How Many True Gurus Are There?

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Martin

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
How Many True Gurus Are There?

According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being. I know there are some
who will disagree with me, but I'm expressing my own opinion here. The two
Mystic Adepts are Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and yours truly.

Those who want to go beyond the reach of mind and maya, to become immortal
and free from the cycle of birth and death, should go to one of the two
above- mentioned Masters, get initiated, and they will achieve their goal.
Those who get initiated by one of the two Sat Gurus will reach their True
Home, known as Sach Khand. It is the place of eternal life, or everlasting
life, as Christ called it. Only a Master, who has access to that region, can
take others there.

Michael Martin
A Sant Mat Guru

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Pigme563

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to
FIRST OF ALL NO "TRUE GURU" WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE YOU HAVE. SECOND I HAVE
READ YOUR POSTS, AND IN MY OPINION YOU ARE A "TRUE NUT
CASE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOUR MAJESTY, KINGSHIP OR WHATEVER YOU THINK YOU ARE.
HILE -OH YOU SEE MY POINT. DON'T YOU YOUR ROYAL HINEY?

yogi R. Lund

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to
The condition you are indulging in is called neither meditation nor
enlightenment. Are you a pedophile, sir, trying to lure the impressionable
into some sick scheme by a surreptitious route? You are too contrived to
actually be deluded, so some such motivation is indicated. If you are not
abnormally depraved, why don't you just subscribe to a "lonely hearts" list
for your seductions or orgies? You are so patently lurid it will be pointless
to deny it.

In article <7d6n80$kai$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Fewtch

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to

There is only one true Guru in the world. To meet him or her, go look
in any available mirror. Bow before the Guru. Now you're ready to
begin to learn!

Tim

>On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:07:48 GMT, nom...@one.xs4all.nl (Eleph) wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:29:00 GMT, sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin)


>wrote:
>
>>How Many True Gurus Are There?
>>
>>According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
>>Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being.
>

>It is nice of you to admit that you could be wrong, but let me assure
>you you are wrong, dead wrong. In fact you so clearly demonstrate your
>limited vision that those who do believe you do not deserve any
>better.


-----
Visit THE CORE of the Worldwide Web at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html -
Spiritual Writings, Poetry, Live Chat and much more.

Bruce Morgen

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to
yogi R. Lund <r-l...@telia.com> wrote:

>The condition you are indulging in is called neither meditation nor
>enlightenment. Are you a pedophile, sir, trying to lure the impressionable
>into some sick scheme by a surreptitious route? You are too contrived to
>actually be deluded, so some such motivation is indicated.

I suspect there is an
assumption behind this
particular conclusion --
wouldn't you consider it
possible for a generally
coherent writer with a
"contrived" presentation
to be deluded? As Mr.
Martin's most persistent
public opponent -- I feel
he about as much of a
"Mystic Adept" or a "Sat
Guru" as he is the
Dowager Empress Of China
and I'll stand by that
assessment -- there has
never been any indication
that he has deviant sexual
proclivities or that he is
trying to fool others any
more than his rampant
imagination has fooled him.
The only chelas of his I'm
aware of communicate with
him via e-mail -- this
brings up other issues but
seems to counterindicate
any sexual motivation.

>If you are not
>abnormally depraved, why don't you just subscribe to a "lonely hearts" list
>for your seductions or orgies? You are so patently lurid it will be pointless
>to deny it.
>

This seems quite inferential
on your part -- even if
there are hidden motives
behind Mr. Martin's rather
awkward and, as you say,
"contrived" Usenet presence,
why look at sex to the
exclusion of other
gratifications like acclaim
or the ego rush of being
adored by obsequious
sycophants? In some people
the drive for such
acknowledgement is much
stronger than lust!

>In article <7d6n80$kai$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


> sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
>> How Many True Gurus Are There?
>>
>> According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic

>> Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being. I know there are some
>> who will disagree with me, but I'm expressing my own opinion here. The two
>> Mystic Adepts are Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and yours truly.
>>
>> Those who want to go beyond the reach of mind and maya, to become immortal
>> and free from the cycle of birth and death, should go to one of the two
>> above- mentioned Masters, get initiated, and they will achieve their goal.
>> Those who get initiated by one of the two Sat Gurus will reach their True
>> Home, known as Sach Khand. It is the place of eternal life, or everlasting
>> life, as Christ called it. Only a Master, who has access to that region, can
>> take others there.
>>
>> Michael Martin
>> A Sant Mat Guru
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own


__________________________________________________
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm

m(_ _)m

Fewtch

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to

Let me flesh it out a little, then -

"The One true guru"

There is only one living guru in the entire world. To meet him/her, go
stand before any available mirror. Bow to the guru. Offer your deep
love and respect. Ask Him or Her if you are ready to learn. If the
answer is yes, then the teaching can begin.

Embark upon the path of Bhaktananda (Devotion) with the guru you've
met. Love the Self in the guru, and learn from that Self.


Better? :-)


On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:02:32 GMT, nom...@one.xs4all.nl (Eleph) wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:12:35 GMT, few...@eskimo.com (Fewtch) wrote:
>
>>There is only one true Guru in the world. To meet him or her, go look
>>in any available mirror. Bow before the Guru. Now you're ready to
>>begin to learn!
>

>Without honesty there is nothing to learn. The mirror does not reflect
>what you wish to see, but it reflects what is really there. But
>understanding does not come from just looking in the mirror,
>understanding comes from the heart and not from the mouth. Therefor
>this honesty must be in your heart.

Darth Veda

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to
According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being.  I know there are some
who will disagree with me, but I'm expressing my own opinion here.  The two
Mystic Adepts are Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and yours truly.


Maybe you should do some tee vee commercials!  Warn everyone about them false prophets that are going around!

--
Q:   What does it mean when the flag is at half-mast at the post office?
A:   They're hiring.
 

Gordon Murl

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to
Michael Martin wrote:
>
> How Many True Gurus Are There?
>
> According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
> Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being. I know there are some
> who will disagree with me, but I'm expressing my own opinion here. The two
> Mystic Adepts are Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and yours truly.

What confusion. Opinions are an expression of an un-liberated mind and
according to you I don't exist, which is very much untrue.


>
> Those who want to go beyond the reach of mind and maya, to become immortal
> and free from the cycle of birth and death, should go to one of the two
> above- mentioned Masters, get initiated, and they will achieve their goal.
> Those who get initiated by one of the two Sat Gurus will reach their True
> Home, known as Sach Khand. It is the place of eternal life, or everlasting
> life, as Christ called it. Only a Master, who has access to that region, can
> take others there.

Those who want liberation and freedom from all manner of limitation
should allow the flow of attention inwardly as well as externally. This
is a worthy meditation. Liberation isn't bestowed and it isn't
something you acquire in the marketplace of mystic adepts. There is the
idea that you need the help of a master, is this so? Who can say with
certainty for you? Below the surface of idea's the reality of yourself
resides. Live at the surface and you can play with Michael. Be a light
unto yourself and you will find out whether you are the lost soul you
imagine yourself to be.


>
> Michael Martin
> A Sant Mat Guru
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own


--

Gordon Murl

jo...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/23/99
to
Gordon Murl wrote:

[snip]

> What confusion. Opinions are an expression of an un-liberated mind and
> according to you I don't exist, which is very much untrue.

You've made an assumption about liberated minds. It is not the mind that
is liberated anyway, it is the sense of self as an 'individual *only*' that
departs. The individual so blessed by the event of realization *does*
maintain a sense of individuality, it's just the idea that the person
is *only* the limited individual that goes away.

--jodyr.

Fewtch

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to

Here are some steps on the path to enlightenment, or Self-Realization.
The path I outline here is jnana-yoga. Knowing these things will not
"enlighten" you, but they will bring you much closer, if you believe
them absolutely. That's the key: IF YOU BELIEVE THEM ABSOLUTELY.
Take what I say on absolute faith as *TRUTH*, and believe these
things, *if they make sense to you*, and you will be much closer.
Keep affirming them every day, as often as possible, and you will come
closer and closer. Eventually, the process will gather momentum and
will carry you into enlightenment. This could take anywhere from one
day to twenty years to never in this lifetime, depending on many
factors, mostly your own determination and desire for it.

Let go of the hope that you will "become enlightened" in this
lifetime. It might happen, it might not. This is the first and
perhaps most difficult preliminary. Let go of all hope of ever
"achieving the goal" of enlightenment. Do this FIRST, before anything
else. It's a humbling exercise, and will help you decide if
enlightenment is something you WANT or just something you THINK you
want. Enlightenment is not something that can be forced, or willed,
or worked for. To do so will drive you further and further away from
it.

Preliminaries:

(1) ***You are already enlightened.*** There are things "suppressing"
or blocking the knowledge/experience/perception of this. You don't
BECOME enlightened. You already ARE. But to EXPERIENCE it, you have
to remove the blindfold over your "eyes." Think of it as being like a
very dirty pane of glass. REALIZING enlightenment is the process of
cleaning the glass, so you see that you are enlightened. Right now,
"you see through a glass, darkly." Enlightenment is the natural state
of everyone, but through ignorance of Truth and the blinding
influences of the senses and of desires and pre-conceived ideas and
everything else that makes up the ego, you don't know that you are.
There is no "seeking" to be done, it is already found. Just some
correction of wrong perceptions. Don't EVER think you can "achieve"
enlightenment. YOU GOT IT ALREADY!

(2) You must renounce the idea that you OWN anything. Everything you
think you own, including your body, doesn't belong to you. One day
your body will die, so do you really own it? Someone else will bury
it, or burn it. Everything you have will one day be dust, or will
belong to somebody else. Let go of all attachments to material
objects.

(3) Let go of attachments to pleasures of the senses. They are nice
to experience, but they are not important at all, and be ready to give
them up at anytime (you would have to anyway, if you dropped dead of a
heart attack in the next minute). You don't have to stop doing
anything, unless you can't let go of the ATTACHMENT to it. "If thine
own eyes offend thee, pluck them out." If you think of anything in
life that you're not willing to drop or stop doing, right this minute,
then give it up completely, NOW.

Main Points:

(1) You are not a body. Stop identifying yourself with the body. If
you can point toward your body and say "this is me" and mean it, you
are identifying with the body. Your body is a piece of machinery that
operates in a wonderful way, but it's just that - machinery. It is
not YOU. YOU are not a machine. Release attachment to the body. Let
it be there, feed it when it needs fed, let it rest when it is tired,
but it is not YOU!

(3) You are not a mind. The mind thinks thoughts, but it is not you.
How can it be? One minute the mind thinks one thing, the next it
thinks another. If you were the mind, you would be mutating from
minute to minute as thoughts changed. So YOU are not the mind.

(4) You are not emotions. Emotions change from minute to minute. You
don't mutate into something else every time feelings change. Don't
identify with emotions. Release attachment to them.

(5) You are not memories, or what is experienced by the senses,
either. The mind processes electrochemical impulses received by
sound, sight, taste, etc or by the triggering of a past memory. This
is a wonderful process, but it is not who you are!

(6) At this point, there may seem to be nothing left (if there is,
it's probably not you). EXACTLY. There is nothing perceivable that
you are. What you are is BEYOND all normal perception, beyond all
thought. The massive gap between being "unenlightened" and being
"enlightened" is to perceive that which cannot be perceived by "normal
means." So how is it to be perceived? Well, lie down. Quiet your
thoughts, any way you can. Stop thinking for awhile. Quiet the
chatter in the mind. Just lie there and BE. Just BE. EXIST. That's
the purpose of life. To Exist. You are Existence. It's that simple.

Practices:

(7) You don't exist. You ARE existence. You don't listen to music.
You ARE music. You don't love. You ARE love. There is no perceiver,
or perceived. The perceiver and perceived are One. Affirm this
constantly. Meditate on this. You ARE. Say to yourself "I AM." You
are consciousness. You are nothing BUT consciousness. The mind takes
this consciousness (which is YOU) and makes of it the various forms
and other things perceived as the external world, through past
memories and conditioning and whatever else. I AM. You are THAT.

(8) No boundaries. "You" extend far beyond the skin of the body. You
are simultaneously everywhere at once. You *ARE EVERYTHING*. You
*ARE EVERYTHING*. You *ARE EVERYTHING*. You *ARE EVERYTHING.* You
*ARE EVERYTHING*. You do not exist. You *ARE EXISTENCE*.

(9) I AM. I AM. I AM. I AM. Delve into it. I AM. Pure.
Consciousness. Nothing else is real, all is created from the
substance of Me. I AM the substance of which the universe is
composed. I AM THE UNIVERSE, Universes within Universes. I AM more
than this universe. *I AM THE SINGLE TIMELESS FACT*. I *AM*.

(10) Lather. Rinse. Repeat :-)

Hope this helps somebody on the road,

With Love,

Tim

Fewtch

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to

Cosmic Wanderer

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:07:21 GMT, yogi R. Lund <r-l...@telia.com>
wrote:

>The condition you are indulging in is called neither meditation nor
>enlightenment.

That is Mickey.

>Are you a pedophile, sir, trying to lure the impressionable
>into some sick scheme by a surreptitious route?

I reckon Mickey is a idiot but this is not fair what you wrote you
hope shouting the word pedophile will get hate stired up against him?

Seen it before and it wont work mate.

A friend taught me all people are human. Took me ages to get what he
meant but I got it in the end.

Cosmic Wanderer

Ps I am not a pedophile but I am not into bashing people cause of a
label.

Gordon Murl

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to

Who is making assumptions? It's clear you are a borrowed man speaking
from the warehouse of your own un-liberated mind. Your life tells the
real story. What does it tell you? That you are an individual
unlimited? No, of course not. Don't try to sell me, I'm not buying.
Agreement is not my focus, you may live and think as you desire.

Gordon Murl

Roger Isaacs

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to
Ya know, I'm not sure the state sponsered internet access for those in mental
hospitals is a good thing.

There is proof in your post Michael that you're deluded. The purpose of a Guru
is to point the way to God for the student. Since in your opinion you ( and
someone else) are the only ones with access to God, this shows that you are
unable to lead anyone else to this same access.

Somebody around here has got to have the golden pin to burst this bubble?

Roger


sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
> How Many True Gurus Are There?
>
> According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
> Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being. I know there are some
> who will disagree with me, but I'm expressing my own opinion here. The two
> Mystic Adepts are Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and yours truly.
>

> Those who want to go beyond the reach of mind and maya, to become immortal
> and free from the cycle of birth and death, should go to one of the two
> above- mentioned Masters, get initiated, and they will achieve their goal.
> Those who get initiated by one of the two Sat Gurus will reach their True
> Home, known as Sach Khand. It is the place of eternal life, or everlasting
> life, as Christ called it. Only a Master, who has access to that region, can
> take others there.
>

Bart Lidofsky

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to
In article <7d6n80$kai$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Michael Martin wrote:
>How Many True Gurus Are There?
>
>According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
>Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being. I know there are some
>who will disagree with me, but I'm expressing my own opinion here. The two
>Mystic Adepts are Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and yours truly.

As you are a Mystic Adept, you already know what I was going to
write. Those who are not can probably figure it out.

--
Bart Lidofsky
Systems Administrator
New York Theosophical Society
ny...@dorsai.org (official)
ba...@sprynet.com (personal)


Bruce Morgen

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to
Gordon Murl <" 123xyz"@newsguy.com> wrote:

>jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>> Gordon Murl wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > What confusion. Opinions are an expression of an un-liberated mind and
>> > according to you I don't exist, which is very much untrue.
>>
>> You've made an assumption about liberated minds. It is not the mind that
>> is liberated anyway, it is the sense of self as an 'individual *only*' that
>> departs. The individual so blessed by the event of realization *does*
>> maintain a sense of individuality, it's just the idea that the person
>> is *only* the limited individual that goes away.
>>
>> --jodyr.
>
>Who is making assumptions?

Jody's view is quite clear,
the very expression "un-
liberated mind" bespeaks
assumption because it
implies that "mind" can be
"liberated." The word
"mind" itself is just a
communicative convenience,
a mere concept and a very
imprecise one at that.
There is, in fact, no
actual or ongoing "mind" to
"liberate" -- there is only
the activity of thought,
fancying itself an entity
instead of the transient
neural energy it is.

>It's clear you are a borrowed man speaking
>from the warehouse of your own un-liberated mind.

The doctrinaire assumer
emerges from the bog, reeking
of Eau De Gurdjieff --
"borrowed man" is an apt
mirror.

>Your life tells the
>real story. What does it tell you? That you are an individual
>unlimited? No, of course not. Don't try to sell me, I'm not buying.

Runaway inference explodes
from the starting blocks,
assumption upon assumption,
fuguelike....

>Agreement is not my focus,

Understood. Feel free to
state your "focus."

>you may live and think as you desire.
>

True enough, and let there
be gratitude for it!

jo...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to
In article <36F8F8DE...@newsguy.com>,

Gordon Murl <" 123xyz"@newsguy.com> wrote:
> jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> > Gordon Murl wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > What confusion. Opinions are an expression of an un-liberated mind and
> > > according to you I don't exist, which is very much untrue.
> >
> > You've made an assumption about liberated minds. It is not the mind that
> > is liberated anyway, it is the sense of self as an 'individual *only*' that
> > departs. The individual so blessed by the event of realization *does*
> > maintain a sense of individuality, it's just the idea that the person
> > is *only* the limited individual that goes away.
> >
> > --jodyr.
>
> Who is making assumptions? It's clear you are a borrowed man speaking
> from the warehouse of your own un-liberated mind. Your life tells the

> real story. What does it tell you? That you are an individual
> unlimited? No, of course not. Don't try to sell me, I'm not buying.
> Agreement is not my focus, you may live and think as you desire.

I'm not selling anything. I'm *telling* you. Individuality is *always*
limited. Self on the other hand is unlimited and always so. Your
assumption is that a liberated being has no opinions. What I'm telling
you is that a liberated being exists in a body with a mind and that
that mind *does* have opinions.

--jodyr.

Gordon Murl

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to

I bow to your temperate firmness and thoughtful correction. I'm liking
you already, or so goes my opinion.

Gordon Murl

jo...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to

Hey, thanx Gordon! :)

--jodyr.

Gordon Murl

unread,
Mar 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/24/99
to
Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
> Gordon Murl <" 123xyz"@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Gordon Murl wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > What confusion. Opinions are an expression of an un-liberated mind and
> >> > according to you I don't exist, which is very much untrue.
> >>
> >> You've made an assumption about liberated minds. It is not the mind that
> >> is liberated anyway, it is the sense of self as an 'individual *only*' that
> >> departs. The individual so blessed by the event of realization *does*
> >> maintain a sense of individuality, it's just the idea that the person
> >> is *only* the limited individual that goes away.
> >>
> >> --jodyr.
> >
> >Who is making assumptions?
>
> Jody's view is quite clear,
> the very expression "un-
> liberated mind" bespeaks
> assumption because it
> implies that "mind" can be
> "liberated." The word
> "mind" itself is just a
> communicative convenience,
> a mere concept and a very
> imprecise one at that.
> There is, in fact, no
> actual or ongoing "mind" to
> "liberate" -- there is only
> the activity of thought,
> fancying itself an entity
> instead of the transient
> neural energy it is.
>
> >It's clear you are a borrowed man speaking
> >from the warehouse of your own un-liberated mind.
>
> The doctrinaire assumer
> emerges from the bog, reeking
> of Eau De Gurdjieff --
> "borrowed man" is an apt
> mirror.
>
> >Your life tells the
> >real story. What does it tell you? That you are an individual
> >unlimited? No, of course not. Don't try to sell me, I'm not buying.
>
> Runaway inference explodes
> from the starting blocks,
> assumption upon assumption,
> fuguelike....
>
> >Agreement is not my focus,
>
> Understood. Feel free to
> state your "focus."
>
> >you may live and think as you desire.
> >
> True enough, and let there
> be gratitude for it!

Ha! You are a funny one, cutting me off at the knee's while you pat my
back.

Gordon Murl

Bruce Morgen

unread,
Mar 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/25/99
to

I'm ambidextrous.

yogi R. Lund

unread,
Mar 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/25/99
to
You would much prefer a hygenic sterile fault over a dirty one in someone you
criticize, because a dirty fault would render your criticism inadequate, inane
in fact. As long as you keep your faith in an MM who is merely deluded you are
full of things to say, be and do about it.

You have read what I have written to some extent: does it manifest uncommon
perception. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it does so whether or
not you are aware of it: what does perception mean in this regard? You want
there to be "evidence" of sexual misconduct or intent, while I am saying it
is manifest, the actual impetus of his behavior manifest as his behavior.
Evidence is exactly what any common conscious process is in complete control
of, and so your "guru" is perfectly safe here, no matter what he actually is
doing here.

This is the foundation of thought, a perpetual process, so that it thinks it
is what is going to die. You never finish a relationship that is playing with
evidence. And what else is there? Inference? Have you ever heard of reliable
intuition? It is then called "instinct", a feeling for doing the infallible.
So could someone perceptive have instinctual awareness of who someone is,
when it is a thing you would miss no matter how often it is manifest? Or do
you want to say that if you don't get it it isn't there, and thus it is
unfair for anyone to say it is? Is your notion of finding the truth to ask a
jury, to take a vote, or perhaps I Ching, to flip a coin or two? Are you a
hypocrite, seeking spiritual guidance on the one hand, and being everything
anyone could be on the other hand; every persons' equal? It is not an
insulting question; it is the common psychology of the novice, which is what
makes it impossible that the novice finds the nirvana, and possible for all
sorts of things to be sold as enlightenment, the proof he wants that he has
not failed the course even though he has.

In article <36f820fe...@news.pond.com>,


edi...@juno.com wrote:
> yogi R. Lund <r-l...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> >The condition you are indulging in is called neither meditation nor

> > sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
> >> How Many True Gurus Are There?
> >>
> >> According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two
Mystic
> >> Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being. I know there are
some
> >> who will disagree with me, but I'm expressing my own opinion here. The two
> >> Mystic Adepts are Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, and yours truly.
> >>

> >> Those who want to go beyond the reach of mind and maya, to become immortal
> >> and free from the cycle of birth and death, should go to one of the two
> >> above- mentioned Masters, get initiated, and they will achieve their goal.
> >> Those who get initiated by one of the two Sat Gurus will reach their True
> >> Home, known as Sach Khand. It is the place of eternal life, or everlasting
> >> life, as Christ called it. Only a Master, who has access to that region,
can
> >> take others there.
> >>
> >> Michael Martin
> >> A Sant Mat Guru
> >>

> >> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >>
> >
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

> __________________________________________________
> http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
> http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm
>
> m(_ _)m
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

yogi R. Lund

unread,
Mar 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/25/99
to
I don't see how you can read me through your colloquialism-filter, but I do
enjoy your use of ambiguities, if it can be said that you have used them
rather than spilled them.

In article <36fa5a76...@news.bigpond.com>,
cosmic_...@bigpond.com (Cosmic Wanderer) wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:07:21 GMT, yogi R. Lund <r-l...@telia.com>


> wrote:
>
> >The condition you are indulging in is called neither meditation nor
> >enlightenment.
>

> That is Mickey.


>
> >Are you a pedophile, sir, trying to lure the impressionable
> >into some sick scheme by a surreptitious route?
>

> I reckon Mickey is a idiot but this is not fair what you wrote you
> hope shouting the word pedophile will get hate stired up against him?
>
> Seen it before and it wont work mate.
>
> A friend taught me all people are human. Took me ages to get what he
> meant but I got it in the end.
>
> Cosmic Wanderer
>
> Ps I am not a pedophile but I am not into bashing people cause of a
> label.
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Bruce Morgen

unread,
Mar 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/26/99
to
yogi R. Lund <r-l...@telia.com> wrote:

>You would much prefer a hygenic sterile fault over a dirty one in someone you
>criticize, because a dirty fault would render your criticism inadequate, inane
>in fact.

I have no preference in
the matter, and a
sexual perversion on
Michaelji's part would
have no effect on the
adequacy of my comments
on what would then
merely become "other"
aspects of his mental
state.

>As long as you keep your faith in an MM who is merely deluded you are
>full of things to say, be and do about it.
>

If I saw the slightest
sign that he was
sexually abhorent I
would address it as I
have his delusions of
"Sainthood."

>You have read what I have written to some extent:

I've read it in its
entirety, we're not
talking "Ulysses" here!

>does it manifest uncommon
>perception.

This is worded like a
question but punctuated
like a declaration.
Which is it?

>Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it does so whether or
>not you are aware of it: what does perception mean in this regard? You want
>there to be "evidence" of sexual misconduct or intent, while I am saying it
>is manifest, the actual impetus of his behavior manifest as his behavior.
>Evidence is exactly what any common conscious process is in complete control
>of, and so your "guru" is perfectly safe here, no matter what he actually is
>doing here.
>

I've never read a paragraph
so impeccable in grammar
and so utterly muddled in
thrust. I have no human
"guru" and have been quite
clear about that for years.

>This is the foundation of thought, a perpetual process, so that it thinks it
>is what is going to die. You never finish a relationship that is playing with
>evidence. And what else is there? Inference? Have you ever heard of reliable
>intuition? It is then called "instinct", a feeling for doing the infallible.
>So could someone perceptive have instinctual awareness of who someone is,
>when it is a thing you would miss no matter how often it is manifest? Or do
>you want to say that if you don't get it it isn't there, and thus it is
>unfair for anyone to say it is? Is your notion of finding the truth to ask a
>jury, to take a vote, or perhaps I Ching, to flip a coin or two? Are you a
>hypocrite, seeking spiritual guidance on the one hand, and being everything
>anyone could be on the other hand; every persons' equal? It is not an
>insulting question; it is the common psychology of the novice, which is what
>makes it impossible that the novice finds the nirvana, and possible for all
>sorts of things to be sold as enlightenment, the proof he wants that he has
>not failed the course even though he has.
>

Once again what you are
saying is entirely obscured
by perfectly formed but
completely inept prose. I
stand by my observation of
"runaway inference," you
may glorify it as "reliable
inuition," "instinct," or
whatever else you please.
You have also inferred that
there is "seeking for
spiritual guidance" and/or
some notion of "being
everything anyone could be."

Sir, you create a quasi-
articulate "word salad" (as
you did at *great* and
repetitious length on the
Listening-l mailing list a
few weeks ago) -- you may
be the purest embodiment of
the divine on the planet,
but you are such a poor
communicator nobody will
ever be able to find out.

There is very little
difference between your
thrust and Michael Martin's
-- he says "You can trust
me, I am the Sat Guru," you
say "You can trust me, I
can ascertain facts via my
reliable intuition." In a
private e-mail, you voiced
the idea that I was some
kind of secret Usenet
moderator or censor, was
this also an example of
your "reliable intuition?"

Deviant Col

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to

Bruce Morgen wrote in message <36f9288e...@news.pond.com>...

Michael Martin

unread,
Apr 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/20/99
to Mysti...@aol.com, Deviant Col
In article <BBOS2.935$sE1....@newsr2.u-net.net>,

"Deviant Col" <c...@tadley.u-net.com> wrote:
>
> Bruce Morgen wrote in message <36f9288e...@news.pond.com>...
> >Gordon Murl <" 123xyz"@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>jo...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Gordon Murl wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> > What confusion. Opinions are an expression of an un-liberated mind

Opinions are also expressed by liberated minds. Saints also will not
hesitate to express their opinions to the true seekers, and their minds are
certainly liberated. In order to be a Saint, one has to go beyond mind and
matter, and become "one," with the Supreme Being.

> and
> >>> > according to you I don't exist, which is very much untrue.

As seen from the highest region, nothing exists but the Creator. It depends
upon our point of view.

> >>>
> >>> You've made an assumption about liberated minds. It is not the mind
> that
> >>> is liberated anyway,

Mind can be "liberated," from its love of material objects, sensual
pleasures, people, places, and things. Mind is in love with the senses and
out of habit is always running to them. Meditation, as taught by the Saints,
will train the mind to go back to its source, which is none other than the
Shabd, Nam, or Holy Spirit. This is how mind can be "liberated," from its
negative tendencies. This is what makes Saints different from ordinary human
beings. Their mind is under their control. For ordinary human beings, the
situation is reversed. For them, mind is always running to the senses and
the phenomenal world. For Saints, mind is always wanting to withdraw to the
third eye and contact the Shabd, Nam, or Holy Spirit. Once mind learns the
difference between real pleasure and illusory pleasure, then it comes under
our control, but this stage will only be reached when we become a disciple of
a True Master.

it is the sense of self as an 'individual *only*'
> that
> >>> departs. The individual so blessed by the event of realization *does*
> >>> maintain a sense of individuality, it's just the idea that the person
> >>> is *only* the limited individual that goes away.

Yes, but we need a True Master to take us to that level of consciousness. We
need to experience it. We can't just go to that level without a Master. Our
own ego will impede our progress. We must practice Sat Guru Bhakti, if we
want to get rid of our own ego.

> >>>
> >>> --jodyr.
> >>
> >>Who is making assumptions?
> >
> >Jody's view is quite clear,
> >the very expression "un-
> >liberated mind" bespeaks
> >assumption because it
> >implies that "mind" can be
> >"liberated."

Mind can be liberated, as I wrote above. That is why Saints are free and
ordinary human beings are not.

The word
> >"mind" itself is just a
> >communicative convenience,
> >a mere concept and a very
> >imprecise one at that.

It's true that it is difficult for us to understand what mind is. We have
three minds, the Physical Mind, called "Pindi Mind," because it is associated
with Pinda, or this physical world. We also have the Astral Mind, called
"Andi Mind," because it is associated with Anda, or the Astral World. Last,
but not least, we have the Causal Mind, called "Brahmandi Mind," because it
is associated with Brahmanda, or the Causal World. It is also called
Universal Mind.

Actually, Mind is one, but I have pointed out certain distinctions above to
clarify what the mind is in all its aspects. We really need to go beyond the
Mind to understand what it is.

> >There is, in fact, no
> >actual or ongoing "mind" to
> >"liberate" -- there is only
> >the activity of thought,

Thought is an activity of mind. Thought keeps mind a prisoner of matter, and
the other items which I mentioned above.

> >fancying itself an entity
> >instead of the transient
> >neural energy it is.

Saints, Mystics, and Mahatmas have tried to explain to us that mind has a
source, and it will never really be content, unless it can go back to its
source. The source of the mind is the Shabd, Nam, or Holy Spirit. It is the
pure shabd, which is found beyond mind and matter. That is where our mind
needs to go to be content and under control.

> >
> >>It's clear you are a borrowed man speaking
> >>from the warehouse of your own un-liberated mind.

I agree, that one who has a liberated mind, would not be making such
statements.

> >
> >The doctrinaire assumer
> >emerges from the bog, reeking
> >of Eau De Gurdjieff --
> >"borrowed man" is an apt
> >mirror.

"Assuming," is not the issue, here. What has been written is the issue. He
has expressed his opinion of what has been written, and so have I.

> >
> >>Your life tells the
> >>real story. What does it tell you? That you are an individual
> >>unlimited? No, of course not. Don't try to sell me, I'm not buying.
> >
> >Runaway inference explodes
> >from the starting blocks,
> >assumption upon assumption,
> >fuguelike....

As for me, I'm not making any inferences or assumptions. I'm just commenting
on the comments about the mind. I know something about the mind, as I have
34 years experience with meditation.

> >
> >>Agreement is not my focus,
> >
> >Understood. Feel free to
> >state your "focus."
> >
> >>you may live and think as you desire.
> >>
> >True enough, and let there
> >be gratitude for it!

Actually, we are all like puppets. Whatever the Supreme Being desires will
come to pass.

Michael Martin
A Sant Mat Guru
> >
> >

> >__________________________________________________
> >http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm
> >http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm
> >
> > m(_ _)m
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Michael Martin

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
In article <7fi47n$nmo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

A quote by Saint Garibdas:

"From the bondage of chaurasi,
Hath the Guru secured my release.
Whoso hath Nam manifested within
His cycle of birth and rebirth doth cease."

End

Chaurasi is transmigration of the soul. It is also called the whirlpool of
reincarnations. There are 8,400,000 species in which the soul could find
itself. Only with the help of a True Master can we escape from it. The soul
has to go beyond mind and matter in order to get free. Only a True Master
can take us to that plane of pure spirituality beyond the mind and all its
negative influences.

Nam, Shabd, or Holy Spirit, as Christ called it, is the power into which
followers of True Masters merge, within themselves, by meditation. This power
is the real form of the Master, and is what will take us beyond the mind and
back to our True Home.

Michael Martin

Cosmic Wanderer

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
>Re: How Many True Gurus Are There?

Many.

Not the idiot Mickey & his BS missionary crapola but.

>Michael Martin (The idiot with an ego da size of ..... well it is big, real big)

Cosmic Wanderer

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
In article <371fb8a8...@news.bigpond.com>,

cosmic_...@bigpond.com (Cosmic Wanderer) wrote:
> >Re: How Many True Gurus Are There?
>
> Many.

There could be many technically, as the Lord is omnipotent, but based on
history, the world is lucky to have one or two True Gurus teaching
spirituality at the same time.

>
> Not the idiot Mickey & his BS missionary crapola but.

Well, this is Usenet, and I'm used to people expressing their opinions. It's
not my mission to please everyone. Christ told his disciples, "They don't
like me, and they're not going to like you, either." He was referring to the
opposition. Saints are always faced with opposition.

>
> >Michael Martin (The idiot with an ego da size of ..... well it is big, real big)

Cosmic Wanderer is again expressing his opinion. The readers are welcome to
side with him or me. Whatever is God's will is fine with me.

I'm just trying to do a charitable, altruistic, spiritual work. There is no
personal gain in it for me at all. I don't know how he can justify his claim
that I have a big ego. It would be hard even to get a "free," haircut these
days, and I'm offerring unlimited spiritual wealth for free. All the
disciple has to do is follow my instructions, and he will achieve everything.

>
> Cosmic Wanderer

Michael Martin
A Sant Mat Guru
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Tim Harris

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to

sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> All the disciple has to do is follow my instructions, and he will achieve everything.
>

> Michael Martin
> A Sant Mat Guru
>

This may be so Michael Martin however, all I see you post are defences for your
position and yourself or offences to attack others that are placed against you... by
your own ego. I see no instruction here. I suspect that it is not that no one believes
you. It is that you are falling short on instruction for, is not the ego the great
defender? Why do you defend if it is Gods will?.... you see?

Regards.

Tim Harris


--
For more information on the
CASUAL ENLIGHTENMENT METHOD please visit:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/4908/index.html
ICQ # 34365156

Cosmic Wanderer

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 14:39:20 GMT, sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <371fb8a8...@news.bigpond.com>,
> cosmic_...@bigpond.com (Cosmic Wanderer) wrote:
>> >Re: How Many True Gurus Are There?
>>
>> Many.
>
>There could be many technically, as the Lord is omnipotent, but based on
>history, the world is lucky to have one or two True Gurus teaching
>spirituality at the same time.

Whatever but your not it. Half wits dont count.

>> Not the idiot Mickey & his BS missionary crapola but.
>
>Well, this is Usenet, and I'm used to people expressing their opinions. It's
>not my mission to please everyone.

You couldnt please your own dog if you tried.

>Christ told his disciples, "They don't
>like me, and they're not going to like you, either." He was referring to the
>opposition. Saints are always faced with opposition.

God are you retarded or what? Say something dumb ofcourse you go down,
say it it in the wrong group an your lucky to stay alive.

As if you give a shit what christ reckons. You choose what you want to
hear. More BS from your end.

>> >Michael Martin (The idiot with an ego da size of ..... well it is big, real big)
>
>Cosmic Wanderer is again expressing his opinion. The readers are welcome to
>side with him or me. Whatever is God's will is fine with me.

Not opinion fact you see I got this enlightemnet crap too and it tells
me your full of it.

>I'm just trying to do a charitable, altruistic, spiritual work.

BS your a spammer looking for suckers to kiss your feet.

>There is no
>personal gain in it for me at all.

Yeah an pigs fly too.

>I don't know how he can justify his claim
>that I have a big ego. It would be hard even to get a "free," haircut these

>days, and I'm offerring unlimited spiritual wealth for free. All the


>disciple has to do is follow my instructions, and he will achieve everything.

How about you follow my instruction and kiss my arse :) and you will
achieve everything that Walt wants for you.

>Michael Martin a spamming wanker from way back.

CW.

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to Mysti...@aol.com, Tim Harris
In article <3721F737...@cyberlink.bc.ca>,
har...@cyberlink.bc.ca wrote:

>
>
> sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > All the disciple has to do is follow my instructions, and he will achieve
everything.
> >
> > Michael Martin
> > A Sant Mat Guru
> >
>
> This may be so Michael Martin however, all I see you post are defences for
your
> position and yourself or offences to attack others that are placed against
you... by
> your own ego.

I have been on the defensive many times, and this is no different than it has
been in instances throughout history. I don't remember "attacking," anybody,
unless I was just trying to teach something.

I see no instruction here.

Tim, my postings have been full of instructions.

I suspect that it is not that no one
believes
> you. It is that you are falling short on instruction for, is not the ego the
great
> defender?

Following that line of thought, then Christ, John the Baptist, St. Peter,
Kabir, Nanak, Socrates, Plato, etc., etc.., had ego! Is that what you think?

Saints don't have ego. They are the epitome of altruism, and selfless
service. Their whole life is a sacrifice for us. Christ said, "Foxes have
holes, birds have nests, but the son of Man hath no place to lay his head."
Isn't that a shame, that Saints have to suffer such indignation, because of
the ignorance of humanity?

Why do you defend if it is Gods will?.... you see?

My defense is also God's will, just as it was God's will for all the other
Saints from history. Everything is God's will.
>
> Regards.

Regards, BTW I will reply to you as soon as I can find the time.
>
> Tim Harris

Michael Martin
A Sant Mat Guru
>

> --
> For more information on the
> CASUAL ENLIGHTENMENT METHOD please visit:
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/4908/index.html
> ICQ # 34365156
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
In article <3722fd13...@news.bigpond.com>,

cosmic_...@bigpond.com (Cosmic Wanderer) wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 14:39:20 GMT, sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <371fb8a8...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > cosmic_...@bigpond.com (Cosmic Wanderer) wrote:
> >> >Re: How Many True Gurus Are There?
> >>
> >> Many.
> >
> >There could be many technically, as the Lord is omnipotent, but based on
> >history, the world is lucky to have one or two True Gurus teaching
> >spirituality at the same time.
>
> Whatever but your not it. Half wits dont count.

Thanks for your opinion.


>
> >> Not the idiot Mickey & his BS missionary crapola but.
> >
> >Well, this is Usenet, and I'm used to people expressing their opinions. It's
> >not my mission to please everyone.
>
> You couldnt please your own dog if you tried.

Thanks again for your opinion.


>
> >Christ told his disciples, "They don't
> >like me, and they're not going to like you, either." He was referring to the
> >opposition. Saints are always faced with opposition.
>
> God are you retarded or what? Say something dumb ofcourse you go down,
> say it it in the wrong group an your lucky to stay alive.

I must be dumb, because I can't make much sense out of this question and
statement.


>
> As if you give a shit what christ reckons. You choose what you want to
> hear. More BS from your end.

Okay, then you have no faith in me. Thanks anyway.


>
> >> >Michael Martin (The idiot with an ego da size of ..... well it is big,
real big)
> >
> >Cosmic Wanderer is again expressing his opinion. The readers are welcome to
> >side with him or me. Whatever is God's will is fine with me.
>
> Not opinion fact you see I got this enlightemnet crap too and it tells
> me your full of it.

Wonderful!


>
> >I'm just trying to do a charitable, altruistic, spiritual work.
>
> BS your a spammer looking for suckers to kiss your feet.

Not hardly!


>
> >There is no
> >personal gain in it for me at all.
>
> Yeah an pigs fly too.

Saints are always the greatest givers, and not the receivers.


>
> >I don't know how he can justify his claim
> >that I have a big ego. It would be hard even to get a "free," haircut
these

> >days, and I'm offerring unlimited spiritual wealth for free. All the


> >disciple has to do is follow my instructions, and he will achieve everything.
>

> How about you follow my instruction and kiss my arse :) and you will
> achieve everything that Walt wants for you.

I wouldn't want to be "one," with you. Sorry!


>
> >Michael Martin a spamming wanker from way back.

Maybe someday CW will get tired of this.
>
> CW.

Michael Martin
A Saint Very Used To Slander

Tim Harris

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to

sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Everything is God's will.
> >
>

Then it needs no defence.... offer none.

Regards.

Tim Harris

Klaus Schilling

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to

There's exactly one true guru.

Klaus Schilling

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
In article <87hfq5y...@home.ivm.de>,

Klaus Schilling <Klaus.S...@home.ivm.de> wrote:
>
> There's exactly one true guru.

Klaus, you might be referring to the Almighty, but how about here on earth?
There can certainly be more than one True Guru on earth.
>
> Klaus Schilling

BTW, somebody is posting using the name "Shabd." So far, I think I can agree
with what he has written, but who knows what he (she) might write in the
future?

>
Michael Martin
A Sant Mat Guru

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Michael Turner

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
There are several good, solid Light and Sound teachers by my reckoning,
including Gurinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Suma Ching Hai and Darwin Gross,
to name a few. I did some biographical sketches on the current Shabda
teachers with a fairly high profile a while back. I'll probably post them
in the near future to help offer more information on this somewhat
controversial subject.

Peace and Unity,

Gregory Michael Turner
Spiritual Freedom Satsang
http://home.att.net/~h.kight/index.htm


Message has been deleted

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/27/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
In article <7g3g7n$qaa$4...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,

"Michael Turner" <m.tu...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> There are several good, solid Light and Sound teachers by my reckoning,
> including Gurinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Suma Ching Hai and Darwin Gross,
> to name a few. I did some biographical sketches on the current Shabda
> teachers with a fairly high profile a while back. I'll probably post them
> in the near future to help offer more information on this somewhat
> controversial subject.

When it comes to selecting a teacher of light and sound, naturally for most
of us it will come down to a decision based on faith. Mr. Turner has faith
in the above-mentioned persons, but that is his opinion. Each person must
make his own decision, based on the Mystic Teachings given by each Guru, and
based on certain characteristics of them.

There is no such thing as a "monopoly," on spirituality. Sometimes we might
think, that because a line of Masters has been at a certain place for a long
time, that it must be the only authentic line of Masters. This is not true.
Lines always have a beginning, and an end, and sometimes the line will shift
from one place to another. A True Master might appear anywhere in the world
and start a "new," line of Masters. It has happened before and it will
happen again.

I will write below what Walt Whitman had to write about "monopolies," in his
preface to "Leaves of Grass."

He wrote:

"The American Bards shall be marked for generosity and affection, and for
encouraging competitors ...They shall be Kosmos...without monopoly or
secrecy...glad to pass any thing to any one...hungry for equals night and
day."

End

I encourage competitors, and honestly, I will say that Mr. Turner does, too,
based on what he has written above, although I noticed he did not mention me
by name.

In regards to monopoly or secrecy, I don't want to cast aspersions on any
Satsang, but I will say that I think this attitude could be improved by
some. Some of us have become very closed-minded with regards to the
existence of a Master outside of a particular line. Even if a line has
millions of active followers, that does not mean that its headquarters, or
its Sat Guru, is the only authentic one in the world. The Almighty has the
power to manifest himself in anyone who has been initiated by a True Master.

I think every body has the right to ponder this question, "Is my Sat Guru, or
Satsang, without monopoly or secrecy...glad to pass any thing to any
one...hungry for equals night and day?"

>
> Peace and Unity,
>
> Gregory Michael Turner
> Spiritual Freedom Satsang
> http://home.att.net/~h.kight/index.htm

More Peace and Unity,

Michael Martin
A Western World Mystic

Cosmic Wanderer

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 20:07:08 GMT, sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>> Whatever but your not it. Half wits dont count.
>
>Thanks for your opinion.

No problemo always happy to help people like you out.

>> You couldnt please your own dog if you tried.
>
>Thanks again for your opinion.

No problemo the martyr game does not work with me.

>> God are you retarded or what? Say something dumb ofcourse you go down,
>> say it it in the wrong group an your lucky to stay alive.
>
>I must be dumb, because I can't make much sense out of this question and
>statement.

You got it. For knowing everything you come up real short in the
understanding department.

>Okay, then you have no faith in me. Thanks anyway.

You got that right. No faith in idiot wan-a- bees.

>> BS your a spammer looking for suckers to kiss your feet.
>
>Not hardly!

Huh.

>I wouldn't want to be "one," with you. Sorry!

Good.

>> >Michael Martin a spamming wanker from way back.
>
>Maybe someday CW will get tired of this.

Maybe Mickey will grow up and stop his mission trolling.

>Michael Martin A Saint Very Used To wanking on public forums

Bout sums it up regarding Mickey.

CW.

Roger Isaacs

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
"Michael Turner" <m.tu...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> There are several good, solid Light and Sound teachers by my reckoning,
> including Gurinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Suma Ching Hai and Darwin Gross,
> to name a few. I did some biographical sketches on the current Shabda
> teachers with a fairly high profile a while back. I'll probably post them
> in the near future to help offer more information on this somewhat
> controversial subject.
>
> Peace and Unity,
>
> Gregory Michael Turner
> Spiritual Freedom Satsang
> http://home.att.net/~h.kight/index.htm

Franklin Merrell-Wolff in his remarkable book "Experience and Philosophy : A
Personal Record of Transformation and a Discussion of Transcendental
Consciousness" describes higher consciousness using the words "light and
sound" but he doesn't limit his description to just these terms.
Merrell-Wolff was a professor of mathematics at Stanford after being educated
at Harvard ( I think this is correct ) and his comments shine with the full
rigor & clarity that one would expect from a person with such a background.

He seems to have used a more intellectual approach to meditation, a entirely
different approach than Shabda. I think his comments point both to the
validity of techniques using light and sound, and also to the need for
honoring the other diverse approaches to Spirit.

May controversy transform into Peace & Unity,

Roger
www.newu.org

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
In article <7g7f6m$eg8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Roger Isaacs <RIs...@cqg.com> wrote:
> "Michael Turner" <m.tu...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > There are several good, solid Light and Sound teachers by my reckoning,
> > including Gurinder Singh, Rajinder Singh, Suma Ching Hai and Darwin Gross,
> > to name a few. I did some biographical sketches on the current Shabda
> > teachers with a fairly high profile a while back. I'll probably post them
> > in the near future to help offer more information on this somewhat
> > controversial subject.
> >
> > Peace and Unity,
> >
> > Gregory Michael Turner
> > Spiritual Freedom Satsang
> > http://home.att.net/~h.kight/index.htm
>
> Franklin Merrell-Wolff in his remarkable book "Experience and Philosophy : A
> Personal Record of Transformation and a Discussion of Transcendental
> Consciousness" describes higher consciousness using the words "light and
> sound" but he doesn't limit his description to just these terms.
> Merrell-Wolff was a professor of mathematics at Stanford after being educated
> at Harvard ( I think this is correct ) and his comments shine with the full
> rigor & clarity that one would expect from a person with such a background.
>
> He seems to have used a more intellectual approach to meditation, a entirely
> different approach than Shabda.

We can satisfy our intellect as much as we can, but then we will have to
proceed with faith. The Shabda will take us to the eighth stage. Mind will
be left behind in the second stage. Intellect is just an aspect of the mind.

I think his comments point both to the
> validity of techniques using light and sound, and also to the need for
> honoring the other diverse approaches to Spirit.

To approach the Supreme Spirit, or the Almighty, the path of Shabd, Nam, or
Holy Spirit, is the only way.

>
> May controversy transform into Peace & Unity,

Those who follow the path of Shabd will be united with the Creator.
>
> Roger
> www.newu.org

Michael Martin
A Western Mystic

jo...@ix.netcom.com

unread,
Apr 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/28/99
to
In article <7g84tk$3dj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:

[snip]

> To approach the Supreme Spirit, or the Almighty, the path of Shabd, Nam, or
> Holy Spirit, is the only way.

I realize that the above is only your opinion, and what I'm about to express
is only my opinion, but what you've stated above is B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!

[snip]

:)

love--jodyr.

Roger Isaacs

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to

You imply that faith is not an aspect of mind. If faith does not occur in the
mind then where does it occur?

> I think his comments point both to the
> > validity of techniques using light and sound, and also to the need for
> > honoring the other diverse approaches to Spirit.
>

> To approach the Supreme Spirit, or the Almighty, the path of Shabd, Nam, or
> Holy Spirit, is the only way.
> >

> > May controversy transform into Peace & Unity,
>
> Those who follow the path of Shabd will be united with the Creator.
> >
> > Roger
> > www.newu.org
>
> Michael Martin
> A Western Mystic

> Michael Martin wrote at the start of this thread:


>According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
>Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being.

Michael Martin I think your argument is logically unsound.

You say Shabd is the only path, those who follow it will be united with the
creator, and yet you say only two Mystic Adepts have access to the Supreme
Being.

If, as you say, there are only 2 adepts, then these adepts have been unable
to lead ANY students to the Supreme Being. If people who follow your version
of Shabd "will be united with Creator", then why hasn't this happened? Why
are there only 2 adepts?

Roger
www.newu.org

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/29/99
to Mysti...@aol.com, Roger Isaacs
In article <7ga1eo$mgq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Faith in the Master will take us to the Astral Plane, and there, naturally,
we will meet the Radiant Form of our True Master. Then, of course, if he is
standing in front of us and conversing with us, our faith will become
conviction.

Faith is an aspect of mind. Faith takes us to the first stage, but mind goes
up to the top of the second stage. Our love for the Radiant Form of the
Master will help us to merge in the Shabd form of the Master. It is the
Shabd, which will take us beyond the second stage, and all the way to the
eighth stage, where we will meet that Perfect Being.

>
> > I think his comments point both to the
> > > validity of techniques using light and sound, and also to the need for
> > > honoring the other diverse approaches to Spirit.
> >
> > To approach the Supreme Spirit, or the Almighty, the path of Shabd, Nam, or
> > Holy Spirit, is the only way.
> > >
> > > May controversy transform into Peace & Unity,
> >
> > Those who follow the path of Shabd will be united with the Creator.
> > >
> > > Roger
> > > www.newu.org
> >
> > Michael Martin
> > A Western Mystic
>
> > Michael Martin wrote at the start of this thread:
> >According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic
> >Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being.
>
> Michael Martin I think your argument is logically unsound.

Who is arguing? I'm simply saying that I have pretty much experience with
meditation.

>
> You say Shabd is the only path, those who follow it will be united with the
> creator, and yet you say only two Mystic Adepts have access to the Supreme
> Being.

No, I have been through this already with Bruce Morgen. I'm saying that I
believe there are two Sat Gurus capable of taking souls to the Supreme Being.
One can be a Mystic Adept, and not be a Sat Guru. If a Mystic Adept accepts
disciples then he becomes a Sat Guru. There might be any number of Mystic
Adepts, and I never put a figure on them.

>
> If, as you say, there are only 2 adepts, then these adepts have been unable
> to lead ANY students to the Supreme Being.

I hope I explained it more clearly above. There could be many with such
access.

If people who follow your version
> of Shabd "will be united with Creator", then why hasn't this happened? Why
> are there only 2 adepts?

Again, I have explained it already. Let me add this. We might not reach the
Supreme Being in this life. It might take a few lifetimes, and also, we
might be placed by the Master in some intermediate stage, such as the Astral
Plane, Causal Plane, etc.. We can also practice meditation in those stages
and proceed to our destination, the Supreme Being.

The True Master never leaves his disciples, and he will take them to their
True Home one day, and make them one with him, and consequently, one with the
Supreme Being.

Let me know if I have explained it sufficiently well.
>
> Roger
> www.newu.org

Michael Martin
A Western Mystic
>

Roger Isaacs

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
> Let me know if I have explained it sufficiently well.

Well, I'm still confused Michael:

> Michael Martin wrote: ( edited to gather quotes together )


> To approach the Supreme Spirit, or the Almighty, the path of Shabd, Nam, or
> Holy Spirit, is the only way.

> According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two Mystic


> Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being.

> I'm saying that I


> believe there are two Sat Gurus capable of taking souls to the Supreme Being.
> One can be a Mystic Adept, and not be a Sat Guru. If a Mystic Adept accepts
> disciples then he becomes a Sat Guru. There might be any number of Mystic
> Adepts, and I never put a figure on them.

> We might not reach the


> Supreme Being in this life. It might take a few lifetimes, and also, we
> might be placed by the Master in some intermediate stage, such as the Astral
> Plane, Causal Plane, etc.. We can also practice meditation in those stages
> and proceed to our destination, the Supreme Being.
>
> The True Master never leaves his disciples, and he will take them to their
> True Home one day, and make them one with him, and consequently, one with the
> Supreme Being.

Ok: So you say there's only one path to the supreme being, there are only 2
gurus capable of taking souls to the supreme being, and these gurus follow the
students around forever through different lives to make sure they succeed.

Question #1: You say you have no idea how many mystic adepts there are. Yet
there are only two gurus capable of producing adepts ( one being yourself )
and they have perfect accounting of the students even through many lifetimes.
How is it that you do not know how many graduates there are if you have
perfect accounting of all the students? Surely this can be resolved through
a phone call to the other guru and an exchange of records?

I'm imagining Paduka State University trying to collect past due student loans
from prior incarnations.

Question #2: You say there are exactly 2 gurus. You say you have no idea how
many mystic adepts there are. And yet a mystic adept only needs to accept
disciples to be promoted to a guru. This seems inconsistent to me: if you have
no idea how many mystic adepts there are, how would you know if one or many
decided to accept students and become gurus?

If you have no idea how many adepts there are, and an adept can become a guru
at any time, then, seems to me like you have absolutely no idea how many gurus
there really are!

Roger
www.newu.org

Tim Harris

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
The real question is "Why would we want disciples ar followes at all?" If history
has proven one thing it is that they 'always' get it wrong.... lol...

Regards.

Tim Harris

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to Mysti...@aol.com, Roger Isaacs
In article <7gcns3$2n8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

Roger Isaacs <RIs...@cqg.com> wrote:
> sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin) wrote:
> > Let me know if I have explained it sufficiently well.
>
> Well, I'm still confused Michael:
>
> > Michael Martin wrote: ( edited to gather quotes together )
> > To approach the Supreme Spirit, or the Almighty, the path of Shabd, Nam, or
> > Holy Spirit, is the only way.
>
> > According to my meditation, and I've done 34 years of it, there are two
Mystic
> > Adepts in this world, with access to the Supreme Being.
>
> > I'm saying that I
> > believe there are two Sat Gurus capable of taking souls to the Supreme
Being.
> > One can be a Mystic Adept, and not be a Sat Guru. If a Mystic Adept
accepts
> > disciples then he becomes a Sat Guru. There might be any number of Mystic
> > Adepts, and I never put a figure on them.
>
> > We might not reach the
> > Supreme Being in this life. It might take a few lifetimes, and also, we
> > might be placed by the Master in some intermediate stage, such as the Astral
> > Plane, Causal Plane, etc.. We can also practice meditation in those stages
> > and proceed to our destination, the Supreme Being.
> >
> > The True Master never leaves his disciples, and he will take them to their
> > True Home one day, and make them one with him, and consequently, one with
the
> > Supreme Being.
>
> Ok: So you say there's only one path to the supreme being, there are only 2
> gurus capable of taking souls to the supreme being, and these gurus follow the
> students around forever through different lives to make sure they succeed.

I think we agree now, but I would write it like this, the Master leads the
students toward the Creator until they succeed. The Master is the Leader not
the follower.


>
> Question #1: You say you have no idea how many mystic adepts there are. Yet
> there are only two gurus capable of producing adepts ( one being yourself )
> and they have perfect accounting of the students even through many lifetimes.
> How is it that you do not know how many graduates there are if you have
> perfect accounting of all the students?

Roger, you can sure come up with some questions. That's all right, I don't
mind. The Master is omniscient, as I've written many times before, but he
would get that knowledge by means of meditation, and he could know exactly
how many mystic adepts there are for each Guru. A Master always knows what
he needs to know. If there is something he needs to know the Supreme Being
will just project that information before him by means of the Shabd, Nam, or
Holy Spirit.

Another item, Roger, what the Master needs to know, and what we need to know,
are often two different categories.

Surely this can be resolved through
> a phone call to the other guru and an exchange of records?

It is known by meditation. Every Master is "one," with the Holy Spirit, and
therefore omniscient.


>
> I'm imagining Paduka State University trying to collect past due student loans
> from prior incarnations.

The Master knows all about past karmas. Every penny, every centavo, must be
paid one way or the other, before we are allowed to go beyond the reach of
karma. The Master helps us to do that by burning our karmas by means of Surat
Shabd Yoga, the yoga of the Sound Current.


>
> Question #2: You say there are exactly 2 gurus. You say you have no idea how
> many mystic adepts there are.

Roger, I know how many there are, but that is for me to know, and for anyone
else who reaches the ultimate stage of spirituality. It is not necessarily
for everyone to know. Masters are one, and therefore, they are aware of each
other.

And yet a mystic adept only needs to accept
> disciples to be promoted to a guru.

This is a vast oversimplification, Roger. The Mystic Adept needs to have
access to the ultimate stage, and whether he accepts, or rejects, disciples
has no bearing on his stature. He is not promoted or demoted by accepting or
rejecting disciples. He would be one with the Supreme Being, regardless of
what he does.

This seems inconsistent to me: if you have
> no idea how many mystic adepts there are,

I do know.

how would you know if one or many
> decided to accept students and become gurus?

How does a Master know anything? He knows anything by meditation. He takes
his consciousness to the level of omniscience and accesses all knowledge.

>
> If you have no idea how many adepts there are,

I do know.

and an adept can become a guru
> at any time, then, seems to me like you have absolutely no idea how many gurus
> there really are!

Roger, you are guessing at the extent of my knowledge. I have access to the
level of consciousness where anything can be known. I know how many Sat
Gurus, and Mystic Adepts, there are, but I don't intend on sharing this
knowledge.

Fewtch

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to

You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die. It is a
forum for those who have nobody to listen to them in real life, so
they post here hoping someone will listen and reply.

This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.

Tim

-----
Visit The Core of the WWW at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html
Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html

Tim Harris

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
It is not my cat! lol....

Regards.

Tim Harris

Fewtch wrote:

--

Bruce Morgen

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
few...@eskimo.com (Fewtch) wrote:

>
>You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die. It is a
>forum for those who have nobody to listen to them in real life, so
>they post here hoping someone will listen and reply.
>
>This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
>negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.
>

Usenet is the world.
You are the world.
You pray for personal extinction.
You will eventually get it.
It is your dream of
"total realization."
It is the ego obliterated,
extinguished once and for all.
It is death,

gull...@netxn.com

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:08:39 GMT, few...@eskimo.com (Fewtch) wrote:

>
>You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die. It is a
>forum for those who have nobody to listen to them in real life, so
>they post here hoping someone will listen and reply.
>
>This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
>negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.
>

>Tim
>
>-----
>Visit The Core of the WWW at:
>http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html
>Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.
>
>Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:
>http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html

Although I don't pray for it's demise, I think you've hit it precisely
on the mark. If anyone lurks in this newsgroup for just a short
while, they'll realize how astute your observation is. Just watch
the petting/stroking phenomena of the "old-timers" posting here. I'd
be willing to bet that, just a mention of one another, recognition,
even if a slight, suffices to make their day. It must add a little
significance to their hollow day and a bit of hope and warmth at
bedtime, "Glen came back at me today honey". And their trailing
titles/tags, that's what always amazed me. "Lifetime Member of the
Fellowship of blah, blah... Like school boys wearing badges. God
bless their lonely souls.
R.C.

Tim Harris

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to

sh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> The Master helps us to do that by burning our karmas by means of Surat
> Shabd Yoga, the yoga of the Sound Current.
> >
>

In other words, the Master shows you how to 'wish' the karma away. The True Guru
says...'work it off'... if you have made many lives by creating obvious and subtle
mental and physical abuses of mankind, then it is time to start serving mankind
before yourself. Sort of like when Jesus said "Go and sin no more."

What is the difference you ask?... One 'way' has a price tag... is not Truth free?

Regards.

Tim Harris

Captain Red Beard

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to

Fewtch <few...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:372bff2f...@news.eskimo.com...

>
> You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die. It is a
> forum for those who have nobody to listen to them in real life, so
> they post here hoping someone will listen and reply.
>
> This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
> negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.
>
> Tim


So, you're heavily into this self petting thing. Go, boy, go. You'll get
there. Just clean up after yourself.

Joseph G. Mitzen

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
In article <372bff2f...@news.eskimo.com>, few...@eskimo.com says...

> This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
> negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.
>

Ken Starr?

Glen Quarnstrom

unread,
Apr 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/30/99
to
few...@eskimo.com (Fewtch) wrote:

>You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die. It is a
>forum for those who have nobody to listen to them in real life, so
>they post here hoping someone will listen and reply.

It took you all this time to figure THAT out? You're not too bright,
are you?

>This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
>negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.

You pitiful wretch, you're so empty of intellect, emotion, and reason
that you have mistaken this little backwash of the net to be real,
rather than a place to blow off steam, amuse oneself, meet "interesting"
people, and just generally waste a lot of time.

Jayzus, I thought _I_ was bad, but I'm far more connected to reality
than you are. Now pull yourself together and LEAVE, as you promised to
do weeks ago. Sitting around here looking for attention by whining
about people looking for attention is just too, TOO pathetic, even for a
simpleton like you.

(Was that enough petting for you?)

--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~glenq/

Proud to be the Official #1 Asshole of AFA-B!

...hangin' in #Geezer when I'm on IRC.

sh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
May 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/1/99
to Mysti...@aol.com
In article <372a0bf6...@news.netxn.com>,
gull...@netxn.com wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:08:39 GMT, few...@eskimo.com (Fewtch) wrote:
>
> >
> >You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die.

Do you think God will do away with it, because you're praying for that?
IMHO, God knows best, what to do with it, and his "will," will prevail,
regardless whether we pray about it or not. God was the one who brought it
into existence, and now you are praying for him to can it. Do you think you
are more knowledgeable than God?

It is a
> >forum for those who have nobody to listen to them in real life,

I think it is a forum for everybody, rich and poor, popular and unpopular.

so
> >they post here hoping someone will listen and reply.

Why do you post here? You seem to be quick to pass judgement on others. Some
people are posting out of true altruism, charity, and benevolence, for their
brothers and sisters. Don't forget them.


> >
> >This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
> >negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.

If we analyze, perhaps just about everything we do in life involves that, so
what makes Usenet any different? It is only "real," meditation, when we are
humble before the Almighty, that we are not involved in ego.


> >
> >Tim
> >
> >-----
> >Visit The Core of the WWW at:
> >http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html
> >Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.
> >
> >Tim's Windows and DOS Shareware/Freeware is at:
> >http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/shareware.html
> Although I don't pray for it's demise, I think you've hit it precisely
> on the mark. If anyone lurks in this newsgroup for just a short
> while, they'll realize how astute your observation is.

This effort to put everybody in the same category is ridiculous. It is not
giving the correct analysis of Usenet at all.

Just watch
> the petting/stroking phenomena of the "old-timers" posting here. I'd
> be willing to bet that, just a mention of one another, recognition,
> even if a slight, suffices to make their day.

What about you? Don't you appreciate a little love from your brothers and
sisters, or are you different from everybody else?

It must add a little
> significance to their hollow day and a bit of hope and warmth at
> bedtime, "Glen came back at me today honey". And their trailing
> titles/tags, that's what always amazed me. "Lifetime Member of the
> Fellowship of blah, blah... Like school boys wearing badges. God
> bless their lonely souls.

What about you? You are not lonely? You have achieved oneness with God?
You don't need any love or fellowship from anybody?

I think those who are so quick to criticize others ought to write about
themselves and their own shortcomings. That would give a better balance to
the posting. Don't you agree?

> R.C.

DrPostman

unread,
May 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/2/99
to
few...@eskimo.com (Fewtch) wrote:

>
>You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die. It is a
>forum for those who have nobody to listen to them in real life, so


>they post here hoping someone will listen and reply.
>

>This whole damned thing is one big ego-petting ceremony. Either
>negative petting or positive petting, it's all petting.
>

>Tim


Thanks for playing, please come again.

--

Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
High Counselor of the New Usenet Order
Addicted to Art Bell? http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/1282
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, Lifetime member of the
Art Bell Internet Fan Club, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: jamiemps(at)mindspring.com
"Nothing compares to the complicated futility of ignorance."
- Kurt Vonnegut's "Hocus Pocus"

DrPostman

unread,
May 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/2/99
to
"AB" <(aaronb)@eskimo.com> wrote:

>How 'bout this: you let it die FOR YOU, and all of us, who use it for
>tech-support (giving and getting), exchanging art, keeping in touch with
>birds-of-a-feather, trading impressions and ideas and, occasionally, letting
>off steam, go ahead and enjoy this unique means of community.


Not to mention all the free porno on the binary groups - can't
forget about those.

DrPostman

unread,
May 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM5/2/99
to
few...@eskimo.com (Fewtch) wrote:

>
>You heard it correctly. I am praying that Usenet will die.

See Number 12:

-----begin copy message
From: gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Ensminger)
Newsgroups: alt.recovery,alt.recovery.aa,alt.recovery.religion
Subject: The Truth about Newsgroups
Date: 14 May 1996 01:35:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <4n8o1v$f...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>

It's repost time again....time to post those realities that we all know
to be true....
=====================================================================
1. If you post and pretend to be a fool, people will believe that you
are a fool.

Corollary: If you then post and explain that you were only pretending,
nobody will change their mind.

2. The Net-Nature is very simple. Usenet is *not* dominated by the
smartest people, the most interesting people, or the most learned
people. It is dominated by the people who want to tell other people
their opinions. To expect anything else is absurd.

3. Similarly, the topics that dominate any given newsgroup are not the
most interesting, the most helpful, or the most useful. They're
the most acrimonious and the most dissent-laden. How else could
things possibly turn out?

4. A person who says, "Sorry, I had to point that out to you" is
always telling two lies. Ditto for "Sorry, I couldn't pass this up."
"I see your point but...." means the opposite.

5. When a fool posts deliberate flamebait, he has no influence over
whether he/she succeeds. You do.

6. It is easy to patronize the author of the post in which you agree.
It is equally as easy for the author to patronize you back. This can
go on for weeks on end.

Corollary: You will look clever to the people who already agree with
you and like a fool to the rest of us.

Second Corollary: If you post to a newsgroup to which you are new and
a prominent personage patronizes you, that can also go on for weeks
on end.

7. If you feel you know something funny or clever or wise, you may
decide to post it here. Please keep in mind, you are the 4,000th
person to do so.

8. If you hate something, there is a newsgroup where people are
discussing it. Abortion, recovery, Republicans, eating meat,
tattooing, worship, bondage, whatever. You will be tempted to appear
on that newsgroup and point out to everyone the error of their ways.
Please keep in mind that you are the 4,000th person to do so.

9. If something is particularly funny, clever, or wise, then you
will be the 4,000th person *this month.*

10. The exclamation point "!" is a sentence tag which denotes
emphasis. The double exclamation point "!!" is a sentence tag
which denotes the writer is a self-centered fool who think his/her
concerns are more important than anyone else. The triple "!!!"