend referred to M as the Lord and also talked about devotion, and that he's not devoted enough! Another premie friend mentioned that it was by M's grace that she can now afford to buy her house. M as the lotu has not changed for 70's premies. Don't know about 80's and 90's premies though. But these friends don't regard me as an ex, and they don't know that I post here (which I do anonymously). If that were the case, they may well have given me EV pr spin, as they have with you. But they must be wondering why I haven't gone to a programme for over 2 years now! Or is it 3 years. I'm losing count. If your friends know that you post here, may be they are towing the party line with what they say to you. Because my recent chats, it's absolutely clear that nothing has changed. They regard the EV revisionism as necessary in order to try to appeal to a wider audience, and nothing more than that. They're not worried about the lies. M can do whatever he wants, he's the lord. Or they are worried about the lies, but M can do whatever he wants, he's the lord. Premies go to Amaroo and India every year, sometimes soley to get darshan. And darshan still happens. I would ask if that's normal for a motivational speaker! And there's still a core group of gopis that follow M around the world, spending their last penny getting to every programme possible. They're seriously devoted. There's no way they'd do that if they didn't think he was the lotu.
Modified by Anna at Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 11:28:17
|
|
|
|
you have such a delightful way of expressing yourself that it's just a pleasure to read you.I won't say all the time because overdoing it on the flattery front might just cramp your style : )
Modified by Dermot at Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 17:48:46
|
|
|
|
>But what about ex-premies who have gone on to make a living in the 'spiritual' sector but do not mention their previous allegiance to Rawat, or rewrite their history Rawat-style? Is publicising their previous involvement ethical or not?< Whose ethics are they anyway ? There's certainly a practical problem in that if ex premies (acting as ex premies) spread their criticism broadly across a raft of suspect 'spiritual operations', then that criticism will inevitably become less focussed and less incissive than if Rawatism were to remain the central concern. Whether or not former followers of Rawat are making a living from exploiting the 'new age hypermarket' seems to me to be irrellevant - what would be significant is if a particular operation were to be cultic, abusive and or grossly revisionist; if that were the case then it would be perfectly reasonable to publicly draw a connection between the Rawat cult and the subsequent activities of one of Rawat's students. Personally I have a deep antipathy toward the whole new age/spiritual/alternative health mega-shmooze. However being a critic of Rawat does not of itself require a rejection of religion or of belief or of adopting fanciful ideas about the nature of reality. I'm sure there are thousands of one time premies who make their living from Colour Therapy, Aura Rebalancing, Soul Retuning, Body Demagnetising - again my personal inclination is that all them should prosecuted for fraud - but their present occupation makes them no more worthy of being identified as a former premie any more than some who makes a living as a teacher or a lawyer or an estate agent does. Nik
|
|
|
|
> again my personal inclination is that all them should prosecuted for fraud. But if you would go that far, then what's the harm in simply poking a bit of fun, and joining up a few dots with the Rawat thing in the process? They're all tarred with same brush, as my mother used to say...
|
|
|
|
> again my personal inclination is that all them should prosecuted for fraud. But if you would go that far, then what's the harm in simply poking a bit of fun, and joining up a few dots with the Rawat thing in the process? They're all tarred with same brush, as my mother used to say... Well to achieve a prosecution for fraud would firstly require my pursuing a a substantial political process in terms of changing the law and secondly actually testing a case in court - Very different processes from poking fun, or joining up dots and tarring with same brush. What I really dislike is confusing the very real testimony of exs (in this case ex premies but on other sites ex whatever) which has all the veracity and power of first hand statement and insight based on experience, with half argued sniping based on a general prejudice against spritual/new agey stuff. I can understand why John has linked to the DNA manipulator who on the one hand quotes her 'ashram' experience but doesn't mention what that ashram experience actually entailed. I've never understood though why Katie Darling has been the subject of invective on ex premie forums - the Motherwave set up may deserve some serious dissection but as an ex premie who offered friendship to many other exs, and who was entirely open about her life and her involvement with Rawat, I do not think the way things panned out was healthy. Had there been contributions from people who felt ripped off/abused by the Motherwave set up I would of course have welcomed exposure of that. I may not be a neopagan/energy seeker/yoghurt knitter/whatever - but unless there is abuse involved I defend anyones right believe and practice what they want and I'd prefer that we were all treated with the same modicum of respect. Nik
|
|
|
|
I've never understood though why Katie Darling has been the subject of invective on ex premie forums - the Motherwave set up may deserve some serious dissection but as an ex premie who offered friendship to many other exs, and who was entirely open about her life and her involvement with Rawat, I do not think the way things panned out was healthy. Had there been contributions from people who felt ripped off/abused by the Motherwave set up I would of course have welcomed exposure of that. No one can deny that Katie interacted with her fellow exes with warmth and a genuine interest in helping people and just plain being a friend and getting along. The problem, Nik, is that she also took what wasn't hers, what really isn't anyone's to take: a slice of the guru pie. She most definitely has exploited the Rawat myth to her purposes, cherry-picking the parts she likes and finds saleable. As for whether or not her customers ever felt ripped off or abused, I actually wouldn't expect much of any complaint like that largely because her customer pool is made of people who have unfortunately abandoned their sense of rational discernment a long time ago. That doesn't mean she doesn't deserve ridicule for fleecing them.
|
|
|
|
The question for me is not whether criticism is made but how it is made - it's the difference between 'dissection of organisation/process' and invective directed at individuals. It is perfectly understandable that ex premies will want to express invenctive toward Rawat and his cult - that may not provide much in the way of incisive deconstruction but it is clearly an important part of the exing process. When invective replaces a reasoned examination of other 'cults' it's difficut not to conclude that there is a misplacing of anger. When that invective is targetted at other ex premies the position seems to me to be even more suspect. A number of exs felt very hurt by the way that KatieH was 'deconstructed' and although there's been little acknowledgement of it, IMO that sequence of events substantially altered the nature of of online ex premieism. As for whether or not her customers ever felt ripped off or abused, I actually wouldn't expect much of any complaint like that largely because her customer pool is made of people who have unfortunately abandoned their sense of rational discernment a long time ago. So we elevated beings - those who have such a high sense of rational discernment are equiped to speak out because those lesser beings can't or will not ? This directly undermines the very strength of the ex premie position - our criticism stands because it is based on our direct experience - not upon the vast reams of criticisms that outsiders have heaped on Rawat since 1970. N
|
|
|
|
First, Nik, it's Katie D, we're talking about, not Katie H. Know thy Katie's. I don't know what you're talking about when you say a number of exes felt very hurt by the way Katie was deconstructed. What are you basing that on? And yes, I sure as hell do think I have the right to call a con even when the victims don't see it. If I'm wrong, so be it but there's nothing wrong with me having the opinion and voicing it if I feel the need. This guy here's not that interesting. He's good for a small laugh and that's about it. Katie, on the other hand, is a bit more interesting as one can see the roots of her trip in Rawat's teaching which we all shared and are so familiar with. So she's a bit more interesting. Even still there's not much to dwell on. No reason to avoid mentioning her, certainly no reason to protect her from fair comment, not when she's setting up her booth at the fair as she has, but ultimately it's not about her. But then I don't get the impression anyone thinks it is. So there's no problem, is what I'm trying to say. There really isn't.
Modified by Jim at Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 09:46:33
|
|
|
|
.. is very important distinction here. I'm not sure if Nik just made a typographical or Freudian slip, but Katie H has never deserved (or received, to my knowledge) the hostile commentary that Katie D has attracted. Brian and Katie (H) made such an enormous contribution over four years to the development of EPO and forums 2,3,4...5? (I forget), that whatever the issues that led to their departure - which I think were related to the Katie D / Recent Exes flare-ups - I, for one, wish they were still around. The issues from the shared past that unite exes, whatever the passing forum debates, are usually bigger than those that divide them, I hope...
|
|
|
|
One important point about Katie Darling is that when she pulled her journey from EPO after I removed the link to her Motherwave website, she claimed that she had never tried to recruit from ex-premies. I know from several sources that her claim was a lie. At least the DNA reprogrammer who inspired this debate has only once posted on these forums, and to my knowledge has never tried to use her premie connections to get business.
BTW, Nik, I haven't linked to her site here as you claim.
Anyway, interesting discussion. I think Renee Davis deserves any publicity anyone wants to give him here. I haven't got the links to hand but he's peddling some new age stuff and went silent after telling me he would consider writing something for EPO about his time as a premie. I think that occasionally chatting about ex-premies or premies who make their living in a similar way to Rawat will not dilute this forum unduly.
Regarding mental health, I cannot claim to be totally sane so I suggest no one ever talk about me or any websites I manage ever again.
John.
|
|
|
|
Rennie Davis use to run an org called Ventures for a New Humanity, which has now revised itself to the Foundation for a New Humanity. As their mission statement says in non humble terms: The Foundation for a New Humanity is the sponsor of a new public dialogue. We ride the coattails of a transforming idea now entering the world-re-creating the human condition by re-creating ourselves. In the decision to be the change we desire for humanity, a new humanity unlocks the mind of this generation for an age of discovery in an outpouring of options to terrorism, 'incurable' disease, urban sprawl and no-option despair. In a bold departure from blaming others for our own condition, a new humanity is the decision to create a new direction on earth and author our own lives.
Interestingly Rennie in his bio on his website mentions his initial claim to fame (the Chicago trial) but then fast forwards to the 1980s, missing out totally his involvement with the greatest incarnation that ever trod this planet, namely the Lord of the Universe, previously known as Guru Maharaj Ji, but now laterly known as the simple Prem Rawat. Wikipedia does however mention Rennie's involvement with Rawat. Rennie mentions that the New York Times described his Chicago trial as the 'the most significant political trial in American history'. How funny is that? Wasn't it Rennie who described the 1973 Guru Maharaj Ji worship program in Texas as 'the most significant event in human history'? T
Modified by T at Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 01:26:38
|
|
|
|
A few things of note leap out at one reading Charles Cameron's resume in the light of his earlier stint as a modern herald and "official biographer" of the Greatest Incarnation of God to Ever Tread the Planet: 1) He never mentions that gig or any involvement at all with the Lord of the Universe. In fact, Charles is the author of an entire book he forgot to list among those he's written, "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" 2) He somehow found a niche as a "Millenium" expert or researcher or whatever! How rich that he was, in fact, the official scribe for the Millenium Festival itself, the Most Significant Even in the History of Mankind and never brings that up. Who'd have ever imagined such a thing? 3) He still is tied up with the Tim Gallwey and premie run "Inner Game" racket, no pun intended. Why do I find this somehow a bit off-putting? LOL!!
Related link: Charles Cameron's resume
Modified by Jim at Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 12:30:26
|
|
|
|
Yeah, surprising really. You know Jim, I met Charles socially many times, oh it must have been the late 70s or early 80s or both. You know socially, when there were lots of parties, some of them wild. Anyways, oftentimes the subject of 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?' came up. Well Charles certainly was not the least bit coy then about his involvement with that book then. On the contrary, he lapped up all the attention, played it for all he could. After all he was THE Charles Cameron, author/editor of 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?'. Surprising really, his current coyness regarding his past. One would think that he would like people to simply forget about that period in his great life. Yeah Tim and Charles were always buddies. T
|
|
|
|
I never liked Cameron who always struck me as a talentless, yappy hack, even when he was the official poet and scribe of the cult I was in. And the way he tried to create himself as some sort of Millenium Madness expert without divulging his own involvement with Millenium '73, the Most Significant Event in the History of Mankind, sets a chilling benchmark in cult hypocrisy. This is from his "Hipbone" website: Millennial MadnessIn conjunction with my work for The Arlington Institute, I've also been writing more about apocalyptic and millennial movements -- an old interest of mine. Shortly after the Columbine High shootings in Littleton, I spoke by conference phone at a Littleton Y2K meeting, discussing some of the apocalyptic threads which have woven themselves into the wider Y2K picture, and also put together a longish presentation on Y2K and apocalyptic which you can download here. Most recently, I've been preparing a regularly updated column of breaking news on the apocalyptic and millennial front, to appear on the Center for Millennial Studies website. You can find the new series of Millennium Concentrates at: MilCon NS 01, August 22, 1999.
MilCon NS 02, September 11, 1999.
MilCon NS 03, October 10, 1999.
I also wrote a piece about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the way it has figured in recent web-based apocalyptic rhetoric. This was for the Proceedings of a CMS-sponsored Conference held in Jerusalem in June 1999, at which millennial scholars from the US, Europe and Israel met with American and Israeli law-enforcement personnel to talk about how to guarantee maximal religious freedom during the pilgrimages of 2000/2001, while guarding against potential millennial violence. And in November, I'll be presenting a paper on Science Fiction as Scripture, Spirituality as Space Opera at the CMS International Conference in Boston: here's the abstract, to give you the overall idea: A number of new religious movements, from the small "restoration theology" RLDS offshoot whose leader killed five in the so-called Kirtland Massacre to The Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate and Aum Shinrikyo groups, have made use of themes from the "genre" literature of science fiction books and films as a source of prophetic and messianic belief. Religious movements from the Mormons via the Nation of Islam and Hare Krishnas to the Scientologists have included descriptions of other planets in their theologies. The angel of spiritual belief is beginning to blend with the unidentified alien of exobiology in popular discourse. And for almost a century, science fiction has been discussing religious ideas and serving as an entry point for mythic revival in our excessively "realist" culture - sometimes, as in Frank Herbert's Dune, with profound insight. This paper will examine the continuing interactions between speculative fiction and speculative theology, suggest some of the benefits and drawbacks of the crossover, and point to some exemplary instances of religious thought in the guise of futuristic novels. And that's about it for now... I hope to find time for a major update to this site in the next few months.
Return to HipBone Home
|
|
|
|
It's Charles Cameron's utter cynicism & dishonesty which gets me. One would've thought that a close personal involvement with Rawat's brother, then known as Bal Bhagwan Ji, & famous for his prediction that aliens were coming to the Houston Astrodome in order to prostrate themselves before the feet of the Lord of the Universe, would've given Charles that extra little edge in his chosen field of psuedo academic bollix.
Surely the delegates to the CMS conference would've been transfixed to listen to a man who'd actually lived the experience of being a part of a messianic movement...........on the other hand, maybe they'd've been transfixed for all the wrong reasons, & ones, moreover, which may have eventually impacted on Charles' wallet.
He is certainly one of the very tiny number of devotees who've made a living out of the gobbledygook surrounding Rawatism in its various phases. It would be interesting to know when he 'left', in his head that is, especially if it was before he wrote the book which he now disowns by implication.
|
|
|
|
Just after K Charles approached the great Argentinian writer, Jorg Luis Borges, on the steps of the Oxford Union and announced, 'I have seen the Bright Mirror of Illumination' to which the blind poet dryly replied, ' How nice for you'.
|
|
|
|
Nik,
You're probably right, but if an ex-premie becomes an estate agent (realtor) and writes their CV leaving out their time as a premie, to me, that's fine. Previous devotion to the Living Perfect Master is not that relevant to selling a two bedroom end-of-terrace house requiring modernisation. But when someone who is selling reprogramming of the additional etheric strands of a person's DNA by telephone, uses their CV to demonstrate their spiritual qualifications and leaves out 15 years of following Rawat, it annoys me.
I guess DNA reprogramming is particularly annoying as it takes something that scientists worked their bollocks off to understand, and piggybacks onto it mystical bullshit. Like Katie Darling quoting chaos theory. It's just downright dishonest.
Here's a website that is also particularly annoying about DNA reprogramming:-
Related link: Reprogram your DNA!
|
|
|
|
Sylvie was one of those nice, effusive, perrenial French Canadian ashram women, each and every one a gopi galore. I'm not surprised that she found another warm pond to swim in even if she had to dream it up herself. Is it okay to make fun of this stuff? Sure, why not? It's ridiculous, life's short and what the hell is it with that new age therapeutic purple anyway?
|
|
|
|
It's 'The Motherwave Question' again... >But what about ex-premies who have gone on to make a living in the 'spiritual' sector but do not mention their previous allegiance to Rawat, or rewrite their history Rawat-style? Is publicising their previous involvement ethical or not? I don't think 'privacy' is the issue, here, John; privacy is ones right behind closed doors, IMO. What you do on the web in the realms of the 'spiritual', and especially if you are selling some spiritual-related product, is very much public - if not ethically questionable in its own right. I think you have to treat this question on a case-by-case basis, depending on what it is they're flogging. Even then, provided you're not libelling anybody, I don't see the problem. I'm not sure who you're thinking of specifically, but there were many different levels of cult involvement, from the humble devotee who gets sucked in for a while with no power or influence, up to head-honcho status, who, in some cases, appear to have actively colluded in propogating the 'M is God' line for some years after they stopped believing Rawat was anything more than a humanitarian speaker. (Ok, I'm thinking of Mike Dettmers here - who I don't really know at all - and I don't want to be unfair to him - but I remember Mike from the 70's and was a bit taken aback when he admitted to the exes a couple of years back that he'd known the 'God in human form' stuff was crap, even at the time.) But I don't see any value in hounding anybody for its own sake - and I wouldn't like people to gratuitously start talking about my own cult past, if I was selling football boots or toasters (though neither would it bother me that much). But if I was, say, running some nice little self-realisation money-earner, I would probably deserve at least a bit of friendly flak from fellow-exes. Nige
Modified by Nigel at Fri, Jan 13, 2006, 13:48:51
|
|
|
|
But what about ex-premies who have gone on to make a living in the 'spiritual' sector but do not mention their previous allegiance to Rawat, or rewrite their history Rawat-style? Is publicising their previous involvement ethical or not?
IMO it would be unethical to pulicise previous involvement with Rawat, if an ex-premie has chosen not to do so themselves. It's their business isn't it? I think it's important that we don't make ourselves look as if we're on some kind of witch hunt, hounding and criticising at any opportunity. Also, unless it's a friend of mine, I'm really not that interested. Of course anyone with a website is making themselves open to criticism, but, gosh, who really cares if they haven't mentioned Rawat? A lot depends on how they're making their living, in the 'spiritual' business. If it's the popular new age style stuff that many many people into, then so what! But if it's a clearly a massive con, pretending to be another lotu or starting a real cult, then that's very different.
|
|
|
|
Mayhaps I'm missing the point of this thread, but IMO: IMO it would be unethical to pulicise previous involvement with Rawat, if an ex-premie has chosen not to do so themselves. It's their business isn't it? I think it's important that we don't make ourselves look as if we're on some kind of witch hunt, hounding and criticising at any opportunity. Also, unless it's a friend of mine, I'm really not that interested. Of course anyone with a website is making themselves open to criticism, but, gosh, who really cares if they haven't mentioned Rawat? A lot depends on how they're making their living, in the 'spiritual' business. If it's the popular new age style stuff that many many people into, then so what! But if it's a clearly a massive con, pretending to be another lotu or starting a real cult, then that's very different.
Massive versus minute con? Come on. It's a civic duty to expose frauds on the vast spectrum of conning, whether large or huge or tiny, those who are involved in a similar con to Rawat's, as a "sort-of victim," but then have taken said victimhood into greater heights by becoming a victimizer themselves, well, fuck 'em. Friends notwithstanding. If I knew my best friend was conning folks, I'd expose them, albeit more gently at first, but maybe not, and maybe they'd cease to be my friend because they are cheats. This is a no-brainer folks. Tell it like it is. Regarding Motherwave or now SoulWave, Katie Darling is a conmaster who now uses her "eastern training experiences" or whatever she calls them using euphemisms to describe being a former Rawat cult member. She deserves to have the truth told about her especially because she charges mega-bucks for her own self-invented con. And let's not forget there was an actual suicide attempt involved with her conning an ex-premie!! Let us not forget indeed. Hey Katie, sue me, you pretty, anorexic freak of nature! Especially if there's a website on the internet. Jeeze Louise, what's the question again about privacy? And who are we talking about? Oh yeah, a mysogynist. Or maybe I'm just confused about cults of any kind.
Modified by Cynthia at Fri, Jan 13, 2006, 14:21:57
|
|
|
|
No-brainer?
Is it OK if the person really believes what they are saying, or do they have to be consciously conning people? I think the pope really believes what he says, but I don't think the basis of what he says is true. Do I have a civic duty to expose him? Oh, so many duties!
|
|
|
|
Since when was the pope a part of this discussion. Stick to the point. Besides, anyone who is a mysogynist deserves to be exposed as a knucklehead. Plus, a website? Plus, this forum ain't all that important and certainly isn't going to make CNN tonight.
|
|
|
|
Sorry - thought we were talking about exposing peddlers of spiritual crap. The pope a mysogynist? It has been suggested...
|
|
|
|
http://erikthevermilion.com/world.htm#prem Prem Rawat's Public Appearances Nostradamus said that the King of Terror would come from the sky in 1999 and seven months. At the time when he wrote this, the word "terror" meant "enlightenment". Prem Rawat made his first global satelite's broadcasting in the time given. ANECDOTE FROM THE 1970's A man named Alan Conrad received from Prem Rawat the awakening to The Knowledge of peace within himself. He was on a hillside, practicing the technique/s by which to feel the inner peace. While Alan was practicing the technique/s on that hillside, a car full of drunks was approaching the hill from the valley. The drunks were hollering out the windows of the car. The car began to ascend the hill's winding road, and Alan kept on practicing the technique/s. As the noisy group in the car reached the section of road that was just above Alan's position, Alan was given a realization. He was shown that Prem Rawat was bringing peace to the entire world. At that very moment, the driver of the car stopped the car, and exited, came running down the hill toward Alan, screaming "This is it! This is it!" He kept screaming this until he reached where Alan was, then grabbed Alan by the neck, shaking Alan, and screamed into his face, "This is it! This is it!"
|
|
|
|
Sounds to me like Isaac is going through a period of derangement/delusion which would be best helped by one-to-one psychotherapy. Laugh at him? Why on earth would anyone? The guy needs help, not derision. And even if his outpourings DID represent what typically happens to people involved with Maharaji/Rawat, mockery of people who are suffering such psychosis surely can't be an appropriate response, can it? Mocking Rawat is one thing. But mocking those whose brains have been seriously f**ked by him (like Isaac) is quite another. And, says I, shame on those that would still do so.
Modified by cq at Fri, Jan 13, 2006, 15:11:56
|
|
|
|
Didn't (don't) we all have a bit of Isaac in us?
I used to believe the Lord of the Universe had come from wherever he hangs out the rest of the time to ..... you know what I mean. Mad as it is, we were all there to some extent. Just some of us were a but more tuned in to other people's expectations, and we knew to hide what we believed. Lots of premies still have their secret beliefs... and I can't feel entirely sure I won't fall into such nonsense again. It happened before.
I don't think any of us are immune to delusions, or any other mental health problems.
|
|
|
|
Some people might assume they'll never be afflicted with such mental health problems, but - to progress the consequences of that idea further - such an assumption can never result from scientific reasoning. In fact, I couldn't agree with you more, 13. None of us are, or should ever consider ourselves, immune from the possibility of being deluded. It's the grey area between what any particular Culture accepts as socially-acceptible delusion and full-blown mental illness that gives rise to potential dilemmas such as this. Isaac's website may be laughable for all the wrong reasons, but pilloring him - a victim of Rawat's con - rather than the main perpetrator, i.e. Rawat, is ... well, despicable is the second word that comes to mind - after "shameful", that is.
Modified by cq at Fri, Jan 13, 2006, 16:05:58
|
|
|
|
Thanks cq! You strike a sober, kind, good note after all the rants. My post was definitely meant to target Rawat, but I should and could have been more sensitive to the content of what this person, Isaac, wrote. I didn't (couldn't) read much of it because it is SO off the wall, and therefore probably NOT helpful or appropriate to make fun of--but the point that John brought up about the efficacy of exposing successful spiritual people who were once (and likely still are) premies--that is definitely worth a serious look and a debate. Not sure where I stand on that because I don't know (or adhere to) anyone who is making bunches off the Rawat connection. Thanks anyway! ~Shelagh
|
|
|
|
So now we're pilloring him, eh Chris? What the f... The only thing shameful here is your tendency to wag your finger at people for no reason at all. What a SD!
|
|
|
|
Oxford Concise gives "expose to ridicule".Like John Wayne said to one of the bad guys: "Don't mock the cripple, boy" and if you don't think mocking the disabled is shameful Jim, then that says more about you than those of us who would bring you to task for doing so ...
Modified by cq at Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 08:02:16
|
|
|
|
You know damn well why anyone would laugh at him, you're just doing your typical finger-wagging. The guy's taking out ads in magazines and newspapers, looking for a reaction. He's getting one. Ha ha. Your sanctimoniousness is tiresome.
|
|
|
|
I thought Chris's lecture was well constructed  There is an important point - how do we treat people who are, or at least seem to be, experiencing profound psychological challenges. The Rawat cult has adopted a very destructive position on mental ill health - ex premies might therefore be expected to take the issue seriously. I actually disagree with Chris's assessment that someone who shows evidence of mental health problems should as a default position, be treated with kid gloves. Obviously it's a matter of judgement but sometimes it is perfectly reasonable to respond to the 'nuttiness' for what it is. And Rawatism has a case to answer too - why is it that that these types of belief attach to Rawat given that Rawatism supposedly has no religious dimension ? N
|
|
|
|
The question of the cult’s ‘duty of care’ (or lack thereof) to the mentally ill has been the topic for serious debate on previous forums – everything from depression to delusional behaviours – but, in a way, that’s a separate issue from commenting on a weird belief system. I mean, where do you draw the line? I remember at every festival I went to back in the late seventies there were a number of familiar characters who always stood out in the crowd: the family of six who all wore clogs – no, not the soft-topped clogs as you find in a shoe shop, these were carved out of solid wood and looked extremely painful on the poor kids’ feet. Then there was this hippie/Galadriel/elf-queen woman with a permanent stoned glaze in her eyes who always carried a mandolin strapped in front of her, in satsang, through darshan, everywhere...but holding it in a way that showed she didn’t play it. One guy always showed up in a suit of home-made armour. Another chap used to walk up and down outside reception, ranting ‘Yes, yes, yes, no, no, no, why? why? why?’ over and over… I could think of others… Were these premies just eccentric, or something more serious? Basically, unless you know them, you’re in no position to judge. (Either way, Prem’s getting us to wage war on our minds was never going to help anyone, sick or sane.) Rightly or wrongly, cq is concerned that some of us may be mocking somebody who is mentally ill – but how can we make that assumption? Calling a stranger ‘psychotic’ is a pretty heavy charge – possibly worse than laughing at their irrational ramblings. (And I would never recommend one-to-one therapy for anyone who was genuinely psychotic.) A person can make all sorts of insane-looking pronouncements whilst functioning perfectly well in the world – or, if you’re David Icke (who believes the British royal family turn into lizards at night time) make millions from selling crazy books. Is it ok to laugh at him, for instance, or tell his followers their guru may be delusional? It's a tricky area, maybe, but this forum is a pretty obscure backwater on the web and comments here are unlikely to have consequences on anybody beyond its boundaries.
|
|
|
|
re
but this forum is a pretty obscure backwater on the web
and comments here are unlikely to have consequences on anybody beyond
its boundaries.
Especially with regard to lurkers either leaving or having left who are feeling completely isolated who might be in this tricky territory but also in terms of the dilution of the point of this board, which is why the last board was so tough on distractions.
|
|
|
|
Ok, take your point, Ham - I guess that might be happening. But even then, the link in the post that started this off, has some pretty unsavoury content - ie. that paragraph where the guy is endorsing paedophile relationships.. Paedophilia is a disgnosable psychiatric disorder, but that surely doesn't mean we let them get on with posting their vile crap on the web without a murmur in case it upsets them? (By coincidence, I'm writing a research paper in this area at the moment - pretty stomach-churning stuff) Like I said, I think it's a tricky area - and I'm not claiming to have any definite rules of how we should or shouldn't behave here... As for the 'dilution' question, I think the FA's are handling things very well so far - and by far the majority of posts are on-topic, even if the ot threads do tend to ramble a bit more.
|
|
|
|
You're a tougher man than I fella re your present research, though with the obviously out of order stuff on that guys site, think e-mails to the registrar/hoster of that site would be very appropriate re the paedophilia stuff, as also would be the site info passed to the police, writing stuff like that has to be illegal, no? And if he's thinking stuff like that, there's a good chance he's practicing it too, if my previous reading of the psychodynamics of that disorder were at all accurate.
|
|
|
|
Hi Ham, Advocating incest or paedophilia isn't illegal, at least not in Canada or the U.S. I don't think it is in Britain either (not sure about Iran or Saudi Arabia). Practising it is and sometimes depicting it in fiction can be but advocating it, no. Free speech and all ...
|
|
|
|
Like Voltaire, I would defend to the death the right of any 'independent thinker', new-age bollocks merchant, even holocaust denier or paedophile to argue their case - provided that I am never denied the right to rip the piss out of it (UK expression) as occasion demands... Have you seen the stage reworking, or read the reviews of Mel Brookes' The Producers? It sounds like an absolutely fabulous piece of work / satire / celebration of the human spirit - destroying evil by laughing at it...pen mightier than sword etc.
|
|
|
|
I thought it would be classed as similar to incititement of racial hatred as is coming up in the current Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin cases here
|
|
|
|
>You're a tougher man than I fella re your present research.. I bet you I'm not. I'm just writing a review paper on the research of others into child sex abuse, which is just about bearable (if you don't look at any pictures). As for dealing with paedophiles or their victims directly, I'm not sure I could handle that - and admire hugely people who can.
|
|
|
|
The take that I see from it is that the guy has serious mental health issues, and to disconnect that from Rawat's responsibility is to show very little compassion.
Yeah sure he's promoting his viewpoint, but how many numbers will come rushing to stand with him, side by side. None apart from any other exes with exactly the same problems.
And really is there any difference between his viewpoint and where we were as premies, with the belief systems we had.
I would hate to think just how much Rawat has inflamed that stuff, and the numbers involved, which Rawat himself acknowledges in a disgusting way by warning people off purely from a legal position to cover his own arse is bloody disgusting and shows an even greater lack of compassion.
But more to the point, the mental health angle, especially around those just leaving is gonna be difficult to deal with and is a key part of the issue.
Taking the piss just drives those away who are in that position, which will probably just exacerbate their feelings of isolation. It's an area where great caution should be shown here in my mind.
Say you taking the piss was the final nail, and it could be for someone with issues like that who's reading here. Would you want that on your conscience? I certainly wouldn't.
|
|
|
|
This is all overblown. The guy's buying ads just so he can get some attention for his crazy ideas which he knows damn well people think are funny. Actually, Ham, you have never really had much understanding at all of mental health issues, so there! How you like them apples? This was a big test, you see, and the people who fell to the tempation to laugh were the ones who really have some understanding of mental health issues and the people who didn't, don't. No, seriously, that comment of yours was bullshit.
|
|
|
|
But just wanted to add a little check/balance, because sure as hell there are a good few going down that route in Rawat's little territory over the years, and some of them must pop in here occasionally lurking, and occassionally posting.
I only mention because I've got a milder version over at my site at the mo, which had reminded me of that stuff which we all forget at our peril, bearing in mind how out there it can get.
It also reminded me of a short period in my own journey through trippy stuff with meditation when I was meditating silly amounts like 4 hours plus a day around 85 and some of the stuff that went down then was pretty damn scary in retrospect. If I hadn't have toned it down, or had had a less stable life then I could have been well out there too, so maybe I've got some empathy with that 'other stuff'. And know how sensitive I was then, can still remember how raw I felt emotionally when I first turned up on exes forums too, and that was years after I'd left.
|
|
|
|
Well personally, Jim, I find the fact that the guy's evidently suffering from some kind of Messianic complex to be sad, not funny. Just because he can afford to publish his outpourings (a cry for help, perhaps?) in no way changes that for me. Sanctimonious is it? I don't give a toss.You however, seem to be proud of your "everyone should laugh at the loony" stance. Takes all sorts, I guess. Hope you can have a good laugh at this quote from the guy's site: "Although I cannot recall in any way actually having lived the life of Jesus, as I do indeed have a sense of recalling having been King Arthur, Thomas Jefferson, and the Biblical figures of Abel and Isaac, the son of Abraham, I do identify with the attitude of the biblical character known as Jesus. I tend to believe that I was indeed crucified for the forgiveness of sins because I believe that this would effect the maximum good, which is to say, because I believe that Prem Rawat is the Absolutely Perfect Master of Life and that he would deem that the most perfectly honest person in a world that He Created (as Brahma or Jupiter or Krishna or Arias or Prem or even as F*ck, but not as "G*d" because I really don't believe He likes G*d as a name, nor Jehovah or Yahweh or anything resembling that) be crucified for the forgiveness of the sins of dishonesty. My best guess as to why I can't remember having lived the life of Jesus, if there was such a person, is that somehow my Perfect Father and Master Arius, Prem Rawat, has some way of enabling me to forget having lived through that particularly unpleasant episode ENDQUOTE.
|
|
|
|
Chris, You are so transparent. First T posts the link with a sense of mild amusement. Then a few others comment in that same vein. But now you've got us all being the mean kids throwing rocks at the poor boy's bedroom window. I'm not going to have a "good laugh" at anything on the guy's site because it just isn't that funny. In fact, it's about as funny as one of your jokes.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, with the benefit of some hindsight I probably should have given this some more thought. Of course I'm fully aware of what the guy's mental state may be and perhaps I ought to have tread more carefully. But what to have done? Censor myself totally and not post at all? Alternatively, taken a great deal of time out and posted a well thought out analysis as to how some people can become deluded and believe in something that most people find totally unbeliveable, in the case of Jeff (aka Isaac) believing that he is the messiah or something. Where would one draw the line? Would it be ok discussing how some people believe they can rearrange their DNA structure via the telephone and giving some real life examples. I mean really, for many people they feel there is a rational basis for telephonic DNA rearrangment, but I would hazard a guess that many of theose people would feel that someone who has a messiah complex is totally irrational and it smacks of 'mental illness'. Where is the line? Personally I feel that a belief in telephonic DNA rearrangement is irrational and delusional, but I could be wrong, after all there are plenty of websites propagating such 'facts'. I guess it comes down to the purpose of what this forum is all about. For me the measure is that 'Isaac' is specifically talking about Rawat and placing Rawat in a not so unfamiliar territory (that of the Lord of the Universe) that prompted me to initiate this thread. Of course it is reasonably clear to me that the author of that website may well need help of some kind as cq suggests. But again I ask, I wonder what cq would have me do? Not post at all? Post in a different way (maybe without smilies?), do a non humorous posts analysing Isaac's output in a very detailed way. Or simply contact Isaac directly (he gives his name and address somewhere) offering him medical help (which I'm not qualified to do) or tons of money so he can get medical help? T
Modified by T at Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 12:39:28
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't give it a second thought. The more people take the piss out of the Isaacs of this world the better. Who gives a fuck about this guy & his bizzaro ideas, & as for whether or not he's mentally ill.....whooo, whooo...., maybe he is, or maybe he isn't, & who is deciding that & why, & if he is, does it hurt, & if it doesn't hurt, then what's the problem?
If Isaac can handle everyday life succcessfully, then whatever crap he wants to believe to get him through the night, is irrelevant. His self important expectation that he should be taken seriously, indicates a lack of judgement, but does that make him suitable for the straitjacket?
I don't think so..
If he's capable of setting up a website & publishing to the world, then he's unlikely to be wandering the streets with his possessions in a supermarket trolley, giving off that ripe smell which is the true indicator of the lost soul.
For me the measure is that 'Isaac' is specifically
talking about Rawat and placing Rawat in a not so unfamiliar territory
(that of the Lord of the Universe) that prompted me to initiate this
thread.
Yeah, right.
|
|
|
|
Chris always does this, T. Nothing new. He acts like he thinks he's the one flickering flame of conscience in a mob of lesser souls. Not my cup of tea ...
|
|
|
|
Chris "acts like he thinks he's the one flickering flame of conscience in a mob of lesser souls".That's odd of you to say such a thing, Jim. Last thing I knew I was being censored from Forum 8 for posting porn! And if there are any people here whose posts are to be taken as sanctimonious holy cow-fodder 'round here, I'd have thought you'd be head of the herd!
Modified by cq at Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 08:12:25
|
|
|
|
That's odd of you to say such a thing, Jim. Last thing I knew I was being censored from Forum 8 for posting porn! Yes, you were. One might speculate as to whether or not there's any connection between your interest in doing that and your tendency to lecture people but the fact is you seem to "enjoy" both. And if there are any people here whose posts are to be taken as sanctimonious holy cow-fodder 'round here, I'd have thought you'd be head of the herd! Now you're distorting what I said which is that you like to make sanctimonious pronouncements as you have here. You also seem to have a real chip on your shoulder as is clearly evidenced by this kind of inflammatory comments. Do you have any friends? Do you lecture them all the time too? I bet they just love it.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 12:05:42
|
|
|
|
"Do you have any friends. Do you lecture them all the time?"Someone should tell you Jim - friends worth having can be critical too, when it's called for. I wonder which one of yours will tell you that you're sounding more like an angry playground bully than a professional lawyer.
|
|
|
|
"I wonder what cq would have me do? Not post at all?"Far from it, T. But hindsight can be useful. As can admitting that there are often more angles to an issue than one might at first be aware of. I can accept that you linked to that guy's site simply because you saw it puffing Rawat up into some kind of Godhead. But the more I read of his site, the clearer it became that "Isaac" (as he identifies with being, along with several other historical figures), is quite probably suffering from an illness which makes his outpourings a symptom of that illness, and not something to be mocked. If you were unaware of that when you started this thread, no biggie. OK? However, you also say that you're "fully aware of what the guy's mental state may be'. Well, if that's really what you meant to say, then it puts a different light on things, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
Please do not respond to my posts and likewise I will not respond to yours. I have better things to do in my life than get cross with you. And I'm sure you have better things to do than get cross with me. We obviously live on different planets. No biggie, OK? Thanks
T
|
|
|
|
Cross with you? Nope, can't say I am, 'cos I don't think your intentions in posting the link to Isaac's site were ill-intentioned.It remains to be seen whether his public writings are a consequence of an illness he's not responsible for suffering from, or whether he's just winding all and sundry up. I chose the former to account for his rants. But I'm not going to burn my bridges and say that I can't be wrong in this instance. But one thing I will always hold true is this -
that mocking the disabled on account of the symptoms of their disability is abhorrent, repulsive, offensive, repugnant ... you get the idea. And if that's a different planet to the one you're on, then I've nothing more to say to you.
Modified by cq at Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 15:40:30
|
|
|
|
Don't put words in my mouth cq, fucking hell!!!!!!!!!!! I did not suggest, imply or mean that I think "that mocking the disabled on account of the symptoms of their disability" is anything other than "abhorrent, repulsive, offensive, repugnant ... " For you to infer that I implied that in any way shape or form is fucking well unfair cq, and I deserve an apology. You can damn well send an apology via the FA of this forum. The different planet reference was meant as a neutral way out of having you converse with me and me with you, but you choose now to fucking inflame the situation by inferring that I'm insensitive to people that may have mental disabilities. That is fucking unfair cq, you do not know one inch what I know about mental disabilities, if you did you would realise the hurt you are causing by your fucking insensitive remarks. And no I do not want to talk further about this and I certainly do not want any more lessons from you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My wish to not having you respond to my posts and mine to yours is that I find your attitude to me as patronising, belittling and censorious. I was happy to walk away on neutral terms, but you were not, Oh no, you simply have inflame the situation by your insensitive and hurtful remarks. Well now I'm really pissed off. Thanks very much for fucking up the rest of what was a good day. But that was what you had hoped for, right? Just so that you can appear to be the all knowing, sensitive type guy. T
|
|
|
|
Chris, T never said that he wanted a "neutral way out" but rather: "I was happy to walk away on neutral terms, but you were not" You make it seem like T was admitting you'd cornered him somehow when that's hardly the case. Why did you do that? If it was unintentional, I'd advise you to take a lesson from this and note two things: one, your reading comprehension could improve a bit. You might want to work on that. And two, you're prone to ascribe unwarranted bad motives to people and then lecturing them on ethics and morality. Can't you see how that's so irritating? On the other hand, perhaps you misquoted T intentionally. In that case, you did it to make him look bad at your expense. That's hardly cricket, is it?
Modified by Jim at Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 13:55:48
|
|
|
|
... you need an optician.Here's what T said:
"The different planet reference was meant as a neutral way out of having you converse with me and me with you ... and here's your take on it: "T never said that he wanted a "neutral way out" but rather:
"I was happy to walk away on neutral terms, but you were not" Then you suggest this: "On the other hand, perhaps you misquoted T intentionally. In that case, you did it to make him look bad at your expense. That's hardly cricket, is it?" Now will you please stop wasting my and everyone else's time before I'm tempted to ask you for an apology? On second thoughts - an apology from you? ... I'll not say what I'm thinking. It'd only make me look bad at your expense (whatever that means). Your call.
. . .  . . . . . .  . . .  . . . 
Modified by cq at Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 15:13:25
|
|
|
|
Chris, I didn't notice T's earlier phrase so sorry about that. But you are/were clearly trying to get a rise out of him, weren't you? No never mind. Don't answer. Let's call it.
Modified by Jim at Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 15:15:35
|
| Jim, I've edited since you might have first seen my reply. Shall we take this to private messages? |
|  |
| Re: Oh I see -- Jim |
Top of thread |
|
Archive |
|
|
|
Chris, I didn't notice the phrase in T's earlier post so sorry about that. But you are/were clearly trying to get a rise out of him, weren't you? No never mind. Don't answer. Let's call it.
Call it quits, you mean? I'd prefer that you understand where I'm coming from, since there seems to be a lot of projection going on, and not just from you. A "rise" out of anyone was not my intention. Let's just say that my family has had to deal with psychosis in the past, and we've developed a "nose" for it over the years. I'd say more, but it seems a bit public here, you understand?
|
|
|
|
Chris, I'm sorry your family has had to deal with psychosis in the past although it sounds like you're not the only one here who's had similar issues to grapple with. But if there's any "projection" going on it's been from you who seem very quick to assume or speculate about the inferior ethics of other posters. No one was unduly or cruelly mocking Isaac, who isn't even here after all. And his site is funny the way crazy tracts often are. It's all a question of balance and yes, it's rather irritating to have someone assume, as you have, that we need to be reminded that people have feelings, etc. That's just a gratuitous lecture and it's bound to get anyone's back up.
Modified by Jim at Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 16:29:08
|
|
|
|
That's the whole point Jim - who's to say whether the mockery (a given, as you imply) of Isaac was cruel or not? - Depends on whether it caused the recipient suffering based on symptoms of an illness he/she couldn't control. No?Perhaps we should defer judgement, before letting a qualified psychologist determine if he/she's mentally ill. Then we might be in a better position to decide whether we've caused any suffering or not. As for gratuitous lectures, I'm flattered that you cite me as being a proponent. It's almost as if you're trying to draw attention away from yourself!
Modified by cq at Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 18:10:05
|
|
|
|
>Far from it, T. But hindsight can be useful. As can admitting that there are often more angles to an issue than one might at first be aware of. I agree. Up above I suggested that diagnosing a stranger you have never met as obviously mentally ill, and suffering from a psychosis might be more hurtful than laughing at a stupid claim they have made. There's a different angle. We have all believed stupid things in our time (with the possible exception of jonti), or we wouldn't even be here. And many of us were weak and vulnerable at the times we claimed those beliefs. But psychotic? - that's a different league...
|
|
|
|
“I can’t believe that!” said Alice. “Can’t you?” the Queen said in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.” Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I
was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes
I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There
goes the shawl again!”
Modified by jonti at Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 06:34:04
|
|
|
|
True Nigel, I'm not qualified to give a professional diagnosis on "Isaac"'s mental health - or lack of it. However, I've seen the kind of diatribe he produces before, and believe me, it's a product of an illness.For example: "T minus 104 minuts to 11:11, on nvember 11, 2005 which is NOW that i got given th november qp hans jayanti koan partially or even satisfactorily worked out, i want to do a pilgrimage with eido roshi and ben franklin and either or both of my fathers, and HH the Dalai Lama Prinece rauven and Gyatso La, any one approved to tag along by any of these who are authorized to bring their own favorite friends along, and daniel would also be welcome, if it was appropriate to bring that sweet good looking ARYAN boy along, to all of the holy places that have anything to do wih the story that has anything to do with the journey of Arius from the Temples oF SHINTO, through the places visited by Chunag Tzu, while on his way to realizing the MU KOAN himself, his own first step in the KOAN answering journey that Arius himself lived through that you could think of as having begun when he was Chuang Tzu, whose vision of MU was the inspiration that eventually led to the funding of INDIA by Krishna, and then the next journey, that was lived through in this cycle, by the really cool guy named Franklin Jones of whom i am a big fan, the Buddha who became the bodhistva named Franklin, who might actually be my own bet tudent as the son of Arius on his own journey to becoming what Arius essentially is, right through the whole lineage of Zen Masters, that begins with Bdhidharma and ends with Eido shimano Roshi and Me". Show that to any psychologist/psychiatrist and ask for their opinion. If I'm wrong in thinking his writings exhibit something very near to psychosis, then I'll happily make a donation to MIND (the Mental Health charity)! Regards,
Chris PS Here's another possible angle: the guy might be an ex-premie pretending to nuts in order to cast Rawat in a bad light. A less likely angle, admittedly, but until we know the truth of the matter ...
Modified by cq at Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 15:59:27
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris, We have met in real life on the glorious night whose dim memory has hereafter been celebrated as Latvian 2001 – and I recall we got on fine - not that I remember an awful lot of that Bacchanalian episode. So nothing I say now is personally acrimonious – I just call is as I see it, ok? Ridiculing a stupid idea can have enormous benefits, IMO. Whilst in the cult I miraculously managed to sustain a few non-cult friendships in spite of me blathering hi-intensity satsang bullshit at every available god-given opportunity. My friends then never mocked the insanity of my guru-talk, but treated me with almost alarming respect. I am not sure whether this was ultimately a good or bad thing: I kept my friends (great!) but their respect, in retrospect (I’m sure there’s a cryptic crossword clue in there) probably did me a disservice. Sometimes ridicule of a daft bunch of ideas (as, say, expounded by Isaac, above) is a more charitable approach than, at one extreme, indulging or respecting them, or else insulting them by describing and dismissing their exponent as being ‘obviously mentally ill’. I wish there had been a Woody Allen around in my formative years to say, ‘What, are you absolutely crazy, or something? Your guru is God? In HUMAN FORM? - You gotta be joking!’ (Note: this use of ‘crazy’ is not the same as implied in your posts about Isaac.) A bit of sharp teasing might have helped me out of the cult a lot sooner. BTW: I can relate to Jim’s ‘finger-wagging’ observation. Only because I remember you - or I think it was you - taking me to task a few years ago after I made a (predictably) sarcastic – but friendly – reply to an ex-premie who wished us all well on our 'onward paths towards wisdom’, or something like that. My offensive comment: ‘thanks, but I’ve already got all the wisdom I could use’. Pretty innocuous stuff to put on a web-board. I have no idea about Isaac’s feelings, Chris, but I think on this thread you’ve succeeded in gratuitously winding-up those of other forum members here. And I know which of the two I would be more concerned about. I won’t add any more comments to this discussion. I’ve said everything I wanted to, the thread's too long already (yawn) and repetition gets boring. Maybe talk to you on a lighter note, sometime soon, I hope... Nige
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 16:40:41
|
|
|
|
I think most people I knew got hip fast that I was incapable of discussing anything rawat related without going into a satsang. You know, do we realize how used to long winded speeches we were? In satsang we would listen to people go on and on for who knows how long. And to our non premie "friends" we could give what we may have thought were reasonably short answers that were more like 13 minutes long! I think I was inpenetrebly dense. How bad was it to know us, oh my!
|
|
|
|
And you're right about the way were conditioned to the idea of satsang just going on and on an on... 'like a river' or something. Satsang is where we lived! But I was thinking of Hannah and her Sisters, and those scenes where the Woody Allen character is on this deperate search for the meaning of life, and they show him being solicited by some krisha guy with a leaflet...then he's looking at a window display in a catholic church where there's a luminous christ on a cross. And it's all done with facial expressions - a sad mix of disbelief and despair - no talk. I'm sure if I'd known anybody THAT impervious to satsang I might have paused for thought a bit more. Or, maybe not - I was in a cult, after all...
|
|
|
|
"We have met in real life on the glorious night whose dim memory has hereafter been celebrated as Latvian 2001 – and I recall we got on fine - not that I remember an awful lot of that Bacchanalian episode. So nothing I say now is personally acrimonious – I just call is as I see it, ok?er, sure Nige. Feeling free to call it as we see it is indeed a Good Thing, sez I. And yes, I remember the Latvian, and remember getting a bit flummoxed on meeting you because I suddenly flashed on a picture you had posted of your good self. Said pic had part of a very large sign above your head. Something to do with a scrapyard, wasn't it? Anyway, what larks, Pip, eh? What larks! (oops, there goes my hat). "Ridiculing a stupid idea can have enormous benefits, IMO. So that's what this is all about! "Whilst in the cult I miraculously managed to sustain a few non-cult friendships in spite of me blathering hi-intensity satsang bullshit at every available god-given opportunity. My friends then never mocked the insanity of my guru-talk, but treated me with almost alarming respect. I am not sure whether this was ultimately a good or bad thing: I kept my friends (great!) but their respect, in retrospect (I’m sure there’s a cryptic crossword clue in there) probably did me a disservice. I sometimes wish my own family hadn't been so liberal and decent when I took the plunge into subservience to the Maha. I guess the early 70s were all about letting others "do their own thing" (embarrassingly dated phrase that). "Sometimes ridicule of a daft bunch of ideas (as, say, expounded by Isaac, above) is a more charitable approach than, at one extreme, indulging or respecting them, or else insulting them by describing and dismissing their exponent as being ‘obviously mentally ill’. I see your point. "I wish there had been a Woody Allen around in my formative years to say, ‘What, are you absolutely crazy, or something? Your guru is God? In HUMAN FORM? - You gotta be joking!’ (Note: this use of ‘crazy’ is not the same as implied in your posts about Isaac.) A bit of sharp teasing might have helped me out of the cult a lot sooner. BTW: I can relate to Jim’s ‘finger-wagging’ observation. Only because I remember you - or I think it was you - taking me to task a few years ago after I made a (predictably) sarcastic – but friendly – reply to an ex-premie who wished us all well on our 'onward paths towards wisdom’, or something like that. My offensive comment: ‘thanks, but I’ve already got all the wisdom I could use’. Well, you've only got yourself to blame there. Of all the arrogant, son-of-a-bitch comments ... Oops, I'm off again. There again, only Telling it Like I Saw it ... Didn't know it was intended sarcastically though. "Pretty innocuous stuff to put on a web-board. But of course, Nige. And I remember it like it was yesterday. (Now what WAS that emoticon for sarcasm?) "I have no idea about Isaac’s feelings, Chris, but I think on this thread you’ve succeeded in gratuitously winding-up those of other forum members here. And I know which of the two I would be more concerned about. I won't repeat my motives for objecting to the mocking of Isaac. I think he's ill. But my motive certainly was NOT to wind anyone up. Simply to point out that mocking symptoms of his illness was out of order, in my book. Maybe I'm overly sensitive on this kind of thing, what with having a close family member treated pretty fucking shoddily as a consequence of her illness for far too long, but there you go. Perhaps my experience means that (to some people) I deserve to be treated like I'm from a different planet, but I think that says more about them than about me. There you go. "I won’t add any more comments to this discussion. I’ve said everything I wanted to, the thread's too long already (yawn) and repetition gets boring. Maybe talk to you on a lighter note, sometime soon, I hope... Yes indeedy, And my regards to you and yours, Moley, Enda Blighty, et. al. Chris
|
|
|
|
I met you at the Latvian 2001 as well. As I recall I kind of hid in a corner and we chatted for a while.
My take on this spat is that, yes, Jim did jump at you. No surprises there, then. But I do think you are being somewhat social-workerish over this one. You say believe me, (those diatribes are) a product of an illness. Maybe. But then, the way I call things, religion is an illness in any case. And a dangerous, destructive, and contagious illness as well.
Seriously, if a person is street legal (and the null assumption must be that this guy is in charge of his own affairs -- that he is legally competent) then their public statements are fair game. It has to be that way.
I understand you are seriously concerned for this fool's mental health, and call for forbearance and understanding on that basis. Good for you.
But your view isn't my view. Perhaps I'm not so nice, or perhaps I'm just more frightened at the wave of unreason that is engulfing our culture. But I see this kind of deluded posturing as being no more exceptional than that of the Pope, or Osama, or indeed of mad Tony.
I firmly reject the religious and new labour stalinists in their attempt to fence in what is legitimate comment. I have every right to say what I please in response to offensive behaviour and propaganda made by a legally competent individual. I argue, sincerely and I think with demonstrable merit, that all religion, from the most universally accepted to the most idiosyncratic, is in that category. And no-one -- not you, not mad Tony, not "the Sikh Community", nobody at all is going to stop me holding my views and expressing them, no matter how offensive they may find my thoughts and speech. I find *them* offensive, you see. But I allow them their speech, and only demand the same courtesy in reciprocation.
Jonti
--never a premie
Modified by jonti at Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 07:30:52
|
|
|
|
My take on this spat is that, yes, Jim did jump at you. No surprises there, then. You're wrong. Read Chris' original post. But thanks anyways.
Related link: The original "jump"
|
|
|
|
Jim must've jumped at someone else. Fer shure ...
|
|
|
|
No surprise there, either
The post of yours I considered "jumping" at cq was entitled Oh good, it's another Chris lecture!.
It reads ...
You know damn well why
anyone would laugh at him, you're just doing your typical
finger-wagging. The guy's taking out ads in magazines and newspapers,
looking for a reaction. He's getting one. Ha ha. Your sanctimoniousness is tiresome. Thanks for directing me to the post that drew your reaction, but I had read it. Now I've read it, and your response, again.
And it still looks to me as if you did indeed somewhat jump as cq for saying what he did. You told him what he knows (!), said his sanctimoniousness is tiresome and described his expression of concern as a typically finger wagging lecture.
That's what gave me the impression that you did rather jump at cq, and, for what it's worth, it's an impression that I retain, even after looking through his post and your reply again.
Modified by jonti at Wed, Jan 25, 2006, 18:31:29
|
|
|
|
Hi Jonti Well actually it was me that was 'jumped' upon, and that is certainly how I felt, before Jim 'jumped'. I appreciated Jim's intervention, even if it was in his unique style. T
|
|
|
|
Yes indeed, I agree cq jumped on you rather harshly and intemperately. It must have been somewhat disturbing, coming out of the blue like that, as far as you were concerned.
I too have appreciated Jim's interventions, not just for their power and clarity in the service of reason, but, like you, on a personal level when I felt unfairly attacked.
Jonti
--never a premie
Modified by jonti at Thu, Jan 26, 2006, 04:23:14
|
|
|
|
You said; "mocking those whose brains have been seriously f**ked by him (like Isaac) is quite another." Did I miss a post? or are you the only one that called him "seriously fucked." I read Isaac. He aint dumb, he is wildly out there, He is on his own planet, but he knows his planet. That is creative! What the heck! And I dont see that rawat did it. His influences start off in the new age area, and new age will get you your own world. That is the whole new age result! Isaac is successfully launched in new age reality. His communication is cryptic, leaps about, but it holds true to his world. And it is complex and internally coherent with his base. Does it correspond to reality? Well, clearly god allows for some wild edge walking. I dont reccomend him having kids! But, kids get born to way worse guys every day. I think Isaac would be kind to a kid. Except that his interactions with other parents and school officials and parents of his kids freinds would not work well, and the kid will rebel. I would not worry too much about the kid as kids are able to see craziness after a few years, and the ignore a lot in the meantime. But, on his own, free to just be, Isaac is sane. But within his definition of reality. I would not put him on medicine, or treat him as a crazy. I would talk with him and present my reality and help, perhaps, to provide a bridge between his wild new age view and mine. I meet so many people not deeply out there, that if he was in my neighborhood, I would definately talk to him once a week. Just to see what planet he was on that day, if I could.
|
|
|
|
thanks for offering your opinion, bill.But if that "new age reality" (as you call your opinion) is to be the norm in days to come, I only hope that there'll be plenty of people to challenge your assumptions. And I hope they can't be dismissed as easily as you dismiss my opinion!
Modified by cq at Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 15:41:14
|
|
|
|
Modified by cq at Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 13:39:18
|
|
|
|
Thanks John. I did a search, but must have missed it. Yup, I opined that "Isaac's" brains had been f**ked, judging by the content of his website. OK. Not the most sensitive of responses to another human being's take on life. But come to that, neither was yours.
Modified by cq at Fri, Jan 27, 2006, 14:14:02
|
|
|
