Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 13:58:04 (GMT) From: Yves Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's all folks Message:

It seem that's all we're going to get for now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 17:26:16 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Yves Subject: You mean Mike hasn't contact you yet? (nt) Message:

Just kidding

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:50:34 (GMT) From: GAC Email: None To: Jim Subject: Tough Luck You're pissed - Deacon Dettmers - Message:

So, now we hear Deacon Dettmers is displeased with us for not accepting his Corporate Consultant Fluff Songs on this site. Too bad, Deacon Dettmers! Many of us here feathered your nest when your silence was bought by the EV Church lawyer. Now you'll find with a few exceptions that we will not provide the feathers for your conscience you'd like us to stroke. Stew on it Brother Michael and tell Sister Gross the same. Church and Educational Institute - right. Funny, the inside liars club (and you are all liars) never told the masses where their money was truly going. So tell us Deacon Dettmers is Sister Gross in it for the millions of dollars too? GAC

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:46:13 (GMT) From: CHR Email: None To: all Subject: Leave the guy alone Message:

I find some of the 'witch hunting' here on the forum a little ugly. No doubt somebody will reply with some sort of patronising, self righteous statement to the effect of 'what about all the ugly things M did to us, in which Michael Dettmers was involved', but I really wish everybody would just leave the guy alone. I stumbled upon this site in 1997 and it was very helpful for me to be able to sort through and discuss experiences that I had had as a premie from 1973 to the early 90s. It was a reasonably tolerant forum at the time with a wide range of viewpoints. When I look in, these days, I tend to see a site that is full of its own self importance to the extent that there is an expectation that every ex PAM should feel an obligation to reveal their whole experience of M here. There also is an undercurrent of expectation that their experiences should always fit in with the paradigm of the 'desperate, meglomaniacal, totally fraudulent, drunken, sex crazy, money hungry cult leader.' This expectation of compliance with a particular viewpoint seems to me to be at the least hypocritical, at worst almost draconian. I mean, what is this site for? My understanding is that it is a forum for people who have left M, to freely discuss and express what they have been through. If you are wanting people who used to be close to M to come forward, the treatment of Dettmers on this forum has virtually snuffed out any possibility. I persnally know ex PAMS who have a huge amount to offer, but do not feel safe to come onto the forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 19:01:36 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: CHR Subject: I agree CHR Message:

But we seem pretty much in the minority here. I was very much hoping Michael would say more, and I still hope he will find some way to make a stronger statement about his feelings about the cult and his own personal 'journey'. I think some of the questions and challenges raised by the posters here are very legitimate. Others remind me of the guy in LOTU who said he thought the pie thrower deserved to have his throat slit. Fanaticism is hardest to take when its coming from your own side. When people behave in an ugly fashion and excuse the behavior by how important the 'cause' is I have to question it. I do think we see here as you say why so few PAMs have come out to be of help on this site. But I do not want to appear to be excusing the legitimate questions, and there are many. I do think that a lot of people who post haven't even taken the time to look up what Michael did say way back when he posted. He did clarify that when he was in the cult, and gave for example, that Poconos satsang, he did very much believe what he was saying. His proccess of seeing the cult for the cult it is was slow, like it is for most of us. But I do not want to get in the role of being his spokesman or his apologist. And I do consider him to be a friend, and I do not want to wade into the muck here and duke it out. I am sad that he likely will not be saying more, I think what he has to say could be helpful to some wavering premies and to some ex premies. Yes, there are ex's who will always treat him badly, and there are premies who would never stop believing Guru is greater than God even if Rawat did a real mea culpa, but there are a whole lot of other people listening who he could make a difference to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 12:49:31 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: CHR Subject: Why excuse Rawat's accessories to fraud? Message:

CHR: Michael Dettmers ... I really wish everybody would just leave the guy alone. Why on earth should this particular crooked ( = 'cynical and aware operative for a fraudulent messiah and false God') career cultist be left alone? To enjoy the cash he's helped to screw out of folk he helped to delude? Get real, CHR. The world just isn't like that. And nor should it be. Understand that the facts indicate Dettmers was NOT an honestly deluded victim of Rawat's lies. No. He'd seen through all that, even before Bob Mishler left all those years ago. He is not like Mel Bourne; shp; Elaine; O; Deputy Dawg; Mili or even Shroomananda. No, those poor deluded folks were deliberately tricked and deluded by Rawat and PAMs like Dettmers. Confidence tricksters who pretended to believe in Rawat's divinity and urged on others the beliefs they publicly espoused but privately rejected - for what? For cash and career.   WAS IT WORTH IT, DETTMERS?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 21:47:16 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: CHR Subject: this is definitely going to be self righteous Message:

Come on! Yeah, you are correct, however, in saying that the Forum is not the kinder and gentler forum. Fine, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. That viewpoint is the well known nicey-nicey thing where your disdain and disgust, IMO, says that those of us (I admit that I think I am one) that are rather racous and ill-mannered are not good, kind and caring decent people. And to me that 'church-lady' attitude really sucks and is very stifling. Stop trying cover me with your wet blanket, please! I believe that other kinder and gentler forums have been created to cater to the different interests and tastes. Your whining message to this forum is a complete and utter waste of time as this Forum has been this way ever since I can remember.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:18:15 (GMT) From: CHR Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: this is definitely going to be self righteous Message:

Well, I nearly didn't bother responding to such a garbled misunderstanding of what I had posted. I really don't care about 'nicey nicey' as you put it. What I do care about is the ability and willingness to listen to another's point of view and respect how they wish to use the forum. My main interest here is to help people, and especially ex-premies, understand the reality of what they were or are involved in with M. This is not served well by innuendo, sensationalism, or muckraking on fellow ex premies. I actually don't give a shit whether you or anybody else here is 'nice' or not, but I find the push to make somebody, such as MD, tow a certain line or give over information, reeks of similarities to the pressure I experienced at times as a premie, in M's ashram and organisation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 05:11:34 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: CHR Subject: well... Message:

I think that our purposes are different. I have clearly come to the point where I want to muckrake. Ultimately, I want to put Maharaji out of business and prevent him from drawing others into his personality worshipping cult. I want to affect Maharaji's bottom dollar line and let him stand accountable. Sensationalism? I strongly suspect that we don't know the half of it. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that what we know of is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I adored Maharaji for years and years. I always put the organization, people like Dettmers, the mahatmas, the initiators, the instructors, the entourage, and all the rest to blame before Maharaji. But, now? Now, I think Maharaj and all his honchos are filthy dirty. And as far as wanting Dettmers to be something - well, no. I think he is still a shill for Maharaji. The fact is that he was bought off, paid for, bribed. Sure, he and Bob Jacobs could come up with a more benign term for their arrangement, but to the man on the street it was a payoff. Whether the revelation of Dettmers receiving such a payoff falls into the category of innuendo, sensationalism, or muckraking, I don't think so. It was his admission to Jim. It is my sensationalist belief that Dettmers profited quite handsomely from his role, his association. And I believe that some of his current business arrangements might be the result of that association today. Compare what Dettmers got to what the others got and for the unluckly ashram residents to get the boot and then to have to pick up the pieces in the form of ashram debts. Finally, you say you want to make people feel better. Not all feeling better comes from soothing talk. Sometimes taking a strong stand and toppling an oppressor is the medicine that the doctor ordered. For me, that's what makes me feel better because for years and years and years Maharaji and Company (including people on stage looking just like Michael Dettmers) told me that I was nothing without Maharaji and everything and anything I would or could do would be worthless meaningless nothing. That's really oppressive and really a cruel form of disempowerment (I'd like to use the word castrastion.) Heck, call it what it is and it was brainwashing. And people like Dettmers were part of it and not only that he profited from it. You can feel your way about, but I know I'm going to feel my way about. Being in that damn cult for over 24 years fucked me in the abililty of being a normal successful person with some sense of pride and accomplishment. I've wasted years and years thinking that I was a worthless piece of shit because of this damn cult. And here's Dettmers, IMO, lying his ass off for what reason I don't know. Is it my innuendo, sensationalism, or muckraking on my website that he is concerned with. Oh, I don't want to be that self-centered and think that something I did had an effect on the world or nothing, but one can dream... Thanks, I enjoyed feeling my deepest feelings on this subject. I'm pissed. I'm nearly fifty years old with the best years of my life wasted on trying to fit Maharaji's crap philosophy into my life. You bet I'm pissed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 19:08:47 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: well... Message:

110% right on Mr. Drek.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 22:58:28 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Bin Liner Subject: and JohnT says it so well above, too (nt) Message:

adsf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 00:03:46 (GMT) From: Gordon Showcase Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: this is definitely going to be self righteous Message:

Yes, it's been this way, this wining, winjing way ever since I came to this forum. You loosers have nothing better to do than invent stories and slag off your master, without whom, you would have died of drugs back in the 1970s. You make me sick with your pathetic attempts to sully Maharaji's good name. He is a decent, respectable and honourable member of society who is doing some good in this world by giving his free gift to all who want it. Wats your free gift, then? Just moning and living in the past. I bet you still ware flarred trousers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 03:47:56 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Gordon Showcase Subject: Free valuable wats collection, maybe... Message:

Gordon: Wats your free gift, then? I'm thinking about conducting a study to see if there is a market for more valuable free prizes at Maharaji prices. In the mean time you might be able to score a toaster oven. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:56:39 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Gordon Showcase Subject: can you get me some of those 70's drugs? Message:

Gordon, sweetie, I missed out on all of those good kill ya dead drugs of the 70's. Do ya think ya can get me some to see what I missed?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 20:01:16 (GMT) From: Joe Email: joger02@aol.com To: CHR Subject: Hope this isn't self-righteous Message:

CHR, I'm curious about your PAM friends who say it's unsafe to post here. Is it because somebody might disagree with them? Surely they are not worried about their personal safety, unless of course, they are worried about crazed premies coming after them. What is it about the forum they fear? See, I think some PAMs aren't really afraid of the forum, or that people who post on the forum might disagree with them. I think they may be more afraid of somebody finding out they were once premies, or that premies might find out they are ex-premies, and 'aiding the enemies of Maharaji.' Because, really, in the cult-world if your aren't deferential towards Maharaji, you are an enemy, or at least a suspect, potential enemy. I also think some PAMs, and I think this might include Dettmers, are reticent to talk about their own involvement in the cult, and what they did and believed as PAMs because it is embarrassing, including being embarrassing to current friends and business relationships. The forum, and the supposed 'nastiness' that occurs here, which I frankly think is extremely minor, is just used as an excuse. Clearly, people have the right to post or not post, and to discuss the cult or just try to forget it all. But I don't think it is just 'self-righteous' posturing to say that people who benefited from their cult involvement, financially and otherwise, should think beyond themselves and try to help and support people to get out of the cult, and to process their involvement after they got out. It's exactly for the 'support' reasons for which you liked the forum, that I think people like Michael Dettmers have a moral obligation to open up and tell the truth. Obviously Michael disagrees, and I have no intention of lambasting someone for that, but I don't think it's inappropriate to mention it. And as I have said. I am not interested in Michael or anyone else dishing personal dirt on Maharaji and his personal life. But I think discussion of why things happened, and how they were perceived from a PAMs vantage point, like closing the ashrams, the perspective on Maharaji's and the PAM's views on Maharaji's divinity, etc., is extremely important, helpful, and immensely supportive. As Lesley says on another thread so well, it was INFORMATION and SUPPORT of this forum that has helped her and others break free. PAMs have information that can help people do that, and I don't think I'm being patronizing by suggesting that there is a moral obligation to help where one is particularly situated to do so, like if someone is a former PAM. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 03:56:33 (GMT) From: CHR Email: None To: Joe Subject: Hope this isn't self-righteous Message:

Hi Joe, 'Unsafe' is probably the wrong word. Its more that they feel it is difficult to have a discussion here without strong expectations from the other posters. Michael Dettmers said what he said on the forum and since then there has been a fairly constant push for him to change his point of view, to fit in with a certain perception of M etc. He would have been better off not saying anything, and this is the viewpoint of the people (ex PAMS) I mentioned. At least one of these people has helped several premies and exes free themselves of M. Why is there some sort of moral obligagation to do it on this site?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 17:23:44 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: CHR Subject: Hope this isn't self-righteous Message:

If ex-PAMs feel so emotionally destroyed by their cult experience and feel to fragile to post here, then I agree, they shouldn't. But I have a hard time believing that people who left 15 years ago are still so vulnerable. And certainly, I can assure you, that does not apply to Michael Dettmers. I think Michael doesn't say more that what he did because he has a confidentiality agreement with Maharaji, is concerned about the effects of violating that, but, more importantly, I think Michael Dettmers does not want to be confronted with the carefully crafted rationalizations he has developed to avoid facing his cult involvement, a cult involvement many times more significant in helping Maharaji do what he did and continues to do, than any of the rest of us. And it's great that people help their friends get out of the Maharaji cult. That's laudable. But there are a lot more cult members, and recent ex-cult members who aren't fortunate enough to have a friend who is an ex-PAM to help explain what was really going on. So, I'm saying they could be a lot more effective by giving information to a lot more people, even if they do it anonymously. I strongly believe that information is the antitode to cult programming. I've heard that too many times on this forum not to believe that is true. And, at this point, this is the only centralized forum to discuss all this. I think it has been amazingly effective, and it is just beginning. It could be even more effective with even more information.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:32:31 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: CHR Subject: Hope this isn't self-righteous Message:

CHR: I also know people who have first-hand knowledge of M's, shall we say, 'indescretions.' They won't post to this site because they have more to lose than gain by doing so, or should I say they have everything to lose and nothing to gain. But I don't think the 'tone' of the site has anything to do with it at all. And I can't imagine that these PAM folks are so thin-skinned that they feel intimidated. Given who they are, and what they've done, that would just be out of character. Rather, in Michael's case it is mostly a matter of the nondisclosure agreement... and a certain reluctance to expose a not-too-secure philosophical rationalization to outside scrutiny (or even self scutiny). The fact that it's not-too-secure (if my inference is correct) speaks volumes. Perhaps he does need to move on, and maybe he'll be back. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 05:00:39 (GMT) From: CHR Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Hope this isn't self-righteous Message:

Not everybody who was around M is thick skinned. In fact most of the people I knew were very sincere and caring people. Some of these people were hurt deeply in the fallout from M. One person I know had been involved very closely from the age of thirty to Fifty five. She left with nothing except a deep sense of personal betrayal. The forum is not the appropriate place to share some of these things, it is too impersonal and anonymous and prone to misunderstandings - this is more to do with the nature of on line discussions than the forum itself. We are talking about big slabs of peoples personal lives. It is really up to their own personal decision as to whether they decide to share anything. Harrassment is certainly one way to make sure they don't. And why is there this expectation that all must be shared HERE. There are many other avenues of expression and ways of helping.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 15:04:27 (GMT) From: la-ex Email: None To: CHR Subject: Hope this isn't self-righteous Message:

CHR-I agree with some of the things you have said, but I DO feel that this is the best place for PAMS to express themselves for the following reasons: 1-The more that is revealed about 'maharaji the man',as opposed to 'the lord on stage', the better.I know that for years I believed what was told to me about m, and bought the 'stage persona' hook,line and sinker.The internet is by far the best and probably only place where the entire picture can be pieced together,with stories and personal anecdotes from around the world that begin to paint the picture of what has gone on behind the scenes while we were busy watching the stage show. I think people need to know more about m's personal character before they do something like receive knowledge,and they will never find that out from his presentations, but can and do here. 2-PAMS who want to post can simply share the information about what they saw and experienced around m, without haveing to 'bare their soul' and experience negative feedback like dettmers has. It does not have to be personal stuff or get personal between them and others. Thanks for listening, LA (I do think that the internet and this site can be the sword that does m in,as in 'he who lives by the sword,dies by the sword'...m has always been fascinated by technology and used it to the max for his own purposes...I think it is fitting that now technology can be used to expose him for what he is...)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 14:21:14 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: CHR Subject: The APPARENT Dettmers paradox Message:

CHR, It sounds like you're buying into Dettmers' 'damned-if-ya'-do-and-damned-if-ya'-don't' story. Here he comes, a real, live one-time cult majordomo, and, unlike so many other former PAMs who won't say anything, he is more than willing to say a few, kind words for the folks at home ..... but what does he get for his efforts? Nothing but grief. Nothing but 'Michael. Michael, tell us more!' and worse, much worse, real live anger and suspicion! I mean, fuck 'em if they're going to be such ingrates, huh? Here's Dettmers actually rolling up his sleeves and talking to all of us .... a bit ... BUT IS ANYBODY LISTENING!?? Let's not forget who had the 'talent' to become the president of DLM / EV in the first place, shall we? No, it wasn't some nameless flunky like 'Roger E. Drek'. It wasn't some weirdo like this Yves guy. It wasn't even Mr. Joseph Q. Whalen who, I remind you, was a mere community co-ordinator. No, none of those guys had it. Dettmers, on the other hand, did. What bugs me about Mike -- and I hope you're reading this, Mike, because, I mean it sincerely and I'd love for you to think about this and then maybe one day we can talk about it, if you're still interested -- is the way he's just got so much pride and self-satisfaction for how he helped run the cult in his day. He can't see past that to really understand how simply ugly, wasteful, ridiculous and downright destructive it was for people. And how does Michael immunize himself from ever having to face that simple truth? He does so by finding work that allows him to treat his whole cult experience as really nothing more than the place where he first cut his teeth as a naturally-gifted 'management consultant'. Yeah, that's right, Michael, just like you told me the other day, you ARE really good at what you do. Good for you. Whatever it is you're doing, man, you're good at it. Really, it's so obvious in a way. I know, I know, I hate to play at psychoanalyzing people. I think it's usually stupid, false and downright rude. Usually the facts are wrong, let alone the interpretations. And maybe I'm guilty of that right now. But, for MY money, it's so obvious that Michael's 'management consulting' gig, with all his clients who he'd just HATE to give the wrong impression to, is just a way for him to rationalize where he came from. Where'd you FIRST learn to advise 'corporate' big shots, Mike? Where'd you FIRST learn to gather their trust? To walk and talk so comfortably with them? Where'd you FIRST learn to play with power, even if only vicariously? Michael respects Bob Jacobs. Jacobs is a top-draw advisor to the rich and powerful. Indeed, as Michael explained, Maharaji's such a anomolously dinky client for Jacobs, that's the kind of guy Jacobs is. He's helped put to bed big, billion dollar deals time and again. What's not to respect? Michael does NOT respect Roger E. Drek. And again, why should he? Where's HIS resume, huh? Michael's is right out there for the world to see, but where's Mr. Drek's? (Notice how I leave myself out of this? Cute, huh?) So, yes, CHR, Dettmers didn't get quite the easy treatment here. Oh yeah, at one point he was actually thinking of writing something to Maharaji himself, maybe mix it up a bit with his former client, if you can imagine something so unprofessional and just downright uppity. But that moment's passed. We weren't polite enough, you see. 'Professional', perhaps. Maybe THAT's the word.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 00:19:17 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Jim Subject: Hey! Why me? I haven't done nothing... Message:

Yeah, that's right! I haven't ever done nothing in my life to amount to a pile of shit. Yes, mostly it's my fault if I really take the responsibility, but I'd prefer to blame the Lord of the Universe for making me second guess myself for over 24 years wondering whether I was ever doing the right thing. Blah, blah, blah - Words! Anyway, Jim, like my buddy Joey used to say, 'I'll deal with you later. And, that's Mr. Flunky to you.' But what do I care? This is all just fucking maya and we're all going to die anyway. At least that's what I've been told.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 00:35:59 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Hey! Why me? I haven't done nothing... Message:

Roger, We're on the same page here, aren't we? I hope so. I was being.... faceitous? But then you were too, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 00:44:37 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Jim Subject: Moi? Message:

Jim, you know that I am always serious! And these are serious matters. I did see that you were talking about me, but the dullard that I am does not always possess the greatest of reading comprehensions so I may avoid a few of the larger words and avoid the longer paragraphs and skim. In fact, I prefer books with pictures.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 00:56:25 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Oh? What kind of pictures? (nt) Message:

gggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 01:18:32 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Jim Subject: Like these, of course Message:

this picture!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 14:08:31 (GMT) From: Yves Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Liste Roger. It is ME who Jim called a weirdo Message:

Mind your own character.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 16:16:03 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Yves Subject: Yes, well everyone gets their little moment (nt) Message:

ffffff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 02:22:52 (GMT) From: Fergie Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: I told Prince Andy to burn those... Message:

I've got so many better pix and dix since I've joined Weight Watchers. I love it when you suck my toes like that, Roger. Yeah, that's the way, oooooh, yes....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 01:25:40 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: That's not Joan Apter! Message:

I don't who you're trying to fool, Roger, but that is NOT a picture of Joan or any other PAM. Well, she looks more like she's a POM than a PAM .... Honestly, is that picture for real? Is that woman really waiting for Maharaji? Holy cow....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 02:27:08 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: THIS is Joan Apter! Message:

Here's the link (mind never work for some reason): The REAL Joan Apter And here's the URL just in case: http://www.ideachampions.com/staff.shtml#joan Note how Joan and Ditkoff are doing the same thing as Dettmers, trying to rationalize away their cult fanaticism as 'management consulting'. My favorite quote from the site? Well it's all so shlocky but there are a few choice blurbs that must have special significance for the (former?) cult members in the company. Here's one: 'Face the Music Proof that the Millennium is upon us… Face the Music is a highly accomplished, interactive business blues band that gives participants a constructive way to express their corporate blues, while simulaneously sparking teamwork, risk taking and innnovation. A perfect way to energize participants and launch a company conference. Recent clients include: GE, Panasonic, Aventis, Con Edison and Ernst & Young.' Here's another: 'Keynotes Interactive, 60-90 minute presentations that help people get off their 'ifs, ands or buts' and into creative action. Topics include: 'Free the Genie,' 'Beyond Limiting Assumptions,' 'Leading Indicators of an Innovator,' 'Creative Thinking 101,' 'Fostering Innovation in the Workplace,' 'Idea Greenhouse,' and 'Reinventing Retirement.'' But then, there's this bizarre thingamajigger: The Ten Commandments for Visiting a New Age Ashram During the past two decades, a curious phenomenon has swept this nation. Inspired by the teachings of several Master souls from the East, an unusually large number of ashrams have made their appearance on the scene -- spiritual retreats designed to provide seekers of the truth with a focused environment in which to practice their particular spiritual path. While most people who spend time in an ashram are extremely dedicated and sincere, there still remains a goodly number who, in their attempt to have 'an experience,' miss the point completely. Seduced by the Western notion of cause and effect, they somehow think that spiritual attainment is related to the way they act -- as if God were some kind of transcultural Santa Claus looking for good little boys and girls to bring his shiny red firetrucks to. Not surprisingly, the spirit of the law is all too often traded for the letter -- a letter that, no matter how many stamps are put on it, is continually returned for insufficient postage. Surrender is replaced by submission; patience by hesitation; and humility by timidity. Alas, in the name of finding themselves, our God-seeking brothers and sisters have tended to lose the very thing that makes them truly human -- their individuality. And so, with great respect to your personal God, your Guru, your Guru's Guru, and your favorite tax-deductible charity, I humbly offer you the following soul-saving tips should you decide to visit (or move into) the local ashram of your choice. Take what you can, leave the rest, and remember -- it's not whether your shoes are on or off, but if your heart is open... 1. DO NOT CHANGE THE WAY YOU WALK Most visitors to a new age ashram think they have to change the way they walk if they are truly going to have a spiritual experience. Somehow, they believe there is a direct correlation between the way they move their feet and the amount of 'grace' or 'blessings' about to enter their lives. The 'ashram walk,' is actually a not-too-distant cousin of the 'museum walk,' the curious way a person slows down and shuffles knowingly, yet humbly, past a Monet (or is it a Manet?), silently 'getting' the essence of the Masterpiece even as they move noddingly towards that incomprehensible cubist piece in the next room. If you like, think of the ashram walk as the complete opposite of the on-the-way-to-work-walk or the exiting-a-disco-in-New York walk. Simply put, the ashram walk is a way of moving that practitioners believe will attract small deer from nearby forests -- deer that will literally walk right up to them and eat from their hand -- more proof to anyone in the general vicinity that they are, in fact, enlightened souls, humble devotees, children of God, or the so-far-unacknowledged successors to their guru's lineage. Ideally, the ashram walk should be taken in sandals, though Reeboks or Chinese slippers will do in a pinch. Cowboy boots are definitely out, as are galoshes, high heels, and Chuck Taylor Converse All-Stars. 2. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCCUMB TO THE ASHRAM 'NOD' Closely related to the ashram walk, the ashram nod is routinely practiced in spiritual retreats the world over. And while no one completely comprehends it's divine origins, many believe it began when a blissful ashram brother simply forgot the name of his roommate on his way to the bathroom. Instead of issuing the familiar sanscrit phrase of the week, our trend-setting friend simply tightened his lips, looked at the ground and... well... nodded. Now, every time you walk by someone in the ashram, you are half-expected to flash them the nod, the non-verbal equivalent of 'Hi! I know you know, and you know I know, and you know that I know that you know, and in my knowing, I know that I know you know, and by so knowing, need not speak, since words are finite and cannot express the knowingness which the two of us (being one) share from such a knowful place. Know what I mean?' 3. DO NOT JUDGE ANYONE, INCLUDING YOURSELF This is the hardest of all commandments to obey. Why? Because spiritual environments not only bring out the best in people, they also bring out the worst. And while the worst is often more difficult to detect than the bliss of people wanting you to notice how blissful they are, the higher you get, the easier it is to notice -- that is, if you are looking for it. Of course, it would be very easy to spend your entire ashram visit noticing all the subtle ego trips going on around you. Resist this temptation with all your might! Do not, I repeat, do not, focus on the stuff that would make good material for this article. You have no right. In fact, you have absolutely no idea why anyone is there, what their motivation is, or how they will learn the kinds of lessons you are absolutely sure they need to learn. In reality, you are most likely seeing your own projections -- those disowned parts of your self that you've refused to acknowledge all these years: your spiritual groupie, your brownie point collector, your junkie for more experience, your suburban yogi , your guilty seeker of God, your con man, your eunuch, your Peter Pan, your resolution maker, your ass watcher, your glutton for humble pie, your seeker of the perfect mate, your closet fanatic, your too patient listener, your definer of ecstasy, your flaming bullshit artist, your know-it-all, your have-it-all, your reader of too many Shirley McLaine books, and your spring-headed bower towards anyone with more than two devotees. All of them are you! Every single one of them! Don't judge them. Love them! Bring them tea! Rub their feet every chance you get! 4. DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE IT IS HAPPENING Ashram aficionados have a marked propensity to think that the grounds they inhabit are somehow more blessed than any place else on earth -- that they are privy to a special command performance by God, revealing himself in thousands of exotic ways for those lucky enough to be there, while thousands, nay millions, of Ed Koch-like souls are stumbling around in uncool places recently vacated by the Power of Life so a very cosmic thing can happen here and only here this weekend. Life, in fact, is often perceived as so good in the ashram, that the rest of the world becomes eerily cast as the 'booby prize.' Indeed, to ashram dwellers, everything else is simply referred to as 'the world,' much like Manhattanites speak of New Jersey. In short, the ashram comes to represent all that is good -- about God, about the Guru, about life itself. Somehow ('and I don't know how, but you could ask anyone who was there this weekend') flowers seem sweeter at the ashram, the moon seems fuller, the air seems cleaner. Even the bread tastes better. If you glimpse a shooting star at night, it's the 'guru's grace.' If you see a double rainbow, it's directly over the meditation hall. I guess it's all in how you look at it. The same shooting star convincing you that your guru is, in fact, the Supreme Guru, was also seen by a plumber named 'Leroy' who just happened to be drinking a beer in between innings of the Mets game. His conclusion? The Mets were gonna win 20 of the next 25 and bring the pennant home to Flushing! What do the signs in the sky (or what we perceive as signs) really mean? Isn't the whole world our ashram? Isn't the whole universe our ashram? Isn't the real issue one of appreciating what is happening all around us? The flowers? The stars? The beggars asking for spare change? Flowers aren't any sweeter at the ashram. It's our willingness to breathe deeply and enjoy them that's different. What's stopping us from being in this place right now? What's stopping us from realizing that the very ground beneath our feet is the promised land -- wherever we happen to be at the time. 5. DO NOT PUT A RED DOT ON YOUR FOREHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT TO Unless you've been living in a trailer park your whole life, you probably already know what the red dot thing is all about. That's right. The third eye. The sixth chakra. High holiness. INDIA!! While sometimes mistaken for a beauty mark or a random bit of watermelon, the little red dot is actually a useful reminder to focus one's attention on the space between the eyebrows, which, for some people, is where God lives (or if not lives, at least vacations). Nothing wrong with that, now is there? Still, you have to concede that the third eye isn't the only spot on the human body that's sacred. What about the earlobes? The belly button? The nipples? They come from God, too -- not too mention chakras #1 - 5 and the highly under-represented center of consciousness at the crown of the head. Sacred, every one of them! Don't you think that, if the body is the temple of the soul, it follows that our entire physical structure is sacred? Shouldn't we be covered from head to toe with little red dots? And if so, why is it that we routinely quarantine people with measles -- the very people who have selflessly chosen to manifest disease just to remind us to honor our body's ultimate holiness? 6. PLAY WITH THE CHILDREN The only sentient beings free from the collective mentality of ashram life are the children. Children visiting ashrams, in fact, behave the same way the world over no matter what adjectives their elders use for the unspeakable name of God. When they're hungry, they eat. When they're tired, they sleep. They cry when they want to, laugh for no reason, consume ice cream without guilt, and rarely wonder why your picture of the Master is bigger, newer, or better framed. 7. FART AT YOUR OWN RISK If you fart, and there's no one around to hear it in the ashram, did it happen? And if it did happen, does that mean you've been disrespectful? Is the resident Guru able to hear you? And if he or she is meditating, out of the country, or dead, is their guru or their guru's guru able to hear you? And if so, so what? Will you be reborn as a gerbil? Does the Guru fart? And if it's OK for him or her to pass wind, why not you? OK, so it's their ashram and you're a guest. But after all, aren't we all guests here? Even the Guru? Who do they answer to? And if it's not the same one you're answering to, what the hell are you doing getting up at five in the morning and sitting cross-legged? Maybe the real question isn't whether or not it's permissible to fart in the ashram, but how you fart. For instance, if you're farting out of a blatant disregard for the Master's teachings or the sincerity of his or her followers, you might want to reconsider where you're coming from. However, if your farting is just a random release of gas, relax! Give yourself the benefit of the doubt. You see, a typical visit to the ashram often quickens one's ability to 'let go' -- so what you call 'farting' may, in fact, be a timely sign of your evolving spiritual condition. 8. DO NOT THINK YOU ARE HIGHER OR LOWER THAN ANYONE ELSE One of the favorite pastimes of people visiting a spiritual retreat is comparing themselves to everyone else. 'See the guy over there carrying firewood? He's a very old soul -- way older than me. Been on the path for years. And that dude laughing hysterically in the corner? That's Shiva. Oops, he can probably see through me, maybe I better walk around the other way.' Want to save yourself some time? Don't try to figure out how 'on the path' anybody else is. It's impossible. Stare into the eyes all you want, watch for tell-tale signs of liberation, but when it comes right down to it, the only conclusion you'll reach will be your own -- one that may have absolutely nothing to do with the anything but your own projections. Face it, how accurate is your assessment going to be when 98 percent of humanity couldn't tell that the 'carpenter' from Galilee had something special going for him? Indeed, it's not at all unlikely that the beer-bellied, first-time visitor to the ashram you met this morning at breakfast is, at this very moment, being treated like a spiritual mongoloid by everyone who meets him (repeatedly being asked if 'this is your first time') when, in fact, the beer-bellied, first-time visitor is actually the reincarnation of Buddha. 9. DO NOT THINK THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET SOMETHING Many people visit an ashram because they want to get something. They want 'clarity' or 'contentment,' 'enlightenment' or 'grace,' 'blessings' or 'piece of mind.' At the very least, they want their business to improve or their marriage to be saved. Alas, they miss the point completely: If you try to get, you will lose, left only with the sinking feeling of having just bought $300 worth of lottery tickets only to learn that some electrician from Staten Island just won the whole thing. It's really very simple. You don't go to an ashram (or a Teacher, for that matter) to get. You go to give, to let go -- to relax your grip on the very thing that's been separating you from getting all these years: Your grasping. Your fear. Your well-rehearsed strategy to realize God. 10. DO NOT FEEL COMPELLED TO CHANGE YOUR NAME OK, so your name is Joey. Ever since you were knee high to a can of Cheese Whiz, everyone called you Joey -- as in, 'Hey, Joey, what's goin' down, bro'?' Yeah, you grew up in Brooklyn, cut school once a week, and dated a chick named Angela with very big boobs. Great. So, here you are at the ashram and ba-bing, you run smack into a bunch of dudes with names like Arjuna, Govinda, Namdev,Shanti, Krishna. 'Hey,' you think to yourself, 'maybe they got something I don't.' Guess what? They do. They have a spiritual name given to them by their Guru -- names that make their mothers somewhat close-lipped around the canasta table. And while these names are clearly given with a purpose, the fact of the matter is -- they are irrelevant. Do you think the people in India who have spiritual experiences get their names changed to Eddie, Gino, Edna, or Shirley ? Hey, what difference does it make? You are not your name -- even if your namesake was enlightened. It doesn't matter what they call you, when it's time to go, you're gone. The only name worth knowing at that time is God's name -- and that, my friend, no matter how many mantras you've memorized, can never be pronounced.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 21:02:41 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: The APPARENT Dettmers paradox Message:

Geez Jim, I can't tell whether yer fer 'im er agin 'im. I guess I can understand how someone might arrive at the conclusions that he has done, and I don't really blame him all that much. I don't admire him, but I don't blame him. Let me put it this way, I wouldn't vote for him in a political campaign if he were running against a reasonably decent fellow. Funny how he reminds me of Richard Hatch, what? They're even in the same beeswax. What really interests me is the apparent deference you seem to give him. I think it's probably the Canadian shining through the libertarian atheist. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 21:17:55 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Am I for 'em or agin' 'em? Message:

Scott, Funny, I thought I was pretty clear. Guess not. I think that Michael's hiding. He's hiding from us, he's hiding from Maharaji and he's hiding from himself. I also think that he's chosen a career that plays into that self-deception quite nicely. Having said that, I'm the first to admit that I might not be any different myself in the circumstances. As someone reminded me this morning, it's easy to say what others can or should do morally, what risks or sacrifices they should bear. Mind you, Michael is in his own boat and I do think that I can see what he should do morally. He's not doing it and that really disappoints me. And why does it disappoint me? Because I do like Michael after talking with him as much as I have. I also think that he'd be a fantastic servant of the truth here if he only woke up. Does that make sense?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 03:55:54 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Am I for 'em or agin' 'em? Message:

Jim: Makes a lot of sense, and I agree. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 19:41:45 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Jim Subject: The APPARENT Dettmers paradox Message:

You need Sergeants as well as Generals to win wars.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 17:13:39 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Great analysis Jim, and thanks, finally..... Message:

I was wondering when you were going to say that and I think you are absolutely right. By the way, I really don't consider my service as a community coordinator the high point of my professional career. What do you think the Q stands for?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 05, 2000 at 17:34:52 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: I don't normally change flattering subject lines Message:

But I did this time. I'm sure you're kidding but, in an abundance of caution, I'll say that I never meant to imply that you thought your CC years were the high point of your professional life. They were, mind you, but ... And the 'Q'? I dunno ...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:55:22 (GMT) From: GAC Email: None To: CHR Subject: Hush Fund? Message:

CHR, Everything blew up on Deacon Dettmers when the Corporate Information concerning the Church of Elan Vital started coming out. Hey - welcome to the 21st Century. Public Records Rule! Poor Pams.... my heart just bleeds for their destitute situations. BTW - Have YOU received any $$$$ from the Hush Fund

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 12:31:46 (GMT) From: CHR Email: None To: GAC Subject: Hush Fund? Message:

The only thing I ever received from Elan Vital was a couple of pieces of furniture and a large credit card debt, courtesy of the ashram close down.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 19:47:12 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: CHR Subject: come on in, the waters ... murky Message:

CHR, it's never been safe to post here, that's half the fun of it. People post for a variety of reasons, and if you find yourself objecting to their posts, well, what do you do? You do what you've done. You tell 'em. This place is what we make of it. So keep telling it like it is, won't you? takes all sorts to make a world. (and to make a good forum ...)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 01:30:11 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Jim Subject: My latest talk with Dettmers Message:

Like I said before and will always say it, Dettmers is full of bullshit. All he sees is his fuckedup confidentiality agreement with some ass hole lawyer(sorry Jim). He has no balls to walk over it any say what he knows. Spinelss worm. If that all what he cares about, his friggin bussiness, then let him fuck off and do it, stop talking about him. Personally I think he likes all this talk about him being the good ol 'meditator'. Go and burry yourself m fucking d.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 01:36:14 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Salam Subject: In fact: YVES KEEP IT UP..nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 00:05:53 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: My latest talk with Dettmers Message:

Jim: But MD wants to move on. He believes that any breach of his confidentiality clause could do thunderous damage to his current business. This is really the heart of it. Personally I think there are a lot bigger fish to fry than Maharaji too. My only interest in him is due to the fact that 'I' was seduced, and that he seems a sort of test case for the way a middle-of-the-road authoritarian cult can muddy the waters. It's easier to investigate this cult precisely because it is so banal. It's also interesting because the flaw in MD's philosophical underpinnings seems to leave the barn door open for this sort of thing... and possibly worse. I think the Heidegger/Gadamer doubletalk is befuddling a lot of people... but only because they want or need to be befuddled. On the whole it's not very convincing. It's just that there's not a very glib counter-argument. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 23:35:18 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Someone else. Message:

I expressed my disappointment that JM and Anth are the only former PAMs to really join this effort to deconstruct and, yes, topple a predatory cult and its leader. But what's new about that? Md knows my feelings; I know his. (Buy the way, I left out KK. Is there anyone else?) There's Bob Mishler, rest his soul. And he at a time when he was truly alone. It took real courage. He could have just 'moved on.' And Mishler didn't even get a serverence package. He left with just his integrity, I guess. Part of this is about courage, isn't it? It's about standing up and doing the right thing because you know it's right. If everybody just 'moved on' and 'thought it was futile,' nothing much would change would it? What is that about evil flourishing when good men do nothing? Something like that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 22:06:01 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jim Subject: The heart of darkness Message:

Thanks for that Jim, I'm afraid that to this 'outside observer' Dettmers' story looks increasingly thin. Pleasant and personable he may be; nicer by far, than I, perhaps; but I think he is filth. A ruthless conmen needs to have charm and to be plausible. But charming as he may be, a ruthless conman is shallow and trivial right through his oh!-so-very-thin-soul. Strong words perhaps - and I hope some decency stirs in the vile little breast of the disgraceful Dettmers. Perhaps he can bring himself to see what the rest of the world will surely see, if he fails to wise up - and quick! Look here Dettmers - LOOK AT WHAT I SEE - I see you sitting pretty cash wise having helped to screw up other people's lives and perpetrate the worship of a false god and fraudulent messiah; along with all the vile abuse that came along as an integral part of that towering and egregious falsity. Vile? Read on 'man'. It looks to me like once you realised that it couldn't last you bailed out with a pay-off for your silence about the racket - and oh! YOU KNEW IT ALL, RIGHT? Of course you did - what was your position again in that foul pretense? CEO in the service of the One True God. Yeah. Chief hypocrite, that was you, wasn't it Dettmers? You've sold A LOT of people down the river, Dettmers. To wax fat off of their misfortune. Like your Lord, you feed on other people with your falsity, lies and pretense. But with less excuse than Rawat. You were no child manipulated by your corrupt family. You were a man who cynically manipulated his own family to further your opportunistic money-grubbing 'career' in hypocrisy and service to a false god and his most cruel and unconscionable con. YOU KNEW IT WAS A LIE AND YOU WERE A DILIGENT SERVANT OF THAT FALSITY. Now you do as little as you possibly can to clear up the damage, while appearing to be enough of a 'nice guy' to avoid the worst of the heat. IT'S NOT WORKING, DETTMERS. Listen. It is clear that as we peel away the layers from the cult we will descend from the naive and the honestly deluded, towards the heart of darkness. There we will meet the depraved and cynical operatives who rode the fraud to feather their own nests. Charming and depraved conmen. Filth. Dettmers is the first, it seems, to volunteer himself for that most profoundly humiliating and inglorious role. For what? For a slice of the wealth leached from the good hearted victims of his and his master's fraud.   SHAME ON YOU DETTMERS. SHAME ON YOU!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 22:05:12 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Jim Subject: Pure and total horseshit! Message:

Pure and total horseshit! The confirmation of not one but several severance compensation packages tightly coupled with a confidentiality agreement which avoids any damaging kissing and telling is a rather stark, but not surprising, revelation about Michael Dettmers - he has either sold out or he is still in bed with Maharaji. And I contend the latter to be the case. I am practically certain I've seen Dettmers in the exclusive front and center seats at least one program in the 90's. Furthermore, Dettmers' list of business clients in the late 80's and 90's suggests that he is still very much networked into the Maharaji camp following. It appears to me that Dettmers might not have left Maharaji in a spirit of disgust as many of us did. Rather, Maharaji restructured his organization and Dettmers got away with his golden parachute. Reading everything I've read about Dettmers I think he's still a premie. I wonder if presented with lucrative severance packages would I have walked away from them for the purpose of maintaining my personal integrity? Sometimes I think not when I consider the damage to my life and career for following the Lord of the Universe for too many years. Excuse my indignation, but I cannot so easily sweep aside the serious allegations and issues about the Maharaji's wasteful extravagance, the plight of the ashram premies, the slave labor DECA premies, the sexual molestation of young children at the hands of Maharaji's priests, and all the rest. Sure, sure, sure, Dettmers helped smuggle the letter to Maharaji and Dettmers is taking the high road by not dishing dirt. But, it appears that Michael Dettmers was paid off! I think that Dettmers saw the abyss when Maharaji decided to reduce expenses and overhead by restructuring the organization and Dettmers had become accustomed to a lifestyle of success and privilege. What's the encore to running a $100 million dollar Swiss based foundation when any serious inquiry by prospective employers will result in the revelation of a rather embarrassing little thing called the truth - cult member deluxe! No, Dettmers saw the way out and it was to take the bone that the master offered. Maharaji and Company siphoned off the best years of our lives with his sick charade. And Dettmers was a party to it. And Maharaji is so puckish that he has the audacity to flaunt his obscene wealth by collecting, of all things, expensive wristwatches with Maharaji boasts about it to his followers all the while asking for still more and more. Innocent people's lives were ruined. People killed themselves. People handed over their trust funds, their entire paychecks, their families, their children. For what? So, Maharaji and his entourage could have the highlife. So, that Bob Jacobs could create shell corporations to avoid taxation on these ill-gotten gains. So, Jagdeo could retire quietly to a small little village in India. So, Dettmers could have a quiet severance package. Does anybody see anything wrong with this? But, Dettmers has made amends by smuggling in a letter to Maharaji. This is not to slight the author of that letter nor the issue surrounding that letter, but Dettmers' cover letter to Maharaji was pathetically contrite and very transparent. And now Dettmers' feels like he has done his Boy Scout good deed and all the injured parties have satisfactory closure. HORSESHIT! Give it up, Mike. You've had it cushy for too long and it's always been on the backs of good honest but deluded common and ordinary premies at the bottom of the pyramid. And, I believe based on what you still say, what you've done and what you got that nothing has really changed for you. You think that you can still play the same game on us some twenty or thirty years later. No, not anymore. While it took many of us extra time, some of us have grown up and we no longer believe everything we are told and we are just now beginning to, once again, think for ourselves. That was your advantage then - we were told not to think. My Dettmers' page might have started this and maybe not - I don't give a shit. The page stands. Dettmers has never said or done anything to convince me otherwise. And, the confirmation of a severance package tied to a confidentiality agreement says it all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 00:33:02 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: I don't know, Rog... MD was a premie Message:

You said: he has either sold out or he is still in bed with Maharaji. The ex-cult thing takes time (decades, even?) to work out, and - like M says - it isn't easy being rich. God, it must be so hard.. Hmm, I tend to agree - and MD might be neither one nor t'other - Rog, but then again, I'm not sure. You can be as rich as the creases on my face when I chuckle out loud at the funny old cult we knew so well, but I don't believe any of the PAMs have any more of a divinely-guided easy exit from the magical bullshit than any of us. Dettmers doesn't know what the fuck his life is all about any more than you or I.. Perhaps he's in pain over all this?!:) But I wish he'd admit it, seeing as he used to advise us all. Forget Maharaji and his (supposed) sincerity. What about yours, Michael? Do you have a healthier guru-free perspective these days? Would you like to talk about it? Here is your stage, my former teacher... Perhaps that is the coming clean MD needs to deal with. We listened to waffling initiators like him for hours, months and years at a fucking time. They taught us every bloody thing they thought they knew and thought we needed to know. Does he know different now? If so, he should listen to us now, if he's genuinely interested in being of any help to those who now need it. If not, he should piss off and stop apologizing for himself, and stop using Jim as his personal crash barrier.. But - yea - being rich is not in itself happiness (as M has now confirmed - and as we all discovered when we found to our chagrin we didn't have that second two million bucks handy to protect the first two mill?) And, yeah, we shouldn't condemn rich people just for being rich, complacent, self-serving conservatives. It's probably in their genes - they can't help it. But there are very good reasons many of society's poorest might want to do that, anyway. Condemn them, I mean. (Shit, they'll all be jumping up and down and rioting next! and I speak as a bona fide Toxteth ratepayer, and we'll have Michael frigging Heseltine planting trees all over and swinging from them but doing nowt for the greater good.) BTW: I avoid political threads these days, but I see a lot of socially excluded, down-at-heel people where I live - for no fault of their own - and I get angry at the 'inclusive' fucking bullshit coming from central government. But I'd sooner be poor with integrity, any day. Gotta go, the boat is overparked..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 23:03:14 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Roger eDrek Subject: Pure and total horseshit! Message:

What about the people who ran with him right at the beginning, before the corporate types & their 'professional' ways threw up the firewalls. Must be some old disaffected 'bringers of the lord to the west' out there who were too spaced out to throw away all the old cheque stubs. I know you're there friends,come on ,puke it all up, you'll feel much better for it, & you'll be doing humanity a REAL service.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 19:40:54 (GMT) From: Buzz Email: None To: Jim Subject: My latest talk with Dettmers Message:

So he thinks his lifestle is appropriate for a perfect master. Even if he was a perfect master which he is nowhere near,how about showing a little bit of humility,ie. Christ or Buddha as an example. Your a very good master of how to take advantage of people thats all!!Yogananada makes you look like a first grade teacher!! Go and play with your boats and planes and leave teaching spirituality to those who know. You and the rest of the shit like rajneesh, da free john,all of you that take advantage of people looking for the truth, you all will get your justice soon.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 19:39:17 (GMT) From: Lotus Eater Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dear Premies.....nice to see you again Message:

At a friends urging, I read the archived posts of Michael Dettmers, a lot has been said, and I wont recap, however there was one little piece of information I found rather fascinating: That Michael, rather proudly, claims authorship of the idea that Maharaji stop using the term 'premie'. I remember when this happened. Event after Event, Maharaji would tell us how we didn't really deserve the name premie, and that is why he wasn't calling us that anymore. That gets me thinking, you can imagine, how can the Master justify being mean to his premies and not saying hello nicely, well obviously, the Master is perfect, so the premies must be fucked. Not that his head is being twisted with the 'east meets west' syndrome of M & M. I even ended up feeling a little sorry for Maharaji as I imagined the scenario: I'm God, really I am Prove it Well I'm really brilliant Oh Yeah Well, Michael Dettmers, have you done a stocktake on the results on other people of your life so far? Why not accept the chance of a bit of free therapy amongst people who would understand you and have a bit of a chat, not on 'spilling the beans, or toppling a previous employer' but just as another ex. We all benefit. Lesley.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 18:55:42 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: My latest talk with Dettmers Message:

When he knew him, Maharaji honestly believed in himself and thought that his luxurious lifestyle was nothing less than appropriate for the Perfect Master. And the significance of this is.........???? If anything, this makes all of this even more alarming, that Maharaji was do deluded he believed his own hype. But the bottom line is, the damage this caused, and continues to cause, whether he was intentionally deceitful or deluded, is the same. So Jacobs insisted that someone who'd worked as hard as he'd seen MD work for all those years deserved a little somethin' somethin'. MD couldn't say no and Jacobs through the confidentiality clause in as the product of simple common sense. Apparently there were several such packages. And what does Michael think that the other members of Maharaji's cult who contributed everything and worked very hard deserved? How about the truth? Do they deserve that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 00:46:30 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Two great posts in one thread (nt). Message:

(nt)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 23:10:13 (GMT) From: Nige Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Joe Subject: Well said, 'nuff said! (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 19:47:15 (GMT) From: Way Email: None To: Joe Subject: You're right, Joe,... Message:

no type of opologist attitude toward Rawat and the cult can stand up to an honest and realistic viewpoint. Dettmers is doing nothing more or less than rationalizing for his own self-benefit. It's so obvious. The thing that galls me the most is that he claims to have a history of strong philanthropic feelings. Apparently the harm that cults do to people is no longer of any concern to him. He should now either shut up or come clean. It's true that Yves is trying to force the issues again, but Dettmers doesn't have to get on the witness stand. No comment is better than excuses.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 22:02:54 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Way Subject: Well, so much for ex-premie journalism Message:

Hey, you guys, I don't make 'em up, I only write 'em up. Sheesh!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 18:26:14 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Correcting Michael Dettmers about his resume Message:

Just for the record, I, personally, went to Michael Dettmers website, Gylanix Solutions, and confirmed on the day I posted to Yves, myself personally, that Michael has REINSTATED the 'Swiss Foundation' reference on his resume. I took no one else's statement for granted. As I said, I was surprised, because on an earlier visit to Michael's website I noted, and stated here just be fair, that he had removed the reference. Michael, if you keep that on your resume, you have to expect us ex-premies will comment. Sorry, this bothered you, Michael, but this is very legitimate comment. I'm not surprised about the confidentiality agreement deterring Michael. It is what I suspected all along. It's what cults do. Just look at Scientology. As for 'toppling Mahararji,' I frankly can't see that as much of a motivation. The fact is, there are still lots of people stuck in that cult, which Michael knows is falsely presenting Maharaji as some kind of diety. That's where the record ought to be set straight and those are the people that matter to me in all of this. Jim, do us all a favor and stop being Michael's messenger to this forum. Let him say whatever he wants to himself. It's demeaning to you and to the rest of us.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 19:40:01 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Really, Joe! Message:

Joe, Funny, I don't feel demeaned. Actually, I called MD as a favour to someone. This is what he had to say and I thought y'all might want to hear it. You know, brings a little 'closure' into our lives? Ha ha ha.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 03, 2000 at 18:07:59 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thanks for that, Jim Message:

So, '...in MD's opinion, Maharaji would never be vulnerable to any further scrutiny from the IRS or anyone. There already were a couple of IRS audits back in MD's time and DLM / EV sailed through just fine thanks to Jacobs.' But surely, in Dettmer's time, EV could still get away with claiming 'religious' status from the IRS. Now that they've publicly stated it is NOT a religion, Jacob's defences (whatever they were) could be significantly weakened. Has anyone asked the IRS why they allow EV 'religious status'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index