Forum V: Archive
Compiled: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 11:05:00 (GMT)
From: Mar 29, 2000 To: Apr 07, 2000 Page: 3 Of: 5


Jim -:- Michael Dettmers speaks out! -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:01:55 (GMT)
__ Bill Burke -:- Not fair Michael. -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:29:59 (GMT)
__ x#%*! -:- Michael Dettmers speaks out! -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 01:48:12 (GMT)
__ __ JW -:- What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have... -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:11:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ x#%*! -:- What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have... -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 19:29:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- Dettmers and Maharaji still have ties -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 03:20:15 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ EV-ex -:- For the record -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 19:40:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ x#%*! -:- For the record -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 23:29:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ slave -:- What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have... -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:40:16 (GMT)
__ __ slave -:- Michael Dettmers squeaks -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:06:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ slave -:- broken insider squeaks -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:27:39 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Dettmers' initial response -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:49:59 (GMT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- So, who am I to expect more? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:55:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- You cynic, you -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 11:32:05 (GMT)
__ __ Hal -:- Maybe this'll clarify a bit -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:31:54 (GMT)
__ __ Susan -:- Jim, fix my spelling errors next time..embarrassed -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:04:33 (GMT)
__ Modest Mouse -:- Many, many years - Approximate dates? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:35:09 (GMT)
__ Joe -:- Dettmers' Strange Revisionism -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:51:57 (GMT)
__ __ Joe -:- Additional Questions for Michael -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:15:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joe -:- Additional Questions for Michael -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:46:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- Thanks Joe! -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:40:06 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- Thanks Jim -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 14:41:55 (GMT)
__ Hal -:- Well done Jim and thanks Michael (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:02:23 (GMT)
__ Bloodboils -:- Good Work Jim. Thank you -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:06 (GMT)
__ G -:- What about business ties between Dettmers and M? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:56:53 (GMT)
__ Powerman -:- Michael Dettmers speaks out! -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:03:33 (GMT)
__ __ Hal -:- Michael Dettmers speaks out! -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:47:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ Selene -:- Michael Dettmers speaks out! -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:55:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Hal -:- Sorry Powerman -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:42:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- been there -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 23:35:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ SB -:- Hal: Some questions... -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 13:03:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Just take it easy, Hal -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:09:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ trixie -:- The Insider -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:27:57 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Sorry, trixie, I don't buy it -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:39:38 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- Cognitive Dissonance -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:45:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Cognitive Dissonance -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 05:19:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- I Assume It Because -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 17:50:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I Assume It Because -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 22:18:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Brandy -:- Cognitive Dissonance/What about paradigm? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:26:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- What is a 'paradigm?' -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 05:18:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Cognitive Dissonance -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:39:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Cognitive Dissonance -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 22:25:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- Cognitive Dissonance -- Not so simple -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:49:12 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Cognitive Dissonance -- Not so simple -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 22:30:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- That makes sense -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:15:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ JW -:- That makes sense -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:02:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- That makes sense -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 10:50:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Trixie -:- 2-3 things believed at once... thats it! -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:10:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hi Trix, are you new here? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:02:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Trixie -:- Hi Trix, are you new here? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 18:54:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:30:18 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:53:42 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Selene -:- Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:03:49 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- the prestige of being a PAM -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:45:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:35:46 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Hal -:- Just take it easy, Hal -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:35:36 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- You miss the point -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:31:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- i'm cooler now Jerry -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:22:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Just take it easy, Hal -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:02:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joey -:- Hal speaks out! -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:10:19 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Hal -:- Best wishes to you too Joey......... -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:33:30 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- and Best wishes to you , Hal -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:43:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ An Occassional Observer -:- Hey Joey -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:39:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Hey Observer -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:43:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ An Occassional Observer -:- Hey Observer -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:25:07 (GMT)
__ __ Jerry -:- Right on, P-man -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:55:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ An Etomoligist -:- The Butterfly and the Flea -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:32:24 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jerry -:- The Butterfly and the Flea -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:38:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ An Occassional Observer -:- Lies for the masses -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:43:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Lies for the masses -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:53:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ An Occassional Observer -:- Lies for the masses -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:21:40 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- To An Occasional Observer -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:41:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Thanks Joey -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:01:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hugh -:- To Hal and all -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:40:21 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ An Ocassinal Observer -:- To Joey..What threats?(nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 14:21:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Sounded like a clear threat to me moron (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 15:52:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- Sounded like a threat to me also (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:21:44 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ An Occassional Observer -:- No threat intended -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:08:14 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joey -:- Lies for the masses -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:14:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ Zelda -:- Great work Jim- What do you think about this??NT -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:44:41 (GMT)

Jim -:- My interview with Michael Dettmers -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:00:41 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- unintended emphasis (correction) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:07:33 (GMT)
__ __ Way -:- Re:unintended emphasis (correction) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 15:19:56 (GMT)

A.P. -:- Dates for Miami Event are official -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:20:34 (GMT)
__ Selene -:- don't know why i'm curious but -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:04:46 (GMT)

ali g -:- The GM, maximum respect for ya bro, big up, wicked -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:44:19 (GMT)

Joey -:- Uganda -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:24:58 (GMT)

SB -:- Jean-Michel has accepted an invitation!!!!!! -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 21:37:55 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Jean-Michel has accepted an invitation!!!!!! -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 12:01:47 (GMT)
__ __ SB -:- I want to see those pictures!! -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:29:42 (GMT)
__ Jean-Michel -:- More details on monday ! -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 22:21:04 (GMT)
__ __ AJW -:- Zut Alors! -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 12:04:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ Marianne -:- The Photos, JM etc. -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:08:55 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ SB -:- The Photos, JM etc. -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 23:16:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Marianne and other Latvians ..... -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:00:33 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ ex slave -:- JM -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:45:34 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- Yes, no joke ! -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 07:30:27 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- I vouch for him -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 13:34:19 (GMT)

Jim -:- Something else Joan told me -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:49:55 (GMT)
__ Joey -:- Something else Joan LIED to you about -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 20:25:09 (GMT)
__ __ slave -:- Something else Joan LIED to you about -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:49:02 (GMT)

Deputy Dog -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 16:51:36 (GMT)
__ cq -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:15:28 (GMT)
__ AJW -:- Koan for Dog -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 11:56:25 (GMT)
__ hamzen -:- I know it's just a game for you being here, -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:18:29 (GMT)
__ __ Deputy Dog -:- hamzen, please read my posts -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:52:13 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- experience of gravity -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:30:03 (GMT)
__ __ Deputy Dog -:- I know it's just a game for you being here, -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:07:02 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- reincarnation vs karma -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:24:29 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ hamzen -:- Thank you G, and DD, STILL waiting -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:20:04 (GMT)
__ Helen -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 22:32:01 (GMT)
__ __ ham -:- Quite -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 08:27:52 (GMT)
__ Jerry -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:49:56 (GMT)
__ __ Deputy Dog -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:59:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:30:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ Joey -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:00:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ Hal -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:22:08 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Thanks Hal - ex or not you're a soul brother -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:03:31 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Come on, Hal -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:38:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ G -:- the thought train, round and round it goes -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:16:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- the thought train, round and round it goes -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:10:04 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- the thought train, round and round it goes -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 14:28:17 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- the thought train..., words -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 04:04:11 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- G - CLARIFICATION the thought train..., words -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 15:46:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- G - CLARIFICATION the thought train..., words -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 14:31:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- G - CLARIFICATION the thought train..., words -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 22:37:47 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- owning experience, creating reality -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:30:50 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Helen -:- owning experience, creating reality -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 14:44:09 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- owning experience, creating reality -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:22:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- It's good you don't care if I take the Forum (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:33:52 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Ken C -:- the thought train..., words -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:27:23 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- the thought train..., words -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:28:00 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- I didn't say the word 'orange' is an orange (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 13:26:28 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Mental masterbation!!!! (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:48:59 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- you are right, it is (nt) -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:23:06 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ham -:- Hal,the same as your perception of an orange isn't -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:05:47 (GMT)
__ __ Harry -:- Reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 08:55:05 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:08:26 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Harry -:- Reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:13:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Reality -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 23:11:01 (GMT)
__ Dave -:- Owning experience and creating reality -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:03:21 (GMT)
__ Jim -:- Do you ever think about what you're saying? -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 18:50:14 (GMT)
__ __ Deputy Dog -:- Do you ever think about what you're saying? -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:44:07 (GMT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Maybe I'm a little slow today or something ....... -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:32:01 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Maybe I'm a little slow today or something ....... -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:41:48 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh, I see. So THAT's what lies are! Thanks, Dogg -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 02:32:56 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- redefinition of language, next stop: 1984 (nt) -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 02:51:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Hal -:- no just impervious and dense Jim -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:22:16 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Bye, bye, Hal -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:18:51 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Hal -:- Bye, bye, Jim -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:17:35 (GMT)
__ __ __ G -:- Tony Robbins, etc. and magical beliefs -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:46:48 (GMT)
__ Susan -:- spirited debate on responsibility -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 17:43:27 (GMT)
__ __ Runamok -:- debate on responsibility/Apter -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 07:16:54 (GMT)
__ __ __ Susan -:- debate on responsibility/Apter -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 15:36:58 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ Runamok -:- debate on responsibility/Apter -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 16:24:37 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- I agree about that -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:18:32 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -- Now don't you be -:- going all 'real' on us, Susan -- I liked you just -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:26:41 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Susan -:- Jim I want you to be my dinner guest any time -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:30:25 (GMT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Deputy Dog -:- Jim I want you to be my dinner guest any time -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:15:51 (GMT)

reuters -:- starter text for press releases....need help -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 16:24:41 (GMT)
__ cq -:- Even cult leaders in this country ... -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 16:34:08 (GMT)
__ __ Zelda -:- Photo of Airplane? Arial shot of Malibu Palace? -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 21:11:43 (GMT)
__ __ __ reuters -:- Arial shot of Malibu Palace?... is there one??? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 00:05:55 (GMT)


Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:01:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out!
Message:
To: Jim Heller

From: Michael Dettmers

Date: April 2, 2000

At your suggestion, I am writing to address many of the comments that have called my integrity into question in the Forum section of your website and on some of the links associated with it. I trust that what I have to say will answer many of the questions that have been raised and set the record straight on the misrepresentations that have been asserted. I expect that there are a few people who will disagree with me no matter what I say. I also believe that most readers, including many who know me to be a person of integrity, are simply seeking a clarification to some of the issues that have been raised in your forum.

First, I have not spoken to Maharaji, nor participated in his work either actively or passively, nor attended any of his programs or events for many, many years. Nevertheless, I have no intention of engaging in rumor and gossip nor doing or saying anything that disparages him or my past involvement with him. In my years of working with him, I acted, at all times, to the best of my ability, and with honesty and integrity. Although my life has long since moved on in a new and different direction, I honor and take full responsibility for my past. The time I spent with Maharaji were important years in my life, and I continue to derive great benefit from the knowledge he taught me.

Second, the Swiss Foundation to which I refer in my bio is called the Élan Vital Foundation. In the late 70's, one of my responsibilities was to re-organize Divine Light Mission, in part because there was considerable litigation over the name in India and elsewhere caused by the dispute between Maharaji and his mother. The Swiss Foundation became a hub (not the legal owner) for the overall coordination of most of the independent, not-for-profit Élan Vital organizations around the world. This structure simplified the organization and financing of worldwide programs, festivals, tours, and all of their related support activities.

It is my estimate that these Élan Vital related activities generated about 100M worldwide especially when you include the revenues derived from product sales, food services, and the airline tickets, car rentals, and hotel accommodations for attendees at the numerous events organized all over the world. Of course, all of these entities were not owned or consolidated under one company or organization. They were spread out over several businesses and organizations in many countries. I had little or nothing to do with the day-to-day running of most of them. Nevertheless, from an overall executive management perspective, I had ultimate responsibility for organizing these worldwide events and that’s what is reflected in my bio.

In my opinion, there is nothing mysterious about this information. During the years I managed these activities, Maharaji and Élan Vital in the USA and elsewhere were audited by various government taxing authorities including the IRS on several occasions. In every instance, he and Élan Vital were found to be in complete compliance. I take pride and satisfaction in the quality and standard of service that my team, consisting of premies and several non-premie professional advisors, provided in this regard.

Some have suggested that, because I don’t mention him in my bio, I am covering-up my past relationship with Maharaji. This is not the case. In my personal life, all of my close friends, many of whom had never heard of Maharaji or who had heard of him but were not premies, are aware of my past involvement with him. In my professional life, some of my clients know that I worked with Maharaji; most of them do not, nor do I feel compelled to raise the subject. For the most part, it is not relevant to the task at hand, nor is there usually a context in which it would arise. This is not to suggest that I am ashamed about my past relationship with him, nor would I ever deny it should the question be asked. To mention him on my bio, however, simply for the sake of including him (as some of you seem to be suggesting) would serve no purpose. In my opinion, a bio should include only those references, skills, accomplishments, and/or activities that relate to, and are consistent with, one’s current offers in the marketplace. The Élan Vital activities I managed are relevant, so I include them in my bio.

Third, there is great misunderstanding and misrepresentation about Dettmers Industries Inc., a company I co-founded with my brother in 1987. It is implied that this company is nothing more than DECA with a new name, and that I somehow made a personal fortune by taking over a company that was created for Maharaji with the slave labor of premies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are the facts.

I, and others, created DECA in the late 70s to refurbish a used Boeing 707 to provide transportation for Maharaji and Élan Vital personnel. It is true that many premies from around the world gave of their time and skills on this project for very little money and/or modest support. However, nobody was a slave laborer. Slaves do not have the power to choose their situation. When the project was completed in 1980, DECA evolved into an aircraft completion center, fabricating and installing interiors for corporate jets. This endeavor proved to be commercially unviable and, within a year or so, the company was sold to an independent (i.e. non-premie) buyer who was primarily interested in the aircraft seating products DECA had designed and certified. Shortly thereafter, the company was re-named Aircraft Modular Products (AMP) and some of the premies that worked at DECA, including my brother, chose to remain as paid employees of AMP. I am not qualified, nor is it my business, to comment on what became of AMP after the sale.

In 1984, my brother left AMP to start Dettmers Precision Crafting, a sole proprietorship where he, with the help of his wife and one or two others, designed and manufactured hi-lo tables for corporate aircraft. In 1987, my brother and I joined forces to grow this business and, as partners, we incorporated the company as Dettmers Industries Inc. In the beginning there were only five employees. We began with three FAA certified table designs, a used drill press and lathe, some miscellaneous tools and equipment, a few thousand dollars of capital and the slave labor of nobody but ourselves. The company never had any association with Maharaji, Élan Vital, DECA or AMP.

Six years later, in 1993, our company was selected by Inc. magazine as one of the “Best Small Companies To Work For In America.” We received this recognition not just because we dramatically shortened manufacturing cycle times, accelerated innovation, and improved quality and profitability but, more importantly, because we simultaneously improved the standard of living for all of our employees by incorporating values-based practices that promoted self-esteem, dignity, ambition, prosperity and pride of ownership throughout the workforce. In this way we transformed our company into a world-class organization that benefited all of its stakeholders.

In 1995, having achieved what I set out to accomplish at Dettmers Industries Inc., and finding myself in demand as a speaker and consultant in the design and development of partnership-centered, values-based, learning organizations, I co-founded Gylanix Solutions, a management consulting firm. What we do and how we do it is well documented on our website at www.gylanix.com.

You have asked why Maharaji and I chose to part company. Based on years of experience in managing and promoting his worldwide activities, I had come to the conclusion that a different approach to spreading his message was needed, including a re-examination of his role in the process, if he were to better address and connect with the concerns and challenges people are facing in our post-modern world. To that end, I made several recommendations. When Maharaji decided not to adopt my suggestions, we mutually agreed that it would be best if I resigned.

I must add, however, that although we differed on how best to proceed with his work in the future, Maharaji always treated me with great respect, dignity and love, not just while I worked with him, but also at the time of my departure. Even though we disagreed, I respect his right to make whatever interpretation he chooses. I am clear, after all, that it is his work.

I was also aware that it is sometimes much easier to give someone else advice about what to do than it is to put your own advice into practice. It was with that awareness in mind that I was motivated to make Dettmers Industries Inc. into the kind of company it became. That same motivation continues to inspire the evolution and development of my work through Gylanix Solutions.

I trust that what I have said here sets the record straight about me and where I stand on the issues that have been raised in your forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:29:59 (GMT)
From: Bill Burke
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Not fair Michael.
Message:
Joan Apter is also offering sentences that imply that we did it to ourselves. OUR choice.

One thing to consider when looking at this subject is, have you been able to make the break from the thinking that it is ok play god so that others can 'enjoy' worshipping god in form, while the person playing god gets to indulge in all the domination and abuse they can get away with.

I think Krishna was either misquoted or mispercieved life when he said 'he who IDENTIFIES with the divine...'. A whole tradition of 'self realized' god incarnates sprang off of that loophole in the krishna ideology. All you have to do is 'identify' with the divine and you can PLAY god because you ASSUME to be god. HUGE mistake and frankly a misperception of life.

Is it reasonable to guess that the reason that virtually ALL the guru's and yogis that came in the 70's have ended up displaying abusive and corrupt behaviours, behaviours that were unacceptable when brought out into the light of day, were driven to those lows by a god that actually exists and disapproves of the pretense?

Easterners would like us to think that there is a 'oneness' thats not self aware. The hole in thier thinking is that WHO made the 'wheel' that the out of body eastern godheads occupy when they arent in a body? No answer for that one.

The breath is fine and dandy but if it was some perfect force 'our true self', then we/I would have some evidence to show by now. The facts show that we are NOT attaining samahdi and for good reason. We are not designed to waste our time trying to escape this life but are here to try to love life and family and friends and have the chance to pursue our dreams.
Hardly the kind of thinking that prem embraced as he avoided his mom for 17 years till she died and THEN he recognised he loved her.
We are not here to be slaves in someone playing god's dream.
Do you know he is still having arti and the foot kissing done in 2000? Not just in india. People are innocent and they see the old video footage and are fooled into thinking that 'gee, guess it is true!' Not fair Michael.
If you had a kid you would not approve of him or her spending years thinking prem was telling the truth about him being the master of life and the god incarnate. In case you didnt know, he said recently 'thank god?!? thank the master!'
He has fallen back on the hindu misperception of life where there clearly is no god and playing god is an accepted profession. Well, the caste system is ALSO an accepted way of life in india. Hardly makes it ok just because millions are trapped in its confines.

I know it is not easy to look straight at this and see it for what it is. You are going to have time to percieve life and willingly look at the very foundational thinking you have constructed and rebuld it on more realistic footing. Since you are glossing over this issue, I suspect that like us, you found it easier to deflect the serious fundamental issues walking away from P. rawat uncovered. Mainly, either there is a non self aware oneness and so that makes it ok to play god, OR, there is a self aware god and a human nature that causes those that play god to self destruct.

Respond to whatever anyone has said in whatever way you would like of course.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 01:48:12 (GMT)
From: x#%*!
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out!
Message:
Gotta hand it to ya Jim, you are driven to see this through. It’s kinda refreshing to finally get it from the horses mouth, don’t ya think. And we have you to thank……..who’da thunkit.

That said, upon reading Michael’s letter you can appreciate why premies have been appalled by the lies that have been told here; by the monumental leaps to conclusion that people have taken; by the outright character assassination. That in contrast to the respect Michael described came his way from Maharaji when it was time for him to part company.

Ok, so where does that leave you guys? You have some unanswered questions about who and what Maharaji is. Hey, join the club. More important though for you guys are the questions regarding what he said way-back-when and the impact that had on your own lives. Amongst you are people who admittedly had a difficult time as a premie but persevered through a set of rationalisations, such as Maharaji said yada-yada-yada which means yada-yada-yada, and I trust you Lord so--consciously or not--I also trust my rationalisations. When these same people finally got real and left this thing they were not really enjoying those years, they held Maharaji responsible for their misery and, amazingly enough, for creating the set of rationalisations that kept them roped to the mast.

In contrast you have Michael Dettmers who unlike most exes (including Jean-Michel) was definitely in the loop wrt seeing the man behind the curtain. And amazingly enough he respects what Maharaji gave him, speaks highly of his years of service, and takes full responsibility for the decisions he made when he parted company. What a difference!

Whatever the reasons behind the differences, in fairness, Michael’s years at the helm carries as much weight as Mishler’s (if not more). His account should therefore be put forward on your site as such……..that is if fairness is what you guys want. Of course to do that is a major set-back for the rather dark forces whose life’s purpose has become to bring Maharaji down at all costs.

I can see why you sat on this for a few days Jim but again, you win big points for posting the information.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:11:54 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: x#%*!
Subject: What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have...
Message:
parted ways? I think that remains to be seen. I have seen no evidence so far from anything he has said, that Dettmers is not still a raving premie, although he may not have been to an 'event' in awhile. He might not be in an Elan Vital position anymore, but I haven't seen Dettmers say one thing yet that implies he doesn't still believe Maharaji is the perfect master, bringing peace to the world. So, maybe his supposed respect for Maharaji is not from the distance you think it might be.

And as for the 'lies' that are posted here, put up or shut up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 19:29:21 (GMT)
From: x#%*!
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have...
Message:
So let me get this straight. As long as they rennounce Maharaji à la Mishler you will believe 'em but if they still support him in any way you won't. In other words you're filtering out the information that doesn't jive with the answers you want to hear. Gee Joe, sounds real objective to me!

Forget the fact that Mishler worked closely with Maharaji for 2-3 years max compared to Michael working with him for well over a decade. Forget the fact that Mishler didn't practise meditation......as per Maharaji's comment of that era that on his headstone they would write, 'Here lies Bob Mishler. He helped so many realise Knowledge but never realised it for himself.'

So you know better do you Joe? Were you closer to Maharaji than Michael? Or have more insight than him? No Joe, by your posts you appear to be whiney, closed-minded, paranoid, and obstenate. That doesn't spell insight to me.

By the way, you took issue with me pointing out the numerous lies that appear regularly on the forum but you didn't regarding my comment about jumping to conclusions and character assassination. Does that mean you agree on those other two points?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 03:20:15 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: x#%*!
Subject: Dettmers and Maharaji still have ties
Message:
Mr. Dettmers:

1. has premie-based businesses as clients.
2. has the 'Swiss Foundation' (real name 'Elan Vital Foundation') on his resume. So Maharaji is secretly an important reference.
3. had Jossi Fresco, Maharaji's web master, do his web site.
4. owns stock in Purus, Inc.
5. has a link on his site to 'The Inner Game of Tennis'

So he has some vested interests. Even so, he did not state that he saw no evidence that Maharaji had/has a drinking problem. Why?

Regarding your brilliant deduction that Mishler did not meditate, how does that follow from Maharaji saying 'Here lies Bob Mishler. He helped so many realise Knowledge but never realised it for himself.'?

BTW, obstinate is a word, obstenate is not a word.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 19:40:58 (GMT)
From: EV-ex
Email: None
To: x#%*!
Subject: For the record
Message:
Get your facts straight, x#%*!. Bob Mishler was President of DLM from 1972 to 1977, which is slightly longer than two or three years. Gee, how can we believe ANYTHING you say now?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 23:29:36 (GMT)
From: x#%*!
Email: None
To: EV-ex
Subject: For the record
Message:
Ok shall we both get our facts straight? He was sacked in ’76 so if he started in 72 that makes 4 years. My mistake.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:40:16 (GMT)
From: slave
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have...
Message:
Hi JW,
Is his company also in the jossi fresco web world?
dettemers has only taken a baby step towards freedom and recovery. His denial is cushioned by all the perks he had at premies expense. Since he was an insider in malibu in the late seventies, he knew about the drugs and alcohol and money excesses so I doubt he was one to attend satsang and live like premies. Dealing with money gave him the ability to pursue his own desires and I'm sure he did. He sounds like a partner in a crime. Why diss the gang leader if you were in on the take?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:06:55 (GMT)
From: slave
Email: None
To: x#%*!
Subject: Michael Dettmers squeaks
Message:
I hardly think that dettmers equals Mishler.
His coldness is revealed.
Even saddam hussain gets ok grades from some of his former
business partners. Hardly makes either of them respectable.

Mishler was a real man.
dettmers is crippled

Dont think he didnt skim off money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:27:39 (GMT)
From: slave
Email: None
To: slave
Subject: broken insider squeaks
Message:
Just how did dettmer start his 'industries' and with whose money and I accuse him of stealing money from the guru and squirreling it away.
His note was laced with a lack of honesty and also frankly revealed that his former opera singing heart has not recovered from the pounding it took by the great deceiver.
Clearly he is still a classic former cult abuse victim. Cant deal squarely with the outragious fraud that was spooned out by a manic. dettmers cant reconcile the whole god issue so he copps out in a rather disgusting display of 'lets pretend'.

I am certainly not fooled or swayed by his arrogant cold display
of classic premie fantasy play.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:49:59 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers' initial response
Message:
Hi, Just got off the phone with Michael again. What happened was he emailed me, mentioning that he was reviewing the answers here and wasn't sure just yet if and how he'd respond. So I called him and reiterated my opinion that his accountability, as I see it, must be to follow through with the his initial comments and ultimately engage in some sort of open discussion with us. Obviously his comments have generated some important questions, quite likely challenging questions for him. Was he going to address those and really discuss these matters or was he going to offer his initial perfunctory explanation and consider that an obligation fulfilled?

Okay, at this point Mike tells me he wants to read more of the follow-ups and get a sense of exactly what further questions people now have. He may or may not post here himself at some point, he hasn't decided. At a minimum, though, he promised to offer some further discussion, perhaps by simply sending me soem more comments to post.

My personal opinion is that I, too, think that, although he might have said what he said sincerely enough, some things just don't add up. I completely concur with posts such as Susan's in which she asks Michael in closing:

how can you deal with the fact he let you beleive he was Lord of the Universe and still have no hard feelings? Or, if you are not the sort to have hard feelings, don't you think a person who impacts others lives in such a huge way, and lets them beleive he is God, has a moral obligation to tell them unambiguosly he was and is not God and apologize for it?

Anyway, Michael's going to check out the responses for a bit and will get back to us one way or another. Just thought you all might like to know that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:55:17 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: So, who am I to expect more?
Message:
Jim:

My initial impression is that he's a guy in denial. I have a couple of scenarios that might explain the discrepancies that are all too obvious to us. In one sense his comments sound like the sort of thing Westmoreland might say, and in fact *did* say. On the other, they also sound like the sort of thing one might say of one's patron. Anyhow, there's something in the language of the following statement that reminds me more of a ditch than the river Jordan. But, who am I to expect more?

Based on years of experience in managing and promoting his worldwide activities, I had come to the conclusion that a different approach to spreading his message was needed, including a re-examination of his role in the process, if he were to better address and connect with the concerns and challenges people are facing in our post-modern world. To that end, I made several recommendations. When Maharaji decided not to adopt my suggestions, we mutually agreed that it would be best if I resigned.

So the big disagreement was over hermeneutics or something? You'd think that 'Lord one day and not Lord the next' might have triggered some cognitive dissonance in a normal person? I hardly think pointing Maharaji in the direction of Daniel Bell or Derrida was an appropriate response. Sorry, I live in 'politics central' and to my cynically practiced ear this sounds like the sort of double talk I hear all the time from politicians.

On another level the disconnect might have a far simpler explanation, were it not for a rather glaring omission. I know what sort of answer I'd be compelled to give if someone broke the story that S.M.L. had doctored the data in *The First New Nation,* and had been taking money from the KGB. (Not that there are any KGB-friendly messages in that book, but just supposing...). In that case I'd be compelled to fall back on some sort of statement like: 'he has always been more than honorable with me,' and that, 'moreover, his tutelage has undoubtedly had much to do with who I am today.' I'd then be compelled to make some sort of apology for *the man,* or to at least suggest that he make is own apology. It's that last piece that appears to be missing from Dettmer's statement, and that has triggered my regrettable cynicism. (It is so easily triggered, I'm afraid.)

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 11:32:05 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: You cynic, you
Message:
Scott,

I can be a bit of a cynic myself, the little guy always getting screwed by the big guy type. And since Dettmers was/is one of the big guys, I'm prone to agree with your, ahem, cynical, appraisal of his explanation on how he and M parted ways. It sort of sounds like the joke going around the office about so and so, you kow, some bigshot, 'resigning', when in fact, everybody knows damned well that he was FIRED!

Don't you just love being a cynic?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:31:54 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Maybe this'll clarify a bit
Message:
As I have been involved in premiedom more recently than most here I may be able to explain the concepts that many who are involved currently hold about M.

The old idea was that M was the actual omnipresent all knowing God who knew everything and everyone intimately. Omnipresent ,Omnipotent , Omniscient Lord in human form.

The belief I held about him in later years was that he was a vehicle for the God energy i.e. light and love.That he was not God as a personality but that when on stage he 'channelled' pure and perfect energy, beyond the words and concepts. He was an energy conduit. I believed that he was a perfect devotee and servant who because of his dedication to his Master had been ordained by the creator to be a conduit for guiding us to enlightenment.

It is my opinion that many followers do not see him as god with a big G anymore, certainly the ones I know. This may be of use to you when talking to the current followers, as I found that many of the ideas expressed here from 20 years ago were quite easily dismissed and overcome in the current context of how I saw him.

Hope this is of some assistance. Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:04:33 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim, fix my spelling errors next time..embarrassed
Message:
three in one paragraph. The shame of it!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:35:09 (GMT)
From: Modest Mouse
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Many, many years - Approximate dates?
Message:
nor attended any of his programs or events for many, many years

Mr. Dettmers, can you give approximate dates for the last time you attended a program, had significant contact with Maharaji, last gave Maharaji money, etc.?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:51:57 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Dettmers' Strange Revisionism
Message:
I'm posting this as 'Joe' instead of my usual 'JW.' Given the nature of what Michael Dettmers had to say, it just seemed appropriate. [Michael, in case you want to know. My name is Joe Whalen and I was a premie from 1973-1983.]

Also, please forgive me; I haven't read all the responses to Michael's comments. I've got a busy day and I will read them later. Please forgive me if I make some points that others may have already made.

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Michael's comments. And although I was in IHQ and community coordinator, etc., in Divine Light Mission in the late 70s and early 80s period and I was also one of those supposedly 'chose' my 'situation' there, a period during which I know Michael was working very closely with Maharaji, I certainly have no knowledge that would in any way impinge on Michael's integrity.

But there is one area in which Michael seems to have a major disconnect -- or maybe selective memory that may have to do with Michael being an 'insider' in Maharji's cult. Often, I think those premies on the inside didn't take a lot of what Maharaji was saying seriously, or has a distorted perception of the effect of Maharaji's actions and words on the masses of premies who never, ever, knew Maharaji personally, and hence tended to be more susceptible to believe he was god incarnate, to take his words literally, and damage their lives by doing so.

First, I just have to say that it simply isn't true that the premies at DECA had 'the power to choose their situation.' And here's why:

1. Maharaji portrayed himself as the incarnation of god. That's what most of the premies, including me, believed. I would be interested in knowing if Michael thought this. He was the perfect master, the lord of the universe and 'the superior power in person.' Maharaji raised not one finger to dissuade us from believing that, and as far as I know, neither did Michael. Also, beginning around 1977, Maharaji began preaching that the purpose of a devotee's life was to dedicate it 100% to Maharaji. Mind body and soul. Indeed, devotion was secondary to even practicing the meditation techniques and 'realizing knowledge.' Many premies, including me, moved into one of Maharaji's ashrams as a result of Maharaji's rantings. The purpose of the ashrams was to make you available to be a 'slave' for Maharaji. You went where you were told to go, and did what you were told to do.

Accordingly, many of us were sent to DECA to do slave labor on the plane project only because we were sent there and because Maharaji wanted that plane so badly. We didn't have any choice and whether we hated it or loved it, we did it because we were dedicating your lives to Maharaji. [Personally, I HATED working at DECA and if I felt I had free will about this, I would have left in a minute.] I find it difficult to believe that Michael doesn't recall that mindset, and the fact that Maharaji fostered and promoted it, every time he ranted on about 'surrender.' So, Michael, you are just plain wrong here, and I think many people would testify that your characterization is just plain false. What this really your preception?

I don't know about Dettmers Industries. I actually knew Peter from our time in San Antonio, and I always thought he was a great guy. Again, I have no reason to doubt his integrity.

Also, as a broader discussion, it's impossible to divorce Maharaji's claimed divinity and power over thousands of his followers, from all the rest of the operations, financial or otherwise. If Michael was asking Maharaji to 're-examine his (Maharaji's) role in the process,' does this mean Michael was doing what Bob Mishler had tried to do years earlier, to dissuade Maharaji was his 'I am god' routine, and come clean to the premies about who or what he was? Is that what this was about?

Finally, Maharaji may have always been nice to Michael, but I would hope Michael would recognize that a lot of what Maharaji did was damaging to people in their lives. Does Michael have any perspective, about why Maharaji has never addressed that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:15:49 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Additional Questions for Michael
Message:
I have a few questions that Michael might want to answer:

1. When did Michael leave his position in Elan Vital?

2. When Michael left, did he receive a severence package, or any kind of financial consideration while doing so? If so what were the arrangements? Was Michael paid in his position in DLM/Elan Vital? Does Michael have any kind of an agreement with Maharaji, Elan Vital, etc., to keep confidential information he has on the operations of DLM/EV and Maharaji himself?

3. Does the $100,000,000 'Swiss Foundation' revenue include the millions that were raised by donations to DLM/EV and to Maharaji himself? Does it include the millions that were raised for the Boeing 707 conversion, including during the period when the premies were lied to and told the money was for a 'world tour' instead of the truth that it was for the plane? Is Michael aware of the millions that were raised in cash, collected by DLM and funnelled to the plane in several 'emergency' fundraisers?

4. Does Michael believe that Maharaji's personal and financial life were different from what was portrayed to the vast majority of premies, who only saw Maharaji at programs and in videos? For example: While the ashram premies were living lives of poverty, chastity and obedience, did Maharaji drink, take drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, etc? If so, why wasn't this known to the premies, who might have changed their opinion of Maharaji had they known he was not the straight-laced 'guru' most of of believed he was? After all, we were devoting our lives to him. Shouldn't we have been able to find out who it was we were devoting to? Did Michael feel any obligation to the premies to disclose any of that?

5. Did Maharaji have a drinking problem while he was still the 'perfect master' and did Michael try to do anything about it?

6. Was Michael involved in the decision to close the ashrams in 1983, and how does Michael think that was handled? Is this maybe part of the reason Michael 'parted ways' with Maharaji?

7. What does Michael think of Maharaji's lifestyle? Does his obvious wealth bother Michael in any way, considering most of the money came from donations of premies, many of whom were barely getting by financially themselves?

8. Does Michael really believe that once a premie was involved with Maharaji, especially if he or she lived in the ashram and believed Maharaji was the perfect master and the incarnation of god, that he or she had any kind of a free choice opportunity to leave Maharaji and go onto something else if they didn't like it? Does Michael recall Maharaji ever encouraging that in any way? Did Michael attend any of the ashram meetings Maharaji held in the late 70s and early 80s?

Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:46:01 (GMT)
From: Joe
Email: None
To: Michael Dettmers
Subject: Additional Questions for Michael
Message:
One of my questions to Michael Dettmers, above, was the following, which I think is a very key issue as to whether what Maharaji and Michael was involved in was a cult, so just some kind of spiritual 'personal growth' movement:

Does Michael really believe that once a premie was involved with Maharaji, especially if he or she lived in the ashram and believed Maharaji was the perfect master and the incarnation of god, that he or she had any kind of a free choice opportunity to leave Maharaji and go onto something else if they didn't like it? Does Michael recall Maharaji ever encouraging that in any way? Did Michael attend any of the ashram meetings Maharaji held in the late 70s and early 80s?

I would add to the above question, about whether Michael feels or believes this in light of the additional fact that Maharaji propogated a 'COMMANDMENT' to 'never leave room for doubt in your mind?'

If one followed Maharaji's commandment, how could one ever decide knowledge and being a devotee of Maharaji wasn't working and decide to leave it and move on? And isn't this kind of circular, repression of doubt, along with the low tolerance for dissent, prescribed simplistic solutions to problems, and an exaulted and worshipped leader, one of the hallmarks of what makes a cult a cult?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:40:06 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Joe
Subject: Thanks Joe!
Message:
With your usual ability to succintly describe the dynamics of premiedom you perfectly asked the questions that trouble me as well. Because you were so intimately involved with DECA itself you can ask many too that never would have occured to me.

Michael, if you do read this please consider answering some of these questions. I have met in person many of the people who comprise this group of ex premies. I have talked on the phone to more. The majority of us are kind, thoughtful and good people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 14:41:55 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Thanks Jim
Message:
That was really fascinating.

It made me uncomfortable though. I wanted to just kind of accept what he is saying at face value. It sounds really good.

But the fact remains. He thought Rawat was LOTU. He left the trip. He has no hard feelings? If you pass yourself off as God to someone, and they discover it is a lie, how can that person just say, well, I had a good time, learned a lot, so it was okay I kissed your feet, devoted my life to you, and sang Arti to you, but no hard feelings.

I don't get it.

But a sick part of me does. Its just easier that way. He associates with premies, has a lot of connections, and he wants to keep them. Thats what it looks like to me. Or else he just really hasn't examined what it would take for someone to step down from playing God, ethically, to make amends to those he tricked.

Wouldn't it be great if what he and Rawat parted over was that he wanted Rawat to make a unambiguous statement and apology for allowing people to sacrifice their all ( money, families, youth) to him. But somehow, if that is what it was over, I think he would feel a moral obligation to say so.

But I do thank him for talking to you. And I do think he deserves a lot of credit for writing to you and being at least as up front as he was. Which is a lot more than many others have done. If you talk again, or if you read this Michael, that is my only question, how can you deal with the fact he let you beleive he was Lord of the Universe and still have no hard feelings? Or, if you are not the sort to have hard feelings, don't you think a person who impacts others lives in such a huge way, and lets them beleive he is God, has a moral obligation to tell them unambiguosly he was and is not God and apologize for it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:02:23 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Well done Jim and thanks Michael (nt)
Message:
s
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:06 (GMT)
From: Bloodboils
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Good Work Jim. Thank you
Message:
This post is excellent. A wonderful effort to expand the forum.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:56:53 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What about business ties between Dettmers and M?
Message:
I noticed that they have the same web master, Jossi Fresco, who is still a premie. Also, on the Gylanix web site, their is a link to the Amazon page for the book 'The Inner Game of Tennis', which is written by Tim Gallway and dedicated to Guru Maharaj Ji. I'm not saying there is something wrong with either of these associations. I'm just wondering how much of a tie there is on a business level.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:03:33 (GMT)
From: Powerman
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out!
Message:
Jim,
That's impressive how you connected with Dettmers and evoked this response out of him. He really had me going there for a few minutes... I was thinking, 'Yeah, yeah, that sounds good... good explanation. Sure, sure you wouldn't mention anything unneccessary in your resume. Sure DECA didn't really use slave labor, good explanation.

But then I got to this part:

You have asked why Maharaji and I chose to part company. Based on years of experience in managing and promoting his worldwide activities, I had come to the conclusion that a different approach to spreading his message was needed, including a re-examination of his role in the process, if he were to better address and connect with the concerns and challenges people are facing in our post-modern world. To that end, I made several recommendations. When Maharaji decided not to adopt my suggestions, we mutually agreed that it would be best if I resigned

This is just absolute bullshit. Maharaji's role to all of us including Dettmers was the Lord. With him being the Lord, you couldn't conclude that a different approach than His was needed, because then you're denying he's the Lord ('without whom not a leaf shakes on any tree').

This is some major fudging and brings into doubt everything else Dettmers said in this letter. If he would have just said it like it is, about leaving Maharaji, I would have believed him.

If fact, I believed him more before I read this letter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:47:17 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out!
Message:
Oh for fucks sake,

It doesn't matter how sincere anyone tries to be to you. If they don't out and agree with your opinions about Maha then they get dissed. You guys are seeming more like the fanatics than the premies . I'm out of this fucking forum for good. Soon there'll be just a little group of nasties talking amongst themselves..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:55:35 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out!
Message:
Hal I don't understand. I have seen a lot of things on this forum that could be categorized as inflammatory and all, but Powerman's comment doesn't fit.
He made a very good point that Dettmers is contradicting himself by giving some BS about giving suggestions to GOD as to how to run the family business.
I do not understand how this could make you go off so angry.
And it takes away from the point of the whole thread.
I do understand your struggle with the issue of the tone of the forum in general, I think Way addreses it very well up above. I suggest you read it and ponder it as this seems to be something you continue to bring up.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:42:35 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Selene and Powerman
Subject: Sorry Powerman
Message:
It wasn't Powerman's post in particular that set me off. I am not even sure anymore what it was. I guess there is some confusion in me at present. Maybe not meditating anymore is allowing an emotional side out which had been repressed or something. I don't know..
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 23:35:11 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: been there
Message:
Too many times to count.
Just pointing it out. as they say takes one to know one.
Thought it odd that post triggered it. That's all.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 13:03:34 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Hal: Some questions...
Message:
Do you believe all you hear, always?

Explanations, even when well said can be false...correct?

We worshiped 'The Lord Of The Universe'...

The importance is right there. That is what makes Maharaji different than any other charlatan... He sold us that he was the Lord... and Dettmers IS washing his hands, in my opinion, because he does not want to feel responsible for his contribution on the scam. Do you think he would come and here and share with us what he really thinks? I doubt it. Is Lard the Lord or not for Dettemers? He will never answer... NO! Too embarrassing perhaps?

About your anger toward the exes 'attacking' the premies, remember, some people respond aggresively because they got hurt bad but also because we realize that without premies there would not be a lord of the universe... and you know that most premies still think that way. Are we suposse to say to the premies here how nice that you are supporting a creep?? We are all different but exes all agree that Lard is a fraud and some premies know it and will not admit that... If premies don't like it here they wouldn't come... I can see your point of view but you are getting mad...and maybe you don't need to. :) Most of the time is crazy because premies do not answer questions! So, is not just a matter of respecting other opinions: Premies do not play fair, they are evasive! At home they can believe what they want but they cannot come here and expect that US, people that knows Lard's trip act nice about their envolvement with Lard. No way that can happen... Are you looking at it from the right angle?

An example. By reading old posts you can see that Deputy Dog comes often around and the arguments are totally repetitive! People get tired of hearing the same thing over and over... What the premies would like to find here doesn't exists, and that is acceptance from our part of their activities, and again, they are suporting The Lord Of The Universe!!! The one that lied to us all!!! As time goes by, since I began to read the forums I am beginig to realize that in general the interaction here is balanced and what is happening is obvious... You will find the same in any other places. Normal... Ugly at times, but after all, we are only humans! Also, you criticize because others flame and you flame others? I love humans!! Live and let live sounds nice, but IMHO it does not apply here, when talking about God incarnated. :)

He is no Lord, and it needs to be said loud and clear, or however possible...At least that is how SOME think.

Dettmers is not being honest!!

Love,

S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:09:43 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Just take it easy, Hal
Message:
Hal,

Dettmers said in his phone conversation with Jim that he believed Maharaji was LOTU. Later, apparently, he stopped believing this, because he tried to get M to 're-examine his role'. Now, this could mean any dozen of things, but what humble servant of the Lord would want his Lord to re-examine himself?

Now, let's say, for argument's sake, that Dettmer's did once believe that M was LOTU, and then stopped.
WOULDN'T YOU THINK, AT THAT POINT, HE WOULD JUST COMPLETELY DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM M INSTEAD OF ADVISING M TO 'RE-EXAMINE HIS ROLE'? What purpose would he have for continuing as M's student at this point? He's obviously 're-examined' his own beliefs about M and changed them. But instead of turning in his beragon and saying 'enough of this', he decides to carry on PROVIDED THAT M RE-EXAMINE HIS ROLE!

Think, man. Doesn't this smell a little fishy to you? It sure does to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:27:57 (GMT)
From: trixie
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: The Insider
Message:
It sounds like Michael thought M should re package himself.
It does not sound like he did not believe in him any longer.
He probably wanted him to tone down the Lord trip and westernise his propaganda.

Michael also sounds like a slick corporate type that says the right thing in pretty words while he is screwing you.

I think what he means is that he IS a slick corporate type, he still practices knowledge and respects M and how stupid we must be to think that he would not follow common business protocol.

The forum is now meant to get self reflective, while the issue of accountablilty gets mirrored back to the individuals asking the questions and thereby the same issues are dispersed into barely detectable ratios.

This is the Joan Apter style of non responsiblity.
The starving in Africa are not her problem because she eats her greens.

A perfect example of the Conscience being eroded by the power of so called choice. No responsibility except for ones own spiritual strivings.

Question this and one is a bleeding heart or plagued by a 'victim' problem.

This 'nothing to do with me' is sick, insidious and the worst effect of long term 'use' of this knowledge.

The acompanying symptom is Rob style propagation. Covert and loyal to the M Machine while posing as a free agent.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:39:38 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: trixie
Subject: Sorry, trixie, I don't buy it
Message:
It sounds like Michael thought M should re package himself. It does not sound like he did not believe in him any longer. He probably wanted him to tone down the Lord trip and westernise his propaganda.

Bullshit. If Dettmers believed that Maharaji was God, as he told Jim on the phone he did, do you think he's going to leave him because he doesn't like the way God packages himself? Don't make me laugh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:45:12 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance
Message:
Jerry,

I wouldn't be so absolute about this. It is possible to believe that Maharaji is god, and also believe that he has to 'package' himself to be more relatable to people, kind of under the assumption that people aren't ready to hear that god is walking on the planet.

I say this because I recall thinking the same way. I believed Maharaji was god, but I was supportive of ways of presenting him in a more subtle way, to to explain his 'role' in a more acceptable fashion. I know it sounds nuts, but it was a common mindset in DLM/EV. Now, I don't know at what point Dettmers stopped believing Maharaji was god, but I assume he has.

JW

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 05:19:44 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance
Message:
Joe:

Why do you assume he has stopped believing that M. is God? Is there anything in his statement that would suggest such a change of heart? I must have missed it.
--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 17:50:11 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: I Assume It Because
Message:
He claims not to be following him anymore, and I think it's reasonable to assume that if he thought he was god he still would be, and wouldn't leave serving god because he disagreed with him on what is essentially a marketing issue.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 22:18:46 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: I Assume It Because
Message:
Joe:

I have to be honest. I still thought the guy was God for a long time after I stopped following him. I just figured I wasn't worthy, yah know? 'Spaced out' is an appropriately descriptive term. The thing that really got me thinking about it was David Lane's site, and the fact that he barely mentions Maharaji as though the guy isn't even on the radar scope. Sheesh, how humiliating!

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:26:05 (GMT)
From: Brandy
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance/What about paradigm?
Message:
Dear JW,

You forgot to use the word paradigm. Generally, people who throw out the phrase cognitive dissonance find a way to slip 'paradigm' in there.

It makes any discussion seem far more intelligent than it really is.

Just a thought, Brandy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 05:18:09 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Brandy
Subject: What is a 'paradigm?'
Message:
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. I understand 'cognitive dissonance' as the defense mechanisms one uses when a cherished belief is undercut by reality, or by conflicting information.

So, you believe Maharaji is god, but then you hang around him and find out he's really kind of screwed up, greedy, stupid, and not a very nice person. What do you do? Or you are miserable as a premie. 'Knowledge' doesn't work and you are very unhappy, despite having the 'gift of gifts? What do you do?

Do you change your belief, or figure out a way to discount what your own judgment is telling you? As a premie, we had a bunch more mechanisms. We had 'lila,' 'mind,' 'lack of understanding,' 'not being devoted enough,' 'not having enough grace,' 'not making enough effort,' 'not leaving room for doubt in your mind' etc., etc. They were endless, really.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:39:48 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance
Message:
JW,

If that's the case, why didn't YOU walk? Do you really think it's possible to walk away from the one you believe is God? I'd say at this point, when you're ready to walk, you no longer believe. What's interesting, in Dettmer's case, is that he was willing to stay on if Maharaji followed his suggestion. Why? If he no longer believed, which I'm almost certain, at this point, when he was ready to walk, he no longer did, would he be willing to stay on if M took his suggestion? It doesn't add up. Something's not being said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 22:25:04 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance
Message:
Jerry:

Re: I'd say at this point, when you're ready to walk, you no longer believe.

I can only speak for myself, but in my case I just concluded that God was a little stupid guy. Sort of fit with my overall cosmology. :-)

--Scott

BTW, I figured the stupidity was only temporary and He'd snap out of it with the next incarnation. I watched too much Peter Sellers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:49:12 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance -- Not so simple
Message:
Jerry,

You make it sound like a premie thinks Maharaji is god one day, and then one day stops believing it. I think it's a lot more complicated than that. It's a very absolute question, and I think most premies live for years in a state of not being sure one way or the other. Or avoiding the question entirely. This is a cult we are talking about, after all. A lot of programming, and avoiding or doubts, and such things are quite automatic, and you have to work at rooting them out. While they operate, they allow you to believe two opposite things at the same time. Didn't this ever occur to you as a premie? Was it all so black and white for you?

I left the cult because I couldn't stand it anymore, not because I stopped believing M was god. It was an act of survival. Right now, I couldn't tell you whether I thought Maharaji was God or not at the time I left. It was very confusing. Within a few months, and some hard work on my part, I firmly believed he was not god. But many premies who leave don't want to do that work. They just avoid the whole issue and kind of float on the whole thing, not being involved, but not critically looking at what happened, and what they believed, either, because it is very confronting to do that. And I think that is what Dettmers is doing, at least to some extent. IMO. I was there myself so I can tell.

JW

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 22:30:06 (GMT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance -- Not so simple
Message:
Joe:

Re: I left the cult because I couldn't stand it anymore, not because I stopped believing M was god.

Yup. No matter how proud you are of those shoes, if they're two sizes too short they've got to eventually become the property of Goodwill Industries.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:15:36 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: That makes sense
Message:
Yes, JW, my journey as a premie was a bumpy road, filled with doubt and confusion, and it's feasible that Dettmers carried a similar cross. But one thing I doubt I would do is give M an ultimatum. But Dettmers did. Now, this opens a can of worms in understanding the psychology involved.

You're saying that when Dettmers offered his ultimatum, he was torn between belief and disbelief. Well, he certainly knew that he believed more people would respond to M if he toned down the God act. Maybe that's the result of being in close proximity to M, and the illusion begins to pop. Remember, Mischler wanted the same thing. These guys had a clearer picture of who M, the man, was. He was more than a charismatic presense on stage.

But maybe you're right. We were all in a cult and clear thinking wasn't anything any of us could stake a claim on. I still have a rough go at it. Maybe Dettmers still does too. Hopefully, he'll just try to come as clean as possible now that he's no longer involved. One question that I'd like an answer to is does Dettmers now believe he was in a cult? What's his thoughts on where he's been? Will he want to re-examine his own involvement now that it's come back to haunt him? If he does, credit is due him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:02:32 (GMT)
From: JW
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: That makes sense
Message:
Jerry,

I don't have any idea if Dettmers gave M 'an ultimatum.' It may be that M just didn't want to follow his suggestions and Michale got tired of being ignored. But from what I gather, Michael doesn't think it was a cult. Just something he was involed in once but isn't anymore, for reasons I am sure are a lot more complicated than Maharaji not following his suggestions about how to propogate 'this knowledge.' Look, when I was a premie I didn't want to believe it was a cult, and even some time after I left I didn't want to think that either, and I think this is true for many ex-premies, or should I say lapsed premied. People who leave don't want to think they were in a cult.

Something like: 'What, was I a MOONIE? WasI a HARE KRISHNA? Of course not. I'm Michael Dettmers, successful businessman and smart guy. People like me are not in, and never have been in, a cult. It was something else, maybe kinda bizzare, but it wasn't a cult. It was some kind of vague personal/spiritual growth movement that I was in for awhile, and then I outgrew it and went on to something else.' Very convenient, no?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 10:50:51 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: That makes sense
Message:
JW,

Saying Dettmers gave M an ultimatum is a bit dramatic, I suppose, but I still wouldn't say it was inaccurate. He did walk. And they did have a mutual agreement that it might be best if he did. And shouldn't that raise some eybrows? What kind of master-devotee relationship are we talking about here? It sounds to me that M and M (for Michael) had more of a business relationship than anything.

I agree with you that Dettmers probably sees himself as 'Michael Dettmers, smart guy entrepreneur and benevolent employer', (I wonder if his employees feel the same way), than he does as an ex-cult member. It will be interesting what he has to say for himself next, and if he even cares to address the questions that have been raised, so far, as a result of his phone conversation and letter. I hope so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:10:28 (GMT)
From: Trixie
Email: None
To: Jerry/JW
Subject: 2-3 things believed at once... thats it!
Message:
Jerry and JW
Reading your exchange, I realise that as a premie two things were going on. One small part wanted to believe he was god, and the other big part just couldnt beilieve it. BUT I did not think was not god, so it was a mute point for the most part.

On this mute point I would quickly become quite smug if someone questioned the whole trip or wouldnt listen to my holy satsang.

After some years, I did get the sneaking feeling that Masharkys packaging, delivery, or style was way too Indian-come-Western and secretly thought, (when I was feeling rebelious and allowed myself to think)- that if he would sell himself in a more intelligent western slant, he could get to more people.

Some times I would be trying to follow his speach, but would be so very embarrassed by his misconstruing points and then going on to prove a misconstrued principal. All with the silly vibe of 'I just may be the lord' I would painfullly squirm for the people I brought to hear him.

Then I started to feel downright insulted by his patronizing , condenscending smorgasbord

As it was, he was extrrrrremely, 'I used to be Indian and now I am westernised, so see how I understand your confusions.'

Playing on deep human doubts and insecurities. This is/was the resultant mutation of a Guru of Indian heritage, schooled by Catholics then off to the US to make some bucks and to fulfill his task on earth as a Guru.

I wonder if the Indians have as much revulsion as we do. I mean , God revealing gurus are a common thing there.

Just some thoughts prompted by your discussion.
Trixie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:02:59 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Trixie
Subject: Hi Trix, are you new here?
Message:
I like what all three of you have been saying but who are you anyway, Trix? Do I know you? Whaddup?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 18:54:07 (GMT)
From: Trixie
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hi Trix, are you new here?
Message:
No Jim I am not new here. I am the more lighthearted side of Zelda. She gets way too serious for me at certain times of the month.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:30:18 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: JW
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs
Message:
In the very few times I saw interactions between PAMs and Maharaji, it seemed that the PAMs were treating Maharaji like he was God and not God at the same time. It sounds strange, but that's how it seemed.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:53:42 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs
Message:
That's how it seemed to me, too, like there was a little irreverence going on. Maybe when you're that close to God, you start thinking you're as good as he is, and he'd better start taking suggestions. This whole thing is laughable.

If I was a psychoanalyst, I'd say they all were crazy, putting on a show, that underneath the facade they were presenting, was a knowingness among them that it was all bullshit, just as we premies out in the audience knew, underneath, though we couldn't admit it, that our trip was bullshit as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:03:49 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: Jerry and G
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs
Message:
That is so strange! Guess I missed something all those years.
Given these two mutually exclusive thought systems among those closest to M, it's amazing the whole facade would last as long as it has. What is the payoff? The prestige of being seen and known as one who is close to him?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:45:06 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: the prestige of being a PAM
Message:
I think the prestige of being seen as one who is close to him is part of it. I've seen some obvious arrogance displayed, even by little non-bigwig me. The ego satisfaction of thinking you are a part of the greatest event on the planet, that you're better than others. I heard a guy boast at a program 'I am one of (Guru) Maharaj Ji's initiators!' He said it loudly and with great pride, he had been recently 'made' one. He was now a made man!

Consider what has happened sometimes when M 'fired' people, out the door they went.

I wonder if some honchos even clearly know it's all a game and they're playing it because there is something in it for them (maybe money in premie businesses?). I think it's possible.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:35:46 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Selene
Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs
Message:
What is the payoff? The prestige of being seen and known as one who is close to him?

I wouldn't know, Selene. I've never been one interested in climbing ladders. Why these people needed to, I don't know. Love for M and a need to get closer? A need to build self esteem by becoming a super premie, not just one of the multitude? Who knows? Ask Joan Apter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:35:36 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Just take it easy, Hal
Message:
Jerry, I didn't hand in my beragon then either. Nor did a lot of other ex premies on this forum who left after 1985.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:31:24 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: You miss the point
Message:
Hal,

The point isn't about handing in your beragon. The point is that Dettmers is saying that he parted ways with Maharaji because M REFUSED TO STOP PLAYING GOD! Read between the lines here. That means if M DID stop playing, Dettmer's would have stuck by him. Why? I mean, the whole kit and kiboodle has fallen apart. You see M for the fraud he is, but you agree to continue supporting him if he stops being one? What is Dettmers saying here? It's madness!

Don't you see? In effect, what Dettmers is saying is that HE DOESN'T CARE IF M IS A FRAUD, ONLY THAT HE STOP ACTING LIKE ONE! HE'S SAYING THAT HE WILL CONTINUE RUNNING M'S '100 MILLION DOLLAR SWISS FOUNDATION' EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS FULL WELL THAT M IS A FRAUD!!! Do you understand? What is Dettmers revealing about himself, here? Looks to me that he's revealing that, he too, is a fraud.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:22:06 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: i'm cooler now Jerry
Message:
Ok Jerry,

I'm feeling a bit unclear at present and admit that I let my hotheaded Irish blood rule today. Cheers Hal.

I don't think I can discuss the issue clearly right now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:02:28 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Just take it easy, Hal
Message:
That's right Hal. Hang on to that INNER EXPERIENCE. No matter what truth you have to deny, just hang on.

After all, it's all you got baby!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:10:19 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Hal speaks out!
Message:
Soon there'll be just a little group of nasties talking amongst themselves..

Hey Hal, I don't mind being a part of a 'little group of nasties'.

As long as the nasties are genuine, and not a phoney baloney Mr. Goodie Two-Shoes like yourself.

Better to be real, than to be fake.

Have a nice life Hal, and DO feel free NOT to come back.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:33:30 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Best wishes to you too Joey.........
Message:
I'm sure you'll be successful in your chosen role of genuine nasty
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:43:24 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: and Best wishes to you , Hal
Message:
Hal,

Stop it! I'm gonna cry!!

Actually, not.

I think I'll forget about it instead.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:39:04 (GMT)
From: An Occassional Observer
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Hey Joey
Message:
Hal is a typical narcisistic type. He may have left Rowatt but he(Hal) has not left the mindset.
He just used this site to get what he wants.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:43:02 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: An Occassional Observer
Subject: Hey Observer
Message:
So please tell me what is the politically correct use for the forum?

Yes I did use the forum for selfish reasons, I admit that. What do you use it for? I haven't seen you putting in much input or sticking your neck out in any way. I don't consider licking Joey's arsehole much in the way of input!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:25:07 (GMT)
From: An Occassional Observer
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Hey Observer
Message:
You have taken from eveyone here and then turned around and vomited on them.

If you're still in Portugal towards then end of the year, I'll look you up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:55:35 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Powerman
Subject: Right on, P-man
Message:
In his phone conversation with Jim , Dettmers says that he believed Maharaji to be The Lord Of The Universe and that he was here to save the world through Knowledge Of God. But in this letter he talks about how M should 're-examine his role' in spreading his message. Doesn't add up and has me a little bewildered.

That's two PAMS, now, who have spoke about advising M to change his stripes, first Mischler, and now Dettmers. What gives? How do you offer full prostrations to the one you think is the Lord Of The Universe, and then right after you do, brush off your knees and say something like, 'By the way, you whom I am most humble before and wish only to serve, I've got this plan on how you can better spread your message'? I can't figure it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:32:24 (GMT)
From: An Etomoligist
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: The Butterfly and the Flea
Message:
Well that's the difference between a Butterfly and a Flea. One demonstrates a beautiful evolution the other is just an opportunistic blood sucker. You Gerry are a Flea!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:38:34 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: An Etomoligist
Subject: The Butterfly and the Flea
Message:
ET,

First off, I'm Jerry with a 'J', not Gerry with a 'G', and I think you might be confusing me with Dettmers. If anybody was a bloodsucking opportunist, he was, but I'm not saying for sure that he was. I'm reserving judgement on that. I just find it suspect how he and M parted company because they couldn't agree on how M should present himself. Don't you? Doesn't it make you curious about what goes on in high places? It seems to me that they were all a bunch of fleas, the top flea being M, himself.

And just what kind of 'evolution' are you talking about, the one where you go from accepting Maharaji as God incarnate to realizing he's not and getting upset with him because he refused to stop playing that he was? What was Dettmer's thinking; 'we've got a great gig, here, but chill out with the LOTU crap, it's turning people off'? Fuck him.

I also think you meant to call yourself an 'entomologist', not 'etomolgist', which looks more like a mispelling of 'etyomologist'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:43:14 (GMT)
From: An Occassional Observer
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Lies for the masses
Message:
I also wonder how Detmers and others git the cash to start their own busibesses etc. Detmer(like Donner) was meant to have been an ashram-premie, i.e. he should have owned nothing. Or is it that some ahramees were more equal than others?

I think you are right that things do go on in high places.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:53:04 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: An Occassional Observer
Subject: Lies for the masses
Message:
You do speak a load of crap. Ask Jim how he managed to start up as a lawyer or any number of x premies how they managed to start their own businesses. I started my own business. Guess you wouldn't have heard about bank loans or enterprise schemes ?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:21:40 (GMT)
From: An Occassional Observer
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Lies for the masses
Message:
Yes I have heard of bank loans and enterprise schemes..particularly in the UK where you'd get £40 per week for a year to start a new business....don't know about the US.

I was referring particularly to former honchos who miraculously became successful 'in the world' after being renunciates.

Of course Bullent doesn't count as he was also a householder.

Any ex-IRA people where you live?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:41:43 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: An Occassional Observer
Subject: To An Occasional Observer
Message:
If you're still in Portugal towards then end of the year, I'll look you up.

Any ex-IRA people where you live?

I've had my own share of disagreement with Hal in this and other threads, and I can certainly share in some of the other sentiments expressed in your posts.

But I have to draw a line at the threats expressed in the above quotes.

I find them offensive to EVERYONE, inappropriate and unnecessary as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:01:26 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Thanks Joey
Message:
Phew I think I got a bit heated today. What got me about that guy Oc Obs was that he didn't have the courage to say what he felt to my face but spoke about me in the third person. We have had a few niggling issues but you have always been straight about your thoughts.

I guess I'm just not cut out for this anymore. I hold no grudges.
Wishing you a fine life
Bye . Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:40:21 (GMT)
From: Hugh
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: To Hal and all
Message:
Dear Hal,

I'm the person you just emailed to recently.

Well I'm not sure why everyone is thanking Jim for the very sane letter that Dettmers wrote after he was hounded by Jim. Reading some of the posts to you I realise what a crazy lot there are on this site and I see why Katie and others have declined to post very often.

Sorry you had to take all that nonsense, Hal. Seems like people on this site can't have people being themselves if they don't agree with the sheep here.

As for the person that said Dettmer's doesn't read here, well that stupid comment speaks for itself.

And when pray, Dodos, did Dettmers say that 'M was God' on the phone to Jim?

Hugh

ps Dettmers just shows me how one can use k and benefit without the insanity of premie/nonpremie insanity/potilics (freud/slip left in!)


Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 14:21:09 (GMT)
From: An Ocassinal Observer
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: To Joey..What threats?(nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 15:52:25 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: occasional threatener
Subject: Sounded like a clear threat to me moron (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:21:44 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: An Occasional Orbserver
Subject: Sounded like a threat to me also (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:08:14 (GMT)
From: An Occassional Observer
Email: None
To: G
Subject: No threat intended
Message:
Ok I have asked an 'uninvolved' person and they have said that it does sound like a threat. That was not my intention.

The fact is I will be going to Portugal where I know a number of people (premies and exs). I know that Hal knows them and he even may be one of them. So if he is there, there is a good chance that I will see him.

The IRA comment was referring to one particular person who was well-known at the time as being a former IRA person who now stays in Portugal. He did security for m.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:14:29 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Lies for the masses
Message:
What about Michael's explanation as to why he left m? That was the key point of Powerman's post and supported by Jerry, that you found so objectionable.

Powerman claimed that Dettmers explanation of this key point did not ring true. That prompted you to call us a bunch of 'nasties'.

Now you seem intent on avoiding any serious discussion on this subject.

Hal, is there anything meaningful you have to say, for a change?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:44:41 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Great work Jim- What do you think about this??NT
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:00:41 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: My interview with Michael Dettmers
Message:
Okay, so truth be known, I was a little bored the other day. Laurie's in Thailand for two weeks. I couldn't go because I had this murder trial that I allowed to get booked over the time we'd talked about going. Her two kids are travelling there and the idea of a once-in-a-lifetime family 'hook up' on the The Beach beach was too much to miss. So I stayed and Laurie, bless her itinerant soul, is coming home tomorrow. But, as I was saying, I was a litle bored. Worked out a very good deal for my client after the first week of trial and had a little time on my hands. That's when I called Joan and you've read about that short call. What I didn't mention, then, though was that I called Mike Dettmers that day too.

I knew Mike a bit back in Toronto, circa Premlata, Amherst, sometime in '74. If I recall, he was National Coordinator for Canada then. This was before he got 'tapped'. Now, not surprisingly at all, Mike doesn't remember me. I was just some kid in the ashram, I think it'd be fair to say. Would have been surprised if I'd made any stronger impression.

But, even though he couldn't place me personally, Mike accepted my telling him that yeah, he did once know me a bit and, besides, perhaps for other reasons I offered as well, Mike agreed to talk with me a bit. A bit? We ended up talking for well over an hour, I'm sure.

Can't remember if Mike said he'd ever heard of the ex-premie site(s) but he explained that he'd never been here before. Not wanting to piss him off before we even got started but wanting him to know, all the same, just what he might find should he ever tour these sites, I told him a bit. In fact, with some chagrin, I read to him some of his own personal profile on Drek's site. Talk about a bit of an awkward moment! On the one hand I'm telling this guy about the cool former cult members who are trying to piece together some answers from this weird period in their lives and how cool it would be for him to speak openly about Maharaji. But then, on the other hand, he's pilloried for everything from his physical appearance (the baldness, which I happen to think looks just fine, I'm sure, isn't a fashion statement. It's a medical condition, in fact. Gulp!) to his apparently quite new age consulting business.

It was a bit touch and go for a bit, as you might imagine. I think I managed to get Mike to consider fairly how he might appear to some exes in all the circumstances. He was obviously anxious to clear his name of any perceived aspersions. That was his immediate agenda. Mine, as I explained to him, was to help him clear his name of any ultimtely unfair slurs, just in the interest of fairness and accuracy, if nothing else. Beside, as I told him, I had to respect the fact that the guy was even talking with me. He didn't blithely dismiss me like Joan did (however politely).

My main agenda, of course, was to get Mike to talk a bit about all the matters we'd all want to know about. You know, the real stuff.

In that respect, I think Mike wouldn't disagree that he was very guarded on these matters. In some ways, he just reminded me of the Dettmers I remembered from back in the day (I mean from listening to him from back in the hall). Very sincere sounding if perhaps a tad 'dry'. Where's the meat, Mike? Where the scandal? In fact, Mike assured me that he never ahd the kind of relationship with Maharaji that would enable him to see any of the more unseemly, seamier side of life as Lord of the Universe. He simply didn't have that kind of dirt to share (not that he was suggesting that he wished he did or would have shared same if he did have it). Jokingly, I suggested that he just make some up! That's what we did, after all. It's easy. For example, Maharaji needs a mistress? Make up a name. Monica Lewis had a certain topical ring to it for some reason. Why not go for it? -- This was all clearly and immediately delineated as a joke on my part

No Mike didn't have any of that.

So what did he have? Well, for one thing he told me, as you'll read in his comments below, that neither his nor Maharaji's finances were ever shady when he was running the shop. Okay, you've now got Dettmers' own initial response to the questions over on Drek. What do you think?

But what about the other stuff? I aksed Michael at one point if, when he was his right-hand man for all those years, if he believed that Maharaji was actually the Lord of the Universe trying to save the world with Knowledge of God. To Mike's great credit, he gave me a straight answer on this: yes. Did Mike believe that the work he was doing was no less than actually helping the Lord of the Universe 'implement' his 'master plan' blah, blah, blah. Again, his answer was an uncategorical 'yes'. So then, I asked, why did he walk? Mike's answer was that he'd answer that question when he gave me some other comments about the other matters that he wanted to address. And that lead to the memo Mike emailed me which is posted below.

As I told Mike in my email reply, his comments are bound to generate a lot of questions and I've asked him how he wanted to handle them. He'd never even seen the forum before so it's pretty hard to imagine him making any sort of committment to entering into a dialogue here. And I frankly pointed out to him all the reasons I could expect a former PAM of his particular stature to be a bit shy about coming forward. But Mike seemed to understand the inherent unfairness of people like him leading the parade to the extent that he did, and maybe, arguably, benefitting personally for having done so, and walking away with no sense of accountability to those that used to depened on his inspiration and judgment. It's just not fair! is, I think, my best argument on that point. Yes, it's a little whiny but what can you do? Fortunately, Michael seemed truly interested in not cutting any such corners in terms of his residual obligation to the premie masses. This attitude was so heartening and refreshing after the antiseptic arms-length dismissal Apter gave me! Wow, Dettmers at least seems like someone with some integrity, I thought. Know what I mean?

So, anyway, I don't know if Mike's decided in how, if at all, he might want to follow up with these comments. Any ideas?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:07:33 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: unintended emphasis (correction)
Message:
'Wow, Dettmers at least seems like someone with some integrity, I thought. Know what I mean?

So, anyway, I don't know if Mike's decided in how, if at all, he might want to follow up with these comments. Any ideas?'

should simply read:

'Wow, Dettmers at least seems like someone with some integrity, I thought. Know what I mean?

So, anyway, I don't know if Mike's decided in how, if at all, he might want to follow up with these comments. Any ideas?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 15:19:56 (GMT)
From: Way
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re:unintended emphasis (correction)
Message:
Jim,

Thanks for the change of emphasis, which does make a big difference, (in the right direction, in my opinion). I'm frankly surprised at your deference here. You normally don't allow the least little bit of rose-coloring or glossing over the tricky bits.

He's obviously painting the picture a great deal prettier that it really is. Perhaps he's just sincerely the Norman Rockwell of ex-premies. Where's JW on this?

But thanks for getting his input. You are right to approach him with courtesy and the benefit of the doubt, if only to engage his contribution.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:20:34 (GMT)
From: A.P.
Email: antiprem@aol.com
To: Everyone
Subject: Dates for Miami Event are official
Message:
The Miami Event is set to begin on May 4. I will keep you all posted on the location and the length. I didnt get that yet. Anyone interested in putting together some literature to pass around at the event contact me at email above.

M SUCKS

A.P.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:04:46 (GMT)
From: Selene
Email: None
To: A.P.
Subject: don't know why i'm curious but
Message:
Is this the first 'event' - i.e. live, that has been planned or done in the U.S. for some time? I haven't heard of any for a few years.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:44:19 (GMT)
From: ali g
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: The GM, maximum respect for ya bro, big up, wicked
Message:
You're my man, got to keep an eye on you, you got it all under control, man you got how much, $0.5 million to $1million dollars a month coming in, your the man.
Self made, a true entrpreneur, we could do business together. Therez dealers in our neighbourhood who'd love that personal turnover.

I hear you've got a firing pad, which the ya slaves rebuilt and paid for. Man you got the ho's in their place to, got your pick

Never worked a day in your life! No,you serious, thats wicked, got slaves running around for ya working for nothing, really, thats wild (if my sources are reliable! Hey I bet you have no trouble with your sources eh, any time you fancy sharing a phat one, a nice blunt, just give us a buzz)

Anyway just passing thru, got to get out in my hood and earn a buck, maybe see ya sometime

(God, Larkin or cq help us!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:24:58 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Uganda
Message:
'Ugandan Death Toll Reaches 924'
by Hanry Wasswa (Associated Press, April 1, 2000)

KAMPALA, Uganda (AP) - Struggling with a lack of equipment after uncovering a string of mass graves, police are regrouping before tackling yet another compound where more victims of a doomsday cult may be buried.
The death toll from the mass killing now stands at 924, after police raised the number who died when a cult church was set ablaze with hundreds of members sealed inside. Since then, mass graves at three other compounds have uncovered more bodies.
The government called a day of prayer Sunday to ``console surviving relatives and assure the country that action is being taken in pursuit of the criminal perpetrators.''
Government and religious leaders will attend a memorial service Sunday in Kanungu, the village where the cult slaying was first revealed with the church inferno.
While Ugandan authorities promised to apprehend the perpetrators of the stabbings, burnings and stranglings, investigators showed no signs of being able to track down sect leaders or even of being able to confirm which - if any - survived.
Investigators indefinitely postponed plans Friday to search a fifth sect compound, deep in a rainforest near the Ruwenzori Mountains along the Congolese border. Police said they would wait until they had proper equipment.
Sarah Kiyingi, deputy minister for internal affairs, said the search for bodies was suspended temporarily because police lack proper gear for exhuming bodies.
Authorities have come under criticism in Uganda's press for using inmate labor to dig up the bodies, with some newspapers faulting police for failing to give inmates rubber gloves and other protective equipment.
Internal Affairs Minister Edward Rugumayo said investigators want prisoners to be properly dressed and well-prepared.
In Kanungu, forensic investigators examined a cemetery overlooking the main compound of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, to try to determine if any graves there might contain more than one body. Finding nothing suspicious, they did not dig.
Police then retreated to the faraway capital of Kampala to await pathology reports on some of the bodies already discovered, police pathologist Thaddeus Barungi said.
Authorities initially reported at least 330 charred bodies were found inside the ruins of a makeshift church in the sect's main compound. On Friday, they raised the toll to 530 in what was believed to have been a gasoline-fueled inferno in the sealed church.
Hundreds of bodies subsequently found at three other sites apparently were killed after what had been the cult's prediction that the world would end Dec. 31. Some victims appeared to have been knifed or strangled. Hundreds were children, although the devastation at the cult church and the possibility of more graves means a precise count will never be known.
Police spokesman Eric Naigambi said police have started trying to compile a list of the missing.
``We are trying to create a reliable database on who perished at the hands of these killers,'' he said.
``We have found out that many people who lost their relatives are fearing to talk about it,'' Naigambi said. ``They knew that their relatives had told them they were going to heaven.''
The toll surpasses the November 1978 Peoples Temple tragedy at Jonestown in the jungles of Guyana. The Jonestown mass suicide and killings claimed 913 lives, including that of U.S. Rep. Leo Ryan, journalists and a few defectors shot to death as they tried to board a flight out.
Ugandan police are pursuing international arrest warrants for Joseph Kibwetere, Credonia Mwerinde and three other suspected cult leaders. It was not clear if any or all of them escaped the killings or the fire that followed.
Ugandan police have detained a second person for questioning in connection with the deaths. Police said the man detained had family members who were followers of the cult but gave no further details.
The cult leaders drew largely on disaffected Roman Catholics in Uganda, leading many to give up their land to take up a strict doctrine of fasting, silence and prayer. At least one leader was an excommunicated Catholic priest.
Stanley Kenyatta, a member of Uganda parliament for the Rukungiri district in the area of the killings, said Friday he had been told the sect had branches in Tanzania and Rwanda as well, with plans to move into Kenya.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 21:37:55 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Jean-Michel has accepted an invitation!!!!!!
Message:
...JM has accepted an invitation for a serie of latvian meetings in the US, east coast region, during the lard's events, starting on the middle of Apri!! Details for an ex meeting will be given soon!!! hahahaha

S

It's going to be hilarious: A Knowledge review backwards!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 12:01:47 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: Jean-Michel has accepted an invitation!!!!!!
Message:
Photographs of his first knowledge review, in the Latvian club in London, are at this very moment under a scanner, and will be available soon, after receiving permission from all the drunken participants.

Be sure to preserve the moment on camera.

Anth the (this is my best side) Latvian

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:29:42 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: AJW
Subject: I want to see those pictures!!
Message:
JM told me they are great!!

:-) and described what happened too!!

S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 22:21:04 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: SB
Subject: More details on monday !
Message:
I'll give you all the details and information, so that everybody knows what a Latvian meeting looks like .....

Stay around .....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 12:04:31 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: Zut Alors!
Message:
Oooops,

Est-ce-que j'ai montrè le secret à toute le monde?

Anth la grande bouche

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:08:55 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: MarianneDB@aol.com
To: AJW, SB
Subject: The Photos, JM etc.
Message:
I´m not sure I want the minions to know what I look like. I´ll never be able to walk into another program anonymously, Anth.... Oh go ahead. I really don´t care. They are worth a few laughs!

SB, have a wonderful time with JM. Be careful he doesn´t poke your eyes out!

Love, Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 23:16:35 (GMT)
From: SB
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: The Photos, JM etc.
Message:
Thanks, Marianne... JM told me how much fun everybody had!! Yes, is going to be fun to see what happened...

I'm looking forward meeting JM, and having MY K review!!! I bet you is better than Lard's!! Hahahaha

Love,

S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:00:33 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Marianne and other Latvians .....
Message:
Don't worry, I'll have them online for you ONLY first.

I guess you'll like what I'm going to do with these materials,
and maybe we'll have a new space on my website for the clear exes, that is those who've had a k review with me !!!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:45:34 (GMT)
From: ex slave
Email: None
To: Jean-Michel
Subject: JM
Message:
Are you really coming to the US?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 07:30:27 (GMT)
From: Jean-Michel
Email: None
To: ex slave
Subject: Yes, no joke !
Message:
I'll be there end of April, beginning of May .....
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 13:34:19 (GMT)
From: Marianne
Email: MarianneDB@aol.com
To: ex slave
Subject: I vouch for him
Message:
ex slave: Jean Michel is indeed coming to the US soon.

I have enjoyed reading your posts. Can you tell us a little more about yourself, if you feel comfortable doing so? If I´ve missed out because I haven´t been on the site so frequently lately, I apologize. ex slave sounds like a former ashram resident -- me too. Where were you and when?

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:49:55 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Something else Joan told me
Message:
Something else Joan told me which I forgot but which I think I should mention. She had never heard of any agya to throw out, burn or otherwise destroy old cult propoganda in the mid- eighties. Naturally, that surprised me a bit. See, even I, who wasn't into the cult at all by then, heard about this from several premie sources. Maharaji apparently sent the word out to get rid of all the old publications that depicted him as divine or that otherwise reflected the old 'understanding'. Joan never heard about that. Funny, huh?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 20:25:09 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Something else Joan LIED to you about
Message:
She's still in on the lie. That's all there is to it.

And I'd say that this little revealing piece of the conversation IS probably the most damaging piece of evidence that she's in on the lie.

Everyone knows that there was a 'purge', and if she wants to claim that she never heard about it...she's lying...boldly and brazenly lying. That's all, thats it!

Now I gotta go for my swim, Jim. (Free swim ends at 4:30 pm )Excercise, ya know...it's important :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:49:02 (GMT)
From: slave
Email: None
To: Joey
Subject: Something else Joan LIED to you about
Message:
I was there living with Jeam Marie in Miami when the word went out to get rid of all the old stuff and elan viatl in miami was throwing out tapes and mags and photos includeing ALL the proofs from the mag photos. I myself touched them as they were in the see through garbage bags ready to be taken to burn.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 16:51:36 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
Everyone,

I think my posts on 'owning your own experience' and 'creating your own reality' created a bit of a storm and a lot of unpleasantness. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well.

Tony Robbins in Unlimited Power believes that our thoughts create our reality, so does Maxwell Maltz in Psycho-Cybernetics and Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich. As Tony Robbins says, it's a useful lie, an empowering belief. Those who take responsibility are in power. It's quite a common belief in the self-help movement. No big deal really. I don't know what all the fuss was about.

If you don't want to believe that:
- your life is what your thoughts make it, or
- by owning your experience, by telling the truth, you improve the quality of your life,
that's okay with me.

I posted here in the hope of creating a spirited debate on responsibility, not what I felt turned into an unpleasant series of confrontations. So I'm backing off.

Let me give it one more shot with a quote from Be Here Now written by my hero Ram Dass,
'All you ever find is yourself. You only read to yourself, you only talk to yourself you only ever know yourself. Self is all there is! Strangely enough!'

Ram Dass shows how to own your experience this way,
'Get into a comfortable seat. At first let your mind wander and just watch it. Just note how your mind works. Don't think about your thoughts. Just note them. Do this for about thirty minutes a day for a week.'

For those wanting to examine this concept further I recommend the Landmark Forum or Insight/Mindfulness Meditation.

As Jim suggested earlier, I'm taking a break for a while. I might be back though, because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:15:28 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
Feel I'd like to offer something to this conversation, but don't yet know enough about the great philosophers.

But, in an attempt to lessen my ignorance, I chanced upon the following, by Swedish-based philosopher, Stefan Hlatky - whose line: 'an understanding of reality is a pre-requisite for the solution of individual and social problems' grabbed my interest. Here's a little more:

'Hlatky's thesis is that we cannot understand our own lives unless we understand the reality that we live in, and we cannot understand the reality we live in unless we understand its original cause.'

There's quite a lot to read, but if anyone else is interested, the site is http://www.reality.org.uk/book/ur.htm#cont

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 11:56:25 (GMT)
From: AJW
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Koan for Dog
Message:
Hi Dog,

What's the difference between a Premie and a Moonie?

Anth the Empty Space

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:18:29 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: I know it's just a game for you being here,
Message:
which in itself is a bit rich and bloody rude to the people here, but you have done it again.

Down below I asked you to admit that we don't 'create our own reality', when it was patently obvious that you were agreeing with the points being raised. But could you do it, no, you changed it to admitting that 'I don't control gravity'.
That was a rather shallow response because you are still denying why everyone had such a go at you, ie you are in avoidance or denial of one of the key points this site is criticising gm about.

So I'll try again. You're talking about your key perception of self, and how it effects the quality of your experience.

See everyone here KNOWS what you are talking about, helps to be more positive etc, what they are objecting to is the way that that concept now means more than that. It has become one of the key slogans of that new-age cult think, that you can change what happens to you in ALL areas of your life.

(1) I Know people who believe in rebirth, that everything that happens to you is some kind of karma whether instant or distant. That is just so fascistic a way of thinking that Hitler would have loved it, probably even had his own version of that. THAT is one of the reasons why people are pissed off with you. You talk about empowerment but that is a totally unempowering concept and guilt trip for those experiencing harder times. You totally refuse to acknowledge or respond to this

(2) Also one of the main ways that gm gets his 'code' across is by the use of repetitive buzz words that then become the agreed lexicon for premies, what is the present acceptable word collection for premies to use when describing anything close to knowledge territory. He does it as part of the process, as he admits himself, whereby aspirants are protected so that detours don't get made and people arrive at 'k' with the wrong attitude. This is code. This then becomes premie speak, and if the buzz words don't cover it, go into avoidance or denial, any detour will do, that way a premie never gets in gm's way. This is nother angle you refuse to acknowledge or respond to.

(3) At least you were open enough to admit it was a 'useful lie'. The weakness of the positive discrimination route is that instead of being used short term as a way of getting yourself up and going when you're feeling vulnerable, the useful lie becomes the long term truth through overregular use, over time, to the point where you no longer notice it, it's become so engrained. What was once maybe even a useful lie has now become a long term truth. This you have neither acknowledged or responded to.

(4) Your view on the steps to empowerment are a little outdated. Empowerment is about real emotional power, the exact opposite of lies, whether useful or not, where as best as possible you have input into the choices and decisions of your life, not power that you pretend in order to give yourself a boost in confidence

And lastly you're bloody insulting. You come to this place to discuss, yes remember that discuss , without respect for the people or point of this site, it's reason for being here, an ex-premie site, please note ex-. So at least grant us some honesty.
Unlike the premie sites, at least here you are given the freedom to speak, we would not be allowed on official premie sites to discuss anything, which is one of the reasons why Enjoying Life couldn't have a discussion group.

PS What do you honestly think gm thinks of the premies visiting this site and speaking out?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:52:13 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: hamzen, please read my posts
Message:
hamzen,

There is difference between an external reality like gravity and your experience. I don't create gravity or winter but I am responsible for my experience of them, my point of view, my interpretation.

Difficult distinction I know.

PS What do you honestly think gm thinks of the premies visiting this site and speaking out?

I think he's probably against it. So why am I posting here then? Someone has to stand up for Knowledge and M and I elected myself. Truth be told it's kind of addictive.

If you exes don't want me here just say so, and I'll go.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:30:03 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: experience of gravity
Message:
Dog wrote:

I don't create gravity or winter but I am responsible for my experience of them, my point of view, my interpretation.

Difficult distinction I know.

Don't think you are so intellectually superior. Most people understand the difference between external reality and our subjective experience of it. Little children learn that their mother continues even after she disappears from sight. Many people understand that the subjective experience of color is different from wavelengths of light, etc.

I can't see how anyone can have much of an effect on their subjective experience of gravity or winter. You feel the weight of your body, the pressure that gravity produces. Cold feels cold, etc. The only thing you might effect to some degree is your emotional reaction to these experiences. Now your point of view, your interpretation, you have some more control over them. Even in those areas, I don't think you have anywhere near complete control. Your upbringing, what you've been taught, etc. all effect them. I don't believe that the physical is all there is, but I acknowledge that brain chemistry has a profound effect on our emotions, our reactions, our thoughts, etc. You can't just say that the physical world is unreal, and you can't say that you have much control over it. Well, you could, but you would be incorrect. The bottom line is simply to do what you can to improve your life and other people's lives. But 'be detached from the fruit of action' to some degree and in a healthy way. BTW, that doesn't mean to be a zombie.

So you are standing up for M even though he's probably against it. Interesting. The Master can't stand up for himself?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:07:02 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: hamzen
Subject: I know it's just a game for you being here,
Message:
hamzen,

It's not just a game for me being here. I've quoted the Bible, Shakespeare, Ram Dass, Alan Watts, Rumi, the Buddha, etc. I do get serious from time to time.

Everyone who believes in reincarnation is a Nazi? I think it's time to adjust the medication hamzen.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:24:29 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: reincarnation vs karma
Message:
Dog,
I do believe he was referring to the abuse of the concept of 'karma', not reincarnation, as a justification of barbaric acts. No, it does not follow that belief in reincarnation means one is a Nazi. I think it's time to take a course in logic, it would do you a lot of good.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:20:04 (GMT)
From: hamzen
Email: None
To: G
Subject: Thank you G, and DD, STILL waiting
Message:
Could someone tell me, do I have some kind of body odour problem, do I put html around my posts that turns them fuzzy and unreadable?

DD if you aren't just pissing around then what do you call your last post, SERIOUS? get real, why don't you respond to the questions?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 22:32:01 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
Blech! Tony Robbins and Ram Dass--my favorite people. Why don't you just talk in your own words instead of quoting all these self-help gurus. It's ridiculous. And BTW, YOU 'created' all the unpleasantness because after all we create our own reality! We are reacting to you because you are so obnoxious, so take a look at yourself, buddy.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 08:27:52 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Helen
Subject: Quite
Message:
Amazing how obnoxious and totally insensitive premies can be, especially when you consider this one was actually trying.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:49:56 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
'Get into a comfortable seat. At first let your mind wander and just watch it. Just note how your mind works. Don't think about your thoughts. Just note them. Do this for about thirty minutes a day for a week.'

You might want to think about your thoughts along with observing them. You could ask yourself, 'Are these thoughts in tune with reality? Do I even know? Is reality beyond me?' Because from where I stand, Dog, it looks to me that may be your problem. What reality is, and what you think it is, is two different things.

You're in much less control than you think.

Tony Robbin's 'useful lies' aren't going to give you the strength you need to live with reality. He's just a new age escape mechanism that you've turned to along with your 'perfect master'. What a laugh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:59:09 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
Jerry,

You said, You might want to think about your thoughts along with observing them. You could ask yourself, 'Are these thoughts in tune with reality? Do I even know? Is reality beyond me?'

Good idea Jerry! Follow the train of thought. That's it! Have a thought, then think about it, then think about that one, and that one, and that one, and pretty soon you'll be clear and totally in control, above it all, and ready for anything. Ahhh, the uncluttered life eh! That's the ticket.

You could think 'I'm free!' and then you could follow that train of thought all the way to freedom, to freedom, to freedom.

Has it ever occured to you that words are not real? The word nothing is not nothing? Painted cakes do not satisfy hunger.

Guess not. Better to whine and dine.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:30:08 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
DD,

Words are a means for communication. They're a useful device for understanding reality. Let's be real simple about this. Let's say I'm coming to vist you. I'm talking to you on the phone. I haven't been outside yet. You have, and you tell me, 'dress warm, it's freezing outside.' You're telling me something that's real and communicating that to me. Your thoughts are 'in tune' with reality, and now, thank you, so are mine. How wonderful words can be. And how useful, eh?

Now, let's say I've told you about this job offer I've just turned down and you say to me, 'Well Jerry, we all create our own reality. Good luck.' How real is it what you've just said? Isn't that just new age mumbo jumbo? I haven't 'created' anything. I've merely 'made a decision', and the reality that will be, as a reult of that decision, awaits. Either I will reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences of it. That's thinking in tune with reality.

Has it ever occured to you that words are not real? The word nothing is not nothing? Painted cakes do not satisfy hunger.

Yes, I know all about this sort of thing. How's about 'thinking about water is not drinking water', or 'the menu is not the meal'? Are such words real? Maharaji says this stuff all the time. Is he in tune with reality when he does? I'd say so. But the point is, even if words are not the reality they define, in and of themselves, they're our vehicle for communicating and understanding what is. Care should be taken to use them in that respect. Otherwise, confusion is the result, and we have long, inane, discussions that could have been avoided.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:00:01 (GMT)
From: Joey
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
Has it ever occured to you that words are not real?

If you really believe this to be true, why do you even bother to communicate anything here, or anywhere else for that matter?

The word nothing is not nothing?

I dunno nothing about that::)) What are you talking about?!

Painted cakes do not satisfy hunger.

Now, just what would I do without that useful bit of information? :)

And Dep, you just ALWAYS have such a wealth of such useful information, dontcha? :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:22:08 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
Once again I have to stick my neck out and agree with what you said there Dep. Now I'll crawl back in my trench and get my steel helmet on!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:03:31 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Thanks Hal - ex or not you're a soul brother
Message:
Hal,

It's nice to meet someone (ex or otherwise) who thinks he is not his mind. We have a mind but thats not who we are.

Why live in the past? There is no freedom living in our stories.

Yeah, get ready to be criticised.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:38:52 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Come on, Hal
Message:
Hal,

If you think Dogg's 'right' could you explain how? What does it mean to say that 'words aren't real'? If I say that 'x happened' could there be any truth to the matter? How 'bout if I use words to promise something? Are promises real?

I understand you're inclined to agree with Dogg but can you actually do so in any meaningful way?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:16:37 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Dogg and Hal
Subject: the thought train, round and round it goes
Message:
Doggggggg wrote:

Have a thought, then think about it, then think about that one, and that one, and that one ...

You could think 'I'm free!' and then you could follow that train of thought all the way to freedom, to freedom, to freedom.

Has it ever occured to you that words are not real?

Well, sorry, but I'm going to have to hammer away on that helmet.

Dogg, you say that words are not real, yet the words 'I'm free!' can lead you to freedom. That's quite a contradiction, don't you think?

And thinking about thinking about thinking ... about a thought? Dogg, I thought you meditated, that's just being lost in useless thinking. As you said, painted cakes do not satisfy hunger.

Try to be a little consistant. It sounds like you're just getting off on your thoughts whether they make sense or not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:10:04 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: G
Subject: the thought train, round and round it goes
Message:
G

Dogg, you say that words are not real, yet the words 'I'm free!' can lead you to freedom. That's quite a contradiction, don't you think?

Actually g that was supposed to be biting sacrasm. The thought train . . . .? The tape loop, the broken record?

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 14:28:17 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: the thought train, round and round it goes
Message:
Hi Dog,
You're assuming that all thoughts are dysfunctional and lead to a 'broken record' kind of aimless repetition, wild goose chase, or mental masturbation in a person's mind. All of us have had the experience of compulsive or obsessive thinking. And all of us have had the experience of thinking more constructively. TO me, that's what mental health is, thinking constructively and in perspective. Maybe we're talking about similar things here, but I don't think so. I think you have bought into Maharaji's model of the mind as inherently crippled and defective, and by its nature, compulsive. I don't believe this at all.

Below you mentioned that you are an ACOA. Have you ever thought about how the damage you suffered as an ACOA made M attractive to you--a safe shelter from your own damaged mind? Have you ever tried to heal your own mind through cognitive therapy rather than through the meditation/knowledge route? Just a question, I am not trying to psychoanalyze you or be a smart ass, I am just curious AND I am just expressing my opinion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 04:04:11 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: the thought train..., words
Message:
It was, eh? Well, I would say this Dog has no bite. I've read other posts where you wrote about observing your thoughts. What did you mean?

What do you mean by words? The physical representations (written, etc.) of concepts or concepts themselves?

Now, if words are not real, what are you now reading? Things or representations of things that are not real? I think you are toying with the word real. Words exist as (representations of) concepts, so in that sense they are real, they do exist. They have real effects and you have a real subjective experience of them. The word 'orange' is not the same as what it represents, but that does not make it unreal. Perhaps you mean that they are symbols, or that they have contingent reality? Consider that you used words to state 'Words are not real.' What about the word 'word'? Analyse that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 15:46:28 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: G
Subject: G - CLARIFICATION the thought train..., words
Message:
G and everyone,

Please let me clarify this 'owning experience' and 'creating reality' issue.

Owning your experience is wiping he slate clean, and creating your reality is filling the slate.

To effectively create your own reality you have to be able to both add and erase. In order to create something we first have to be able to create nothing. We need space to create. Without the ability to create space we just clutter ourselves up.

To put it another way, a car needs an accelerator and a brake. Owning experience is the brake.

As mentioned earlier, the Landmark Forum explains this much better than I can here. They have a Web site and the course costs about $300.

The Forum has helped me a lot with my meditation, and might be particularly helpful for exes trying to get it together.

Sorry for any confusion.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 14:31:00 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: G - CLARIFICATION the thought train..., words
Message:
Do you really think you can wipe the slate clean? Is that really possible or even healthy? Are you able to wipe all your past history clean? TO me that sounds like repression.

I don't think it is wise or possible to try to wipe the slate clean. Better to understand the past and learn from it, IMO.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 22:37:47 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: G - CLARIFICATION the thought train..., words
Message:
DD,

I think you expose yourself to too much new age thinking and might do yourself well if you balanced it out by studying some critical thinking. There are a number of websites and books on the subject that you might want to look into. I've taken this advice myself, and feel I've benefitted by it.

Just a suggestion.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:30:50 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: owning experience, creating reality
Message:
Dog,

I don't think you're clear on what these concepts mean.

'Wiping the slate clean' sounds more like disowning your experience, although I may not understand what you mean.

It sounds to me like 'owning your experience' means to understand it, know what's going on the best you can. For example, understand why you're angry or happy about something, not deny how you're feeling or the situation you're in, understand why you do things. Something like that.

'Creating reality' sounds like a hyped-up version of do what you can to improve the situations in your life.

If the Landmark Forum explained this stuff well, you would understand well enough to explain it. I notice you have repeatedly put in plugs for these seminars. Have you wondered why you do this? That's an experience I think you need to 'own'. I'm not talking about pat answers, I mean honestly do your own reflection. Maybe you should 'own' yourself a bit more, rather than just buying into what people tell you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 14:44:09 (GMT)
From: Helen
Email: None
To: G/Dog
Subject: owning experience, creating reality
Message:
Good point G. I also wonder why Dog needs to keep plugging these different seminars. Seems like the 'newly converted syndrome.' He has to go out and proselytize. Dog, it seems like your communication style (here at least) has a goal of proselytizing. YOu have the answers and the rest of us here do not. Did it ever occur to you that this is insulting and perhaps is why you have gotten a chilly reception here?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:22:54 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: G
Subject: owning experience, creating reality
Message:
G

'Wiping the slate clean' sounds more like disowning your experience, although I may not understand what you mean.

More like erasing it so that you become clear and can look around and create what you want. Rather than being a slave of the past, confused, going around in circles, caught in a broken record, and endless loop.

Are you your files? Is that who you think you are? To really succeed in life (I'm no shining example) you must make a distinction between mind and Self, head and heart.

We are spirits, operating a body using a mind. Mind and body are related. You are not your mind. You have a mind.

Understanding just leads to more story. Have you ever noticed that when you are really having fun you (i.e. your I-dentity) is not there. Same in sports and sex. As Ram Dass says, 'The mind is a excellent servant but a lousy master.'

I am quite independent thanks.

I don't want to belabor this point any more and really don't care if you take the Forum. Oh great! Now I'm going to called a heartless bastard.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:33:52 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: It's good you don't care if I take the Forum (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:27:23 (GMT)
From: Ken C
Email: None
To: G
Subject: the thought train..., words
Message:
Interesting discussion. I'm just passing through but would like to say something. Apologies for intruding but this is my opinion:

Language is the mechanism of matter's spell, the means through which the spell is maintained from one generation to the next. Those who slumber beneath linguistic illusions limit themselves to the deficiencies, blind spots, and biases of a particular method of symbolism, which even at its best can convey no more consciousness than the consciousness of those who invented it. They imagine that without verbal, conceptual understanding there can be no understanding.

Understanding can be symbolised and to some extent conveyed through words, but understanding itself requires language no more than a bird requires a cage. UNDERSTANDING COMES ONLY THROUGH EXPERIENCE. And for experience there has never been - and never will be- a substitute.

Belief systems are illusions of linguistically structured thought. They have been the means through which these gutteral languages have limited your perception. Belief systems are cages created by words, imprisoning their makers.

Try this one:Accept the understanding that emerges in response to the moments of your life. Do not strive for more comprehension than that which appears effortlessly.You will know what you need to know and remember what you have forgotten.

Bye must get back to some work. Ken C
ps I was into the boy guru in 1972 for a short time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:28:00 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: G
Subject: the thought train..., words
Message:
How can the word for an orange be an orange? I'm lost there.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 13:26:28 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: I didn't say the word 'orange' is an orange (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:48:59 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Mental masterbation!!!! (nt)
Message:
lkjhgf
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:23:06 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: you are right, it is (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:05:47 (GMT)
From: ham
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Hal,the same as your perception of an orange isn't
Message:
an orange, the only thing that can truly know what it is, to be an orange, is an orange, or if we were able to map every single item and their connections on all levels, science.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 08:55:05 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Reality
Message:
>>>>>>>>>What reality is, and what you think it is, is two different things.<<<<<<<<,

Jerry, what exactly is reality?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:08:26 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Reality
Message:
Jerry, what exactly is reality?

Reality is what IS, Harry. It's the truth of matters. Why do you ask?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:13:37 (GMT)
From: Harry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Reality
Message:
Yeah Jerry, but do you know what the 'truth' is? I ask 'cause I don't.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 23:11:01 (GMT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Harry
Subject: Reality
Message:
Harry,

Reality is that it's the second of the month and I haven't paid my bills yet, so I've got to go write out some checks. Talk to you later.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:03:21 (GMT)
From: Dave
Email: vpost3@hotmail.com
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Owning experience and creating reality
Message:
Easy to say all that when you're living a comfortable lifestyle in the Western World but if you can tear yourself away from white North America for a moment and look at the plight of much of the world's population then you'll see that such words are like empty ashes.

Tell a political prisoner being tortured and languishing in some dirty cell that his/her thoughts have created their reality and they own their experience and you'll get a mighty frosty reception. Or the Mother of a child who has just died of malnutrition as do hundreds of children die each day.

Or what about someone who is dying from a terminal illness? Is it their fault that so much polution has been put into the enrivoment and caused them to contract cancer? And what about earthquake victims or victims of simple domestic abuse or worst, child abuse? Is it their own fault? And what about the mentally ill people?

Saying that people create their own reality is too simplistic and short sighted and it conveniently disregards the true reality of living on this planet - that while we like to pat ourselves on the back when things are going good for us, much of what happens is beyond people's control and for many people, life is a continuing struggle against misfortune and adversity.

Yes we can try to do something about it but new age gurus and philosophers are conveniently sidestepping the real issues and decieving people with cheap, pocket paperback truths and realities.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 18:50:14 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Do you ever think about what you're saying?
Message:
Tony Robbins in Unlimited Power believes that our thoughts create our reality, so does Maxwell Maltz in Psycho-Cybernetics and Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich. As Tony Robbins says, it's a useful lie, an empowering belief. Those who take responsibility are in power. It's quite a common belief in the self-help movement. No big deal really. I don't know what all the fuss was about.

If you don't want to believe that:
- your life is what your thoughts make it, or
- by owning your experience, by telling the truth, you improve the quality of your life,
that's okay with me.

Dogg,

Some things, like your blatant contradiction above, just leap out at you. I'm surprised you didn't see this when you wrote it. So which is it, Dogg? 'Useful lie' or 'telling the truth'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:44:07 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Do you ever think about what you're saying?
Message:
Jim,

Sorry I should have explained that Tony Robbins believes that all concepts are lies or halluciantions.

Owning your experiencing, i.e., accepting yourself totally, owning your experience, seeing things as they are is telling the truth.

-- Dogg

P.S. I thought you wanted me outta here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:32:01 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Maybe I'm a little slow today or something .......
Message:
Dogg,

Could you please explain how your answer above somehow addresses this discrepency:

Tony Robbins in Unlimited Power believes that our thoughts create our reality, so does Maxwell Maltz in Psycho-Cybernetics and Napoleon Hill in Think and Grow Rich. As Tony Robbins says, it's a useful lie, an empowering belief. Those who take responsibility are in power. It's quite a common belief in the self-help movement. No big deal really. I don't know what all the fuss was about.
If you don't want to believe that:
- your life is what your thoughts make it, or
- by owning your experience, by telling the truth, you improve the quality of your life,
that's okay with me.

It appears that you're saying that a) sometimes it's okay to lie, especially if it's 'empowering'; and b) people who believe that 'own their own experience' by, in particular, 'telling the truth'. Thus, people who understand that it's okay to lie sometimes are committed to telling the truth!

Am I mis-reading your gobbledygook? What he HAAAALL's going on, Dogg?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:41:48 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Maybe I'm a little slow today or something .......
Message:
Jim,

Not a lie in the sense that you are not telling the truth, a lie in a sense that as soon as you put it into words it becomes relative.

Let me quote Tony Robbins, page 70, from Unlimited Power:

'The word 'lies' is used in this chapter as a consistent reminder that we do not know for certain exactly how things are. The word 'lie' does not mean 'to be deceitful or dishonest' but, rather, is a useful way to remind us that no matter how much we believe in a concept, we should be open to other possibilites and continuous learning.'

I can't help thinking about that guy in 1890 who wanted to close down the patent office because he felt that there wasn't anything else left to invent. The earth is flat was a lie most people believed.

Lies simply means that we don't know how the world really is. There are useful lies and lies that don't work. Tony urges to take on board the useful, empowering ones.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 02:32:56 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Oh, I see. So THAT's what lies are! Thanks, Dogg
Message:
Boy, Dogg, Tony Robbins sure is clever, isn't he? You know, I used to think of a lie as an intentionally false statement uttered to deceive. But then what do I know? It's not like I've ever conducted workshops or anything. So when Robbins says '[t]he word 'lie' does not mean 'to be deceitful or dishonest' I feel like just throwing out my dictionary. Thanks.

Got any other words for me? How about 'honesty'. How do you and Tony define that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 02:51:54 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: redefinition of language, next stop: 1984 (nt)
Message:
nt
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:22:16 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: no just impervious and dense Jim
Message:
d
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:18:51 (GMT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Hal
Subject: Bye, bye, Hal
Message:
Hal,

Why in the world would you say that? Look, fella, I'm not the one who supposedly just now has realized that I've hitched my wagon to a cardboard star. That's you, not me. But what you're doing now is just hiding all over again. I've read your many new posts this morning and it's clear that you're giving up trying to think clearly. Instead, you seem to be retreating beyond where words, logic or reality dare not go: into premieland. You're not making sense anymore. You don't even seem to be trying. Just knee-jerk potshots and even those you don't have the guts to actually discuss fairly and openly. Perhaps your next post should be on ELK, huh? Or maybe you and Dogg can email each other and he can tell you his choise techniques for following the guru but not really.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:17:35 (GMT)
From: Hal
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Bye, bye, Jim
Message:
Dear Jim,

Yes I am feeling a bit confused at present so a break seems like a good idea....I don't dislike you by the way, just that we see things in a very different way.

Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:46:48 (GMT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: Tony Robbins, etc. and magical beliefs
Message:
Tony Robbins believes that all concepts are lies or halluciantions.

What's that supposed to mean?

accepting yourself totally, owning your experience, seeing things as they are is telling the truth.

It seems that they use jargon to make it seem that they know something most people don't. Like 'owning your experience', that gets you curious, it makes you want to find out what this magical thing is. Much more effective selling than just coming out straight with what they mean.

So, what does all that really mean? Do these guys go into any real depth about this? Or are they just hype whores? You know, pay me a lot of money and I'll give you a pep talk. Consider that Robbins is making a lot of money doing this, he's got something to be hyped up about. It reminds me of real estate seminars, they tell you how easy it is, but when it comes down to it, they only give you superficial information. They give a false impression of how easy their 'program' is. Why? To sell it. Everyone wants an easy way out.

One problem I see with this mentality is that it can produce false expectations. There is this belief that if only I believe enough, all kinds of good things will happen magically, my life will be rosey, everything will be peachy-keen. Sure, if you don't take steps to improve things, they probably won't get better. But there is no guarantee, lots of shitty things might happen. Your plans might not work. These guys seem to be saying that if you listen to them, results WILL be guaranteed. There's even a Robbins web site called guaranteedsuccess.com. Sure, it helps to be enthusiastic about what you're doing, but do you need someone to tell you this? My concern is that they are presenting false concepts.

Here's a link Wade Cook vs. Tony Robbins

And here's a link about Robbins and firewalking.
(Don't start thinking I'm a Skeptic now.)
What will he do next, have people bungee jump?
And why is there Personal Power II, wasn't PP I enough?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 17:43:27 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Deputy Dog
Subject: spirited debate on responsibility
Message:
Dear Doggy,

Yes, it was a debate on responsibility. I think I do get your point. I just think it is a pathological belief system. It is useful only to a point.

This all started because of Jim's Joan Apter post. Recall, Joan feels no responsibily even if Rawat were proven in her mind to be a fraud to those who were conned and that she helped con as an initiator.

Let's say she were a tobacco executive and Jim had the same interview. She says 'I feel no responsiblity to come out with what I know, they chose to smoke, they created their own reality'. This is even though the tobacco industry actively tried to hide the addictive nature of its product and actively marketed in such a way as to create new addicts.

What's the diff?

You think it is about taking responsibility. We think it is about evading it.

Dog, I think ultimately that 'philosophy' is all about evading reality and evading responsibility.

Now, clearly, it has been implied we ex's are whiners who are trying to blame our sad lot on the poor innocent unjusticely accused Rawat. He evades responsibility for his actions ( claiming to be God, getting rich off of playing God...the list is long) with a very similar mechanism. He has never taken responsibility for how his actions affect others.

Each of us ex's, as an individual, have to analyze just how much is the fault of the cult and how much the fault of whatever character flaw let us believe this


no this looks nothing like a cult

was not a cult. Do I take some responsibility for the fact I fell for this con man? You bet I do. I think that there clearly was something wrong in my personality that I fell for it. I am not sure I would apply that too all. But for myself, that is what I think. But I am not going to take all the responsibility. Rawat could have called off the game at any time. He still could. He could still explain it all to those who gave him their all and kissed his feet. I do not beleive he ever will. Why? He hides behind the kind of psychobabble Joan was espousing.

It angers us. You bet. It should.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 07:16:54 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: debate on responsibility/Apter
Message:
Ram Dass pushes all my 'buttons' too, but I don't see the point in blowing this into a big 'issue'. Obviously we have some control over our lives' destiny. It's not total, but even in the worst circumstances (like what Dave is talking about) there is some control. I've talked to people from concentration camps and jails about this, and trying to totally diss or ignore the 'drivers seat' aspect of life because we are not omniscient beings doesn't make sense.

We did leave the cult. That is how we took responsibility.

We have some (albeit limited) control over our destinies.

Apter's statements were from one phone call. I personally feel that PAM's like Joan do share in responsibility for what Rawatt has perpetrated on us, but frankly, I'm surprised she even made a statement. Anyway, I suspect a lot of emotion gets stirred up mentioning her. I know it's quite realistic I wouldn't have gotten involved without her and that she convinced me that Rawatt was the Messiah and Incarnation.

People always talk about David Smith in a really negative way. Usually talk about Charanand in a good way. Apter gets a mixed reaction. She always stirred up a lot of passion. I think she had or has a borderline demonic ability as a speaker, someone who could sell you a contract on your mother if you were broke.

Isn't part of this really about how to deal with our own anger?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 15:36:58 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: debate on responsibility/Apter
Message:
It was a pretty big thread, and I think the reason that it touches us is that it really is at the heart of a lot of issues ex's have with the cult.

I completely agree that taking responsibility for our actions is very important. We have to steer as best we can, but we cannot avoid every storm that we come across despite the best navigation.

But I have seen one too many premies extend the concept of 'its my experience', ' we create our own reality' , ' I listen to my heart not my mind', as mechanisms for denying Rawat's responsibility in being a cult leader.

I personally can't remember Joan Apter very well. I just recall she was a bigwig. I do recall a person her quoting a satsang she gave in which she said 'her mind wished Maharaj Ji's plane would crash'. This is pretty scary, if her ability to detach from her own thoughts was so extreme as to admit that a part of her wished harm on the lord of the universe without realizing that indeed SHE was wishing that. The interview was very illustrative of a lot of the premie mechanisms by which they cope with the obvious lie of the whole thing. And by which they absolve themselves, and Rawat, of responsibilty.

It is funny to me. Over and over again it comes down to this. That way of thinking is supposed to be about taking responsibility. Great, if it is taking responsibilty for what we do, and what we can control. But, most often I see it used to evade responsibilty. Perhaps, as Katie says, it is something that only workds when we apply it to ourselves, and I beleive that should be in a limited rational way, if we start saying that we are not responsible for how our actions affect others, we sort of become sociopaths, don't we?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 16:24:37 (GMT)
From: Runamok
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: debate on responsibility/Apter
Message:
As far as Apter goes, my bet would be that she moodily gets pissed off at M, and that her lack of physical proximity is a sign of a falling out, however slight (and for a fanatic like her, slight would be huge). Her statement would reflect more that she isn't after revenge or stuck in the past, which I would also guess it true.

Like M, she's a public person and my knowledge of her, realistically, is not that of a friend or associate but of someone who heard a lot of satsang from her. She may not like M anymore but is tight-lipped about it.

The issue with Joan is her own responsibility. She drew a lot of people in. I know she convinced me that M would bring peace to the world and that the only chance to improve the world was to sign up. I might have had a fighting chance to either not join or not take it so seriously had it not been for her influence.

I do see her as someone who should take responsibility as part of the wrong done, but approaching someone that way isn't a simple task. The fact that she responded at all when these issues are somewhere 'on some burner' surprises me. This isn't to get nostalgic about her that 'she will come through'. She probably won't.

Taking the philosophical discussion of responsibility one step further, it's a good thing when people move on emotionally from the cult when they feel capable. Some people went through more than others, so we can't all do that. But there is such a thing as indulging in anger or self-pity needlessly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:18:32 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Runamok
Subject: I agree about that
Message:
yes, there is such a thing as engaging in self pity and anger needlessly. I tend to shy away from deciding where that line is for other people. It is hard enough to draw it for myself!

I also think it is healthy to move on from thinking about the cult. I have talked about this with many ex's here, in private mostly. Just regularly participating in the site can be throwing 'good time after bad'.

I think though there are all sorts of motivations for those who post here. For me, I do not feel very unresovled about those years. I have to say the main reason I stick around is just that I really like to watch the interactions. I enjoy the debate. Sometimes, it appeals to the less laudable interest in gossip. Many times, the site is just hysterically funny, and inside jokes are always the best. I too, enjoy it when something I say is meaningful to another person and I am able to help another person. But I don't think I hang around because I am trying to work things out still. I would guess that there are other's who post here like me.

When I met the other ex's at the Latvian gathering in SF I realized that a lot of ex premies are really cool people. I wish I could just have that group over to dinner every so often. It would be an enriching experience. I think we make some good friends here. Friends who are more 'real' than we know, because we just type to eachother. But there was a sense of comraderie that I truly enjoyed at that get together. I suspect that is a big part of why I stick around.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:26:41 (GMT)
From: Jim -- Now don't you be
Email: None
To: Susan
Subject: going all 'real' on us, Susan -- I liked you just
Message:
fine the way you are.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:30:25 (GMT)
From: Susan
Email: None
To: Jim -- Now don't you be
Subject: Jim I want you to be my dinner guest any time
Message:
If you are half as witty in person I know I would enjoy it. I am always reading your posts to my husband who has the same way of cutting to the chase on any given subject as you do.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:15:51 (GMT)
From: Deputy Dog
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Jim I want you to be my dinner guest any time
Message:
Jim,

I too would like to have dinner and a drink with you. I think you are witty and a gentlemen and you'd definitely make me laugh. Only one proviso though, you could't talk about Maharaji! I honestly don't think you could do it.

-- Dogg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 16:24:41 (GMT)
From: reuters
Email: None
To: Everyone
Subject: starter text for press releases....need help
Message:
The cult phenomena has become deadly once again. Even cult leaders in this country can remain invisible for years while acquiring millions of dollars and thousands of followers. One such example is the boy guru once named Guru Maharaji. Tracking his aliases and financial holdings has become the task of several of his former followers. In their efforts to break the psychological domination they have gone on line to work with each other and provide a forum for other potential cult victims to understand the larger picture. http://www.ex-premie.org
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 16:34:08 (GMT)
From: cq
Email: quartus@postmaster.co.uk
To: reuters
Subject: Even cult leaders in this country ...
Message:
'Even cult leaders in this country ...'

As they say in India:

'what is your name, where are you going ...?'


You represent Reuters? That seems to be the implication.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 21:11:43 (GMT)
From: Zelda
Email: None
To: Reuters
Subject: Photo of Airplane? Arial shot of Malibu Palace?
Message:
the mind boggles.

I think a series of press releases that we can all access for our local press is a good idea. They could build on the one you already have done-letting out more of the facts and details as appropriate.

''Since- (insert date) ex followers of the Boy God have been able to get support on the Forum.
Anyone who is considering involvement with the former god, who under new management markets himself in a new-improved package' (insert brief discription) is encouraged to refer to (insert speific section of the site) before making the committment.

Find out his track record, financial dealings, brainwashing techniques and committments expected of the 'Aspirants'. Find out the true meaning of 'Keep in touch' - the harmless phrase used on newcomers that de-codes into something much more sinister.''

??????

to cq
My impression is that Reuters is a nick name. Reuters seems to be compiling a PR tool for us to use if we want to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 00:05:55 (GMT)
From: reuters
Email: None
To: Zelda
Subject: Arial shot of Malibu Palace?... is there one???
Message:
Are there any arial pictures besides the satellite photo???
It is nice but not close enough to really demonstrate the problem we are dealing with.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index