Michael Dettmers -:- Raja Ji, Patrick W., care? etc. -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 16:51:38 (GMT)

__ Roger eDrek -:- This is gonna be a lame post, but... -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 20:45:55 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Lame is right! -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 21:21:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Well, sheesh to you, Jim -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 21:48:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- This IS like a war crimes tribunal -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 22:01:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Roger eDrek -:- Damnit Jim, I don't care about. What about this.. -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 22:36:46 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Lester -:- Much more than a two bit player -:- Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 08:18:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Lester, what do you mean Shri Raja Juju Ji -:- Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:06:50 (GMT)

__ Katie H -:- Thanks, Michael - and a few words about blaming -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 16:17:17 (GMT)

__ bill -:- Raja Ji, Patrick W., care? etc. -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:23:59 (GMT)

__ Susan -:- thanks Michael -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:25:59 (GMT)

__ Francesca -:- Discussion NOT about Raja Ji is getting lost ... -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:03:24 (GMT)

__ __ Dermot -:- Discussion NOT about Raja Ji is getting lost ... -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:28:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jerry -:- Discussion NOT about Raja Ji is getting lost ... -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:13:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ JHB -:- How do you justify this claim? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:29:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- How do you justify this claim? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:01:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ JHB -:- How do you justify this claim? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:15:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- How do you justify this claim? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 23:00:49 (GMT)

__ Richard -:- Thank you for the update -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:12:46 (GMT)

__ Pat Conlon -:- Spin-control for Indian premies -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:16:05 (GMT)

__ __ Apologies R Us -:- Spin Control -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 01:44:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- to forgive is divine - too true - who're you? NT -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 04:59:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Gary Epton -:- to forgive is divine - too true - who're you? NT -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 20:19:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Oops, Gary, too many names. I'm not psychic NT -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 21:26:25 (GMT)

__ Ulf -:- Raja Ji, Patrick W., care? etc. -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:24:43 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- Oh, Michael -- what a pickle! -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:08:57 (GMT)

__ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Oh, Michael -- what a pickle! -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:30:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Dilemna? No? Hmmmmm........... -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 03:11:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Dilemna? No? Hmmmmm........... -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 06:26:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Raja Ji's different -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 14:00:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Jim...Re: Dettmers and Raja Ji... -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 20:11:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Exactly Jim...like I said...it's messy (nt) -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 03:18:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ donner -:- Oh, Michael -- what a pickle! -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:42:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ Brian -:- Good for you -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:41:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Transparent-slam-against-Jim-time, Brian? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:59:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Anonomousie -:- Is it Jim slamming time again?.....nt -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:33:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Btw Brian -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:52:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Brian -:- I don't think so -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:50:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Yep..you win on that one-:)) (nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:55:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ Dermot -:- Why the fuck did you and PW -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:16:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Patrick W -:- Why the fuck did you and PW -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:23:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ And On Anand Ji -:- Why the eff did you and PW -:- Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 15:21:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Patrick -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:47:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Michael Dettmers -:- Why the fuck did you and PW -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:53:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ janet the scold -:- tsk! with no synchronization! see what happens? -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 08:26:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Mr Dettmers you are a honorable man -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:06:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ cq -:- Steady, Pat. Shades of Mark Anthony, no? (nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:29:15 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- cq you're making me chuckle tonight-:)) (nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:01:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- I'm a dumb yank so I missed the joke (nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:06:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Michael Dett -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:04:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Angry Irish lad -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:28:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Angry Irish lad -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:41:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- oops sorry Marianne, from Dermot 'thick Mick'(nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:53:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Thick Mick -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:38:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ cq -:- old habits die hard ... -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:40:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ JHB -:- Why the fuck did you and PW -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:22:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ DERMOT -:- John....NO ! -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:30:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Dermot, the same thought crossed my mind -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:36:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ donner -:- Dermot, the same thought crossed my mind -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:52:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- donner, I'd bet RJ has read F5... -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:50:08 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- 99.9 % of course he's read this site !! (nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:37:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ donner -:- 99.9 % of course he's read this site !! (nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:48:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- 99.9 % of course he's read this site !! (nt) -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:32:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Yes, Donner, I am hardcore anti-gurujism -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:14:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ donner -:- Yes, Donner, I am hardcore anti-gurujism -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:59:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Donner ...can u read ????? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:58:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ donner -:- Donner ...can u read ????? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:02:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Donner ...can u read ????? -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:54:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- My husband thought some people were name dropping -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:04:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Patrick Wilson -:- My husband thought some people were name dropping -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:52:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- Patrick W, I concede defeat and bow to your -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 02:10:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Patrick Wilson -:- Patrick W, I concede defeat and bow to your -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 11:04:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Pat C....why should Rawat save face???? -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 02:29:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat Conlon -:- The quality of mercy is not strained..... -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 05:07:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ bill--be hardline, only -:- when you lose your humor are you victimized..nt -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:45:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Well said Patrick W ....BUT -:- Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 00:33:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Doing your own thing is a good idea ... -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 23:06:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ donner -:- My husband thought some people were name dropping -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:06:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Agree w/Frannie re: repent/recant-nt -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:39:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Oh, Michael -- what a pickle! -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:39:26 (GMT)

__ Francesca -:- It's not easy being friends with them -:- Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:06:01 (GMT)

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 16:51:38 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Raja Ji, Patrick W., care? etc.
Message:

Last night I returned from the UK where I spent a day with Patrick Wilson in Brighton to discuss a project I am working on that could require his skills a composer and musician, and three days in London on other business. I didn’t have time to check in on the Forum during my trip, so I have just now done my best to catch up.

Let me start by saying how surprised I am at some of the negative responses to the post Patrick made last Monday about his report of a phone call he received from a friend who is in close contact with current PAMs. I was there when the call came in. At one point, Patrick handed me the phone because he thought I should hear first hand what this person was saying. What this person told me corresponds exactly to what Patrick reported.

Having said that, I agree with Michael Donner’s, and other’s reaction to what was reported under the heading “care?” Based on the comments by Patrick’s friend, Maharaji and/or his advisors may now feel it is timely to own up to the reports I and other’s have made about his behind the scenes lifestyle with a view of putting it all behind him so that he can get on with his work. I can imagine a scenario in which he admits to his drinking and sexual addictions by blaming it on the corrupting influence of manipulative PAMs and licentious women who were bent on exploiting his innocence for their personal gain in much the same way his mother Mata Ji tried to blame Sampurnanand and Marolyn for his corrupt western ways when the family split up. Maharaji has always been good at deflecting responsibility for his failures onto others as he did recently at his organizer training sessions by blaming the Indian mahatmas for all the concepts about him and knowledge. I have no reason to think that he would adopt a different tact with respect to his personal hypocritical behavior.

In my opinion, the real issue is not about Maharaji’ lifestyle. It is about him taking responsibility and accountability for the abuse his lies and deception have inflicted upon others, and about making amends for that abuse. It is about honestly looking himself in the mirror and realizing that his assumed identity as the Master is a lie, and bringing to an end the scam he has perpetuated on the basis of that lie. That is a degree of honesty and integrity that I believe is beyond him. Too bad, because if the reports of his current wealth are accurate, he could retire from the scene in reasonable comfort while simultaneously taking steps to financially compensate some of the victims most aggrieved by his and/or his agents abuses.

Of course, during my brief visit with Patrick we did discuss the Forum, his conversations with current premies and their reactions to the EPO. He wondered if I would like to speak with Glen Whittaker. I told him that I had no problem speaking or getting together with Glen. When Patrick presented this idea to Glen, however, he politely declined. I didn’t take it personally. I understand the fear that exists around M and I’m sure that Glen would not like it reported that he met with me without first having received permission.

Patrick also informed me Raja Ji was somewhere in the UK, possibly in London. I was unaware of that fact so we made a couple of phone calls and reached a person who promised to give Raja Ji Patrick’s number with a request to call me. Early the next morning he called. We had a brief conversation and arranged to meet for lunch last Wednesday in London. I was not surprised that Raja Ji called me since, as I have previously reported, we have stayed in touch once or twice a year by phone and had previously met for lunch about five years ago when we both happened to be in Berkeley. However, I had had only one conversation with him since I began posting on the Forum and, at that time, the subject was not raised. I felt certain the topic would be raised over lunch, which it was.

As I have said before, I developed a friendship with Raja Ji during my years of service with M, a friendship that he has continued to honor after I left. Consequently, I have chosen to honor that friendship by not publicly criticizing him on the Forum, although I am sensitive to some of the legitimate criticisms that have been directed his way. When we met for lunch, he requested that our conversation remain between the two of us and I acceded to that request. I did tell him, however, that I would report that we met. A good part of our meeting was spent on catching up on each other’s lives but finally we got down to my posts on the Forum. In my conversation, I wanted him to understand the process I went through in coming to grips with my past involvement with M and my own culpability in helping Maharaji perpetuate the abuses I have documented. I also made crystal clear what I believe are the real issues M must face, as I have delineated above. By the way Jim, I did pass on your hello.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 20:45:55 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: This is gonna be a lame post, but...
Message:

I only left the cult a few years ago and saw Raja on his community tours a number of times.

While I don't know Raja at all and we all know that personas are often different than their real life persona, I really got the, ok here it is, 'vibe' that Raja was an ok, approachable person.

In fact, just a few years ago I noticed him out in the parking lot before his little program and he noticed me and nodded and smiled a hello. Don't get me wrong and believe that I thought for one instant I was having a blissful darshan experience like the old days. No, it was just one person to another and there wasn't even the feel of 'oh, aren't WE special because WE'VE got Knowledge.'

And you've got Jim Heller's story of their meeting in L.A. years ago where Raja expressed his own questions and doubts in an honest fashion (from the report that Jim gave us.)

Sure, Raja is probably getting a stipend from his brother and he'd be a better person if he renounced it all and walked away, but let's be real about it. It's probably not going to happen. Hell, what might happen is that Maharaji might cut him off.

Anyway, I don't fault Michael Dettmers one bit for wishing to retain a friendship with Raja. Regardless of the cult thing I know that I met and got to know a lot of really good people during that time. And I believe that friendships can still exist regardless. You might just want to avoid that one touchy subject.

Finally, we've seen that at TED Farkel's Transmission Repair Auto-Knowledge Centre (TRAC) that Raja has adjust rather well during his stay there. If TED Farkel says that Raja is ok then that's good enough for me!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 21:21:27 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Lame is right!
Message:

Anyway, I don't fault Michael Dettmers one bit for wishing to retain a friendship with Raja. Regardless of the cult thing I know that I met and got to know a lot of really good people during that time. And I believe that friendships can still exist regardless. You might just want to avoid that one touchy subject.

Would you feel differently if you knew that Raja Ji also has millions in cash and assets, wealth only acquired at your expense, relatively-recently-out-of-the-cult-good-buddy-of-mine-who-,-by-your-own-admission-,-might-be-considerably-better-situated-materially-yourself-(-not-that-you're-doing-all--that-bad-now-don't-get-me-wrong)? Wouldn't you like to know before deciding how much slack, if any at all, you want to cut him?

Looked at another way, tell me one thing Raja Ji ever did beside not play his own Holy Family Member Smart Card to the max in each and every possible way? Dettmers talks about them being friends. What? They used to fly in the same part of the plane or something?

Sorry, I'm missing something, I guess. All I know is that we turned the Ottawa ashram into our pathetic version of a four-star restaurant for him and his wife in the mid 70's. I didn't get to serve them myself but rather peaked from around the corner with the rest of us naughty 'kids' staying up past our bedtime. Afterwards, he took his cutie to the Chateau Laurier for the night. I went back to my room which I shared with Stuart McDougall.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 21:48:20 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: Well, sheesh to you, Jim
Message:

I went back to my room which I shared with Stuart McDougall.

Jim, at least you had someone in your room to love. ;)

Geez, this is like War Crimes stuff, isn't it?

Does Raja Ji really have millions from the deal or is he just a very high camp follower who gets an allowance from King Rat?

Sure, he played a part in the bad old days and he ate that lousy vegetarian fare at your crumby ashram in Ottawa. We were all sucked into it and maybe he was too.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I was in his shoes I'd be doing anything different. What are his choices? Let's say he's got no big pile of cash stashed and is getting some kind of an allowance from King Rat.

1. Do you think that allowance from King Rat is going to be very much?

2. Tell King Rat he's a phony and do what? Get a job? A job doing what?

Realistically, if (and I think that's a big if) Raja Ji has got a big pile of cash you gotta know that there is no way that it will be removed from him via lawsuits. So, if he has this money is he going to give it up and become a sadhu?

Sure, I'm might be all wrong about the guy because I really don't know. The question is how much of a co-conspirator could Raja Ji really be? I wouldn't think much of one. Do you really think that Maharaji is a consensus kind of guy?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 22:01:35 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: This IS like a war crimes tribunal
Message:

I wasn't saying that I know that Raja Ji is loaded. I'm just saying it's a very real possibility and that I'd like to know if he was or not before I knew what to think about him.

But what do you think of Lester's post above to Anth ('AJW, I'm confused')? After reminding us that even now M's using his family to further the business, he writes:

Raja Ji is an integral part of the machine which is perpetuating the myth of the Supreme Being scam - he knows the truth about Maharaj Ji and what has been going on and yet persists in taking the luxuriant lifestyle pickings of obedience. History is littered with stories of such people. Maybe deep down a nice guy, but I cannot feel sorry for him, give him sympathy or the benefit of the doubt - there is no doubt, because he is a charlatan too.

Agree? Disagree?

You know, at a certain point in time, the family business cabal broke apart. Raja Ji made a choice then to play this role out with his brother. We'll never know how m might have fared if he didn't have at least one brother supporting him then. In any event, Raja Ji played that part and played it to the hilt. So now I'm particularly upset that Michael's got himself into this situation where he can't even talk about him anymore. Think about it -- before lunch: Michael can talk freely, here or in private, about how he thinks the family dynamic's going, what role Raja Ji's playing, how possibly amenable he might be to this or that. After lunch: sorry. Can't talk about any of this.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 22:36:46 (GMT)
From: Roger eDrek
Email: drek@oz.net
To: Jim
Subject: Damnit Jim, I don't care about. What about this..
Message:

What about you and this Stuart McDougall character sharing a bedroom? That's what real people with enquiring minds want to know about. And they want pictures, too. Ya got any? Hell, I don't need your pictures. I got my own and I can make them be anything I want them to be.

Ok, listen. This is an argument that I can't win because I really don't know the guy nor the story behind the guy.

However, my impression from being there in the cult in the 90's is that Raja Ji is a really small time two bit player. It seemed to me, again, I really don't know the inside stuff, that Maharaji is obligated to keep his big brother on the payroll and that he needs to give Raja something to do once in awhile to justify it to himself or whatever.

Raja shows up and he's not a very good speaker. He doesn't light up the audiences, the money doesn't start flowing. It really felt like the guy was just going through the motions and maybe enjoying some of the mingling with a few people, but it seemed that he'd rather be home doing whatever. That's my gut feel on the guy.

Sure, in the old days he might seemed to be a player and might be in charge of the nefarious WPC and by his not going back to Inida with mom he lent Prem Pal some legitimacy, but really? Raja was the worst public speaker. He had no pizazz. Keeping him off the stage as time went on was a good idea because I think the more we saw of the un-Holy family other than Maharaji the more inclined we were to see that they were not Holy in the least. Whereas on the other hand, Maharaji held our attention much better and could pull off the Lord of the Universe schtick (sp?). Again, it was pretty apparent that Raja and Mata, and Bhole and Sat Pal didn't have that stage presence at all and from a business standpoint it was better to keep them out of sight.

That Holy Family fervor that you mention was, IMO, short lived and as time went on (80's and 90's) was embarassingly forgotten by premies without any reservation whatsoever. The focus really did shift more and more to Maharaji exclusively. And in those years I really doubt that any premie believed that Raja Ji was some kind of fucking God. Ok, maybe Pauline Premie, but that's about it.

The money, the crimes...

Sure he was a charlatan. I would have been, too, for christ's sake. Like what do I do? Stay here in India and be somewhat rich or go to America and live it up in a luxourious money fast car playboy lifestyle and all I gotta do is continue to play my part in the family business?

Come on, Jimbo. Wake up and smell the coffee. I know that you are the suffering Public Defender there in Victoria in your seedy Chinatown apartment with a view of the alley in the back of the Chinese resturant. You're smoking an unfiltered Lucky Strike and pensively looking out that window when there's a knock on the door. You put down your glass of single malt scotch, walk over and open the door and there's a dropdead gorgeous blond with a pillow case stuffed full of U.S. cash and she says that she's in some kind of trouble. What are you gonna do? Tell her to turn herself in?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 08:18:09 (GMT)
From: Lester
Email: None
To: Roger eDrek
Subject: Much more than a two bit player
Message:

Raja Ji is much more than a small time two bit player. I don't know the role he currently has, but in the not too distant past, a visit to the UK from him was very much seen as a precursor to a visit by Maharaji - i.e he was sent by M to check everything out. He was also responsible for overseeing the whole world tour schedule farce which seemed to occur each year. Maybe 'only folowing orders', but right at the hub.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 09:06:50 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Lester
Subject: Lester, what do you mean Shri Raja Juju Ji
Message:

''....was also responsible for overseeing the whole world tour schedule farce which seemed to occur each year. Maybe 'only following orders', but right at the hub.''

Could you elaborate? Did No 2 Ji actually plan the schedule?

I of course have this vision of total chaos ''at the hub'' with Rev Monnbeam Rawat pacing up and down with a felt tip pen and occassionally punching a key on his laptop while No 2 Ji fiddles with his crotch and John Horton Ji and Glen Whittaker Ji stare inscrutably with that look on their faces that shows that they have their tongues in some snot.

But I'm open to hearing that some actual thought went into the planning process eventhough I doubt it very much.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 16:17:17 (GMT)
From: Katie H
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thanks, Michael - and a few words about blaming
Message:

Hi Michael -
First, thanks for taking the time to do all this EPO/EV-related stuff while you were on a business trip. I have no problem with you not being able to divulge the conversation you had with Raja Ji - as you said, the other option would have been not to meet with him at all, which would not even had a potential postive effect. I respect your integrity in this matter, and it seems as if other pwk's do too - and are thus willing to communicate with you 'off the record'. Your trustworthiness is apparently keeping the lines of communication open, and helping people feel comfortable about talking to you without fear of being outed in some way.

You wrote, re Maharaji addressing some of the things he's done wrong in the past:
I can imagine a scenario in which he admits to his drinking and sexual addictions by blaming it on the corrupting influence of manipulative PAMs and licentious women who were bent on exploiting his innocence for their personal gain in much the same way his mother Mata Ji tried to blame Sampurnanand and Marolyn for his corrupt western ways when the family split up. Maharaji has always been good at deflecting responsibility for his failures onto others as he did recently at his organizer training sessions by blaming the Indian mahatmas for all the concepts about him and knowledge. I have no reason to think that he would
adopt a different tact with respect to his personal hypocritical behavior.

I agree with you here - especially as Maharaji seems to find it impossible to take on personal responsibility for anything negative. I just have to wonder how long the 'blame game' is going to work. It seems like Maharaji has been able to blame people who did things when he was in his teens and early twenties succesfully - I just wonder how many people are going to buy that he could still be so 'innocent' and easily manipulated in his late twenties and thirties. IMHO, many of the pwk's have to be smart enough to realize this. I doubt that they'd accept this 'corruption of innocence' defense from any other person their own age, and I tend to think they might see through Maharaji here.

You wrote:
In my opinion, the real issue is not about Maharaji’ lifestyle. It is about him taking responsibility and accountability for the abuse his lies and deception have inflicted upon others, and about making amends for that abuse. It is about honestly looking himself in the mirror and realizing that his assumed identity as the Master is a lie, and bringing to an end the scam he has perpetuated on the basis of that lie. That is a degree of honesty and integrity that I believe is beyond wealth are accurate, he could retire from the scene in reasonable comfort while simultaneously taking steps to financially compensate some of the victims most aggrieved by his and/or his agents abuses.

I agree that Maharaji has not shown that he is capable of this kind of self-examination. I also agree that he could compensate some of the victims AND retire comfortably (although I doubt that he will EVER feeel that he has 'enough' money) with a small number of hard-core followers around him, if he so desired. And I also think that this outcome would probably be unwelcome to many of the ex-premies - but I tend to be a fairly pragmatic person and this would seem to be the most realistic scenario - and I'd settle for it.

I'm far less concerned with punishing Maharaji than I am with the people who are currently following him - some of whom, I feel, are in great pain. I believe that there are people who will never stop viewing Maharaji as the 'perfect master' no matter what happens (even a 'Life of Brian' scenario!) - and that's just the way it is. But he could help a lot of people by making it clear that they have no obligation to be 'grateful to him'.

Take care, Michael -
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:23:59 (GMT)
From: bill
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Raja Ji, Patrick W., care? etc.
Message:

Thank you Michael, Great post.

Hasn't it always been the case that raja defers to prem?
Well, maybe they argued like brothers when they were young but
when raja moved out of the Malibu house in (75)? to live with Claudia, was that a point when the lines between them were drawn
more clearer and prem from (that?) point on was master and didnt let raja forget it?
I dont suppose prem could stand to have an equal around.

prem would say at programs sometimes that premies around him would make one to many jokes or take things too far in thier
dareing to converse with him, and for a moment forget that he is the master and that fearful deference would slip away, and prem would reassert himself as greater than them and they better watch thier behaviour.

I suppose raja had wider boundries than all premies were allowed, but boundries non the less.

As far as raja is concerned, I would guess that damage was done
just by him meeting you at all. If we didnt know about you meeting raja, and then we found out, no one who is capable of reading your previous posts clearly would doubt you for a second.
However, those on the other side WOULD have reason to doubt raja.

prem might make a joke or two about having a drink after dealing with 'the world' but it is very unlkely that he will admit publically to any excess whatsoever and will presume that many of his victims do not read english and even hindi, and they will be out of the information loop anyway so why should he spill the beans himself?

In reading posts here, I start to hallucinate I guess, because to me the uproar about the report from Patrick was mostly
distrust of the information itself rather than doubts that Patrick was once again bullshitting us.....JUST KIDDING PATRICK!

Thanks for helping so many of us out in such a big way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:25:59 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: thanks Michael
Message:

Interesting.

I completely support how you handled this difficult situation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:03:24 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Michael D and Everyone
Subject: Discussion NOT about Raja Ji is getting lost ...
Message:

in this thread, which is, IMO the most important point. I think it is a side issue that Dettmers had lunch with an old friend, who happens to be a rich-boy probably fun, charming leach off the family coffers. If Mike D has an in to the nest of hornets, that's a side issue. Raja Ji is a leach off the family business, but not a direct party, just a beneficiary.

The important point Mike made -- to me -- is his observations about the repent and recant issue, and do we care? posts. Mike's take is that the Rat would find a way to blame his way out of it. Or the old divide and conquer, as Donner spoke of.

I don't think this in an angle that the rest of us focused on -- that M will not change his stripes overnight. He has been the queen bee of a large hive. The MVP. He is going to save his own ass at all costs. He cannot help but smell the coffee at some point. He may be smelling it now, or he will smell it soon. And he will try to do spin control, and damage control. It will certainly be everyone else's fault, and he will twist himself into a new revision so that the deluded will still be able to follow.

EPO is for those who have, or wish to, drop off the rotting turnip truck. --f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:28:32 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Discussion NOT about Raja Ji is getting lost ...
Message:

....and the sad thing is many premies and EX premies would be happy for PREM PAL AND DHARAM SINGH RAWAT ..... to keep their ill gotten gains and slink off to Mauritus or wherever as long as they 'sort of ' of 'partially' admit 'something' ...'anything'.

In other fields they'd be stripped of their assets and incarcerated for the damage done to so many sincere trusting people.

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:13:24 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Discussion NOT about Raja Ji is getting lost ...
Message:

I don't want any apologies, and I'm not interested in seeing M change his stripes, either. I just want to see Maharaji and his bag of myths and legends fade away into history the same as all others eventually do. But as long as people hold fast to his basic philosophy, that there's this place within, put there by a loving creator, for us to dive into for a reprieve from life's trials, and all that's needed to find it is the loving care of the 'master', I guess he won't be going anywhere soon, and as they say, there's a sucker born every minute. As long as that's the case, that's how long there'll be the Maharajis of the world among us.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:29:58 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: How do you justify this claim?
Message:

Which ex-premies say thay would be happy for the Rawat brothers to slink off to Mauritius and keep all their ill-gotten gains?

It's not a view I've ever heard. Of course, most exes would like to, and need to, get on with their lives, so if the Rawat brothers did that, the exes wouldn't be chasing them across the planet with their legal advisers.

So, Dermot, I don't know why you're so angry with us, but as you've made the accusation, you have to justify it.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:01:24 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: How do you justify this claim?
Message:

John

Before anything I want to say I don't want to bicker with you in nasty sort of way....I like and respect you too much for that.....as you know when I emailed you about our 'journeys'

But having said that ....

1. I said 'the sad thing is' ....that is not anger it is sadness that such an outcome would be acceptable.

2.I am not angry with 'us' ie all the ex-premies ....I merely pointed out some premies and ex's would be happy with that.

3. the justification ( I don't want to name an individual(s) just yet ....I've searched for the post and it does exist.....I think it is one of 3 people and I think it is a PAM (and whoever said it is perfectly entitled to their opinion as I am mine)

The particular post was posted TODAY ....in it reference was made to the fact that Prem Pal now has enough wealth to retire comfortably and stillgive money to those severley damaged ie jagdeos victims etc etc.

My immediate thought was 'why accept and allow that he should retire comfortably on ill gotten gains' ie money from trusting sincere premies......$30, ooo of it yours if I'm not mistaken.

Why should he? most Premies would accept that ....this ex thinks that ....and I'm assuming (perhaps this is where I fall down as I'm referring to one ex ...but It wouldn't surprise me if there's more) think that.

I think that justifies my post 100 %

Don't you??

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:15:27 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: How do you justify this claim?
Message:

No it doesn't justify your post. Direct your arguments more precisely. If an individual has said something you disagree with, then confront them, but don't point your spray gun at an undefined larger group of exes (you said 'many ex-Premies').

No, this won't degenerate into a slanging match, I just think you're expressing your justifiable anger here a little too loosely:-)

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 23:00:49 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: How do you justify this claim?
Message:

Point taken .....you think it doesn't justify it I think it does (but only partially-:))

But more seriously ....you're right ....most of my posts ( tonight at least) are not focussed enough ....not adequately though tout

well I'll live and learn.....I hope!!

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:12:46 (GMT)
From: Richard
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Thank you for the update
Message:

I believe you acted in integrity and have done everyone, including RJ, a service by expressing your concerns to a fellow human being. Whatever comes from that is strictly RJ's concern alone. Nothing is to be gained by betraying another's trust.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:16:05 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Spin-control for Indian premies
Message:

Dettmers said: ''I can imagine a scenario in which he admits to his drinking and sexual addictions by blaming it on the corrupting influence of manipulative PAMs and licentious women who were bent on exploiting his innocence for their personal gain in much the same way his mother Mata Ji tried to blame Sampurnanand and Marolyn for his corrupt western ways when the family split up.''

Many of the western PWKs have known about the debauchery (but not the illegalities) for quite sometime. But the reports of boozing, adultery and meat-eating will definitely alienate most of the devout Indian premies who are very conservative and frown on that sort of behavior.

Michael I am glad that you had the opportunity to tell Raja Ji your story but I doubt if it will ever get back to Rev Rawat.

It is time to do a Hindi version of EPO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 01:44:49 (GMT)
From: Apologies R Us
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon, Dettmers, et
Subject: Spin Control
Message:

The only mea culpa you can expect from m goes something like this: Don't crucify the messenger. I am just the vessel that God's message come through. I am not bodily perfect and I am not perfect in my behavior. I am the oracle, yet the vehicle is human. To err is human, to forgive is divine, and the spirit just keeps on truckin'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 04:59:03 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Apologies R Us
Subject: to forgive is divine - too true - who're you? NT
Message:

k

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 20:19:47 (GMT)
From: Gary Epton
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: to forgive is divine - too true - who're you? NT
Message:

Sorry Pat - me again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 21:26:25 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Gary Epton
Subject: Oops, Gary, too many names. I'm not psychic NT
Message:

h

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:24:43 (GMT)
From: Ulf
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Raja Ji, Patrick W., care? etc.
Message:

I think i understand how hard it is for you , wanting to
be true to your word.
Have you ever read about the Coventry syndrom , world war 2 ?

Regards Ulf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:08:57 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Oh, Michael -- what a pickle!
Message:

Hi Mike,

I fully appreciate and support you in your efforts, agree with your comments above and extend to you a hearty, early morning Vancouver Island 'hello'. We're not Latvians here but we do have our customs. So, let me simply say, as we do here in our quiet little nook of paradise, hello. Hello, Michael.

But, God, Mike, how can you maintain this committment to Raja Ji? Or, put another way, how can you do it ethically? Or, put another way, how can you DO this to us? Raja Ji, for all his personal qualities which, I'm sure, are abundant, is a member of the former Holy Family and, more to the point, a significant perpetrator, not to mention, beneficiarly of the cult bullshit we suffered and, let's not forget (if you consider the broader, collective 'we', i.e. those still in), suffer. In short, he's a major player in an ongoing fraud. How can you share confidences with him and tell us about it?

Sorry, I understand the sentiment. I just don't get the thinking.

By the way, are you at least free to say whether or not he said hello to ME? Just asking.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:30:07 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Jim
Subject: Oh, Michael -- what a pickle!
Message:

But, God, Mike, how can you maintain this committment to Raja Ji? Or, put another way, how can you do it ethically?

The way I see it Jim, I had two choices. One was to meet with Raja Ji and agree to his request for confidentiality, or decide not to meet with him. It was not an option for me to agree to his request and then to break my agreement. I chose to meet with him and used it as an opportunity to share with him my own process of coming to grips with my involvement in the cult, and to clearly express first hand my views about Maharaji. As a friend, I owed him that much. Who knows what effect, if any it may have. But, at least, he now knows where I stand and how I got here.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 03:11:05 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Dilemna? No? Hmmmmm...........
Message:

Mike,

You know I like you. I'm sure we'll have lunch one day too, perhaps. But, Mike, I'm afraid I'm going to have to have you arrested. You understand, huh? The cause and everything......

No, seriously, this is problematic and let me tell you why. Before you met with Raja Ji, you and I might have talked or emailed each other as we have before. Say the conversation drifted to what, if anything, RJ might say or do, should you ever contact him. After all, that's one of the big curiosities here -- what on earth is happening in the House of Rawat and how, if at all, is EPO affecting it. But now I can't ask you that. You suddenly have gotten this choice, select insight that you're beholden to keep mum about.

But maybe I can ask you. Maybe you'll let me, or this one or that one, maybe donner, say, in on the goods. Well, first, that would still be betraying your promise to RJ. In addition, it creates a new kind of 'x-rated' quality that sofar we've been fortunate enough to avoid. There are no insiders here (or, if there are, I guess I'm sure not one of them!).

See the problem? How can you ever join the rest of us 'innocents' in even talking about these matters? You're sworn to secrecy all over again.

You know, that one time I met with RJ for a drink downstairs at my office when I lived in L.A. I'm sure He [joke!] never expected me to blab all over what he told me. I'm sure he expected me to cherish his confidence as he solemnly commisserated with my frustration with his brother, the cult leader. I'm just glad I never promised nothing in that regard. Mind you, this was before the net and all that. He never imagined that information could flow so well so fast.

Elsewhere, you say that RJ has 'honoured your friendship'. How exactly did he do that, Michael? By calling you back? By getting together for lunch? I don't know. I think that it's sad, sad, sad, that the one guy who might have any sway with the guy can't even talk about him frankly any more.

Maybe donner can talk with him some day. Mind you, I'm sure the terms will be likewise. And then what have we got?

Look, I don't pretend to have all the answers but, don't forget, I'm a lawyer. I look for problems. :) I think I've found one.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 06:26:15 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Jim
Subject: Dilemna? No? Hmmmmm...........
Message:

Jim,

I am currently in contact by phone and by e-mail with a couple of premies who were PAMs many years ago, and who still consider themselves premies. They are troubled by my reports on the Forum and we are in the midst of discussing their concerns. They have asked me to keep our conversations confidential and I am doing so. In fact, I completely understand why they would prefer to keep these conversations private as they are in the midst of processing perhaps the most significant aspect in their lives. Why would I not extend the same courtesy to Raja Ji, even if I didn’t consider him a friend? He was open to meeting with me, and I took the opportunity to explain to him why I have taken the stand I have taken with Maharaji.

Jim, your curiosity is understandable but not always appropriate. As I said, I would have preferred that Patrick had never posted my possible meeting with Raja Ji. On the other hand, if I met with Raja Ji and didn’t tell anyone, and then it leaked, I might be accused of deception. Sometimes it is not possible to please everyone. Such is life.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 14:00:09 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Raja Ji's different
Message:

I am currently in contact by phone and by e-mail with a couple of premies who were PAMs many years ago, and who still consider themselves premies. They are troubled by my reports on the Forum and we are in the midst of discussing their concerns. They have asked me to keep our conversations confidential and I am doing so. In fact, I completely understand why they would prefer to keep these conversations private as they are in the midst of processing perhaps the most significant aspect in their lives. Why would I not extend the same courtesy to Raja Ji, even if I didn’t consider him a friend? He was open to meeting with me, and I took the opportunity to explain to him why I have taken the stand I have taken with Maharaji.

Big difference, for [to?] my money. Raja Ji's a principle perpetrator and beneficiary of the cult fraud. He's not just a former PAM. We used to be able to at least talk about what he might be thinking, what he might ever some day say or do, depending on if he learns this or that, if such and such a thing happens. All speculation, all shared, all open. Now it's like your big secret or something. Yeah, that bugs me. What's the use of talking with you about any of this now? What can you do but patronizingly nod and smile?

I repeat, wouldn't it be nice if one of us could actually get through to Raja Ji one day? Oh, what's that you say? One of us did? Really? Well, what happened? ...... Oh, I see ......none of my business.... Okaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy......

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 20:11:09 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim...Re: Dettmers and Raja Ji...
Message:

Hi!

Yesterday I was not bothered at all by Dettmers posting about the meeting then not being able to reveal what transpired.

Your post made me think about the secrecy issues within a cult, how they have changed/affected my life and how I feel about secrets. I also remember what I've learned about boundaries. So I'm undecided about this.

The main issue for me is Raja Ji, brother of Prem and beneficiary of the cult's financial resources. I don't know if he is a premie or not. Of course he has K, but does he worship his brother, Prem? How does he feel about his position of being supported by premies who DO think Prem's the lord? And so on.

I'd like to know. But, Michael does have integrity and I respect that he went to that meeting knowing he couldn't divulge to us or anyone the discussions which took place. I suspect Raja Ji got an earful. I hope so.

I think I have an answer to your dilemma about speaking with Michael about Raja Ji. Don't change anything about how you communicate with Michael. You can still ask him anything you want, and if he can answer, he will. It's his responsibility to tell you if he can't answer your question, so if I were you, I wouldn't censor yourself with him vis a vis what you talk to him about.

And I'm not talking about a cross-examination here. Just the relationship the two of you have created here.

Just my 2Cents Worth,
Love,
Cynth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 03:18:44 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Exactly Jim...like I said...it's messy (nt)
Message:

zz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:42:18 (GMT)
From: donner
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Oh, Michael -- what a pickle!
Message:

right on...i would have done the same. i do the same with 'lesser' pwk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:41:52 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Good for you
Message:

Thanks for sharing what you could, Michael. And I personally applaud your not being swayed by what others want you to divulge.

What makes you a credible source of information to me isn't that you tell everyone everything that you know, but that you demonstrate a level of integrity that shows me that what you do share is trustworthy.

I agree with your views that Maharaji will never own up to more truth than is required to continue to tell his more-profitable lies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:59:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Transparent-slam-against-Jim-time, Brian?
Message:

Nice to hear from you again!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:33:39 (GMT)
From: Anonomousie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Is it Jim slamming time again?.....nt
Message:

dfxh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:52:01 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Btw Brian
Message:

I'm not trying to impugn MD's integrity....I know you never said I did .....but a little bit of an implication could be construed from your post.

I respect MD ... I do. But as far as I'm concerned this conflict of interest- friends with Dharam Singh Rawat .....and our stanace vis a vis the Rawats is best KEPT 100 PER CENT OFF THE FORUM.

I f we are in the dark so be it .... so keep it off the forum. period. UNTIL THE CON ARTIST DHARAm SINGH RAWAT IS PREPARED TO COME CLEAN WITH ALL OF US .....

Best Regards

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:50:51 (GMT)
From: Brian
Email: brian@ex-premie.org
To: Dermot
Subject: I don't think so
Message:

I'm not trying to impugn MD's integrity... I know you never said I did... but a little bit of an implication could be construed from your post.

I shouldn't praise someone's integrity because doing so implies that you didn't?

That viewpoint would have me 'implying' that everyone who isn't me holds a different viewpoint than my own, and I should therefore not post rather than offend anyone who isn't signing my post. I don't think so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:55:53 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Brian
Subject: Yep..you win on that one-:)) (nt)
Message:

zz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:16:12 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Why the fuck did you and PW
Message:

Tell us about this strictly private and confidential meeting then ???????? What's the fucking point Michael ??? So we know what?
Nothing that's what we know.

Presumably PW knew that your meeting with Raji ( fuck that name 'great king') whats his name? Dharam or something. So why did PW first mention it .....and you now mentioning it here ......it has ZILCH value.

HE'S A CULPABLE WITH THE FRAUD AND CON AS HIS BROTHER ( it's a family business isn't it?).

So he's your friend ......then keep that friendship to yourself of this PUBLIC EX-PREMIE FORUM IN FUTURE. THAT'S MY OPINION.
..... and who gives a flying fuck whether Dharam singh Rawat say's hello to Jim or not .....what's that got to do with anything??......though I guess Jimbo was tongue in cheek about that.

Sorry for this angry post but it really pissed me off.

Prem and Dharam Singh Rawat are conning peoples hearts mids and souls all over this world. And they'll milk it till they go to their graves if they can get away with it.

Other wise .....Best Regards to you Michael....

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:23:23 (GMT)
From: Patrick W
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Why the fuck did you and PW
Message:

Subject: Why the fuck did you and PW tell us about this strictly private and confidential meeting then ???????? What's the fucking point Michael ??? So we know what?
Nothing that's what we know.

Chill out Dermot - and by the way, I know no more than you about what they talked about in this meeting either. I fully expected it to be a private affair actually - that's undoubtedly to do with Raja Ji's pre-conditions to this meeting rather than Michael's of course. Michael is rightly honouring his agreement with Raja Ji not to broadcast the nature of their discussion. My take it's that it's very good that they spoke and right that he should do so.

A lot of premies and ex-premies, believe it or not, do not want the secrecy and denial to continue. The very fact that Michael has publically stated that he even had this discussion with Maharaji's 'ambassador' (for that's what we were once told he was) means that premies will take this whole thing more seriously. If you get all cross with Michael (or me) for telling you then I think you're missing the point badly.

Are you suggesting that there should be no discussion, diplomacy, friendliness or negotiation -in short - no communication between so-called ex-premies and premies? I think that anything that blurs the already divisive distinctions between those who are supposed to have 'walked' and those who count themselves as 'on board' the good ship 'Maharaji' as it were, is a good step.

Maharaji says that he expects 'opposition' - 'There has always been opposition to The Master' - as if the fact that former premies are not prepared to let him off the hook for the stuff he put them through, somehow proves his status even more. He both aggrandises himself and distracts from the relevance of the criticisms of his critics at a stroke by saying this.

It's almost as if he is painting the picture that his opposition is coming from some group who have had no experience of what this is all about - from outside - from the 'Arya Samaj' or the Romans or something -people who have no understanding of his teachings and who just object to him for whatever reasons.

Not so in this case. My experience is that in this current story, the criticism is coming largely from those very people who practised exactly what he asked to the hilt. His closest and most attentive and sincere followers in fact. I can say that for myself. I followed his instructions very closely and gave up everything to practice knowledge and obey him - a large portion of my life in fact.

I feel that the 'us and them' aspect of ex-premies versus premies is extremely divisive stuff and that it suits Maharaji in some ways that these current discussions, meetings etc. betweeen FORMER FRIENDS in many cases, are seen to devolve into mistrust and fighting. It distracts from the fact that we were ALL once very into this whole thing and some of us are not prepared to just embark on a campaign of trashing the whole thing, torpedoing the whole ship with all our friends and loved ones still on board.

There are many exes (mostly those who have not been so recently involved) who clearly are having a great time planning the destruction of the cult - don't give a shit who suffers in the process . People like myself are sensitive to the feelings of loyalty and the sincerely held beliefs of remaining friends who are premies and prefer to conduct a more internal revolution for the moment.

I imagine that I share some of the feelings of people like Erica for instance - who want to give Maharaji a chance to come clean or at least to oferr a satisfactory explanation.

Donner asked me what I think about whether a repentant Maharaji would make a difference. I say resoundingly YES. I think Maharaji has, in the minds of premies, to be given the opportunity to make some redress. Premies will soon stop defending and supporting him if he does not show the strength of character to do this.

Mike's meeting was extremely important in communicating to premies at large that the message has been received at a high level (we all know Raja Ji is only the 'Lords brother' -but that's still considered by many as pretty high level!)

One of the ways that Maharaji has so far successfully avoided addressing the issues and problems that have occurred in his mission, is by saying that he never received the complaint (as in Abi's case I believe). Some people have reported that he gets very cross with premie messengers that deliver bad news -that he apparently does not want to hear. So he never heard the complaint so he never had to do anything right? Plausable deniability.

Now here we have Michael delivering the message to his brother, very publically, that there is a forum to which a great many of his bro's followers are glued,and where a number of former followers are demanding that the things that he would brush under the carpet are addressed. Now there is NO plausible deniability about the delivery of this message.

OK so we don't know the exact content of their discussion but we know that Michael drew Raja Ji's attention to the forum and it's issues. That my friend, was 'the fucking point' as you put it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 15:21:20 (GMT)
From: And On Anand Ji
Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com
To: Patrick W
Subject: Why the eff did you and PW
Message:

OK so we don't know the exact content of their discussion but we know that Michael drew Raja Ji's attention to the forum and it's issues. That my friend, was 'the fucking point' as you put it.

Spot-on, Patrick. Nice post.

-And On Anand Ji

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:47:39 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Patrick W
Subject: Patrick
Message:

Your long was post was well written and interesting.

I'll try to deal with the main points you made.

Of course I don't want the secrecy and denial to continue either.
The sooner everything is out in the open the better it will be for everyone. Except perhaps who will suffer because their dreams of the 'Lord ' are shattered.They , or some of them, will probably suffer greatly and some may breakdown completely. However, sadly, that's a price worht paying for the sake of truth and honesty.

YES Yes yes there should be 'communication' between premies and ex's BUT I dont consider Raja ji a premie as such .....In my opinion ALL premies are victims IF it's true Prem Pal is a con. I'm convinced he is.Therefore all premies are victims of his con.
I do not consider RAJA JI a premie. I strongly believe he knows his bro is a con but has just been milking it along with him.He is a amjor part of the problem.

In my view there is no 'us and them '.....most, not all, of my closest, dearest friends are premies.My beef is with Prem and his brother.

For the rest of your post.....yup do what you gotta do .....same with MD etc....of course some form of 'negotiation' has to take place.

Maybe my anger with the 2 Rawat bros got the better of me with my effing and blinding post. My gut feeling though is that somewhere in my posts I'm right ( hahah) but my emotion prevented me from getting to the root of it and then expressing it . duhhh.

Anyway alls fair in love and war ....blah blah blah

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:53:34 (GMT)
From: Michael Dettmers
Email: dettmers@gylanix.com
To: Dermot
Subject: Why the fuck did you and PW
Message:

Dermot,

Patrick decided on his own to report that we had made an effort to contact Raja Ji. When I read his post the next morning, I told him I would have preferred if he had not mentioned it, but by then it was too late. Subsequently, Jim asked me to report on my meeting with Raja ji. Rather than ignore his request or pretend that the meeting didn't happen, I wrote what I wrote.

Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 08:26:30 (GMT)
From: janet the scold
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: tsk! with no synchronization! see what happens?
Message:

when are all you chaotic ex premies going to realize how much smoother things go when you get synchronized before participation??? no wonder The Master doesn't let everybody go off in their own direction! why, just look at all this uproar! I don't understand it!
when are you all just going to see sense and stop arguing and come back to him and just sit down and start listening and start breathing together again??? I'm just going to go inside, and smooth my tablecloths now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:06:48 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Mr Dettmers you are a honorable man
Message:

I hope you know by now that I trust you completely and you have now satisfactorily answered any questions I had about why you mentioned the meeting with Number Two.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:29:15 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Steady, Pat. Shades of Mark Anthony, no? (nt)
Message:

'and they are all honourable men ...' (William Shakespeare, 'Julius Caesar' - and, yes I know you knew that)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:01:52 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: cq
Subject: cq you're making me chuckle tonight-:)) (nt)
Message:

z

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:06:18 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: I'm a dumb yank so I missed the joke (nt)
Message:

k

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:04:09 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Michael Dett
Message:

Well that's a very clear answer Michael. Very plausible .

My anger is not directed at you and PW really ....I'm just sick to death of the Rawts. I know you are friends with Dharam (?) and I honestly DO respect that.. but that also makes it very messy.

Thanks for your answer Anyway.

Best Regards

Dermot

PS I occasionally shoot from the hip and let emotion override cool detachment......hmmmmm

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:28:54 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: delores@gofree.indigo.ie
To: Dermot
Subject: Angry Irish lad
Message:

Well, Dermot, I actually agree with some of the sentiments you have expressed. But, I think one of the big lessons I've learned this last week with the asshole premies (not all of them are asshholes-- I mean the latest virulent variety) and with the 'I quit' announcements, is that we're all dealing with this in our own ways. For all I know, Michael told Captain Rawat's brother that he ought to get M to pay reparations to Abi and Susan, among others. If he did, then I thank him.

We have all developed our own ideas about what should happen and how, but I think it is necessary that the struggle occur on many fronts, and be conducted in many different manners. When we published the MRC letter, it created lots of drama here. Some exes bitterly disputed what we did. But, the letter also forced EV's hand, and they published the FAQ's, which have definite legal implications should any litigation ever come about.

I would never talk to these people (the Rawats) face to face. I'd talk to their lawyers though. I don't think we can quite forsee the results of meetings like this. I commend Michael for doing it in any event, even though I find the thought personally distasteful. It's his decision. And it may have done some good.

You often write things here with which I agree. You often express your ideas in a passionate way that strikes a chord with me. These posts help others to figure out where they stand on the issues, and decide what action, if any, they intend to take. Look at Jim Sanders' letter to his premie community in North Carolina. That's a perfect example of someone taking individual action designed to educate others and freeing himself in one fell swoop.

I heartily encourage your passionate and heartfelt posts. I also support Michael and Patrick's decision to meet with Brother Rawat, even though I'd never do it. That's the beauty of the forum and EPO. No lock step. Freedom. Disputes. Differences. Agreements. No one telling us what to do. Thinking things through for ourselves, making progress in our own, individual lives, mistake my mistake, success by success.

Feeling philosophical lately,
Marianne

PS The subject title was a joke, but I didn't need to tell you that, did I?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:41:33 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Angry Irish lad
Message:

Hi Babes

I'm all out of long posts now.....my emotional anger took over my brain tonight ......lost a little bit of my thinking capacity hahaha

Always nice to hear from you .......you going to Australia next?

Jeeze you get around

Best Wishes

Paddy Malone

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:53:49 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: oops sorry Marianne, from Dermot 'thick Mick'(nt)
Message:

zz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:38:08 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: delores@gofree.indigo.ie
To: Dermot
Subject: Thick Mick
Message:

Send me yer email and I'll tell you all about my next trip -- to Aussieland.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:40:14 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: old habits die hard ...
Message:

... and still the pond life gets told nothin'

Well to be honest Dermot, I too was kind of pissed at what appeared at first sight to be a major tease on Mike's part, and was going to ask MD much the same question as you have, though perhaps in a somewhat more moderated tone (but perhaps that's my problem.)

But then I thought to myself, what's a diplomat like Mike supposed to do? Sever all ties? uh-uh, that's not in the job description.

Mike, I think, is at least keeping the lines of communication open between exes and those, like Raj/Dharma (is that his real name?) who are close to the 'throne', as it were.

Mike might not be in a position to divulge the details of his conversation, but since the meeting wouldn't even have taken place without that requisite, I don't think any blame should be left at his door for what he's done.

One day, perhaps, the Maha and his minions might feel brave enough to attempt to communicate with us ex-followers. After all, it's evident that we can and do have an effect on his fortunes. We gave him power over us. We can also take that power away.

And there's one more thing Master Maha would be well advised not to forget, - and that's the undeniable fact that ex-premies far outnumber current ones.

His premie-resource has always been dwindling, ever since the late 70s.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:22:40 (GMT)
From: JHB
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Why the fuck did you and PW
Message:

I think hearing this has some value. We now know that Raja Ji has heard first hand Dettmers' reason for renouncing Maharaji. I find that interesting.

Thanks, Michael.

John.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:30:22 (GMT)
From: DERMOT
Email: None
To: JHB
Subject: John....NO !
Message:

Dharam singh can read the forum like the rest of us ,,,,,,,I took it for 100 per cent that he read MD's reasons on the forum .

So what !!!!!!!!!!!

Best Wishes

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:36:14 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: DERMOT
Subject: Dermot, the same thought crossed my mind
Message:

Dettmers' post did come across as a bit of a puff piece or showing off the feather in his cap that he had schmooze-fest with number two. I hope that was not the intention. Say it ain't so, Michael.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:52:16 (GMT)
From: donner
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Dermot, the same thought crossed my mind
Message:

hi pat...boy, you are hard core! i would never assume that r.j. has read forum...nor would i pass on an opportunity to share my process with someone i have a very long history with who is stil influential in the cult. i'd take the time to give it one more go and figure it couldn't hurt...especially a friend...have done so recently and will do it possible in future. i didn't get the impression of puff peice...rather a brother getting back to the forum after long and probably tiring trip...give the guy a break! and besides he doesn't even have a cap for all his feathers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:50:08 (GMT)
From: Cynthia
Email: None
To: donner
Subject: donner, I'd bet RJ has read F5...
Message:

In 1998 or '99, RJ was doing a fundrasing tour and had a program in Boston, which I didn't attend but my sister did. This was when m first put up his own website.

During his speech, RJ said (paraphrased) Look at both of the sites, both the good and the bad, and make your choice....

I made the assumption that RJ did/does read the site, but it's purely speculation.

Because I was still involved then and didn't have a computer, I went to the library and looked at both sites. Well, you know where I eventually ended up.

As far as M. Dettmers meeting w/RJ, I think it's a good ''in.'' I respect that Michael can keep confidences. I don't care what they spoke about, either. Michael's straightforward here about how he feels about m, and I'm sure he was with RJ.

Details? I personally don't need them. I don't grok the uproar about it.

Best,
Cynthia

P.S. Did I say bet? I take that back! Or I'll bet you a quarter!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 20:37:39 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Cynthia
Subject: 99.9 % of course he's read this site !! (nt)
Message:

zz

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:48:21 (GMT)
From: donner
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: 99.9 % of course he's read this site !! (nt)
Message:

what do you base your opinion upon...could be true of course but i would guess not. also, he is not a computer person anyways but why do you think he does?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:32:16 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: donner
Subject: 99.9 % of course he's read this site !! (nt)
Message:

Hi Mike

You don't need to be a computer person to get to this site....it's a source of information like a book, magazine,tv prog,radio prog .....etc if as MDsays they've kept in touch presumably he'd know Michael (a) left the cult and (b) joined the website on it's front page and in the forum.

Given 'raja jis' involvement with the cult It would be a strange un-curious human INDEED if he didnt check out what was being written about his benefactor Prem Pal and more importantly what wwas being written in PUBLIC FORUM about himself.Natural human curiosity would almost FORCE him to read it. If a top exec of Coca Cola knew that a media outlet was pumping out anti-coca cola stuff and naming executives .....the least they'd do was READ it.Unless they were totally thick.

So basically that's what I base it on.

Cheers

Dermot

ps if I ever get on yer tits .....I'm not as bad I seem .....my bark is worse than my bite ...I'm not the malicious sort -:))

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:14:21 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: donner
Subject: Yes, Donner, I am hardcore anti-gurujism
Message:

I've made it very clear that I will not attck or blame PWKs but Number Two Ji is not a PWK. Although basically a parasite, he's part of the Rawat family business. I realize that you are more of a gentleman than I am but, while I keep the gloves on for PWKs, I take them off for officers of Rawat Inc.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 21:59:59 (GMT)
From: donner
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Yes, Donner, I am hardcore anti-gurujism
Message:

ok pat...when it comes to rj but you seemed so intense this morning re michael...anyways this thread digresses. no problem

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 18:58:24 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: donner
Subject: Donner ...can u read ?????
Message:

No one is saying he shouldnt respect his friendship and I greatly resent you implying such things .I say until the con artist Dharam singh Rawat and his bro come clean then let's not pussyfoot around giving them special treatment. HE'S PART OF A HUGE CON .

If MD is friends ....ok .....nothing wrong with that.

But mixing it in private fully and then PARTIALLY on the forum is stupid IMO.

bEST WISHES

dERMOT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:02:51 (GMT)
From: donner
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Donner ...can u read ?????
Message:

you seemed to take some personal offense...i do not think you had even posted on this thread when i commented above...oh well. i read fairly well actually...but slowly by the way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:54:03 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: donner
Subject: Donner ...can u read ?????
Message:

hey Mike

Your laid back nonchalent humility shames me -:))

Best Rgards

from

the bull in the china shop

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:04:34 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: My husband thought some people were name dropping
Message:

when I told him about some of the posts, for instance when Patrick W (who I respect greatly) mentioned that Dettmers was at his house. My husband was like, 'so?' I'm sure he'd think the same about Dettmers' mention of lunch with Raja, at least after hearing about it on a superficial level.

The bigger issue that Dettmers talked about for me in that post is the fact that even if the cockroach repented and recanted, he'd still blame the whole thing on someone else.

SAD.

Love, f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:52:52 (GMT)
From: Patrick Wilson
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: My husband thought some people were name dropping
Message:

Although this was Mike's personal meeting with Raja JI, I felt some involvement I guess - even flattered myself if I am honest - that I had kind of been instrumental in getting them together. Especially since my idea of getting dialogue with Glen had so miserably failed. As I said I think it is a way forward to get people to talk. Clearly that is not by any means a general opinion. I know what I hear on the other hand from premies and they think it is a good idea too.

Anyway I have made fair investment of time in addressing these issues over the years and I am allowing myself to feel quite pleased with myself with this result. So all you critics can basically get stuffed. I am doing my own thing and I couldn't care less if certain people on this forum think it's against 'ex-premie 'policy' - or to do with my desire for ex-premie status. I feel good about it!

Really I think it's very short-sighted to be anything other than in full support for opening communication lines. You guys who just want to fight with Maharaji in my opinion are just playing into his idea that he has these enemies and then premies just defend him all the more vigorously.

Like I said I am sick of (but getting used to) having my intentions misinterpreted here. So again to my detractors - think what you like - I am doing my best to be proactive -if you think I have other motives so be it.

I am aware of the the questionable rewards of name dropping and am not surprised to be accused of such. I did however make Mike's acquaintance under the following circumstances. When I heard he was in London a few months ago (from this forum) I seized the opportunity to ask to talk with him so that I might hear,as it were, from the horses mouth about his revelations. If anything, I hoped that this meeting would clarify some things for me personally, and then naturally others, with whom I was having discussions, indirectly.

I think Mike Finch can relate to this:
One minute you are worshipped because of your association with someone famous (in his case with M. (and have people kissing your feet etc.) and then the next minute you are totally ignored for what you are without 'him' around.
In my case I recall coming from total obscurity (as a status-less ashram worker bee) to myself being somewhat acknowledged and paid attention to as soon as my post-ashram musical work started to be noticed and used by Maharaji.

The prosaicness of the process and circumstances of this sudden interest in me after being so long ignored, made quite a deep impression. So I consider myself relatively immune to the temptations of attempting to bolster my own credibility by associating with others since I am rather acutely sensitive to the transparency of this principle.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 02:10:48 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Patrick Wilson
Subject: Patrick W, I concede defeat and bow to your
Message:

more sensible approach.

Since my unfair dig at you I have gone back to look at your posts and have found that you are being true to yourself - a peace loving, kind and honest man who prefers negotiation to confrontation. I actually think that is a far better way to go about doing things than I have done. I also prefer peace to war.

My hitherto confrontational stance has led to me being harassed by email and stalked on FV by anonymous trolls and I do not like that. I know what I am up against and I cannot win. I think your approach is more sensible. I would prefer it if Rev Rawat could reform and ''not loose face'' at the same time, as you have put it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 11:04:19 (GMT)
From: Patrick Wilson
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Patrick W, I concede defeat and bow to your
Message:

I would prefer it if Rev Rawat could reform and ''not loose face'' at the same time, as you have put it.

Thanks for taking the trouble to read my posts. I don't think that I actually said that I would prefer it that Maharaji didn't lose face. If you reread that bit I think you will see I was saying that that was what premies most definitely would prefer. Maybe we're driving at the same thing here though.

May be it would be appropriate and even good for Maharaji's soul that he indeed 'lose the faces' which have been scaring premies into all the damaging sorts of submissions we have seen. Underneath I'm sure he has a decent 'face', that is more humble and human that does not need adulation etc.

In the case of someone like Saddam Hussein one can envisage that he would rather die and take a bunch of people with him rather than 'lose face'.

My point is that premies certainly think that M is not in this category even if he has made some mistakes that have cost some people dearly. They think that he has also benefitted others and don't want this part of the equation overlooked.

I can understand this. Regarding my personal feelings of forgiveness. I am by no means full of forgiveness - I seem to be able to forget about the lost years etc when I am immersed in the present. From time to time something happens which reminds me of how miserable I was in the ashram -how scared I was by M's satsangs, how put down I was by his instructors etc. and a wave of injustice kicks in. That reaction is still very much there -which seems to be very much in the forefront of many people's minds here right now also -visa vi Dermot.

I have a friend who is in prison for Cocaine smuggling who shares a cell with a double murderer and hangs out with a cannibal. He is a premie and meditates hours every day. He wrote to me that he finds that even these people have a soft centre if you approach them with heart. I believe people should account to the society in which they live (including Maharaji) for their actions. It's a tricky balance to strike between punishing people harshly and offering them a chance to reform. I feel that the way of reform is the nobler way but sometimes I too think that the only way to deal with crazy destructive people is to destroy them.

My mission over the last few years here has been to not let that be forgotten or brushed under the carpet. Now if Maharaji would address this and apologise I would feel that some sort of justice had been done.

I don't have too much time to write carefully as I would like today so I'll move on to Dermots question now. Thanks Pat.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 02:29:35 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: Pat C....why should Rawat save face????
Message:

Does he give a shit about you? me? others?

No way mate.....he cares about No 1....

He,s fucked up minds and lives and done very well thank you very much.

The guy deserves NOTHING from us.....he OWES us.

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 05:07:00 (GMT)
From: Pat Conlon
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: The quality of mercy is not strained.....
Message:

I missed your Shakespearian allusion (I have come to bury Caesar not to praise him) so I'm throwing one back at you. I believe in being merciful because it is good for me.

But more honestly right now I am exhausted from dealing with anonymous trolls and email and feel that my hardline approach is making the Borg scared and in turn they then try to scare me and we end up in a cycle of fear.

I prefer to be merciful, kind, gentle and loving. It solves problems without creating new ones. And it makes me feel superior to my enemies.

Pat, who never was very good at being saintly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 10:45:21 (GMT)
From: bill--be hardline, only
Email: None
To: Pat Conlon
Subject: when you lose your humor are you victimized..nt
Message:

sdffh

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 00:33:22 (GMT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Patrick Wilson
Subject: Well said Patrick W ....BUT
Message:

If you have the time and inclination would you please answer a question?

Listen ...first off ...I know you've taken a lot of flak from people (myself included I suppose......yet I don't think Ive ever tried to impugn your, Md's or any other premies or ex-premies INTEGRITY.... only the Rawat family biz).....Anyway the question is this and this will be the THIRD time I've asked it.Once in a direct response to your original 'report' thread....then as a reminder in that thread.....and now here.

Of course you don't have to answer but this IS a forum for discussion so where better to ask ?

I'll try to frame it so that you understand what I'm really getting at.....ok here it goes 'Bearing in mind all your efforts for building bridges and creating dialogue between premies and ex-premies etc let's for arguments sake say you are wholly successful in doing this ....ok?.....then what would be the result or lets say what would be the 'ideal' result in your view?
For instance.....WHERE DO THE RAWATS BROS STAND IN ALL THIS? He continues to ply his trade with premie followers ? He is completely dis-credited ? The EV organisation is disbanded? Rape victims are compensated? .....I'd sincerley like to know what end view you,MD and others taking a proactive stance hope to ultimately achieve? Or maybe you don't see it in those terms....'

....anyway look forward to your reply. BTW were you always so controversial ....even as 'anon'? ;))

Best Regards

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 23:06:27 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Patrick Wilson
Subject: Doing your own thing is a good idea ...
Message:

in some ways. After all, we wouldn't want to start another cult, would we? Every time we get a little concensus or agreement amongst us anyway, we're accused by some posters of being a smarmy new ex-cult.

Then when we bicker and fuss, we're accused of being a bunch of wackos.

Good for you, wherever the process takes you. Keep sharing. I'm all ears.

Love, f

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 22:06:19 (GMT)
From: donner
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: My husband thought some people were name dropping
Message:

yes f, that is the main point. we were gettng at that point yesterday as well...what difference will it make if he recants...except for the long line of those still addicted to the cult begging for him to return as lord and master. oh, visions of his triumphant comeback....laughable scenario either way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 19:39:27 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Agree w/Frannie re: repent/recant-nt
Message:

xxxx

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:39:26 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Oh, Michael -- what a pickle!
Message:

Yeah, maybe you've got a point there. Running to court (we're in endgame). Let me think about it. I definitely understand on one level. But let me think about it some more. (Not that you asked, of course.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 17:06:01 (GMT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: It's not easy being friends with them
Message:

I appreciate your courage. For us folks who had no personal ties with GMJ and Raja Ji other than our imaginary devotion, I don't have to deal with any of them as people. (I've done years of self psychoanalysis however. Although I was in the band, I have not kept up with Bhole Ji, and the chances of my coming in contact with him are slim to none -- and he wasn't a guru, he was more like a friend.)

Deconstructing the mental baggage is hard enough, as years of posts on this forum will attest. Having to do the face-to-face thing takes integrity and guts. Please continue to share your personal journey.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index