|
Subject: David
Lovejoy's Statement
Message:
David asked me to post this...
I suppose David Lovejoy cannot stoop to submit
his own post here, which of course would be the
easiest thing in the world to do. One cannot but be
impressed at his pomposity - getting you to do his
dirty work.
My name is David Lovejoy, and I live in the
same part of Australia as John Macgregor and
Michael McDonald whose postings are, I understand,
a prominent part of this website. In fact I am the
managing editor of the newspaper for which Michael
works and to which John contributes. You could say
that I know them better than most people do.
I wonder if John and Michael would agree!
Stripped down to the core, John's case seems
to be that Maharaji is human and Elan Vital is not
a democracy. Neither of these insights strikes me
as revolutionary. But Michael agrees, and for good
measure throws in his belief that 'brain science'
may disprove mysticism.
So it’s not a democracy. But I don’t
think that anyone here’s departure with M
simply stems from being offended by the lack of
democracy. Nobody minds a good leader – in
fact they are welcomed even in a democracy. What is
the issue here is how capable a boss Maharaji
is.
Maharaji's organisation appears to be in a
phase of change again. It has been doing that on
and off for 30 years and I don't expect it to stop.
It remains, and I am sure will remain, a profoundly
undemocratic institution. Why should it be anything
else?
I can think of many reasons why undemocratic
institutions suck. The main reason is that the
inevitable fat cats at the top either are corrupt,
or become corrupted by their power and abuse their
shareholders trust. This ‘Perfect Master’
thing is, historically in India, an undemocratic
institution that took advantage of a culture that
expected and tolerated all kinds of suspect God-men
lording it over them. Maharaji came to the west and
tried to perpetuate such a system, albeit toning it
down a bit. He has however been very suspicious and
reluctant to encourage the constructive criticisms
of his members despite having made mistakes at
their expense.
Where we have no choice about belonging there
we have a right to reform.
What about workers rights? As far as I’m
concerned, everyone has a ‘right’ to try
to reform any situation they find themselves in.
Whether they are correct to do so and can be
successful is another thing.
At this stage of western history it is
unthinkable that we should be born into or forced
into an authoritarian political system, and we
would resist it mightily.
The word ‘authoritarian’ means that
authority prevails over liberty. Our political
systems are by no means lacking in authoritative
persons. My point is that there is a distinction
between benign authority and corrupt authority. We
need authorities in all areas of society but we
have learned that they should be elected for their
merits and abilities and furthermore, that society
must have watchdogs to make sure that they are
doing their job properly.
But how does that have anything to do with an
organisation which we freely choose to
join?
Yes, at first we freely , believed in and
supported Maharaji’s organisation. We were his
organisation - his “hands and feet”. We
built him up to being what he is today. He could
not have done this without us. We helped him become
successful. However, although we initially chose to
‘join’ we probably did not at first
realise the full degree to which we would gradually
be encouraged to give up our choices, in the
process of surrender that seemed to become an
increasing requirement. Some of us surrendered our
liberties to him in very practical ways - in trust
– we surrendered our lives as best we could,
our doubts – we worked for him – we gave
him our time and money. Our freedom of choice was
eroded really over time, by the rhetoric of
‘surrender’ and ‘total
dependence’ etc. that Maharaji was responsible
for and that we accepted. It’s called
brainwashing!
No, I feel we have a right to question the way
that we allowed ourselves to be manipulated and
indeed, weigh up the benefits that we gained in our
lives from following Maharaji’s
‘Agya’ against the costs of being a part
of a pretty dysfunctional organisation. Many look
back with some regret and, not surprisingly, some
resentment that Maharaji himself seems to have been
the main benefactor of our sacrifices and
trust.
His organisation is de facto his
organisation, and anything less democratic than a
spiritual teacher's following is hard to imagine.
Business isn't democratic, sport isn't democratic,
religion isn't democratic. Democracy is about power
and how to share it; it has absolutely nothing to
do with Maharaji's work, which we recognise as his
work not ours.
Well, I think his work would benefit from a
little more democracy. Are you suggesting that
these undemocratic businesses, religions, sports
etc. are shining examples of how the human race
conducts its affairs? You can’t be much of an
idealist David.
Are we all going to teach the techniques of
Knowledge or is it Maharaji's gig?
Why not? Why should the sale of water be
monopolised by one company?
Well, I think the point is that Maharaji stands
accused of possibly being a bit of a
‘quack’ shall we say. As such I think it
may not be inappropriate for anyone who is
inspired, to also distribute this
‘medicine’ in their own way. For a start,
it is arguable that he misleadingly sells the
Knowledge experience as if he were the sole agent.
It may not have yet been done, but that does not
mean that it is not possible that Knowledge could
be taught – distributed – in a manner
that does not exalt one person as the only Master
of the subject. After all – the experience of
our breath is supposedly our birthright and we are
invited to learn about it. When we have learned can
we not teach others ourselves? Just because we like
to believe he is the only source – or the best
source - does not mean that it is true. Like Pat
said, it is more or less a shrewd business move for
Gurus to keep their ‘revelations’ as
trade secrets.
Maharaji somehow has managed to get us to
associate - to attribute to him – the good
experiences we had through learning how to meditate
in a certain way. That this grew to become a more
complicated belief system seems to me to be mainly
because of his constant insistence that we would
continue to need him as a source of inspiration
(and the fact that the techniques were withheld
until one kind of had proved some seeds of loyalty,
expectation and dependence) rather than from any
inherent conclusions that one might have drawn
simply from meditating.
I suppose that I am saying that I question that
my inner peace through this particular meditation
has anything more to do with him than he happened
to be the person selling it. In many ways I have
been very grateful for, and enjoyed being a premie,
but I remain unconvinced that in the grand scheme
of things, he is as indispensable as many,
including himself, believe.
I freely acknowledge Maharaji as the font and
origin of the organisation, and in organisational
terms that means I am not interested in taking
part. I wish him well, and I wish the spread of
Knowledge well, I will even help in small ways if
they present themselves, but working in an
undemocratic organisation is not for me: it throws
up too many ethical problems. Unless, of course, I
am the undemocratic head myself.
It strikes me as a little odd that you can find
enough ethical objection to M’s organisation
to not want to take part any more – to
withdraw – and yet you seem to happily condone
him on the other hand. Have you really thought
about this deeply I wonder? I personally found that
the ‘political’ and unethical stuff had
its roots in Maharaji’s whole viewpoint.
Certainly these problems largely arose in the first
place because of the autocratic dynamic.
. (Is there a 'party line' to proclaim that EV
is democratic?)
No, but there are democratic elements permitted
within the structure as long as they don’t get
too carried away. For example they have meetings
about meetings which appear to give people the
opportunity to have a say. Of course they
don’t really! They just serve to give the
impression to people that their views count. Sort
of to defuse potential dissent!
There have in fact been two major bad
incidents to my knowledge, about which any group
should feel ashamed. One is the Jagdeo matter and
the other is Fakiranand's violence in 1973. In the
time span and magnitude of the organisation I would
say that is not a bad batting average for
behaviour. I thought Jagdeo was banished, I know
Fakiranand was.
The bad incidents, the hypocrisies, the
unethical stuff did, and does need to be looked at.
The fact that it is being ‘exposed’ in
the ways that it has been, by a former high profile
premies blurting out secrets that they were too
afraid to speak of etc. is, in my view, symptomatic
of the disease that existed in M’s
organisation. The fact that he personally was not
wise enough to address certain skeletons in the
cupboard before they became embarrassments or upset
people surely represents a lack of judgement on his
part.
These unattended boils have to erupt
somewhere.
Your list of major bad incidents is too brief
and also does not really take in to account the sum
of the many minor incidents and of course, the
behaviours of Maharaji himself which appear, from
Dettmer’s reports to have been, on occasion,
both unethical and hypocritical.
and if you have had experience of real cult
pressure, as John has, it is hard to see much to
criticise in EV programs
Oh but he does! I think the point is that all
criticism has its place and is essentially a good
thing. My perspective is that the historical
context about Maharaji and Knowledge – warts
and all - is as relevant a part of the true story
as the glossy adverts – and as such - if it is
not learned of during the sales pitch (as one would
not expect it to be), then it is good that
interested people are elsewhere informed so they
can make their own minds up.
Although John's posting is clearly sincere,
it is relevant to consider his recent experience
with 'spiritual' organisations.
……..However, Alice remained resolutely
deaf to pleas that she should leave the group. Her
answer, when pressed, was 'Why should I do so when
you still belong to the Maharaji cult?' Well, now
Alice has one less reason to ignore her father's
advice. I hope at least that part of the plan is
successful.
John’s realisations about the cult his
daughter joined and her retort to him about his own
persuasions, may well have confronted him with his
own hypocrisy. In my opinion that has to have been
a favourable outcome. If anything, I would applaud
him for seizing the opportunity to do a reality
check on his own beliefs. I don’t think your
reporting on these circumstances in any way
diminishes his postings. If anything it makes me
understand him a little better. I would however
have thought that you are yourself guilty of having
some personal reasons for speaking about Johns
private life here. That is the impression you
give.
I think the organisation is bad in John's eyes
because Maharaji is bad. He says it bears rotten
fruit and alleges a 'lack of progress - both
internal and external - in the lives of most
premies', and the failure of 99% of their marriages
(these statements are presumably examples of his
factual and unembellished research). All this
personal failure is Maharaji's fault.
Maharaji was a big influence on people’s
lives and was partly responsible for people
changing their directions –giving up careers
etc. – can’t they have their regrets?
Should they just blame themselves? Can’t he
share a little? Oh, I forgot – He is beyond
responsibility or blame even though he is human and
makes mistakes. Make your mind up premies –is
he human or not?? Human’s can take a little
blame when it is due.
In the beginning, at the age of thirteen and
fourteen, he said many things which were
interpreted differently here than they would have
been in his native land.
Yes, from what I can see the Indian’s
don’t take their God’s quite so
seriously. I say this having observed the
incredible hypocrisies of mahatmas who, whilst
preaching celibacy etc. to us terrible earnest,
educated young westerners, were gaily getting
stoned and bonking away without the least flicker
of conscience. Frankly I am astonished at how, what
appears to me to be a perfectly clear philosophy
(read Shri Hans’ Yog prakash – early
satsangs etc.) is supposedly ‘open to
interpretation’. Everything he said was really
perfectly self-explanatory. I mean either he is or
isn’t God – either there are 43,000,012
lower life-forms or there aren’t.
It seems to me to be conspicuously more the case
that Maharaji simply learned that
‘authoritatively’ saying certain things
(like that statement that there are so many
thousand, million life-forms of lower species that
await you in your next incarnation if you
don’t practice Knowledge etc) simply
didn’t wash with more intelligent people so
best to drop it for that audience. What is
revealing is that these Gurus only dropped the
scary rhetoric when they had to – not because
it was wrong- and still would trott it out to those
who could be successfully intimidated by such
nonsense.
He gradually learned to speak more
appropriately to our culture and we learned not to
take all that Hindu stuff literally.
But did he? I think not.
No, not all of us did; for some people those
beliefs are central and they hang on to them as
long as possible, even into the premie afterlife it
seems. The obsession with what he said in 1973 is a
hangover from the time when we projected
omniscience on to him. This sort of nonsense was
encouraged by Indians who didn't understand how our
minds were conceptually unprotected. Like most
people I figured that one out in the mid seventies,
but John appears to be still dragging it around.
Napoleon indeed!
Listen David, I spent yesterday with a premie
friend who was just in India this year – he
showed me photos of the huge, elaborate
‘Darshan’ hall that has been recently
erected at the ashram there and left me in no doubt
that Maharaji certainly still very much approves of
people taking all this Hindu stuff extremely
literally. I really think that, despite what you
say about us learning not to take that Hindu stuff
literally, that underneath, Maharaji still really
does believe it and endorse it whenever he can. It
strikes me that it is merely regrettable to him
–inconvenient - that westerners seem to find
this deification and all the trappings unacceptable
and offensive. I really see a lot of hypocrisy in
this area. I think he loves the worship. I mean
– he still has an instrumental Arti playing at
programs apparently. The implication is there. The
old premies will be singing the words in their
heads - He still plays to that old premie
‘projected omniscience’ – He really
does! He does absolutely nothing to discourage it
and a good deal, sneakily, to encourage it
actually. Don’t blame the premies! A lot of
westerners are confused about this –and
rightly so. Also just because worshipping a man-god
is traditional and acceptable in Indian culture
doesn’t mean that it is not a vestige of
outdated magical superstition which has little
basis in Truth and a dubious place in man’s
future.
Then there's his personal life. As far as I
can understand, the criticism here is that he eats
and smokes and screws. If he were a Jerry
Falwell-style evangelist inveighing against the
sins of the flesh we could dob him in for
hypocrisy, but I've never heard him advising us to
do anything but practise Knowledge
.
Where were you David? What about the ashram
lifestyle that he advocated for his most sincere
followers in the 70’s? I have personally heard
during ashram meetings, Maharaji rail against
premies who were tempted by the sins of the flesh.
Maybe not now –of course not – but in the
past yes – and that was apparently when he was
indulging himself liberally in these things!
It’s a bit rich.
What is the accusation? That he is human?
That after 27 years his marriage is not going too
well? Or simply that these matters are not
broadcast via cable or discussed at length in EV
newsletters as John apparently thinks they should
be.
The accusations are that Maharaji, whilst doing
the Master bit very nicely for others, seems to
rather have neglected to take himself, the medicine
he prescribes for others. The cynical suggestions
are that Knowledge is a business for him and that
he shows all the signs of one who is corrupt /
drunk with power. There seems to be some evidence
to support this although, since Maharaji is well
protected and is surrounded by much secrecy, one
has to make up one’s own mind as to the
veracity of the bitter ravings of some prominent
apostates. Being myself, quite confused by the
reports of one Michael Dettmers, I indeed took it
upon myself to track him down and satisfy myself at
length that he was not making it all up out of
spite!
In fact, despite John's self-aggrandisement
on the net posting, I don't really think he had
much personal contact with him at all. I had
precious little, but it is enough to keep me from
indulging in superficial nitpicking about his
character. Whoever Maharaji is, he is not a simple
con artist.
I don’t think that is the suggestion of the
former premies who are now fallen from Grace. I
think even they recognise that he is a more complex
character. Multi-faceted?
To my eye neither Michael nor John has been
damaged in any way by the time they chose to give
this path. In fact, I am in a position to recall
that they were both in desperate straits when they
came to Maharaji, and that the quality of both
their lives rose tremendously. I witnessed it, and
it was no different in my own case.
Can you not permit them to speak for themselves?
If they feel that they were damaged then presumably
that’s what they feel. You flatter yourself
that you are seeking to put into perspective their
criticisms but you seem to be at pains to diminish
what they feel now – whatever their
reasons.
the end of his path with Maharaji is a
personal matter and in my opinion has no public
resonance. There may be a great debate going on at
the ex-premie website but there is not in the
community here in Byron Shire.
That’s right. The debate is here - not in
your community. So? Why should the debate be in
private –not in public? You are not clear
about this. What should be hidden?
the obsessive detail in which John reveals
his own identity is like some kind of electronic
striptease and sounds, frankly, like someone on the
verge of a nervous breakdown.
So let him have his breakdown – these
ex-premie websites (especially the private
‘recent-exes forum’) are designed as
places for recovery and support for exactly these
sort of people. You obviously have taken great
exception to John’s views. It sounds as if you
have no sympathy for his personal struggle. I
remember that in premiedom, the personal struggles
of individuals were often met with coldness and
lack of empathy because of the overriding belief
that premies had – confused people were simply
‘In their Mind’ and everyone had to deal
with that themselves through their private efforts
and of course Maharaji’s Grace.
Writing stuff for the internet is (as I have
found by writing this) a strange experience. You
feel anonymous even if you are putting your own
name to the message. There is a temptation to
exaggerate, to make the story sound better.
Speak for yourself. Personally, the
responsibility of broadcasting my feelings and
experiences publicly, weighs upon me to be as
accurate, conscientious and honest as possible.
|