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

To: Jim Heller From: Michael Dettmers Date: April 2, 2000 At your suggestion, I am writing to address many of the comments that have called my integrity into question in the Forum section of your website and on some of the links associated with it. I trust that what I have to say will answer many of the questions that have been raised and set the record straight on the misrepresentations that have been asserted. I expect that there are a few people who will disagree with me no matter what I say. I also believe that most readers, including many who know me to be a person of integrity, are simply seeking a clarification to some of the issues that have been raised in your forum. First, I have not spoken to Maharaji, nor participated in his work either actively or passively, nor attended any of his programs or events for many, many years. Nevertheless, I have no intention of engaging in rumor and gossip nor doing or saying anything that disparages him or my past involvement with him. In my years of working with him, I acted, at all times, to the best of my ability, and with honesty and integrity. Although my life has long since moved on in a new and different direction, I honor and take full responsibility for my past. The time I spent with Maharaji were important years in my life, and I continue to derive great benefit from the knowledge he taught me. Second, the Swiss Foundation to which I refer in my bio is called the Élan Vital Foundation. In the late 70's, one of my responsibilities was to re-organize Divine Light Mission, in part because there was considerable litigation over the name in India and elsewhere caused by the dispute between Maharaji and his mother. The Swiss Foundation became a hub (not the legal owner) for the overall coordination of most of the independent, not-for-profit Élan Vital organizations around the world. This structure simplified the organization and financing of worldwide programs, festivals, tours, and all of their related support activities. It is my estimate that these Élan Vital related activities generated about 100M worldwide especially when you include the revenues derived from product sales, food services, and the airline tickets, car rentals, and hotel accommodations for attendees at the numerous events organized all over the world. Of course, all of these entities were not owned or consolidated under one company or organization. They were spread out over several businesses and organizations in many countries. I had little or nothing to do with the day-to-day running of most of them. Nevertheless, from an overall executive management perspective, I had ultimate responsibility for organizing these worldwide events and that’s what is reflected in my bio. In my opinion, there is nothing mysterious about this information. During the years I managed these activities, Maharaji and Élan Vital in the USA and elsewhere were audited by various government taxing authorities including the IRS on several occasions. In every instance, he and Élan Vital were found to be in complete compliance. I take pride and satisfaction in the quality and standard of service that my team, consisting of premies and several non-premie professional advisors, provided in this regard. Some have suggested that, because I don’t mention him in my bio, I am covering-up my past relationship with Maharaji. This is not the case. In my personal life, all of my close friends, many of whom had never heard of Maharaji or who had heard of him but were not premies, are aware of my past involvement with him. In my professional life, some of my clients know that I worked with Maharaji; most of them do not, nor do I feel compelled to raise the subject. For the most part, it is not relevant to the task at hand, nor is there usually a context in which it would arise. This is not to suggest that I am ashamed about my past relationship with him, nor would I ever deny it should the question be asked. To mention him on my bio, however, simply for the sake of including him (as some of you seem to be suggesting) would serve no purpose. In my opinion, a bio should include only those references, skills, accomplishments, and/or activities that relate to, and are consistent with, one’s current offers in the marketplace. The Élan Vital activities I managed are relevant, so I include them in my bio. Third, there is great misunderstanding and misrepresentation about Dettmers Industries Inc., a company I co-founded with my brother in 1987. It is implied that this company is nothing more than DECA with a new name, and that I somehow made a personal fortune by taking over a company that was created for Maharaji with the slave labor of premies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are the facts. I, and others, created DECA in the late 70s to refurbish a used Boeing 707 to provide transportation for Maharaji and Élan Vital personnel. It is true that many premies from around the world gave of their time and skills on this project for very little money and/or modest support. However, nobody was a slave laborer. Slaves do not have the power to choose their situation. When the project was completed in 1980, DECA evolved into an aircraft completion center, fabricating and installing interiors for corporate jets. This endeavor proved to be commercially unviable and, within a year or so, the company was sold to an independent (i.e. non-premie) buyer who was primarily interested in the aircraft seating products DECA had designed and certified. Shortly thereafter, the company was re-named Aircraft Modular Products (AMP) and some of the premies that worked at DECA, including my brother, chose to remain as paid employees of AMP. I am not qualified, nor is it my business, to comment on what became of AMP after the sale. In 1984, my brother left AMP to start Dettmers Precision Crafting, a sole proprietorship where he, with the help of his wife and one or two others, designed and manufactured hi-lo tables for corporate aircraft. In 1987, my brother and I joined forces to grow this business and, as partners, we incorporated the company as Dettmers Industries Inc. In the beginning there were only five employees. We began with three FAA certified table designs, a used drill press and lathe, some miscellaneous tools and equipment, a few thousand dollars of capital and the slave labor of nobody but ourselves. The company never had any association with Maharaji, Élan Vital, DECA or AMP. Six years later, in 1993, our company was selected by Inc. magazine as one of the “Best Small Companies To Work For In America.” We received this recognition not just because we dramatically shortened manufacturing cycle times, accelerated innovation, and improved quality and profitability but, more importantly, because we simultaneously improved the standard of living for all of our employees by incorporating values-based practices that promoted self-esteem, dignity, ambition, prosperity and pride of ownership throughout the workforce. In this way we transformed our company into a world-class organization that benefited all of its stakeholders. In 1995, having achieved what I set out to accomplish at Dettmers Industries Inc., and finding myself in demand as a speaker and consultant in the design and development of partnership-centered, values-based, learning organizations, I co-founded Gylanix Solutions, a management consulting firm. What we do and how we do it is well documented on our website at www.gylanix.com. You have asked why Maharaji and I chose to part company. Based on years of experience in managing and promoting his worldwide activities, I had come to the conclusion that a different approach to spreading his message was needed, including a re-examination of his role in the process, if he were to better address and connect with the concerns and challenges people are facing in our post-modern world. To that end, I made several recommendations. When Maharaji decided not to adopt my suggestions, we mutually agreed that it would be best if I resigned. I must add, however, that although we differed on how best to proceed with his work in the future, Maharaji always treated me with great respect, dignity and love, not just while I worked with him, but also at the time of my departure. Even though we disagreed, I respect his right to make whatever interpretation he chooses. I am clear, after all, that it is his work. I was also aware that it is sometimes much easier to give someone else advice about what to do than it is to put your own advice into practice. It was with that awareness in mind that I was motivated to make Dettmers Industries Inc. into the kind of company it became. That same motivation continues to inspire the evolution and development of my work through Gylanix Solutions. I trust that what I have said here sets the record straight about me and where I stand on the issues that have been raised in your forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:29:59 (GMT) From: Bill Burke Email: None To: Jim Subject: Not fair Michael. Message:

Joan Apter is also offering sentences that imply that we did it to ourselves. OUR choice. One thing to consider when looking at this subject is, have you been able to make the break from the thinking that it is ok play god so that others can 'enjoy' worshipping god in form, while the person playing god gets to indulge in all the domination and abuse they can get away with. I think Krishna was either misquoted or mispercieved life when he said 'he who IDENTIFIES with the divine...'. A whole tradition of 'self realized' god incarnates sprang off of that loophole in the krishna ideology. All you have to do is 'identify' with the divine and you can PLAY god because you ASSUME to be god. HUGE mistake and frankly a misperception of life. Is it reasonable to guess that the reason that virtually ALL the guru's and yogis that came in the 70's have ended up displaying abusive and corrupt behaviours, behaviours that were unacceptable when brought out into the light of day, were driven to those lows by a god that actually exists and disapproves of the pretense? Easterners would like us to think that there is a 'oneness' thats not self aware. The hole in thier thinking is that WHO made the 'wheel' that the out of body eastern godheads occupy when they arent in a body? No answer for that one. The breath is fine and dandy but if it was some perfect force 'our true self', then we/I would have some evidence to show by now. The facts show that we are NOT attaining samahdi and for good reason. We are not designed to waste our time trying to escape this life but are here to try to love life and family and friends and have the chance to pursue our dreams. Hardly the kind of thinking that prem embraced as he avoided his mom for 17 years till she died and THEN he recognised he loved her. We are not here to be slaves in someone playing god's dream. Do you know he is still having arti and the foot kissing done in 2000? Not just in india. People are innocent and they see the old video footage and are fooled into thinking that 'gee, guess it is true!' Not fair Michael. If you had a kid you would not approve of him or her spending years thinking prem was telling the truth about him being the master of life and the god incarnate. In case you didnt know, he said recently 'thank god?!? thank the master!' He has fallen back on the hindu misperception of life where there clearly is no god and playing god is an accepted profession. Well, the caste system is ALSO an accepted way of life in india. Hardly makes it ok just because millions are trapped in its confines. I know it is not easy to look straight at this and see it for what it is. You are going to have time to percieve life and willingly look at the very foundational thinking you have constructed and rebuld it on more realistic footing. Since you are glossing over this issue, I suspect that like us, you found it easier to deflect the serious fundamental issues walking away from P. rawat uncovered. Mainly, either there is a non self aware oneness and so that makes it ok to play god, OR, there is a self aware god and a human nature that causes those that play god to self destruct. Respond to whatever anyone has said in whatever way you would like of course.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 01:48:12 (GMT) From: x#%*! Email: None To: Jim Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out! Message:

Gotta hand it to ya Jim, you are driven to see this through. It’s kinda refreshing to finally get it from the horses mouth, don’t ya think. And we have you to thank……..who’da thunkit. That said, upon reading Michael’s letter you can appreciate why premies have been appalled by the lies that have been told here; by the monumental leaps to conclusion that people have taken; by the outright character assassination. That in contrast to the respect Michael described came his way from Maharaji when it was time for him to part company. Ok, so where does that leave you guys? You have some unanswered questions about who and what Maharaji is. Hey, join the club. More important though for you guys are the questions regarding what he said way-back-when and the impact that had on your own lives. Amongst you are people who admittedly had a difficult time as a premie but persevered through a set of rationalisations, such as Maharaji said yada-yada-yada which means yada-yada-yada, and I trust you Lord so--consciously or not--I also trust my rationalisations. When these same people finally got real and left this thing they were not really enjoying those years, they held Maharaji responsible for their misery and, amazingly enough, for creating the set of rationalisations that kept them roped to the mast. In contrast you have Michael Dettmers who unlike most exes (including Jean-Michel) was definitely in the loop wrt seeing the man behind the curtain. And amazingly enough he respects what Maharaji gave him, speaks highly of his years of service, and takes full responsibility for the decisions he made when he parted company. What a difference! Whatever the reasons behind the differences, in fairness, Michael’s years at the helm carries as much weight as Mishler’s (if not more). His account should therefore be put forward on your site as such……..that is if fairness is what you guys want. Of course to do that is a major set-back for the rather dark forces whose life’s purpose has become to bring Maharaji down at all costs. I can see why you sat on this for a few days Jim but again, you win big points for posting the information.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:11:54 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: x#%*! Subject: What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have... Message:

parted ways? I think that remains to be seen. I have seen no evidence so far from anything he has said, that Dettmers is not still a raving premie, although he may not have been to an 'event' in awhile. He might not be in an Elan Vital position anymore, but I haven't seen Dettmers say one thing yet that implies he doesn't still believe Maharaji is the perfect master, bringing peace to the world. So, maybe his supposed respect for Maharaji is not from the distance you think it might be. And as for the 'lies' that are posted here, put up or shut up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 19:29:21 (GMT) From: x#%*! Email: None To: JW Subject: What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have... Message:

So let me get this straight. As long as they rennounce Maharaji à la Mishler you will believe 'em but if they still support him in any way you won't. In other words you're filtering out the information that doesn't jive with the answers you want to hear. Gee Joe, sounds real objective to me! Forget the fact that Mishler worked closely with Maharaji for 2-3 years max compared to Michael working with him for well over a decade. Forget the fact that Mishler didn't practise meditation......as per Maharaji's comment of that era that on his headstone they would write, 'Here lies Bob Mishler. He helped so many realise Knowledge but never realised it for himself.' So you know better do you Joe? Were you closer to Maharaji than Michael? Or have more insight than him? No Joe, by your posts you appear to be whiney, closed-minded, paranoid, and obstenate. That doesn't spell insight to me. By the way, you took issue with me pointing out the numerous lies that appear regularly on the forum but you didn't regarding my comment about jumping to conclusions and character assassination. Does that mean you agree on those other two points?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Mr. Dettmers: 1. has premie-based businesses as clients. 2. has the 'Swiss Foundation' (real name 'Elan Vital Foundation') on his resume. So Maharaji is secretly an important reference. 3. had Jossi Fresco, Maharaji's web master, do his web site. 4. owns stock in Purus, Inc. 5. has a link on his site to 'The Inner Game of Tennis' So he has some vested interests. Even so, he did not state that he saw no evidence that Maharaji had/has a drinking problem. Why? Regarding your brilliant deduction that Mishler did not meditate, how does that follow from Maharaji saying 'Here lies Bob Mishler. He helped so many realise Knowledge but never realised it for himself.'? BTW, obstinate is a word, obstenate is not a word.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 19:40:58 (GMT) From: EV-ex Email: None To: x#%*! Subject: For the record Message:

Get your facts straight, x#%*!. Bob Mishler was President of DLM from 1972 to 1977, which is slightly longer than two or three years. Gee, how can we believe ANYTHING you say now?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 23:29:36 (GMT) From: x#%*! Email: None To: EV-ex Subject: For the record Message:

Ok shall we both get our facts straight? He was sacked in ’76 so if he started in 72 that makes 4 years. My mistake.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:40:16 (GMT) From: slave Email: None To: JW Subject: What makes you think Dettmers and Maharaji have... Message:

Hi JW, Is his company also in the jossi fresco web world? dettemers has only taken a baby step towards freedom and recovery. His denial is cushioned by all the perks he had at premies expense. Since he was an insider in malibu in the late seventies, he knew about the drugs and alcohol and money excesses so I doubt he was one to attend satsang and live like premies. Dealing with money gave him the ability to pursue his own desires and I'm sure he did. He sounds like a partner in a crime. Why diss the gang leader if you were in on the take?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:06:55 (GMT) From: slave Email: None To: x#%*! Subject: Michael Dettmers squeaks Message:

I hardly think that dettmers equals Mishler. His coldness is revealed. Even saddam hussain gets ok grades from some of his former business partners. Hardly makes either of them respectable. Mishler was a real man. dettmers is crippled Dont think he didnt skim off money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:27:39 (GMT) From: slave Email: None To: slave Subject: broken insider squeaks Message:

Just how did dettmer start his 'industries' and with whose money and I accuse him of stealing money from the guru and squirreling it away. His note was laced with a lack of honesty and also frankly revealed that his former opera singing heart has not recovered from the pounding it took by the great deceiver. Clearly he is still a classic former cult abuse victim. Cant deal squarely with the outragious fraud that was spooned out by a manic. dettmers cant reconcile the whole god issue so he copps out in a rather disgusting display of 'lets pretend'. I am certainly not fooled or swayed by his arrogant cold display of classic premie fantasy play.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:49:59 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dettmers' initial response Message:

Hi, Just got off the phone with Michael again. What happened was he emailed me, mentioning that he was reviewing the answers here and wasn't sure just yet if and how he'd respond. So I called him and reiterated my opinion that his accountability, as I see it, must be to follow through with the his initial comments and ultimately engage in some sort of open discussion with us. Obviously his comments have generated some important questions, quite likely challenging questions for him. Was he going to address those and really discuss these matters or was he going to offer his initial perfunctory explanation and consider that an obligation fulfilled? Okay, at this point Mike tells me he wants to read more of the follow-ups and get a sense of exactly what further questions people now have. He may or may not post here himself at some point, he hasn't decided. At a minimum, though, he promised to offer some further discussion, perhaps by simply sending me soem more comments to post. My personal opinion is that I, too, think that, although he might have said what he said sincerely enough, some things just don't add up. I completely concur with posts such as Susan's in which she asks Michael in closing: how can you deal with the fact he let you beleive he was Lord of the Universe and still have no hard feelings? Or, if you are not the sort to have hard feelings, don't you think a person who impacts others lives in such a huge way, and lets them beleive he is God, has a moral obligation to tell them unambiguosly he was and is not God and apologize for it? Anyway, Michael's going to check out the responses for a bit and will get back to us one way or another. Just thought you all might like to know that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Jim: My initial impression is that he's a guy in denial. I have a couple of scenarios that might explain the discrepancies that are all too obvious to us. In one sense his comments sound like the sort of thing Westmoreland might say, and in fact *did* say. On the other, they also sound like the sort of thing one might say of one's patron. Anyhow, there's something in the language of the following statement that reminds me more of a ditch than the river Jordan. But, who am I to expect more? Based on years of experience in managing and promoting his worldwide activities, I had come to the conclusion that a different approach to spreading his message was needed, including a re-examination of his role in the process, if he were to better address and connect with the concerns and challenges people are facing in our post-modern world. To that end, I made several recommendations. When Maharaji decided not to adopt my suggestions, we mutually agreed that it would be best if I resigned. So the big disagreement was over hermeneutics or something? You'd think that 'Lord one day and not Lord the next' might have triggered some cognitive dissonance in a normal person? I hardly think pointing Maharaji in the direction of Daniel Bell or Derrida was an appropriate response. Sorry, I live in 'politics central' and to my cynically practiced ear this sounds like the sort of double talk I hear all the time from politicians. On another level the disconnect might have a far simpler explanation, were it not for a rather glaring omission. I know what sort of answer I'd be compelled to give if someone broke the story that S.M.L. had doctored the data in *The First New Nation,* and had been taking money from the KGB. (Not that there are any KGB-friendly messages in that book, but just supposing...). In that case I'd be compelled to fall back on some sort of statement like: 'he has always been more than honorable with me,' and that, 'moreover, his tutelage has undoubtedly had much to do with who I am today.' I'd then be compelled to make some sort of apology for *the man,* or to at least suggest that he make is own apology. It's that last piece that appears to be missing from Dettmer's statement, and that has triggered my regrettable cynicism. (It is so easily triggered, I'm afraid.) --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Scott, I can be a bit of a cynic myself, the little guy always getting screwed by the big guy type. And since Dettmers was/is one of the big guys, I'm prone to agree with your, ahem, cynical, appraisal of his explanation on how he and M parted ways. It sort of sounds like the joke going around the office about so and so, you kow, some bigshot, 'resigning', when in fact, everybody knows damned well that he was FIRED! Don't you just love being a cynic?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:31:54 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Jim Subject: Maybe this'll clarify a bit Message:

As I have been involved in premiedom more recently than most here I may be able to explain the concepts that many who are involved currently hold about M. The old idea was that M was the actual omnipresent all knowing God who knew everything and everyone intimately. Omnipresent ,Omnipotent , Omniscient Lord in human form. The belief I held about him in later years was that he was a vehicle for the God energy i.e. light and love.That he was not God as a personality but that when on stage he 'channelled' pure and perfect energy, beyond the words and concepts. He was an energy conduit. I believed that he was a perfect devotee and servant who because of his dedication to his Master had been ordained by the creator to be a conduit for guiding us to enlightenment. It is my opinion that many followers do not see him as god with a big G anymore, certainly the ones I know. This may be of use to you when talking to the current followers, as I found that many of the ideas expressed here from 20 years ago were quite easily dismissed and overcome in the current context of how I saw him. Hope this is of some assistance. Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:04:33 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Jim Subject: Jim, fix my spelling errors next time..embarrassed Message:

three in one paragraph. The shame of it!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:35:09 (GMT) From: Modest Mouse Email: None To: Jim Subject: Many, many years - Approximate dates? Message:

nor attended any of his programs or events for many, many years Mr. Dettmers, can you give approximate dates for the last time you attended a program, had significant contact with Maharaji, last gave Maharaji money, etc.?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:51:57 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Dettmers' Strange Revisionism Message:

I'm posting this as 'Joe' instead of my usual 'JW.' Given the nature of what Michael Dettmers had to say, it just seemed appropriate. [Michael, in case you want to know. My name is Joe Whalen and I was a premie from 1973-1983.] Also, please forgive me; I haven't read all the responses to Michael's comments. I've got a busy day and I will read them later. Please forgive me if I make some points that others may have already made. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Michael's comments. And although I was in IHQ and community coordinator, etc., in Divine Light Mission in the late 70s and early 80s period and I was also one of those supposedly 'chose' my 'situation' there, a period during which I know Michael was working very closely with Maharaji, I certainly have no knowledge that would in any way impinge on Michael's integrity. But there is one area in which Michael seems to have a major disconnect -- or maybe selective memory that may have to do with Michael being an 'insider' in Maharji's cult. Often, I think those premies on the inside didn't take a lot of what Maharaji was saying seriously, or has a distorted perception of the effect of Maharaji's actions and words on the masses of premies who never, ever, knew Maharaji personally, and hence tended to be more susceptible to believe he was god incarnate, to take his words literally, and damage their lives by doing so. First, I just have to say that it simply isn't true that the premies at DECA had 'the power to choose their situation.' And here's why: 1. Maharaji portrayed himself as the incarnation of god. That's what most of the premies, including me, believed. I would be interested in knowing if Michael thought this. He was the perfect master, the lord of the universe and 'the superior power in person.' Maharaji raised not one finger to dissuade us from believing that, and as far as I know, neither did Michael. Also, beginning around 1977, Maharaji began preaching that the purpose of a devotee's life was to dedicate it 100% to Maharaji. Mind body and soul. Indeed, devotion was secondary to even practicing the meditation techniques and 'realizing knowledge.' Many premies, including me, moved into one of Maharaji's ashrams as a result of Maharaji's rantings. The purpose of the ashrams was to make you available to be a 'slave' for Maharaji. You went where you were told to go, and did what you were told to do. Accordingly, many of us were sent to DECA to do slave labor on the plane project only because we were sent there and because Maharaji wanted that plane so badly. We didn't have any choice and whether we hated it or loved it, we did it because we were dedicating your lives to Maharaji. [Personally, I HATED working at DECA and if I felt I had free will about this, I would have left in a minute.] I find it difficult to believe that Michael doesn't recall that mindset, and the fact that Maharaji fostered and promoted it, every time he ranted on about 'surrender.' So, Michael, you are just plain wrong here, and I think many people would testify that your characterization is just plain false. What this really your preception? I don't know about Dettmers Industries. I actually knew Peter from our time in San Antonio, and I always thought he was a great guy. Again, I have no reason to doubt his integrity. Also, as a broader discussion, it's impossible to divorce Maharaji's claimed divinity and power over thousands of his followers, from all the rest of the operations, financial or otherwise. If Michael was asking Maharaji to 're-examine his (Maharaji's) role in the process,' does this mean Michael was doing what Bob Mishler had tried to do years earlier, to dissuade Maharaji was his 'I am god' routine, and come clean to the premies about who or what he was? Is that what this was about? Finally, Maharaji may have always been nice to Michael, but I would hope Michael would recognize that a lot of what Maharaji did was damaging to people in their lives. Does Michael have any perspective, about why Maharaji has never addressed that?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:15:49 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Joe Subject: Additional Questions for Michael Message:

I have a few questions that Michael might want to answer: 1. When did Michael leave his position in Elan Vital? 2. When Michael left, did he receive a severence package, or any kind of financial consideration while doing so? If so what were the arrangements? Was Michael paid in his position in DLM/Elan Vital? Does Michael have any kind of an agreement with Maharaji, Elan Vital, etc., to keep confidential information he has on the operations of DLM/EV and Maharaji himself? 3. Does the $100,000,000 'Swiss Foundation' revenue include the millions that were raised by donations to DLM/EV and to Maharaji himself? Does it include the millions that were raised for the Boeing 707 conversion, including during the period when the premies were lied to and told the money was for a 'world tour' instead of the truth that it was for the plane? Is Michael aware of the millions that were raised in cash, collected by DLM and funnelled to the plane in several 'emergency' fundraisers? 4. Does Michael believe that Maharaji's personal and financial life were different from what was portrayed to the vast majority of premies, who only saw Maharaji at programs and in videos? For example: While the ashram premies were living lives of poverty, chastity and obedience, did Maharaji drink, take drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, etc? If so, why wasn't this known to the premies, who might have changed their opinion of Maharaji had they known he was not the straight-laced 'guru' most of of believed he was? After all, we were devoting our lives to him. Shouldn't we have been able to find out who it was we were devoting to? Did Michael feel any obligation to the premies to disclose any of that? 5. Did Maharaji have a drinking problem while he was still the 'perfect master' and did Michael try to do anything about it? 6. Was Michael involved in the decision to close the ashrams in 1983, and how does Michael think that was handled? Is this maybe part of the reason Michael 'parted ways' with Maharaji? 7. What does Michael think of Maharaji's lifestyle? Does his obvious wealth bother Michael in any way, considering most of the money came from donations of premies, many of whom were barely getting by financially themselves? 8. Does Michael really believe that once a premie was involved with Maharaji, especially if he or she lived in the ashram and believed Maharaji was the perfect master and the incarnation of god, that he or she had any kind of a free choice opportunity to leave Maharaji and go onto something else if they didn't like it? Does Michael recall Maharaji ever encouraging that in any way? Did Michael attend any of the ashram meetings Maharaji held in the late 70s and early 80s? Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:46:01 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Additional Questions for Michael Message:

One of my questions to Michael Dettmers, above, was the following, which I think is a very key issue as to whether what Maharaji and Michael was involved in was a cult, so just some kind of spiritual 'personal growth' movement: Does Michael really believe that once a premie was involved with Maharaji, especially if he or she lived in the ashram and believed Maharaji was the perfect master and the incarnation of god, that he or she had any kind of a free choice opportunity to leave Maharaji and go onto something else if they didn't like it? Does Michael recall Maharaji ever encouraging that in any way? Did Michael attend any of the ashram meetings Maharaji held in the late 70s and early 80s? I would add to the above question, about whether Michael feels or believes this in light of the additional fact that Maharaji propogated a 'COMMANDMENT' to 'never leave room for doubt in your mind?' If one followed Maharaji's commandment, how could one ever decide knowledge and being a devotee of Maharaji wasn't working and decide to leave it and move on? And isn't this kind of circular, repression of doubt, along with the low tolerance for dissent, prescribed simplistic solutions to problems, and an exaulted and worshipped leader, one of the hallmarks of what makes a cult a cult?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:40:06 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Joe Subject: Thanks Joe! Message:

With your usual ability to succintly describe the dynamics of premiedom you perfectly asked the questions that trouble me as well. Because you were so intimately involved with DECA itself you can ask many too that never would have occured to me. Michael, if you do read this please consider answering some of these questions. I have met in person many of the people who comprise this group of ex premies. I have talked on the phone to more. The majority of us are kind, thoughtful and good people.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

That was really fascinating. It made me uncomfortable though. I wanted to just kind of accept what he is saying at face value. It sounds really good. But the fact remains. He thought Rawat was LOTU. He left the trip. He has no hard feelings? If you pass yourself off as God to someone, and they discover it is a lie, how can that person just say, well, I had a good time, learned a lot, so it was okay I kissed your feet, devoted my life to you, and sang Arti to you, but no hard feelings. I don't get it. But a sick part of me does. Its just easier that way. He associates with premies, has a lot of connections, and he wants to keep them. Thats what it looks like to me. Or else he just really hasn't examined what it would take for someone to step down from playing God, ethically, to make amends to those he tricked. Wouldn't it be great if what he and Rawat parted over was that he wanted Rawat to make a unambiguous statement and apology for allowing people to sacrifice their all ( money, families, youth) to him. But somehow, if that is what it was over, I think he would feel a moral obligation to say so. But I do thank him for talking to you. And I do think he deserves a lot of credit for writing to you and being at least as up front as he was. Which is a lot more than many others have done. If you talk again, or if you read this Michael, that is my only question, how can you deal with the fact he let you beleive he was Lord of the Universe and still have no hard feelings? Or, if you are not the sort to have hard feelings, don't you think a person who impacts others lives in such a huge way, and lets them beleive he is God, has a moral obligation to tell them unambiguosly he was and is not God and apologize for it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

s

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:06 (GMT) From: Bloodboils Email: None To: Jim Subject: Good Work Jim. Thank you Message:

This post is excellent. A wonderful effort to expand the forum.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:56:53 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Jim Subject: What about business ties between Dettmers and M? Message:

I noticed that they have the same web master, Jossi Fresco, who is still a premie. Also, on the Gylanix web site, their is a link to the Amazon page for the book 'The Inner Game of Tennis', which is written by Tim Gallway and dedicated to Guru Maharaj Ji. I'm not saying there is something wrong with either of these associations. I'm just wondering how much of a tie there is on a business level.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:03:33 (GMT) From: Powerman Email: None To: Jim Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out! Message:

Jim, That's impressive how you connected with Dettmers and evoked this response out of him. He really had me going there for a few minutes... I was thinking, 'Yeah, yeah, that sounds good... good explanation. Sure, sure you wouldn't mention anything unneccessary in your resume. Sure DECA didn't really use slave labor, good explanation. But then I got to this part: You have asked why Maharaji and I chose to part company. Based on years of experience in managing and promoting his worldwide activities, I had come to the conclusion that a different approach to spreading his message was needed, including a re-examination of his role in the process, if he were to better address and connect with the concerns and challenges people are facing in our post-modern world. To that end, I made several recommendations. When Maharaji decided not to adopt my suggestions, we mutually agreed that it would be best if I resigned This is just absolute bullshit. Maharaji's role to all of us including Dettmers was the Lord. With him being the Lord, you couldn't conclude that a different approach than His was needed, because then you're denying he's the Lord ('without whom not a leaf shakes on any tree'). This is some major fudging and brings into doubt everything else Dettmers said in this letter. If he would have just said it like it is, about leaving Maharaji, I would have believed him. If fact, I believed him more before I read this letter.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

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

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:55:35 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Hal Subject: Michael Dettmers speaks out! Message:

Hal I don't understand. I have seen a lot of things on this forum that could be categorized as inflammatory and all, but Powerman's comment doesn't fit. He made a very good point that Dettmers is contradicting himself by giving some BS about giving suggestions to GOD as to how to run the family business. I do not understand how this could make you go off so angry. And it takes away from the point of the whole thread. I do understand your struggle with the issue of the tone of the forum in general, I think Way addreses it very well up above. I suggest you read it and ponder it as this seems to be something you continue to bring up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:42:35 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Selene and Powerman Subject: Sorry Powerman Message:

It wasn't Powerman's post in particular that set me off. I am not even sure anymore what it was. I guess there is some confusion in me at present. Maybe not meditating anymore is allowing an emotional side out which had been repressed or something. I don't know..

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 23:35:11 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Hal Subject: been there Message:

Too many times to count. Just pointing it out. as they say takes one to know one. Thought it odd that post triggered it. That's all.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 13:03:34 (GMT) From: SB Email: None To: Hal Subject: Hal: Some questions... Message:

Do you believe all you hear, always? Explanations, even when well said can be false...correct? We worshiped 'The Lord Of The Universe'... The importance is right there. That is what makes Maharaji different than any other charlatan... He sold us that he was the Lord... and Dettmers IS washing his hands, in my opinion, because he does not want to feel responsible for his contribution on the scam. Do you think he would come and here and share with us what he really thinks? I doubt it. Is Lard the Lord or not for Dettemers? He will never answer... NO! Too embarrassing perhaps? About your anger toward the exes 'attacking' the premies, remember, some people respond aggresively because they got hurt bad but also because we realize that without premies there would not be a lord of the universe... and you know that most premies still think that way. Are we suposse to say to the premies here how nice that you are supporting a creep?? We are all different but exes all agree that Lard is a fraud and some premies know it and will not admit that... If premies don't like it here they wouldn't come... I can see your point of view but you are getting mad...and maybe you don't need to. :) Most of the time is crazy because premies do not answer questions! So, is not just a matter of respecting other opinions: Premies do not play fair, they are evasive! At home they can believe what they want but they cannot come here and expect that US, people that knows Lard's trip act nice about their envolvement with Lard. No way that can happen... Are you looking at it from the right angle? An example. By reading old posts you can see that Deputy Dog comes often around and the arguments are totally repetitive! People get tired of hearing the same thing over and over... What the premies would like to find here doesn't exists, and that is acceptance from our part of their activities, and again, they are suporting The Lord Of The Universe!!! The one that lied to us all!!! As time goes by, since I began to read the forums I am beginig to realize that in general the interaction here is balanced and what is happening is obvious... You will find the same in any other places. Normal... Ugly at times, but after all, we are only humans! Also, you criticize because others flame and you flame others? I love humans!! Live and let live sounds nice, but IMHO it does not apply here, when talking about God incarnated. :) He is no Lord, and it needs to be said loud and clear, or however possible...At least that is how SOME think. Dettmers is not being honest!! Love, S

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Hal, Dettmers said in his phone conversation with Jim that he believed Maharaji was LOTU. Later, apparently, he stopped believing this, because he tried to get M to 're-examine his role'. Now, this could mean any dozen of things, but what humble servant of the Lord would want his Lord to re-examine himself? Now, let's say, for argument's sake, that Dettmer's did once believe that M was LOTU, and then stopped. WOULDN'T YOU THINK, AT THAT POINT, HE WOULD JUST COMPLETELY DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF FROM M INSTEAD OF ADVISING M TO 'RE-EXAMINE HIS ROLE'? What purpose would he have for continuing as M's student at this point? He's obviously 're-examined' his own beliefs about M and changed them. But instead of turning in his beragon and saying 'enough of this', he decides to carry on PROVIDED THAT M RE-EXAMINE HIS ROLE! Think, man. Doesn't this smell a little fishy to you? It sure does to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:27:57 (GMT) From: trixie Email: None To: Jerry Subject: The Insider Message:

It sounds like Michael thought M should re package himself. It does not sound like he did not believe in him any longer. He probably wanted him to tone down the Lord trip and westernise his propaganda. Michael also sounds like a slick corporate type that says the right thing in pretty words while he is screwing you. I think what he means is that he IS a slick corporate type, he still practices knowledge and respects M and how stupid we must be to think that he would not follow common business protocol. The forum is now meant to get self reflective, while the issue of accountablilty gets mirrored back to the individuals asking the questions and thereby the same issues are dispersed into barely detectable ratios. This is the Joan Apter style of non responsiblity. The starving in Africa are not her problem because she eats her greens. A perfect example of the Conscience being eroded by the power of so called choice. No responsibility except for ones own spiritual strivings. Question this and one is a bleeding heart or plagued by a 'victim' problem. This 'nothing to do with me' is sick, insidious and the worst effect of long term 'use' of this knowledge. The acompanying symptom is Rob style propagation. Covert and loyal to the M Machine while posing as a free agent.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:39:38 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: trixie Subject: Sorry, trixie, I don't buy it Message:

It sounds like Michael thought M should re package himself. It does not sound like he did not believe in him any longer. He probably wanted him to tone down the Lord trip and westernise his propaganda. Bullshit. If Dettmers believed that Maharaji was God, as he told Jim on the phone he did, do you think he's going to leave him because he doesn't like the way God packages himself? Don't make me laugh.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Jerry, I wouldn't be so absolute about this. It is possible to believe that Maharaji is god, and also believe that he has to 'package' himself to be more relatable to people, kind of under the assumption that people aren't ready to hear that god is walking on the planet. I say this because I recall thinking the same way. I believed Maharaji was god, but I was supportive of ways of presenting him in a more subtle way, to to explain his 'role' in a more acceptable fashion. I know it sounds nuts, but it was a common mindset in DLM/EV. Now, I don't know at what point Dettmers stopped believing Maharaji was god, but I assume he has. JW

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

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

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 17:50:11 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: I Assume It Because Message:

He claims not to be following him anymore, and I think it's reasonable to assume that if he thought he was god he still would be, and wouldn't leave serving god because he disagreed with him on what is essentially a marketing issue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

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

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Dear JW, You forgot to use the word paradigm. Generally, people who throw out the phrase cognitive dissonance find a way to slip 'paradigm' in there. It makes any discussion seem far more intelligent than it really is. Just a thought, Brandy

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 05:18:09 (GMT) From: JW Email: None To: Brandy Subject: What is a 'paradigm?' Message:

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. I understand 'cognitive dissonance' as the defense mechanisms one uses when a cherished belief is undercut by reality, or by conflicting information. So, you believe Maharaji is god, but then you hang around him and find out he's really kind of screwed up, greedy, stupid, and not a very nice person. What do you do? Or you are miserable as a premie. 'Knowledge' doesn't work and you are very unhappy, despite having the 'gift of gifts? What do you do? Do you change your belief, or figure out a way to discount what your own judgment is telling you? As a premie, we had a bunch more mechanisms. We had 'lila,' 'mind,' 'lack of understanding,' 'not being devoted enough,' 'not having enough grace,' 'not making enough effort,' 'not leaving room for doubt in your mind' etc., etc. They were endless, really.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

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

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Jerry: Re: I'd say at this point, when you're ready to walk, you no longer believe. I can only speak for myself, but in my case I just concluded that God was a little stupid guy. Sort of fit with my overall cosmology. :-) --Scott BTW, I figured the stupidity was only temporary and He'd snap out of it with the next incarnation. I watched too much Peter Sellers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Jerry, You make it sound like a premie thinks Maharaji is god one day, and then one day stops believing it. I think it's a lot more complicated than that. It's a very absolute question, and I think most premies live for years in a state of not being sure one way or the other. Or avoiding the question entirely. This is a cult we are talking about, after all. A lot of programming, and avoiding or doubts, and such things are quite automatic, and you have to work at rooting them out. While they operate, they allow you to believe two opposite things at the same time. Didn't this ever occur to you as a premie? Was it all so black and white for you? I left the cult because I couldn't stand it anymore, not because I stopped believing M was god. It was an act of survival. Right now, I couldn't tell you whether I thought Maharaji was God or not at the time I left. It was very confusing. Within a few months, and some hard work on my part, I firmly believed he was not god. But many premies who leave don't want to do that work. They just avoid the whole issue and kind of float on the whole thing, not being involved, but not critically looking at what happened, and what they believed, either, because it is very confronting to do that. And I think that is what Dettmers is doing, at least to some extent. IMO. I was there myself so I can tell. JW

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Joe: Re: I left the cult because I couldn't stand it anymore, not because I stopped believing M was god. Yup. No matter how proud you are of those shoes, if they're two sizes too short they've got to eventually become the property of Goodwill Industries. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:15:36 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: JW Subject: That makes sense Message:

Yes, JW, my journey as a premie was a bumpy road, filled with doubt and confusion, and it's feasible that Dettmers carried a similar cross. But one thing I doubt I would do is give M an ultimatum. But Dettmers did. Now, this opens a can of worms in understanding the psychology involved. You're saying that when Dettmers offered his ultimatum, he was torn between belief and disbelief. Well, he certainly knew that he believed more people would respond to M if he toned down the God act. Maybe that's the result of being in close proximity to M, and the illusion begins to pop. Remember, Mischler wanted the same thing. These guys had a clearer picture of who M, the man, was. He was more than a charismatic presense on stage. But maybe you're right. We were all in a cult and clear thinking wasn't anything any of us could stake a claim on. I still have a rough go at it. Maybe Dettmers still does too. Hopefully, he'll just try to come as clean as possible now that he's no longer involved. One question that I'd like an answer to is does Dettmers now believe he was in a cult? What's his thoughts on where he's been? Will he want to re-examine his own involvement now that it's come back to haunt him? If he does, credit is due him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Jerry, I don't have any idea if Dettmers gave M 'an ultimatum.' It may be that M just didn't want to follow his suggestions and Michale got tired of being ignored. But from what I gather, Michael doesn't think it was a cult. Just something he was involed in once but isn't anymore, for reasons I am sure are a lot more complicated than Maharaji not following his suggestions about how to propogate 'this knowledge.' Look, when I was a premie I didn't want to believe it was a cult, and even some time after I left I didn't want to think that either, and I think this is true for many ex-premies, or should I say lapsed premied. People who leave don't want to think they were in a cult. Something like: 'What, was I a MOONIE? WasI a HARE KRISHNA? Of course not. I'm Michael Dettmers, successful businessman and smart guy. People like me are not in, and never have been in, a cult. It was something else, maybe kinda bizzare, but it wasn't a cult. It was some kind of vague personal/spiritual growth movement that I was in for awhile, and then I outgrew it and went on to something else.' Very convenient, no?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

JW, Saying Dettmers gave M an ultimatum is a bit dramatic, I suppose, but I still wouldn't say it was inaccurate. He did walk. And they did have a mutual agreement that it might be best if he did. And shouldn't that raise some eybrows? What kind of master-devotee relationship are we talking about here? It sounds to me that M and M (for Michael) had more of a business relationship than anything. I agree with you that Dettmers probably sees himself as 'Michael Dettmers, smart guy entrepreneur and benevolent employer', (I wonder if his employees feel the same way), than he does as an ex-cult member. It will be interesting what he has to say for himself next, and if he even cares to address the questions that have been raised, so far, as a result of his phone conversation and letter. I hope so.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:10:28 (GMT) From: Trixie Email: None To: Jerry/JW Subject: 2-3 things believed at once... thats it! Message:

Jerry and JW Reading your exchange, I realise that as a premie two things were going on. One small part wanted to believe he was god, and the other big part just couldnt beilieve it. BUT I did not think was not god, so it was a mute point for the most part. On this mute point I would quickly become quite smug if someone questioned the whole trip or wouldnt listen to my holy satsang. After some years, I did get the sneaking feeling that Masharkys packaging, delivery, or style was way too Indian-come-Western and secretly thought, (when I was feeling rebelious and allowed myself to think)- that if he would sell himself in a more intelligent western slant, he could get to more people. Some times I would be trying to follow his speach, but would be so very embarrassed by his misconstruing points and then going on to prove a misconstrued principal. All with the silly vibe of 'I just may be the lord' I would painfullly squirm for the people I brought to hear him. Then I started to feel downright insulted by his patronizing , condenscending smorgasbord As it was, he was extrrrrremely, 'I used to be Indian and now I am westernised, so see how I understand your confusions.' Playing on deep human doubts and insecurities. This is/was the resultant mutation of a Guru of Indian heritage, schooled by Catholics then off to the US to make some bucks and to fulfill his task on earth as a Guru. I wonder if the Indians have as much revulsion as we do. I mean , God revealing gurus are a common thing there. Just some thoughts prompted by your discussion. Trixie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:02:59 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Trixie Subject: Hi Trix, are you new here? Message:

I like what all three of you have been saying but who are you anyway, Trix? Do I know you? Whaddup?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 18:54:07 (GMT) From: Trixie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Hi Trix, are you new here? Message:

No Jim I am not new here. I am the more lighthearted side of Zelda. She gets way too serious for me at certain times of the month.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:30:18 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: JW Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs Message:

In the very few times I saw interactions between PAMs and Maharaji, it seemed that the PAMs were treating Maharaji like he was God and not God at the same time. It sounds strange, but that's how it seemed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:53:42 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: G Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs Message:

That's how it seemed to me, too, like there was a little irreverence going on. Maybe when you're that close to God, you start thinking you're as good as he is, and he'd better start taking suggestions. This whole thing is laughable. If I was a psychoanalyst, I'd say they all were crazy, putting on a show, that underneath the facade they were presenting, was a knowingness among them that it was all bullshit, just as we premies out in the audience knew, underneath, though we couldn't admit it, that our trip was bullshit as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:03:49 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Jerry and G Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs Message:

That is so strange! Guess I missed something all those years. Given these two mutually exclusive thought systems among those closest to M, it's amazing the whole facade would last as long as it has. What is the payoff? The prestige of being seen and known as one who is close to him?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:45:06 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Selene Subject: the prestige of being a PAM Message:

I think the prestige of being seen as one who is close to him is part of it. I've seen some obvious arrogance displayed, even by little non-bigwig me. The ego satisfaction of thinking you are a part of the greatest event on the planet, that you're better than others. I heard a guy boast at a program 'I am one of (Guru) Maharaj Ji's initiators!' He said it loudly and with great pride, he had been recently 'made' one. He was now a made man! Consider what has happened sometimes when M 'fired' people, out the door they went. I wonder if some honchos even clearly know it's all a game and they're playing it because there is something in it for them (maybe money in premie businesses?). I think it's possible.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:35:46 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Selene Subject: Cognitive Dissonance and PAMs Message:

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

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:35:36 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Just take it easy, Hal Message:

Jerry, I didn't hand in my beragon then either. Nor did a lot of other ex premies on this forum who left after 1985.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Hal, The point isn't about handing in your beragon. The point is that Dettmers is saying that he parted ways with Maharaji because M REFUSED TO STOP PLAYING GOD! Read between the lines here. That means if M DID stop playing, Dettmer's would have stuck by him. Why? I mean, the whole kit and kiboodle has fallen apart. You see M for the fraud he is, but you agree to continue supporting him if he stops being one? What is Dettmers saying here? It's madness! Don't you see? In effect, what Dettmers is saying is that HE DOESN'T CARE IF M IS A FRAUD, ONLY THAT HE STOP ACTING LIKE ONE! HE'S SAYING THAT HE WILL CONTINUE RUNNING M'S '100 MILLION DOLLAR SWISS FOUNDATION' EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS FULL WELL THAT M IS A FRAUD!!! Do you understand? What is Dettmers revealing about himself, here? Looks to me that he's revealing that, he too, is a fraud.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Ok Jerry, I'm feeling a bit unclear at present and admit that I let my hotheaded Irish blood rule today. Cheers Hal. I don't think I can discuss the issue clearly right now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:02:28 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Hal Subject: Just take it easy, Hal Message:

That's right Hal. Hang on to that INNER EXPERIENCE. No matter what truth you have to deny, just hang on. After all, it's all you got baby!!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:10:19 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Hal Subject: Hal speaks out! Message:

Soon there'll be just a little group of nasties talking amongst themselves.. Hey Hal, I don't mind being a part of a 'little group of nasties'. As long as the nasties are genuine, and not a phoney baloney Mr. Goodie Two-Shoes like yourself. Better to be real, than to be fake. Have a nice life Hal, and DO feel free NOT to come back.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:33:30 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Joey Subject: Best wishes to you too Joey......... Message:

I'm sure you'll be successful in your chosen role of genuine nasty

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Hal, Stop it! I'm gonna cry!! Actually, not. I think I'll forget about it instead.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:39:04 (GMT) From: An Occassional Observer Email: None To: Joey Subject: Hey Joey Message:

Hal is a typical narcisistic type. He may have left Rowatt but he(Hal) has not left the mindset. He just used this site to get what he wants.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:43:02 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: An Occassional Observer Subject: Hey Observer Message:

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

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:25:07 (GMT) From: An Occassional Observer Email: None To: Hal Subject: Hey Observer Message:

You have taken from eveyone here and then turned around and vomited on them. If you're still in Portugal towards then end of the year, I'll look you up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:55:35 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Powerman Subject: Right on, P-man Message:

In his phone conversation with Jim , Dettmers says that he believed Maharaji to be The Lord Of The Universe and that he was here to save the world through Knowledge Of God. But in this letter he talks about how M should 're-examine his role' in spreading his message. Doesn't add up and has me a little bewildered. That's two PAMS, now, who have spoke about advising M to change his stripes, first Mischler, and now Dettmers. What gives? How do you offer full prostrations to the one you think is the Lord Of The Universe, and then right after you do, brush off your knees and say something like, 'By the way, you whom I am most humble before and wish only to serve, I've got this plan on how you can better spread your message'? I can't figure it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:32:24 (GMT) From: An Etomoligist Email: None To: Jerry Subject: The Butterfly and the Flea Message:

Well that's the difference between a Butterfly and a Flea. One demonstrates a beautiful evolution the other is just an opportunistic blood sucker. You Gerry are a Flea!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

ET, First off, I'm Jerry with a 'J', not Gerry with a 'G', and I think you might be confusing me with Dettmers. If anybody was a bloodsucking opportunist, he was, but I'm not saying for sure that he was. I'm reserving judgement on that. I just find it suspect how he and M parted company because they couldn't agree on how M should present himself. Don't you? Doesn't it make you curious about what goes on in high places? It seems to me that they were all a bunch of fleas, the top flea being M, himself. And just what kind of 'evolution' are you talking about, the one where you go from accepting Maharaji as God incarnate to realizing he's not and getting upset with him because he refused to stop playing that he was? What was Dettmer's thinking; 'we've got a great gig, here, but chill out with the LOTU crap, it's turning people off'? Fuck him. I also think you meant to call yourself an 'entomologist', not 'etomolgist', which looks more like a mispelling of 'etyomologist'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:43:14 (GMT) From: An Occassional Observer Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Lies for the masses Message:

I also wonder how Detmers and others git the cash to start their own busibesses etc. Detmer(like Donner) was meant to have been an ashram-premie, i.e. he should have owned nothing. Or is it that some ahramees were more equal than others? I think you are right that things do go on in high places.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:53:04 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: An Occassional Observer Subject: Lies for the masses Message:

You do speak a load of crap. Ask Jim how he managed to start up as a lawyer or any number of x premies how they managed to start their own businesses. I started my own business. Guess you wouldn't have heard about bank loans or enterprise schemes ?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:21:40 (GMT) From: An Occassional Observer Email: None To: Hal Subject: Lies for the masses Message:

Yes I have heard of bank loans and enterprise schemes..particularly in the UK where you'd get £40 per week for a year to start a new business....don't know about the US. I was referring particularly to former honchos who miraculously became successful 'in the world' after being renunciates. Of course Bullent doesn't count as he was also a householder. Any ex-IRA people where you live?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:41:43 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: An Occassional Observer Subject: To An Occasional Observer Message:

If you're still in Portugal towards then end of the year, I'll look you up. Any ex-IRA people where you live? I've had my own share of disagreement with Hal in this and other threads, and I can certainly share in some of the other sentiments expressed in your posts. But I have to draw a line at the threats expressed in the above quotes. I find them offensive to EVERYONE, inappropriate and unnecessary as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:01:26 (GMT) From: Hal Email: None To: Joey Subject: Thanks Joey Message:

Phew I think I got a bit heated today. What got me about that guy Oc Obs was that he didn't have the courage to say what he felt to my face but spoke about me in the third person. We have had a few niggling issues but you have always been straight about your thoughts. I guess I'm just not cut out for this anymore. I hold no grudges. Wishing you a fine life Bye . Hal

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

Dear Hal, I'm the person you just emailed to recently. Well I'm not sure why everyone is thanking Jim for the very sane letter that Dettmers wrote after he was hounded by Jim. Reading some of the posts to you I realise what a crazy lot there are on this site and I see why Katie and others have declined to post very often. Sorry you had to take all that nonsense, Hal. Seems like people on this site can't have people being themselves if they don't agree with the sheep here. As for the person that said Dettmer's doesn't read here, well that stupid comment speaks for itself. And when pray, Dodos, did Dettmers say that 'M was God' on the phone to Jim? Hugh ps Dettmers just shows me how one can use k and benefit without the insanity of premie/nonpremie insanity/potilics (freud/slip left in!)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:08:14 (GMT) From: An Occassional Observer Email: None To: G Subject: No threat intended Message:

Ok I have asked an 'uninvolved' person and they have said that it does sound like a threat. That was not my intention. The fact is I will be going to Portugal where I know a number of people (premies and exs). I know that Hal knows them and he even may be one of them. So if he is there, there is a good chance that I will see him. The IRA comment was referring to one particular person who was well-known at the time as being a former IRA person who now stays in Portugal. He did security for m.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:14:29 (GMT) From: Joey Email: None To: Hal Subject: Lies for the masses Message:

What about Michael's explanation as to why he left m? That was the key point of Powerman's post and supported by Jerry, that you found so objectionable. Powerman claimed that Dettmers explanation of this key point did not ring true. That prompted you to call us a bunch of 'nasties'. Now you seem intent on avoiding any serious discussion on this subject. Hal, is there anything meaningful you have to say, for a change?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

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

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:00:41 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: My interview with Michael Dettmers Message:

Okay, so truth be known, I was a little bored the other day. Laurie's in Thailand for two weeks. I couldn't go because I had this murder trial that I allowed to get booked over the time we'd talked about going. Her two kids are travelling there and the idea of a once-in-a-lifetime family 'hook up' on the The Beach beach was too much to miss. So I stayed and Laurie, bless her itinerant soul, is coming home tomorrow. But, as I was saying, I was a litle bored. Worked out a very good deal for my client after the first week of trial and had a little time on my hands. That's when I called Joan and you've read about that short call. What I didn't mention, then, though was that I called Mike Dettmers that day too. I knew Mike a bit back in Toronto, circa Premlata, Amherst, sometime in '74. If I recall, he was National Coordinator for Canada then. This was before he got 'tapped'. Now, not surprisingly at all, Mike doesn't remember me. I was just some kid in the ashram, I think it'd be fair to say. Would have been surprised if I'd made any stronger impression. But, even though he couldn't place me personally, Mike accepted my telling him that yeah, he did once know me a bit and, besides, perhaps for other reasons I offered as well, Mike agreed to talk with me a bit. A bit? We ended up talking for well over an hour, I'm sure. Can't remember if Mike said he'd ever heard of the ex-premie site(s) but he explained that he'd never been here before. Not wanting to piss him off before we even got started but wanting him to know, all the same, just what he might find should he ever tour these sites, I told him a bit. In fact, with some chagrin, I read to him some of his own personal profile on Drek's site. Talk about a bit of an awkward moment! On the one hand I'm telling this guy about the cool former cult members who are trying to piece together some answers from this weird period in their lives and how cool it would be for him to speak openly about Maharaji. But then, on the other hand, he's pilloried for everything from his physical appearance (the baldness, which I happen to think looks just fine, I'm sure, isn't a fashion statement. It's a medical condition, in fact. Gulp!) to his apparently quite new age consulting business. It was a bit touch and go for a bit, as you might imagine. I think I managed to get Mike to consider fairly how he might appear to some exes in all the circumstances. He was obviously anxious to clear his name of any perceived aspersions. That was his immediate agenda. Mine, as I explained to him, was to help him clear his name of any ultimtely unfair slurs, just in the interest of fairness and accuracy, if nothing else. Beside, as I told him, I had to respect the fact that the guy was even talking with me. He didn't blithely dismiss me like Joan did (however politely). My main agenda, of course, was to get Mike to talk a bit about all the matters we'd all want to know about. You know, the real stuff. In that respect, I think Mike wouldn't disagree that he was very guarded on these matters. In some ways, he just reminded me of the Dettmers I remembered from back in the day (I mean from listening to him from back in the hall). Very sincere sounding if perhaps a tad 'dry'. Where's the meat, Mike? Where the scandal? In fact, Mike assured me that he never ahd the kind of relationship with Maharaji that would enable him to see any of the more unseemly, seamier side of life as Lord of the Universe. He simply didn't have that kind of dirt to share (not that he was suggesting that he wished he did or would have shared same if he did have it). Jokingly, I suggested that he just make some up! That's what we did, after all. It's easy. For example, Maharaji needs a mistress? Make up a name. Monica Lewis had a certain topical ring to it for some reason. Why not go for it? -- This was all clearly and immediately delineated as a joke on my part No Mike didn't have any of that. So what did he have? Well, for one thing he told me, as you'll read in his comments below, that neither his nor Maharaji's finances were ever shady when he was running the shop. Okay, you've now got Dettmers' own initial response to the questions over on Drek. What do you think? But what about the other stuff? I asked Michael at one point if, when he was his right-hand man for all those years, if he believed that Maharaji was actually the Lord of the Universe trying to save the world with Knowledge of God. To Mike's great credit, he gave me a straight answer on this: yes. Did Mike believe that the work he was doing was no less than actually helping the Lord of the Universe 'implement' his 'master plan' blah, blah, blah. Again, his answer was an uncategorical 'yes'. So then, I asked, why did he walk? Mike's answer was that he'd answer that question when he gave me some other comments about the other matters that he wanted to address. And that lead to the memo Mike emailed me which is posted below. As I told Mike in my email reply, his comments are bound to generate a lot of questions and I've asked him how he wanted to handle them. He'd never even seen the forum before so it's pretty hard to imagine him making any sort of committment to entering into a dialogue here. And I frankly pointed out to him all the reasons I could expect a former PAM of his particular stature to be a bit shy about coming forward. But Mike seemed to understand the inherent unfairness of people like him leading the parade to the extent that he did, and maybe, arguably, benefitting personally for having done so, and walking away with no sense of accountability to those that used to depened on his inspiration and judgment. It's just not fair! is, I think, my best argument on that point. Yes, it's a little whiny but what can you do? Fortunately, Michael seemed truly interested in not cutting any such corners in terms of his residual obligation to the premie masses. This attitude was so heartening and refreshing after the antiseptic arms-length dismissal Apter gave me! Wow, Dettmers at least seems<> like someone with some integrity, I thought. Know what I mean? So, anyway, I don't know if Mike's decided in how, if at all, he might want to follow up with these comments. Any ideas?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 00:07:33 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jim Subject: unintended emphasis (correction) Message:

'Wow, Dettmers at least seems like someone with some integrity, I thought. Know what I mean? So, anyway, I don't know if Mike's decided in how, if at all, he might want to follow up with these comments. Any ideas?' should simply read: 'Wow, Dettmers at least seems like someone with some integrity, I thought. Know what I mean? So, anyway, I don't know if Mike's decided in how, if at all, he might want to follow up with these comments. Any ideas?'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index