The New York Times of Nov. 11 had a great science section in which they ask the dozen or so most interesting questions.
In the question about whether human beings can become happier or smarter, the definition given for happiness was
Satisfaction with one's indentity, accomplishments, and relationships.
I really like that definition and I wonder what I would have thought about it during my ashram days or even during my semi-premie days.
I also think it would make a good question for Prem Rawat, since he is a teacher of life supposedly. Losing one's ego by loving the Truth, or God, or the Master, or the Self is what Shri Hans would probably say. The evolved Prem Rawat would probably say something about the heart or remembering the breath and being grateful for life or some such vagueness. Either way, religion has a long history of denying human beings all the happiness that they could enjoy from their identity, accomplishments and relationships.
I find it really pathetic and sick when I read about the Indian premies asking Prem Rawat to help them out when they are dying. The answer he gives them is not the right answer, far from it. But it perpetuates the cult. It won't be easy to stop that cult. In a way, Rawat and the silly human beings who ask him for his help deserve each other. It's tempting to just let them enjoy their illusions.
But it's hard to watch people following a path that led us to wishful thinking instead of real happiness. Like Grace, who just wrote her journey, we eventually find that the happiness we feel does NOT come from going "deep within ourselves", but discovering and developing and nurturing our identity, pursuing the accomplishments that we would like to make, and finding love in our relationships with other people.