Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 15:27:01 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: AJW Subject: What a year. Message:

Wow Anth! You said it all. Your support and wisdom all through this has been very important to me. ( Not to mention your wit! ) Really, the turd would not have 'risen' again this time if EV had not put that FAQ up on their website. All of the events I describe were a direct result of my need to respond to that bizarre statement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:09:13 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: AJW Subject: What a year. Message:

Anth, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments expressed above, and fully support the action that Susan has taken, but what happened to the police investigation that you allegedly instigated and fleetingly refer to above? Can we expect any action in this area or was it all just 'Anth' rhetoric? Would you care to update us all on the matter? Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 00:54:03 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Just wondering Mel..... Message:

What you're interest is in any police investigations into this alleged crime? Where do you stand on the issue? I mean, you ask if 'we' (BTW how would you define 'we' in this instance, premies, ex-premies or....what?) could expect any action. What action would you personally like to see taken? I'm asking because I'm interested to know how the average devotee would react if Jagdeo and any who knowingly harbored him from justice were brought to book? PS You haven't sent in any offerings to ELK Expressions, have you?:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:55:23 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Rob Subject: Just wondering Mel..... Message:

Rob 'We' means anyone, premie, ex-premie or 'non'-premie who is outraged by paedophilia. If you want to know where I stand on the issue, read the archives. I'm a parent with a daughter! What should happen? The perpetrator should be brought to justice, as simple as that. Is this satisfactory? Or does it just not cut muster with your stereotyping of 'premies'. Anth raised such an expectation with his lengthy posts quite a while ago about getting the police in the UK to investigate the issue, but as far as I know, he has not reported the results or progress of the police investigation. Why don't you ask him to report on the issue, as well. It's a perfectly legitimate question considering the seriousness of the matter and the undertakings that he gave at the time. Well, Anth, I'm (and others) are still awaiting your answer! Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:49:00 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Behind the scenes Message:

Well it's nice to see a premie agree that even cult elders should not be immune from the laws of the land. Very refreshing. As far as Anth's dealings with the authorities goes, I trust his judgement since he has a much greater insight into the whole situation than I. Also, I am certain that whatever information he chooses to share here does not constitute the whole story - much takes place 'behind the scenes' in many areas of ex-premie activities, for obvious reasons. Maybe it's a simple matter of not wishing to prejudice any legal action with too much public discussion. I appreciate you answering that, although it does lead into another question: do you feel Elan Vital and Maharaji ought to be more forthcoming in what they know of the situation, and do you think that Maharaji should AT LEAST offer Susan some words of comfort and sympathy, even without admitting liability? I'm not just 'having a go' at you here, I would really like to get a feel for the view from the other side, as it were.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 02:28:37 (GMT) From: An impartial observer Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Don't forget my questions Mel Message:

'Well, Anth, I'm (and others) are still awaiting your answer!' Well, Mel,and I and others are still awaiting your answers! '

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 12:45:29 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: An impartial observer Subject: Don't forget my questions Mel Message:

I answered Mels question straight after he asked it. My anszer got pushed down below, so maybe you missed it. Anth the bottom of the barrel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 02:51:29 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: An impartial observer Subject: Don't forget my questions Mel Message:

Mr 'impartial' observer, I've answered your first question already with my response to Rob. Your question as to 'Does not Maharaji's silence on this subject woory you about his character and motives?' It would if it can could be demonstrated that he has indeed, remained 'silent' and inactive. Cetainly at this point he has remained publicly silent, but from what I can gather from Susan's original post, it would appear that he has not 'remained silent' to EV people, it seems he passed her letter on to EV for response! I doubt whether this would have been a 'silent' process, don't you? Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:11:35 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel Message:

I truly appreciate the supportive words you have posted. But it looks like you really are giving Rawat a lot of slack here. What explanation for what Judy said to me is there other than that she told Rawat in 1982? How else would she have known he 'already knew'? I am not terribly impressed with Rawat's response. Not at all. I think he has known since the seventies and is lying. Not only that, I think that if he told Randy and Judy to remember, they would. I suppose I screwed up by telling two of the most loyal devotees he could ever hope to have. I am sure there are premies who would say screw you I am telling the truth! But most people who have that kind of character probably left the fold ages ago. Also, he pretty much was between a rock and a hard place when he got that letter. Since it was going to be pretty easy to prove it was delivered, there had to be some acknowledgement of it. I don't think forwarding it to EV was some sort of noble act.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:48:11 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Susan Subject: Mel Message:

Hi Susan You've come a long, long way from 'G's mom' in dealing with this issue, especially by taking it directly to Maharaji. In my view you have tremendous moral courage and agree with Dettmers in his introduction of you to Maharaji as a 'person of integrity'. In your situation I would be unimpressed by Maharaji too, and even NOT in your situation, if Maharaji did indeed know of it as early as you indicate and didn't act, I wouldn't be particularly impressed. I have doubts in this area, though, because (as you stated in your recent post) Maharaji appears to have taken quite decisive action when dealing with the sexual misdemeanours of instructors on other occassions. It's a mystery as to why your case should have been treated any differently. It wouldn't be too unreasonable to conclude that he may not have been told. If this is the case, then the weak link seems to be the instructors themselves. Did they lie to you when they told you that the issue had been reported? Obviously, you know them, so are better able to judge that than I would. If they did not lie then, they certainly appear to be lying now when if they say they cannot recollect the issue or reporting it to Maharaji. Anyway, I'm just speculating here, of course. Good luck and all the best to you and your family. Take care Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 23:21:06 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel: what decisive action..? Message:

Don't want to side track from the main discussion, but you posted: Maharaji appears to have taken quite decisive action when dealing with the sexual misdemeanours of instructors on other occassions. Depending on one's viewpoint 'decisive action' could either mean (a) distancing oneself and one's reputation from the offender or (b) calling the police. An additional option (c) would involve offerring profuse apologies to victims along with social support. Simply removing the abuser from one's staff list is characteristic of strategy (a). Do you have evidence of M ever doing anything more than this? Richard Nixon knew all there is to know about being decisive, as do all high placed men and women with a lot to lose. They invariably go for option (a) and leave it at that. Nothing honourable - just a case of doing the bare essential for the sake of their own skins.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:04:29 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Sorry to jump in Mel Message:

But I was just struck by another thought: Does it not seem to you that this (and many, many other) issues could be resolved fairly quickly if Maharaji would simply enter into a dialogue with those concerned? There have been all manner of quite important and powerful debates going on here over time, and apart from a smattering of real and anonymous premies airing their views, there has been not one word from either Maharaji or anyone at Elan Vital. I know it would be asking too much for the LOTU to started tapping away at his keyboard and posting to the forum, but what about private letters or emails to the worst affected among us? Doesn't his aloofness bother you? Put it in a more personal perspective: have you ever had a difficult problem or serious doubt which could easily have been washed away had Maharaji only answered your letters or let you talk to him person? What motivates him to completely disregard us like that? Wisdom? Love? Compassion?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:17:23 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Rob Subject: Sorry to jump in Mel Message:

Rob I can only agree with that more personal contact with Maharaji as you suggest in this and your other post may help the resolve some situations. In my view, though, the expressions of verbal abuse and outright hatred that appear on this site wouldn't encourage me to post here or even email ex-premies, if I were him. Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:03:15 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Us? Abusive? Message:

But Mel, he's the Perfect Master, remember? He can absorb all that nasty stuff and still exude peace, love and understanding, right? OK I'm being sarcastic, but really, how can one not be? I know you're in a rather hopeless predicament, trying to defend the indefensible, and I do acknowledge your struggle, but surely you can see the obvious? You could concede the point and agree that maharaji's lifelong avoidance of the sort of caring, personal attention one could reasonable expect from any NORMAL teacher, let alone one who teaches *perfection*, is inexcusible, but it will not alter the status quo one iota. The FAQs will continue to be tweaked and fine tuned, the history page will be rewritten, edited and cropped, until the past 30 years is reduced to a couple of non-committal paragraphs: 'He came, He saw (an opportunity), He conned us.' You know Mel, you are in a position to put this communication issue to the test. Drop M. an email or a letter. Call someone at EV and tell them you have to talk to your teacher. Doesn't have to be about the Jagdeo issue at all. Make it anything which personally troubles you about him and K. We would all be interested to hear the (lack of) response, but probably won't hold our breath in the meantime. I feel like you are hanging on to m. despite every fiber in you telling you it's a scam. Have you been able to identify why that is, why you deny your own intuition?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:21:56 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel, are you justifying stonewalling Susan? Message:

Mel, Susan alleges that Maharaji knew all about Jagdeo because, she was told, Prouty told him. Maharaji got a letter from her which he handed off to some lackey who wrote back and decidedly avoided dealing with that allegation. Are you suggesting it had something to do with the tone of Susan's letter? Mel, you know this stinks. Really, what you're doing is shameless and you know it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:54:26 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Mel, are you justifying stonewalling Susan? Message:

No, not at all... Susan alleges that Maharaji knew all about Jagdeo because, she was told, Prouty told him. Maharaji got a letter from her which he handed off to some lackey who wrote back and decidedly avoided dealing with that allegation. Are you suggesting it had something to do with the tone of Susan's letter? No, I think the tone of Susans letter was admirable. It addressed the issue and was honest and was in no way rude or disrespectful. Jim, I think youre starting to engage in your typical 'twist the issue' game here. I remarked to Rob that I thought that Maharaji may not want to directly communicate to ex's because of the 'tone' of some of their posts. This remark has absolutely nothing to do with Susan's letter and I'm not overly happy that you have introduced an implication that it has. Personally, I agree that it may have been more appropriate that Maharaji should have responded himself rather than passing it on to some 'lackey' (as you say). Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:03:00 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Sorry, that's not fair. That's YOUR excuse Message:

Come on, Mel, you're the one that raised the possible excuse that Maharaji might have for not dialoguing with exes being that we're too rude. I never said that, you did. And, yes, all along the issue was, in context, why he's never engaged Susan, you, more or even Reverend Shp in open communication about this. That was a bullshit balloon you floated, Mel. Don't blame me for clarifying the matter. It was abundantly fair for me, in the circumstances, to ask if you were saying that with reference to Susan and, if the answer was 'no, which you say it is, to ask you why even talk about that then. Nice try, anyway.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:38:09 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Another critical point Message:

I am very disturbed by the statement in EV's response to Susan that: I understand that Michael Dettmers has passed on to you the fact that Jagdeo is no longer associated in any capacity with Elan Vital organizations worldwide. He has not performed any duties as an instructor in the United States since the 1980's. He is now retired and living in a village in India. Now what is to be gleaned from this piece of total obfuscation? Importantly, Jean Michel has told us that Jagdeo was sitting amongst the mahatmas at an EV India event just a few years ago. A cynical person, perhaps a lawyer, might infer that Jagdeo has not worked in the US since the '80's because EV knew of his misbehavior (as a result of Susan's report) and they made certain he was not in the US so that he couldn't be arrested or served with civil process. Also, even if Jagdeo did not work in the US for EV, wherever he worked, he likely had access to young girls. It was precisely this situation Susan tried to avert years ago when she reported the molestations to Randy, Judy and DLM. Saying that Jagdeo hasn't worked in the US since the '80's is a meaningless statement with respect to this situation. EV's letter to Susan is an outrage. I am delighted however that the Board of Directors has seen fit to put these sentences to paper as I suspect these words will come back to haunt them in the not so distant future. Susan is the moral center of our discussion. I am awed by her courage. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 08:29:10 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Marianne Subject: And furthermore! Is EV hiding a criminal? Message:

they say that he's now 'retired' in some Indian village in Bihar. Bihar is one of the places in India where lots of the premies live (or used to anyway). DLM once had a big ashram in Jumhri Tilaya, where the Rawats used to come, have programs and give darshan. I've attended one of them in the 70s. Now tell me: Jagdeo is 'retired' very likely in some premie house or ashram there, sustained by premies money. Who says he doesn't have access to children anymore? What are the precautions EV's taken there? Did EV give the address to authorities? THEY KNOW WHERE HE IS, AND UNLESS THEY GIVE HIS ADDRESS, THEY'RE HIDING A CRIMINAL. That's all. Is EV hiding a criminal?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 23:33:53 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Not quite true, J-M... Message:

Ev may be guilty of sheltering someone who has behaved criminally, but they are not harbouring a criminal, since - in the UK, at least - you are not technically a 'criminal' until you've been convicted of a crime. Time could still change all that, I guess, and here's hoping... (But you could probably be charged with 'aiding and abetting' if you had knowledge of the offences but knowingly helped the offender, even indirectly.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:08:54 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Legal question Message:

Hi Marianne Does the US have an extradition treaty with India, and if so, does the crime of sexual abuse of a minor fall within its mandate?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 14:20:58 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Rob Subject: No, let's be reasonable about this Message:

Rob, I think it's highly unlikely that anyone would ever be extradited for historic sexual interference or touching allegations.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:13:46 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Jim Subject: Then why keep him in India? Message:

Jim I've no desire to take up law as a profession, although I think I could have made a reasonable one, but my question really was in response to a remark made about keeping Jagdeo in India to avoid facing the consequences over here. Do you think he really has been put out to grass because of age & ill-health, or could it be for the reasons we claim? One can only wonder how many children have been put at risk over there both before he came to the west and more recently.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:12:46 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Rob Subject: Where else? Victoria? Manhattan? Malibu? (nt) Message:

ggggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:11:40 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: MarianneDB@aol.com To: Rob Subject: Legal question? Message:

Rob: I decline to answer this question in this venue.   Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:25:21 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Understood, thanks. nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 02:16:32 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: And one question further, Mel Message:

What should happen to the guru who knew Jagdeo was molesting kids as he circulated amongst his, the guru's, devotees as an ambassador of 'divine love and light'? And if you say there's no proof there was such a guru (and thus Susan's a liar), I'd ask you what kind of proof you'd require. What if, hypothetically, Randy Proudy or Judy Osborne came forward and admitted that they did indeed have the conversations with Susan she alleges. What would that mean to you and what should happen then, Mel? And if, hypothetically, Maharaji was sued as Jagdeo's principal for this sexual abuse, what should happen then? Should 'justice' prevail and if so how? Share your thoughts with us, Mel, and help us give up some ugly stereotypes we might have for premies.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 12:53:57 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Don't forget... Message:

...that Jagdeos serious crimes were also reported to Mahatma Gurucharanand, by the father of another victim, completely unrelated to Randy and Judy. Anth

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:10:43 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: AJW Subject: Don't forget... Message:

Really? I wasn't aware of that!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 16:28:22 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Okay, Mel, so now you know -- what? Message:

Your current opinion, Mr. Whoever-you-are?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:10:51 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Answer to one question further, Mel Message:

The answer is simple, Jim Maharaji is subject to the law as is any other human being. If he's found guilty in a court of law for whatever charge, he would have to suffer the penalties under the law, wouldn't he? How would I feel about it, very disappointed and hurt, as would anyone who holds someone in high esteem and finds that this person is found guilty of some crime. Would it undermine my practice of Knowledge? Well, I'd hope not! Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:21:44 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Hm, that's an interesting answer Message:

A couple of things come to mind. First, you say you'd be 'very disappointed and hurt'. Fine. But you also say you think it wouldn't undermine your practice of Knowledge. Honestly, Mel, how could that be? If you knew that Maharaji had allowed Jagdeo to circulate as he did in the face of reports like Susan's, and were thus, as you say, 'very disappointed and hurt', wouldn't you likely wonder just what this guy was about, after all? And wouldn't you likely then want to get some real answers from Maharaji, answers to questions like 'How could you?', before you'd have anything more to do with him? Okay, there's that. The second thing I wonder about is why you don't investigate this matter for yourself. You're obviously interested. So why don't you do your own due diligence for a change? Like, why don't you yourself write EV or Maharaji and seek some clarification? You read what EV told Susan. Jagdeo's no longer around and isn't it too bad that he was a bad boy when he was. Is that enough of an answer for you, Mel? Pesonally, I find it lacking. How about you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:07:04 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Here is another interesting answer Message:

Jim ...wouldn't you likely wonder just what this guy was about, after all? Of course I would. And wouldn't you likely then want to get some real answers from Maharaji, answers to questions like 'How could you?', before you'd have anything more to do with him? I would consider such questions quite natural, but in my view the practice and experience of Knowledge really has nothing to do with an issue of poor judgement in the way Maharaji may have dealt with this situation. As to you next question... is why you don't investigate this matter for yourself. You're obviously interested. So why don't you do your own due diligence for a change? Like, why don't you yourself write EV or Maharaji and seek some clarification? There's no need to investigate the matter myself. I read Susan's post with the responses from EV and have no reason to doubt her honesty. I'm sure that both Maharaji and EV would be painfully aware of how their credibility could be effected by the way that they deal with this issue. It doesn't require me to point out the obvious. Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 14:22:01 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: 'There's no need to investigate the matter myself' Message:

Mel, you say: 'There's no need to investigate the matter myself.' So you're happy for your inaction to condone the continuing attempts by EV and the Maha to cover up this whole issue and deny that anything should be done about Jagdeo??? If the man is to face criminal charges, and is at present living (quite possibly on some of the proceeds from donations made to EV) at liberty at an address KNOWN to EV - then their complicity also looks pretty damning. If allegations have been made, EV can't just sit there and say, 'oh, it was a long time ago'. No matter how long ago, a crime is a crime. And a cover-up is a cover-up. They themselves should report this to the authorities without delay, to avoid any charges of attempting to harbour a man suspected of criminal abuse. IMO, the longer EV and the Maha try to hedge this, the more they are in seriously deep doodoo. Perhaps you should be telling EV this yourself, Mel?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:12:03 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: cq Subject: 'There's no need to investigate the matter myself' Message:

CQ There's no need to investigate the matter myself because: 1. There doesn't appear a strong denial from EV that the events Susan has referred to have taken place, and they and the appropriate authorities are responsible for any investigations, not me. 2. As for the 'why don't I write a letter to EV' chastisement from you and others. Why do I need to? EV probably reads the posts here (including mine), so they would be very well aware of my views on the issue, and would probably also be aware that there are probably plenty of other premies(apart from ex's) who would share them. They've got the credibility issue on this, not me! Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:27:08 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel, let's get this straight now, once and for all Message:

Are you willing to accept that Susan did hear from Osborne that Maharaji already knew about Jagdeo and that that only confirmed what Susan already believed which was that Prouty had earlier told Maharaji just like he said he did? If you accept that, Mel, then the puck's in the net (as they say up here). The next question must be what do you say about your master now that you presume that he kept Jagdeo in circulation without warning anyone of anything? Time to get off the fence, Mel. The only way back for you is if you retract this statement: There's no need to investigate the matter myself because: 1. There doesn't appear a strong denial from EV that the events Susan has referred to have taken place .... But if you retract it, you're gonna look less than forthright, won't you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:34:44 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Jim Subject: let's get this straight now, once and for all...OK Message:

Hi Jim 'Are you willing to accept that Susan did hear from Osborne that Maharaji already knew about Jagdeo and that that only confirmed what Susan already believed which was that Prouty had earlier told Maharaji just like he said he did?' I have no reason no doubt that Susan did hear that Maharaji had been told of the incident at that time. I do have reason to doubt that Maharaji may have been told, because I believe that the instructors seem unreliable, and I’ve stated why in my post to Susan. So I entirely disagree with your superficial notion & 'If you accept that, Mel, then the puck's in the net (as they say up here)'. 'The only way back for you is if you retract this statement: There's no need to investigate the matter myself because: 1. There doesn't appear a strong denial from EV that the events Susan has referred to have taken place .... But if you retract it, you're gonna look less than forthright, won't you?' Again your wrong Jim, because I have no reason to retract it As you would be well aware, EV had made earlier commitments to investigate the allegations and assist any appropriate authorities with their investigations as well. This site has postings in it’s archives attesting this fact , (with the ex-premie “gloating” posts appended, of course). You can’t have forgotten this surely, Jim? This obviously indicates that EV does not strongly deny the event took place, only that they were (apparently) unaware of it and that they are willing to follow up on the matter. How conscientious they have been in this follow up is, of course, a matter of debate. So your assertion that I’m gonna look “less than forthright “ if I retract my statement is weightless.. Jim, it must be quite apparent how I view this particular matter, so I think it poor form to try and make your ex-premie political points by rote (although I suspect that you may be incapable of making them any other way!) I don't suppose that you will agree that this straightens the matter 'once and for all', oh well...... Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 14:49:30 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel just this one point... Message:

what explanation do you have for Judy saying 'he already had heard about this and was glad it was not a new incident' when I did NOT TELL HER that I had already reported it through Randy?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 16:00:43 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Susan Subject: Mel just this one point... Message:

Susan None, thanks for telling me this. Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 16:17:44 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: No, no, no, Mel -- that won't do at all! Message:

Come on, Mel. What's that mean to you? You say you hvae no explanation .... well, how about the obvious? That being that Maharaji knew and thus ALL the bad things you've said about him 'conditionally' are ripe for the pickin'? Do you want to know or would you prefer not?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 17:30:46 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yes, new possiblities.... Message:

... Jim, but as I said earlier, there is still reasonable doubt about the instructors' honesty on the issue, which makes it impossible to draw any accurate conclusions, just speculative ones! Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 18:57:17 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: And in the meantime ... Message:

EV is washing its hands of any former involvement with Jagdeo? And a suspected child-abuser is still at large, with NO investigations being mounted??? This could well be to EV's future detriment, believe you me. The longer they resist reporting Jagdeo to the authorities, the more harm it will do them. And, naturally, the Maha (Teflon he ain't!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:25:51 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: 'There's no need to investigate the matter myself' Message:

I was curious to read your response to my post to you titled 'The Water Analogy' that is just a short scroll below this one. Maybe you didn't see it...or are you dodging?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:23:51 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Sticking my beak in again Message:

This grabbed my attention Mel, I would consider such questions quite natural, but in my view the practice and experience of Knowledge really has nothing to do with an issue of poor judgement in the way Maharaji may have dealt with this situation. That sounds a lot like Mike 'The Mushroom' Fronke telling me that he didn't know or care who maharaji was, or whether he ever lied, Knowledge was the dog's bollocks and THAT's what he enjoyed. But then later, when I told him I still experienced stuff in meditation too, he'd try to force the argument that the Knowledge doesn't work without the Master! The point is, and why it relates to your statement above, is that the most fundamental premise of practising knowledge is having Trust in the Master. Yet here you are, admitting he showed extremely poor judgement in a situation which may have psychologically scarred several of his devotees' children for life and could ultimately land him in jail. Doesn't that make you question your own judgement about your choice of him as a teacher?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 10:43:46 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Rob Subject: Sticking my beak in again Message:

Rob Doesn't that make you question your own judgement about your choice of him as a teacher? Yes, Rob, it would if I felt that Knowledge didn't work for me. If you'll excuse a 'thirst' analogy... If I'm thirsty and someone offered me water with the assertion that if I drank my thirst would be quenched, and I drank and found this to be true, would later exposure of that person on 'character' issues undermine the fact that water does ,in fact, quench thirst? In my view, the two issues are totally unrelated. On one hand we have the simple contention of thirst and the quenching of it, and on the other an issue about personality, character and 'behavioural' issues. The trust isn't so much in Maharaji as a personality, or as some sort of beacon of virtue, the trust is in the quality of the experience of Knowledge, that he has happened to bring to my attention. True, I might have some expectation of Maharaji's moral integrity and I might even question the validity of my experience of Knowledge if I became convinced that it was lacking, but even then, when it boils down to it, the quality and experience of knowledge may not necessarilly be dependant on my views of Maharaji. Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:32:15 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: How about a Used Car Salesman analogy? Message:

Your analogy: If I'm thirsty and someone offered me water with the assertion that if I drank my thirst would be quenched, and I drank and found this to be true, would later exposure of that person on 'character' issues undermine the fact that water does ,in fact, quench thirst? Suppose you acquired a used car from a person, and when you drove the car it ran well, had good mileage and fulfilled your need to be mobile, but later you found out that the car salesman was a crook, had stolen the car, was an inveterate liar and conman and had in his employ an alleged child molester? Would this 'exposure' enable you to still feel good about your car and would you continue you to recommend that person to your friends? That's the trouble with analogies Mel, its so easy to scale them down in terms of their severity and consequence in one's life. Perhaps that's why so many cult leaders use them! In my view the two issues are totally related, simply because we are not talking about any run-of-the-mill yoga teacher here, at least so far as you premies are concerned. We are discussing someone whom you have dedicated your life to for at least 20 years, donate money to on a regular basis, hang on to every word emanating from his mouth as being the wisest, most profound utterances you have ever heard and who's feet you would gladly kiss if only he would grace you with the opportunity. In that light, Mel, I think the possibility that he may have knowingly sequestered an habitual child molester in his employ deserves more than the cursory dismissal you gave it. What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 03:31:08 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Rob Subject: How about a Used Car Salesman analogy? Message:

Rob You simply substituted my analogy for one of your own, and although I understand the point that you are making, I disagree. The way I read it was that, basically, Jim wanted to know if, in the light of the allegations, I questioned the integrity of Maharaji in relation to Knowledge. My answer was, basically 'No, I didn't think so' and gave my reasons. I haven't given 'cursory dismissal' at all to the allegation (as you put it) that '....he may have knowingly sequestered an habitual child molester in his employ...' Indeed, if you have bothered to read my other posts in this thread, you will see that I have remarked that Maharaji (like anyone else) is not above the law, and that would have to suffer the consequences of any conviction if found guilty of criminal behaviour (like anybody else). I don't read this as 'cursory dismissal' of the issue on my part, and if you took a momentory pause from your political predisposition to 'bag premies no matter what', you wouldn't read it that way either. Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 19:10:25 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: The Water Analogy Message:

I am glad that you picked the 'water/thirst' analogy. I just used it in another post on a previous thread. With all due respect, may I make an observation and ask you a question. If you are thirsty and someone gives you a drink of water and it quenches your thirst does that mean that you are forever indebted to that person for that drink of water and more importantly does that mean that this individual now has SOLE RIGHTS TO WATER WHEREEVER IT MAY BE? Just because you were ignorant of where to find water and they showed you where to look, I don't see why that makes the water of the world THEIR PRIVATE DOMAIN! No matter what they and their cronies tell you in a blissful way....they had no right to it in the 1st place. It isn't theirs to give or take! Just like water or air so is the experience derived in your head from meditation. After all it is YOU who do the meditation....not M! Those four techniques were around for thousands of years (remember M said that they are the same one's shown by Jesus and other Perfect Masters through-out history) and they were/are being taught by teachers all over the globe and available in countless books, and always have been. So what makes them the property of M? Because he and his devotees say so? Not good enough. Just because in your/our ignorance we didn't know where to look at the time for this thirst quenching 'water' doesn't mean that you/we might not have been shown it by someone else or found it on our own at a latter date! And if this 'water' giver turns out to be somewhat unscrupulous and have criminal friends why are we obligated to ignore that and say 'Oh I can't be bothered with those considerations, after all I AM NOT THIRSTY ANYMORE so to hell with anyone else. Isn't that a might selfish and irresponsible? Of course if one believes that said water giver has magic powers and is exempt from the ethical and moral values that are used in regard everyone else...well then you have MADNESS!!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:26:21 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Rob Subject: Sticking my beak in again Message:

Asking a true devotee to make this kind of concession would mean questioning the basis for unquestioning devotion. I don't think that Mel has reached that place yet. Maybe he never will. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 11:18:14 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Mel's unquestioning devotion... Message:

Marianne What do you define as 'unquestioning devotion'? Believe it or not, I don't generally measure my live in terms of 'devotion' (unquestioning or otherwise), especially if you mean any belief in any infallibity or 'perfection' of Maharaji's personality in any 'divine' sense. Maharaji is human. This means that he obviously can make mistakes, exhibit poor judgement or even fart at inappropriate times. I may even disagree with what he does and the way he does it. The issue for me isn't obedience or disobedience to some vague perception of who Maharaji may or may not be, it's based on a simple experience of fulfillment that I have recognised for myself and which he had taken the trouble to inform me about. Apart from that, my life is my own, I come and go as I please, I do what I want to do when I want to do it, in short, I am free, (well, as free as anybody else here is, anyway). Maharaji may have dictated the terms of peoples lives in the ashram 20 odd years ago, but he certainly doesn't these days. The idea of 'unquestioning devotion' implies a lack of individual thought processes and problem solving skills and a dependance on the direction of a dictator. My work colleagues and clients would be quite surprised if they met you and you described me to them in this light. Certainly my 'non' premie family (wife and children) don't see me in that mould either. Marianne, please don't try to put me into some sort of 'premie' pidgeon hole. You don't know me personally, what I do, what I cherish. You only see the part of me that relates to my views on Maharaji and Knowledge, and that isn't the full summation of who I am as a human being. It would be extremely arrogant of you to dismiss this other component of my personality, and I don't generally perceive you as an arrogant person Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 23:51:38 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Unquestioning devotion defined Message:

How about: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil? If you say that maharaji and his ragtag band of participating clowns do not figure largely in your life, then of course I'll take your word for it. Perhaps in another thread we can get OT and chat about some of the things which DO take center stage with you? Anyhow, I see that you are upset by what you see as stereotyping, but forgive us Mel, its hard not to drop you in that pile when you exhibit all the defining characteristics of that genre. Unquestioning Devotion, for me, describes a person who will make an effort to defend his Master no matter what, who will continue to count himself one of the faithful even in the face of the most convincing arguments and who has perfected the knack of excusing the *Giver* because of his *Gift*. That was exactly the tack taken by Mike 'The Mushroom' Fronke, to name but one, when pressed to answer criticisms of his Master. He would fall back into reminiscences of his meditation experiences and kind of drift off into some psylocybic reverie, tongue lolling out his mouth and eyes glazed over......meanwhile we're going 'MIKE, MIKE' or rather 'SHROOM, SHROOM, wake up, you're dreaming, answer the bloody question will ya!!' Perhaps you're not like him (BTW what do you think of his star performance here?) but to the untrained eye you sure do bear a huge resemblance to his ilk.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 12:15:29 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel's unquestioning devotion... Message:

Actually, Mel, Rawat gets in the way of the distribution of the four techniques. They could be promulgated far more wisely and sensitively if he just fucked off, and stopped telling lies about his relationship to those methods. Way wrote to Mike Fronke on the issue of m's relationship to K and Mr Fronke's stubborn delusion concerning the nature of that relationship. A personal observation, if I may. It does seem to me that for someone who claims relative distance from the cult's heart of darkness, you are having considerable difficulty in getting the matter into focus. I believe you may find this letter from downunder helpful in that respect.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 05:31:19 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Exactly my point Message:

But hopefuly it will provide food for thought for him and others? I have to go now, 'night Marianne, have a nice weekend.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:15:13 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Mel, you're completely contradicting yourself! Message:

On the one had, you say this to me: There's no need to investigate the matter myself. I read Susan's post with the responses from EV and have no reason to doubt her honesty. I'm sure that both Maharaji and EV would be painfully aware of how their credibility could be effected by the way that they deal with this issue. It doesn't require me to point out the obvious. But that follows saying this to Susan moments before: In your situation I would be unimpressed by Maharaji too, and even NOT in your situation, if Maharaji did indeed know of it as early as you indicate and didn't act, I wouldn't be particularly impressed. I have doubts in this area, though, because (as you stated in your recent post) Maharaji appears to have taken quite decisive action when dealing with the sexual misdemeanours of instructors on other occassions. It's a mystery as to why your case should have been treated any differently. It wouldn't be too unreasonable to conclude that he may not have been told. If this is the case, then the weak link seems to be the instructors themselves. Did they lie to you when they told you that the issue had been reported? Obviously, you know them, so are better able to judge that than I would. If they did not lie then, they certainly appear to be lying now when if they say they cannot recollect the issue or reporting it to Maharaji. Even an idiot would be able to see that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here, Mel. What gives?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:37:02 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: Jim Subject: Am I contracticting myself? Message:

Jim I'm sorry if this seems to be the case, so let me clarify my position. 1. I'm not sure that there is enough evidence to suggest that Maharaji was directly informed of the issue as early as Susan thinks. 2. IF he was aware of situation as early as this, then certainly there may be an issue as to how it's been dealt with. Do you see this as inconsistency? Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 04:58:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: Of course you are! Message:

Mel, You're like someone skittish watching a horror movie. You look, you hide, you look, you hide. Basically, you peek through your fingers. How fast? Depends how fast you type, I guess. If you slowed down a bit and just looked at what you've been saying here in this thread you wouldn't need me to point out the contradiction. You're smarter than that. But you're so busy juggling. You know, as an aside, I had a pathologist on the stand the other day. She was most definitely trying to change her evidence to fit the changing prosecution theory. I cross-examined her for three days! At one point, when she had absolutely no defence to my suggestion that she'd 'doctored' her evidence, she tried to weazle out by saying that he was so difficult to be 'juggling' the various matters we'd been talking about. So I threw at her the simple maxim that one doesn't have to remember anything -- or 'juggle anything -- when one's telling the truth. It's simple. Now some premies approach that fact of life the way Shroom did. Swim at such a superficial level that you find simplicity that way. Not that you're adhering to the truth, more like you're avoiding the sticky parts. You're often like that too. But now, when your'e actually discussing this (which, of course, I commend) you want simplicity where you'll just never find it. That is, you can't SIMPLY hold on to all that you want to here. Something has to give. Either that or you have to go back to swimming on the surface.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 16:54:56 (GMT) From: An impartial observer Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: What a year. Message:

If my memory serves me well, you are pwk. Did not the above allegations concern you? Does not Maharaji's silence on this subject woory you about his character and motives?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:22:41 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Mel Bourne Subject: What a year. Message:

Hi Mel, What me, empty rhetoric? I've not been in touch with either of the Police stations who have statements for a couple of months, so I don't know how their investigations are proceeding, or who they still want to talk to. I'm still in communication with one of the investigating officers, and will drop him a line in case he wants to interview anyone in the UK over the next week or so. Hope all is well with you and yours Mel. How's life in the cult nowadays? take care anth the coppers nark

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:58:21 (GMT) From: Mel Bourne Email: None To: AJW Subject: Thanks, Anth.... Message:

.... please keep us informed. Life's fine Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 16:17:02 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: AJW Subject: Why wouldn't Cainer's OLD paper want the story? Message:

What I don't get is why the Mail wouldn't run the story that the Express was now too frightened to do. I'm sure I'm not the first one asking the question, but why?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 12:24:25 (GMT) From: AJW Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why wouldn't Cainer's OLD paper want the story? Message:

Hi Jim, The Mail were interested in the story, and I had some communication with them, the Telegraph, a broadsheet, also picked up on it and talked to us, but so far nothings appeared in print. Anth the hack

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 16:27:03 (GMT) From: gErRy Email: None To: Jim Subject: It's a conspiracy... Message:

See, Goober's lawyers are hooked up to the good old boy network, as is the monopoly media that feeds the masses in the UKUSA. All it took to kill it was 'wink, wink, whisper, whisper, nod, nod,' and the story goes into the shredder. Follow the money trail...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 17:11:45 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gErRy Subject: That's ridiculous Message:

The ridiculous thing isn't the possibility that you're right. That's the appeal of conspiracy theories. Beside their sex appeal, they're at least plausible. But what's ridiculious is favoring that particular possibility, just because you find it so alluring, over much stronger possibilities. It's ever more likely, in this case, that the story was killed simply because of Cainer. You don't need no 'good old boy' nothing to suppress that story. You just want to squeeze that possibility into line ahead of its stronger competitors. Sorry, that's intellectual cheating. (Please, no 'Jim-is-a-piece-of-shit' campaign, this time. Me poor mum's been reading....)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 17:21:08 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: So...you wanna fight, huh? Message:

OK, buddy, put em up !!! Seriously, I gotta go to (ulp) (gulp) (Hiss, boo) work ;(

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 23:01:18 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: gerry Subject: Say it ain't so, gErRy! Message:

gErRy, Say it ain't so! Say you don't have a job. WORK!?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 18:31:23 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: No, no, no, a thousand times no! Message:

I'm working for seventeen days, commisioned sales at the Puyallup Fair selling these

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 19:19:15 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: gerry Subject: No, no, no, a thousand times no! Message:

Hey you are in my neck of the woods! Get me in to see that talented nutball Brian Wilson! (Just kidding, I gotta work.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 17:02:56 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: gErRy Subject: It's a conspiracy...and did you know? Message:

The country of Angola alone could supply the entire USA with oil, at the present level of consumption, for the next 50 years!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 17:14:00 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: gerry Subject: And for the record... Message:

A while back, Carol (bless her heart) out and out accused this website and Jim in particular for turning me from a mild mannered semi new age kind of guy into some sort of raging, rabid anti-gooberoid monster !!! Well, all I can say to that is... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...         IT'S TRUE !!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 06:31:01 (GMT) From: Carol Email: None To: gerry Subject: And for the record...Bless your heart, too nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 07:46:38 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Carol Subject: Also for the record... Message:

Gerry: A while back, Carol (bless her heart) out and out accused this website and Jim in particular for turning me from a mild mannered semi new age kind of guy into some sort of raging, rabid anti-gooberoid monster !!! Well, all I can say to that is... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...       IT'S TRUE !!!     JohnT: Thank you for that gerry, your post has enabled me to face up to the same truth. But I've found it in my heart to forgive Jim!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index