Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:17:27 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers Message:

Michael, As I said down below, I appreciate your comments, and I wanted to point out that your most recent post is quite different than what you posted in April of this year. I think this is to be expected, because I know there has been quite a bit of water under the bridge for you and for all of us in the past 6 months. I realize that we all grow and develop when we discuss our involvement with Maharaji, and the process of extracating ourselves, and putting that very important and intense period of your lives into perspective is an ongoing one. I think some of the criticism of you, at least to the extent there was criticism from me, was that when you posted last April, some of us asked very legitimate questions about what you wrote, and you simply didn't respond. You seemed, on the one hand, to want to engage in diaglogue, but then when you were challenged or questioned, you disappeared, mentioning your confidentiality agreement. It's great to see you have returned, I hope we can engage in some diaglogue. First, regarding your confidentiality agreement, it's obvious from your statements that it isn't all encompasing. I assume it includes all Maharaji's business arrangements, but would it extend to Maharaji's decisions and directions on certain things that aren't really business related, but more in the 'spiritual' realm? For example, you mention Maharaji's requests for always newer and better aircraft. Obviously, your confidentiality agreement didn't prevent you from talking about that. You also mention your personal relationship with Maharaji, especially during the time he and Marolyn were having marriage problems, and how Maharaji's attitude towards you changed after that period. So, I assume the agreement doesn't extend to that, either. So, can you give us an idea of what is and isn't acceptable items of dicussion? As you know, I am interested in shedding light on various decisions in Maharaji's world, those that directly affected me, many of my friends, and lots of other devotees whom I didn't even know. As you say, you were in a privileged position and had more access to information than most of us, and hence can help us understand that better. Very little information was ever disclosed to those of us in the trenches, and, as you know, there is now a concerted effort by Elan Vital to lie about the past. Second, I'm also interested, not in 'dirt' about Maharaji's bad habits or whatever, but just how he operated with people, how decisions got made. For example, and I know this is a big one for you, how was it decided to close the ashrams in 1983, and what did Maharaji have to say about that? Did he express interest in the welfare of the ashram premies? Also, while we are at it, in your experience, did Maharaji ever express much interest at all in the welfare of his devotees? From my perspective, I never, ever, saw one shread of evidence that Maharaji was the least bit interested in us as individuals, or interested in our problems or concerns. For example, I and others wrote him letters asking for his direction or response, and he never replied. Others mention that his answers to questions about closing the ashrams, etc., were extremely flippant and evasive. Can you shed more light on this? Third, in your post, you say you 'put aside' the Boeing 707. Since it appears M got the Lear in 1986 and the 707 wasn't even completed until 1981, why did he decide to get rid of the 707, and get the Lear instead? Considering the monumental effort and resources that went into the 707 on the part of his devottees, why did he do that? Also, since you say you were in 'at the heart' of M's 'aviation operations,' were you overseeing the Boeing 707 project and the way it was carried out? Did you have any misgivings about how all that was handled? Finally, I understand that you no longer mention on your website resume that you were the head of a 'Swiss Foundation' with $100 million in revenues in 1982, which we all know was really running Maharaji's financial organization. Some of us reacted to that misleading entry the same way you and the rest of us are reacting to Elan Vital's FAQs. It bordered on revisionism, or at least was extremely misleading. I pointed out some time ago that you had removed it, but then I erroneously believed you had put it back, because I went to an old link, showing your old resume. So, yes, you have removed it. But don't you share some responsibility for the deluge of speculation about you on the internet because you included that misleading reference on your resume in the first place? Sure, you have removed it, but that was only after it was pointed out by Roger Drek and others that it was there in the first place. Kudos for doing so, Michael, but you do share some responsbility. You weren't the only one doing that, by the way. Joan Apter has on her internet resume that she was ' a regional director of education for Elan Vital' for 7 years, which she describes as an 'educational organization.' What she really was, was an initiator for Guru Maharaj Ji. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:07:00 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: None To: Joe Subject: Half of my previous response did not post Message:

Joe, I never realized how much time it takes to actually read all these posts, let alone try to respond to them. Anyway, let me take a stab at answering your questions. I may ramble a bit to cover some similar questions raised in other posts. First of all, when I became the President of Dettmers Industries, Inc. I no longer considered myself “in the service” of Maharaji as I had been previously for all of those years. I was under contract to oversee certain legal, financial and aviation related activities on behalf of Maharaji. I was also a director on the boards of several premie owned and operated companies in which Maharaji had a financial interest. The fact is that many premies who owned businesses wanted to express their gratitude to Maharaji by gifting him an interest, or granting him options in their businesses (for the record, Maharaji always paid whatever taxes were required). Thus, my contract, including its non-disclosure clause, was a standard business agreement entered into by many individuals who find themselves acting in a fiduciary capacity. Actually, Maharaji had nothing to do with my Agreement. It was his lawyer who insisted on it and it made perfect sense to me. When Maharaji and I mutually agreed to terminate my contract, the severance provision that was already part of the contract was triggered. Some have asked whether I ever considered not taking the money. The answer is “no.” By that time, my feelings of devotion for Maharaji had died and I’m sure I was angry at having wasted all of those years (the ability to take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences was not a reality for me at that time). I was too focused on re-building my life and, as far as I was concerned, we were simply consummating a business transaction. Sometime later, after I had re-directed my life, I thought of giving back the money but the idea of giving money to Maharaji seemed preposterous so I found more worthy causes to support. You ask what are acceptable terms of discussion that don’t violate my non-disclosure clause. First, you are correct in your assumption that I cannot disclose any corporate, financial or legal information. As for the rest, I think it is a matter of prudence and common sense. Obviously, I am free to share my personal opinions on any number of matters and I have been doing so. Maharaji wanted the Boeing 707 so that he could tour with his young but growing family. To do so, he needed a plane that could accommodate him, his family and the support staff that took care of them. He did not want to be away from his family especially the children for extended periods of time while he was touring. At first, this worked because most of his travels in the early 80’s were to major festivals around the world. However, by 1984 I and others strongly argued that it was time to start doing public programs and he agreed. Very rigorous tour schedules were arranged in the USA and Canada, Europe, and South America. By rigorous, I mean that he would do one program per day in a different city over a two to three week period. He did not travel with his family and his support staff was minimal. There was no way to do such tours economically or practically in a 707. For one thing it was too big and heavy for many of the airports that were most suitable for his tour schedule. For that reason, we rented a Lear 35 which was a much smaller and more economical jet. Maharaji’s experience with the Lear 35 made him realize that the 707 was no longer useful and we sold it. I have already expressed some of my views about why the ashrams should close in an earlier post. If anything drove that point home it was the experience of DECA. I did not run the day-to-day operations of DECA, a company formed to handle the refurbishing of the 707, but I played a major role in arranging the financing and purchase of the aircraft, ensuring that we had sufficient expertise to interface with the FAA so that the refurbished aircraft secured an airworthiness certificate, hiring an experienced flight crew and their training (Maharaji took a personal interest in this area), and setting up an operation that was capable of organizing flights around the world. Having said that, the truth is, none of us, including me, really knew what it would take to pull off this project. In the past, hundreds of people had come together to organize huge festivals, but they had a very limited life span. The 707 project, on the other hand, lasted well over a year. People from all over the country and the world for that matter converged in Miami to do “service” on this project. For me it was often nothing more than blind faith and trust that Maharaji’s grace would make it happen (that is what I believed at the time) and I’m sure that was how it was for many others as well. Yet, in retrospect, all this focus on Maharaji made us blind to the horrendous conditions that people endured and that have been well documented on this forum. For me, the 707 project confirmed my growing belief that we should disband the structure that allowed the kind of abuse that took place in the name of “service” to continue. It’s not as though these problems were impossible to rectify in and of themselves. But the culture of devotion in which we were all immersed made it virtually impossible to focus the energy and the resources necessary to create a structure that properly took care of people’s dignity and physical needs. Instead, this culture fostered the belief that only Maharaji’s needs were important because, even though he really doesn’t have any needs, he creates them out of mercy and compassion so that his devotees will have something to do for him since this is the only way to surrender and thereby realize knowledge. I think that Maharaji really believed this to be the truth. Hence, I believe he viewed the closing of the ashrams as a kind of failure on the part of the ashram premies – a failure to recognize the opportunity he was offering or a failure to be grateful for the opportunity. So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it. Finally, you ask about the resume I posted on my website and whether my reference to the educational foundation was misleading. At the time, I thought that a person in his early fifties should reflect a career that has spanned some thirty years. If I eliminated the time I spent with Maharaji, I’m down to fifteen. How do I account for the other fifteen years without disclosing that I was the right-hand man for a guru? Simple, you reinterpret (you called it revisionism) what you did during those years by focusing on the skills, accomplishments, and/or activities that relate to, and are consistent with, your current offers in the marketplace. Is that misleading? Sure. Did I think it mattered? No. Boy was I naïve about the power of the internet. You ask if my revisionism is the same as Maharaji’s revisionism as expressed in Élan Vital’s FAQ’s? Perhaps, but I’ll leave it to each person to draw their own conclusions about that. Regardless, I do take full responsibility for the deluge of speculation that ensued. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:07:34 (GMT) From: dv Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Half of my previous response did not post Message:

I had to doctor my resume too, and I feel there is nothing wrong with talking about ones past in the context of what a potential employer/client may be able to relate to. My 2nd job after m brought in 4 million for my boss. My problem? I transferred 25 years of devotional concepts on my new boss- 80 hour weeks for two years, etc. I made him rich- I was perfectly happy to follow some distorted altruistic bullshit that kept me in poverty. Now as a result I've sworn never to work for anyone again ( except on a purely contractual basis), I'm netting 120 k and will double that next year. The rejection of m has given me the courage to reject a lot of bullshit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:59:58 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Re: Cultic holes in one's resume Message:

Michael: I know how time-consuming this can be. But one thing I've seen from hanging around here for awhile, is that your typing speed can increase to levels I never dreamed possible. Perhaps that's a 'marketable skill' afterall. :) I also wanted to say, that I, too, know the problems with trying to plug holes in a resume from my involvement with Maharaji. I spent years being a community coordinator, IHQ middle-manager, and DECA grunt. How do you explain those years on a resume? How do you tell prospective clients that you were an Ivy League honor graduate who then 'did service' for someone you now believe to be a fraud. I couldn't. In my 30s, I basically had to start over, from the bottom, doing double time to try to pull some kind of a career together, working, going to graduate school, etc., etc, and, especially at first, living in relative isolation because I lost all my 'friends' and support when I became no longer a devotee, and because I dared to say what I thought. And I was luckier than a lot of people in that I somehow got my BA before I moved into the ashram. At least I didn't have to be an undergraduate in my 30s. So, I know what you mean. Talk about wasted years. I understand why you didn't mention Maharaji on your resume. I surely never did. I guess that's the difference, though. You walked away with a business, with connections, and with a severance package. You were starting a consulting business. If you start over at the bottom, like me, holes in the resume are not so much of a concern. After awhile, enough years go by and you don't need to explain it anymore. It was a nice day when that happened for me, and I'm very happen with where I ended up. But it was completely in spite of being involved with Maharaji, not in any way because of it. I have a few questions, but I don't want to type tomes, so more later. Thanks, Michael. I'm really enjoying this. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:50:14 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Thanks for all that, Mike (nt) Message:

gggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:02:57 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: None To: Joe Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers Message:

Joe, I never realized how much time it takes to actually read all these posts, let alone try to respond to them. Anyway, let me take a stab at answering your questions. I may ramble a bit to cover some similar questions raised in other posts. First of all, when I became the President of Dettmers Industries, Inc. I no longer considered myself “in the service” of Maharaji as I had been previously for all of those years. I was under contract to oversee certain legal, financial and aviation related activities on behalf of Maharaji. I was also a director on the boards of several premie owned and operated companies in which Maharaji had a financial interest. The fact is that many premies who owned businesses wanted to express their gratitude to Maharaji by gifting him an interest, or granting him options in their businesses (for the record, Maharaji always paid whatever taxes were required). Thus, my contract, including its non-disclosure clause, was a standard business agreement entered into by many individuals who find themselves acting in a fiduciary capacity. Actually, Maharaji had nothing to do with my Agreement. It was his lawyer who insisted on it and it made perfect sense to me. When Maharaji and I mutually agreed to terminate my contract, the severance provision that was already part of the contract was triggered. Some have asked whether I ever considered not taking the money. The answer is “no.” By that time, my feelings of devotion for Maharaji had died and I’m sure I was angry at having wasted all of those years (the ability to take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences was not a reality for me at that time). I was too focused on re-building my life and, as far as I was concerned, we were simply consummating a business transaction. Sometime later, after I had re-directed my life, I thought of giving back the money but the idea of giving money to Maharaji seemed preposterous so I found more worthy causes to support. You ask what are acceptable terms of discussion that don’t violate my non-disclosure clause. First, you are correct in your assumption that I cannot disclose any corporate, financial or legal information. As for the rest, I think it is a matter of prudence and common sense. Obviously, I am free to share my personal opinions on any number of matters and I have been doing so. Maharaji wanted the Boeing 707 so that he could tour with his young but growing family. To do so, he needed a plane that could accommodate him, his family and the support staff that took care of them. He did not want to be away from his family especially the children for extended periods of time while he was touring. At first, this worked because most of his travels in the early 80’s were to major festivals around the world. However, by 1984 I and others strongly argued that it was time to start doing public programs and he agreed. Very rigorous tour schedules were arranged in the USA and Canada, Europe, and South America. By rigorous, I mean that he would do one program per day in a different city over a two to three week period. He did not travel with his family and his support staff was minimal. There was no way to do such tours economically or practically in a 707. For one thing it was too big and heavy for many of the airports that were most suitable for his tour schedule. For that reason, we rented a Lear 35 which was a much smaller and more economical jet. Maharaji’s experience with the Lear 35 made him realize that the 707 was no longer useful and we sold it. I have already expressed some of my views about why the ashrams should close in an earlier post. If anything drove that point home it was the experience of DECA. I did not run the day-to-day operations of DECA, a company formed to handle the refurbishing of the 707, but I played a major role in arranging the financing and purchase of the aircraft, ensuring that we had sufficient expertise to interface with the FAA so that the refurbished aircraft secured an airworthiness certificate, hiring an experienced flight crew and their training (Maharaji took a personal interest in this area), and setting up an operation that was capable of organizing flights around the world. Having said that, the truth is, none of us, including me, really knew what it would take to pull off this project. In the past, hundreds of people had come together to organize huge festivals, but they had a very limited life span. The 707 project, on the other hand, lasted well over a year. People from all over the country and the world for that matter converged in Miami to do “service” on this project. For me it was often nothing more than blind faith and trust that Maharaji’s grace would make it happen (that is what I believed at the time) and I’m sure that was how it was for many others as well. Yet, in retrospect, all this focus on Maharaji made us blind to the horrendous conditions that people endured and that have been well documented on this forum. For me, the 707 project confirmed my growing belief that we should disband the structure that allowed the kind of abuse that took place in the name of “service” to continue. It’s not as though these problems were impossible to rectify in and of themselves. But the culture of devotion in which we were all immersed made it virtually impossible to focus the energy and the resources necessary to create a structure that properly took care of people’s dignity and physical needs. Instead, this culture fostered the belief that only Maharaji’s needs were important because, even though he really doesn’t have any needs, he creates them out of mercy and compassion so that his devotees will have something to do for him since this is the only way to surrender and thereby realize knowledge. I think that Maharaji really believed this to be the truth. Hence, I believe he viewed the closing of the ashrams as a kind of failure on the part of the ashram premies – a failure to recognize the opportunity he was offering or a failure to be grateful for the opportunity. So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it. Finally, you ask about the resume I posted on my website and whether my reference to the educational foundation was misleading. At the time, I thought that a person in his early fifties should reflect a career that has spanned some thirty years. If I eliminated the time I spent with Maharaji, I’m down to fifteen. How do I account for the other fifteen years without disclosing that I was the right-hand man for a guru? Simple, you reinterpret (you called it revisionism) what you did during those years by focusing on the skills, accomplishments, and/or activities that relate to, and are consistent with, your current offers in the marketplace. Is that misleading? Sure. Did I think it mattered? No. Boy was I naïve about the power of the internet. You ask if my revisionism is the same as Maharaji’s revisionism as expressed in Élan Vital’s FAQ’s? Perhaps, but I’ll leave it to each person to draw their own conclusions about that. Regardless, I do take full responsibility for the deluge of speculation that ensued. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:06:49 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Career Doldrums Message:

Michael: Thanks for your openness and honesty in discussing those elements of your past with Maharaji that are not covered by confidentiality. I turn my head on this forum and an avalanche of words has passed. Chattiest group I ever saw. Your frankness in discussing concerns about your resume make me uneasy, since there is very little in my work experience prior to 1980 that amounts to more than odd jobs. Indeed, the whole span of my career was launched by the discovery that knowledge was not even emotionally satisfying for me, by itself. I suspect I'm not alone in finding that there's not even very much I can embellish in order to plug that gap. I have one friend whose career was launched at Berkeley in the 1960's as though from a rocket, and another who's father's notorious conviction for the murder of his mother sent an extraordinarily promising career into limbo. The best I can do about my own tardiness is to insist that I'm a 'late bloomer,' and point out that the same is true of Dwight David Eisenhower, George Bernard Shaw, and Frank McCourt. In the end, however, I think it's more a matter of convincing myself than anyone else. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:54:40 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Additional Questions and Comments Message:

Michael: Thanks for posting the same thing twice; it allows for shorter responses. Regarding the confidentiality agreement, I get that you didn't have one until you were already at Dettmers Industries, and were then not 'in the service' and hence you entered into a contract with Maharaji for ongoing work, which contained the agreement. I assume this was in the latter 80s. Nevertheless, does the confidentiality agreement extend to things that happened prior to the date of the agreement, back when you were dutifully doing full time service as an ashram premie and had no contract? Regarding the 707, you say: There was no way to do such tours economically or practically in a 707. For one thing it was too big and heavy for many of the airports that were most suitable for his tour schedule. For that reason, we rented a Lear 35 which was a much smaller and more economical jet. Maharaji’s experience with the Lear 35 made him realize that the 707 was no longer useful and we sold it. I recall being in meetings with Virgil Cuillo, Jim Hession and others back in 1979 at DECA when this was discussed -- the fact that the 707 was unlikely to be practical for the kind of traveling that Maharaji wanted to do was openly discussed, but the conclusion was that we should just surrender and convert the plane. So this was actually discussed, although this was after the plane was already acquired. Of course, most people were afraid to even question what Maharaji wanted, and I don't think Maharaji was even in a position where he had to think too hard about the consequences of his decsions. He seems to have been protected from that quite well. I recall that Virgil Cuillo, the DLM attorney, in particular, was scathing in his criticism about the completely unprofessional way the plane had been acquired, and how reckless the finances were. This wasn't unusual for DLM, we all agreed. Like you said, the idea was Maharaji wanted it, and grace would take care of it, and we should just go for it. That was the predominant value. And like you said, that mentality extended into the operation of DECA, except now we are talking about an operation that affected the lives of hundreds of people, not just about money and planes. Again, did Maharaji ever talk about the welfare of the devotees who were working on the project, and did he consider how they might feel when he sold the plane they had worked on for years? How much did he get for the plane, by the way? The 707 project, on the other hand, lasted well over a year. People from all over the country and the world for that matter converged in Miami to do “service” on this project. Actually, I think it lasted almost two years, if not more. And yes, people 'converged' in Miami to do service, but most of those people, including me, were ordered to be there, we didn't just 'converge' there voluntarily. We were ashram premies and we did what we were told. Personally, if I had a choice, I would have much preferred to stay in Washington DC and be the community coordinator. I desperately did not want to go to DECA, because I had been there and saw what a hell-hole it was. But I was called and so I went. I know you weren't involved in the day-to-day operation of DECA, that was Jim Hession, who always appeared to me to be a bit of a maniac, with a compulsive obsession with organizational charts, and for making things and big and chaotic as possible. He was quite successful, I think. DECA had nifty organizational charts, a proliferation of titles, and total chaos. It was also tremendously wasteful of resources, both human and financial. Maharaji, on the other hand, seemed to be quite involved in the operation of DECA. He was sure there a lot, and he seemed to inspect absolutely everything, although I never heard him once comment or ask about the condition of the premie workers, or anything at all about them as individuals or their lives. He used to also come and give 'satsang' quite often at DECA, the most memorable for me was on Christmas Day in 1979, when he said we would go to hell if we didn't have complete devotion to him, and also, that the purpose of our lives was not to practice knowledge or realize anything, but to devote our lives to him and to feel lucky we could. He also said that the only 'tie' we had to our families was the 'tie' they gave us for Christmas and he talked about how 'pleased' he was that we all stayed at DECA working our butts off instead of doing something unconscious like visiting our families. So, I understand the 'culture of devotiom,' but when you say the following, you obscure where that 'culture' came from: But the culture of devotion in which we were all immersed made it virtually impossible to focus the energy and the resources necessary to create a structure that properly took care of people’s dignity and physical needs. Instead, this culture fostered the belief that only Maharaji’s needs were important because, even though he really doesn’t have any needs, he creates them out of mercy and compassion so that his devotees will have something to do for him since this is the only way to surrender and thereby realize knowledge. Like I mentioned above, it was Maharaji himself who created the 'culture of devotion' and the idea that everything should be done for his benefit only and we should ignore our own, and each others', human needs. In fact, the basis of the culture was to ignore our humanity entirely. This 'culture' didn't just happened. It was carefully nutured and promoted by Maharaji himself, especially at a place like DECA, and then, of course, the rest of us dutifully expounded on it, and supported it, because that's what Maharaji said he wanted. I believe he viewed the closing of the ashrams as a kind of failure on the part of the ashram premies – a failure to recognize the opportunity he was offering or a failure to be grateful for the opportunity. So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it. In what ways, in particular, did the ashrams fail, according to Maharaji? How did that manifest, in his opinion? Did he talk about it? How much personal consideration did Maharaji put into closing the ashrams, and did he consider how that might affect the lives of those people? Did he, in any respect, recognize the severe contradiction in pushing people to move into the ashrams, which he said were life-long committments, and then just closing them? Did people around him discuss this? Sounds like it wasn't discussed. As you know, I think this is one of the more damning things about Maharaji, his uncarring, flippant attitude towards other human beings, and this is manifested hugely around this issue. Finally, one clarification, you say: You ask if my revisionism is the same as Maharaji’s revisionism as expressed in Élan Vital’s FAQ’s? I actually didn't ask this and I don't consider it the same, not by a long shot. What I said was that those of us who are former premies would be sensitive to a statement like that and, might view that misrepresentation in the same way we would view the revisionist FAQs on the Elan Vital website. But I didn't say or imply that they are equivalent, because I don't think they are. Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:18:50 (GMT) From: Postie Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Thanks Message:

Michael, Thank you for helping to open up the conversation here in a substantive way and for bringing your unique perspective to bear. Your thoughts mean a lot as these discussions help all of us who once were devotees. And thanks to Joe for asking the questions. Postie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 14:55:44 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: jmkahn@club-internet.fr To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty Message:

Nothing new in all this. I must admit you have the guts to repeat what you said about 20 years ago, and take responsibility for this. But excuse me, I still have some difficulty reading you writing things like 'So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it' Maybe I'm still too blind .... or ........ I was almost going to find some other quotes of yours, what would be the purpose? It is quite obvious for me that you still attribute some strange powers to whatever Mr Rawat incarnates for you, and I must admit I have trouble believing in whatever anybody having that sort of belief would say. Or maybe I'm wrong. I guess it's up to you to make things clear. What do you feel regarding the role you've had in the past helping him propagate his bizarre ideology/belief? Do you feel sorry for the people who've been hurt in the process? Do you think Mr Rawat is presently running a cult? Is he responsible for this? If no, who is? Do you still practice knowledge? Do you still consider yourself a disciple of Mr Prempal Rawat? I have no problems with anybody believing whatever about him. What I don't like is when people are vague about it, and this is the feeling I got reading your posts and emails. J-M Kahn former ashram resident (1974-1980) former part-time instructor (don't remember the precise dates, something like 1987-1993) former disciple of Prempal Rawat

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:45:50 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty Message:

Jean-Michel I can appreciate you confusion, especially since I assume your mother tongue is French, not English, but I can assure you as others have already done that I was being sarcastic. Now for your questions: What do you feel regarding the role you've had in the past helping him propagate his bizarre ideology/belief? Regret and some sadness that I wasted some of the most productive years of my life. Do you feel sorry for the people who've been hurt in the process? Very much so. Do you think Mr Rawat is presently running a cult? Yes. Is he responsible for this? Absolutely. If no, who is? N/A Do you still practise knowledge? I still meditate, but that’s it. Do you still consider yourself a disciple of Mr Prempal Rawat? No. As for me lacking heart. Give me a break. Now you want blood as well. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 07:33:10 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Thanks again, and apologies Message:

I think I made quite a fool of myself in my interpretation of your post. I've read all you've been writing, and I guess that awoke lots of memories and triggered quite a lot of reactions, thus my confusion. I couldn't even see the sarcasm in your post, when that became obvious once my reaction was gone. We do practise sarcasm in France too .... I appreciate your honesty, and your answers to my questions. I guess we share the same feelings reg our past involvement. Jean-Michel Who once opened for you your rented car in Rome (1979 or 1980) when you had lost your kees! That was a great service, haha... and doesn't like to shed blood.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 00:49:57 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty Message:

Steady on a minute pal , I'd've thought a guy with your 'ontological' sophistication would appreciate that Jean-Michel has a command of the English language that's way off the scale. I'll bet you've said to yourself when you've met compatriots of his on business , ' I'd cut my cock off if I could speak French as well as he can speak English'. No ? So what's with the 'confusion' crack. I'm leaning towards the , 'you're still in thrall to Barry Bollix Shwar' viewpoint. Are you sure you're not the key honcho in the early retirement project?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:37:41 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Bin Liner Subject: god i like this post for its humour and of course Message:

its cockney flavor if that's what it is. And of course I agree with the sentiments expressed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 15:45:45 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: Thank you for all this satsang and your honesty Message:

'So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I don’t think he felt he owed anybody anything. After all, he was already giving us everything and we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it'   JM, I am quite sure that was sarcasm. Which is hard enough to detect in print but I am sure harder when it is through a second language. I think that the statement is quite damning of Rawat. It is actually one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard about the way he excuses his greed.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:53:07 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Susan Subject: OF COURSE he's being sarcastic! (Sheesh?) Message:

Yeah, this net stuff does take the obvious out of 'obvious' sometimes, doesn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:18:01 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Susan Subject: OK, maybe that was a sarcasm, but hurts me Message:

a lot. I can't read anything from Michael Dettmers' own heart and feelings. Thus my questions for him. I'd be surprised if he answers them. I just see all this as an attempt for him to clean his image.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 16:32:26 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jean-Michel Subject: OK, maybe that was a sarcasm, but hurts me Message:

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this dettmers thing, especially the revamping of his image. I think his biggest concern (and it is natural and understandable) is about the effect on his business that the whole story of Michael Dettmers revealed would have. He knew as early as 1974, by his own admission, that rawrat was 'a mere mortal' yet continued to promote him as satguru, and divine. For me this is unforgiveable. I will never trust him, or believe him. That's just the way it is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:29:09 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: gerry Subject: Gerry, are you channelling Joey? Message:

Oh I wish I could take credit for coming up with the thought, another forum regular sent it in email to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:36:51 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Susan Subject: So who was your clever email pal? Message:

Well, I personally think it's a low blow to talk about Joey when he's not here to defend himself. After all, he may feel entirely differently about this matter. But you're Ms. Integrity, so I'll demur to your better judgement.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:50:16 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: gerry Subject: where is Joey? Message:

I am sorry, but Joey and 'I will never change my mind' paranoia no one fools me thinking are hand in hand. I recall well the time he laid into Abi certain she was a plant and said the most disgusting and vile of things to her. Hey, you think Roger can print character assassinations and then spam the search engines in anonymity but I have to disclose the identity of my quick witted friend? It is a 'she' friend, that is all I am saying. So if I speak my mind when I think someone is wrong I am 'Ms. Integrity'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:14:24 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Susan Subject: Why are you attacking Joey? Message:

Do you know what Joey thinks about dettmers'statements or not? If you don't, then shut up about Joey. I am sorry, but Joey and 'I will never change my mind' paranoia no one fools me thinking are hand in hand. I recall well the time he laid into Abi certain she was a plant and said the most disgusting and vile of things to her. I can barely discern what you are grumbling about here, and what Abi has to do with dettmers. Where did I say 'I will never change my mind? I did say I will never believe or trust dettmers (after all, Dettmers admitted that he knew M was a 'mere mortal' as early as 1974 and kept promoting him as god for years later.) But that hardly translates to 'I will never change my mind.' I change my mind on lots of things. Hey, you think Roger can print character assassinations and then spam the search engines in anonymity but I have to disclose the identity of my quick witted friend? Where did I say that? Again you are putting words into my mouth. Please stop it now. And I don't think your friend is especially quick witted. That line is hardly original. You're right about one thing, you are NOT Ms Integrity.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:19:33 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: gerry Subject: You hurt my feelings Message:

I have to stop playing with the bullies, I am not cut out for it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:28:18 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Susan Subject: Well you slammed both Joey and me in one post Message:

I know some people consider Joey 'crazy' (I don't-certainly he has had a rough time of leaving the cult, though) so by inference I'm 'crazy' or evil or something because I don't agree with you. And now you are calling me a 'bully' for defending myself? This is simply away for you to avoid the legitimate questions I asked you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 03:35:31 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: Well you slammed both Joey and me in one post Message:

Gerry, Give it up. Joey is most certainly paranoid. Do you know that when I was in Montreal he discouraged one or two exes from getting together with me because he's now convicned that I, too, am a cult operative? And one of those guys himself was also accused of same by Joey.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:04:23 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: gerry Subject: I will forgive Dettmers et all, but only when Message:

they'll answer the questions I've posted!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 07:47:36 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: About responsibility Message:

That was interesting what you said about Maharaji's attitude toward the premies who lived in ashrams, and how they 'failed' the opportunity which Maharaji had provided them. Why did you think this was what Maharaji felt at the time? Did he say anything specific along those lines? By that time, my feelings of devotion for Maharaji had died and I’m sure I was angry at having wasted all of those years (the ability to take responsibility for the choices I make and accept the consequences was not a reality for me at that time). Cheap shot, Mike. I can't help that was an intentional dig at the ex-premies who post on this forum. The truth is you were just a dumb fucking kid like the rest of us who fell for all this spiritual mumbo jumbo that Maharaji was peddling. Yeah, I guess we are responsible for the decisions we make, but those decisions are not necessarily wise ones. I don't care for the hard line that some people take to empower themselves, by giving themselves the illusion that they're in charge, and know exactly what they're doing. The truth is that we were easily swayed by a megalomaniac who played off of our silly superstitions. That's not exactly what I'd call being in charge. And maybe being held responsible when you can't tell up from down is a bit of a stretch, as well. Seems sort of merciless, somehow, like flogging somebody because he's an idiot.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:30:22 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: None To: Jerry Subject: About responsibility Message:

Jerry, Good point about the cheap shot. Although it was certainly not my intention to slight the ex-premies who post on this forum, I can see how it may have appeared that way. Sorry. You ask why I think Maharaji felt that the ashram premies “failed.” Allow me to try and answer your question this way. It was my experience that Maharaji embodied his role as lord and perfect master (although I’m sure he didn’t think of it as a “role” but rather who he really was). By “embodied” I mean that he lived his life in the full “expectation” that it was his birthright to receive the love, respect and devotion and all of the goodies (i.e. whatever he wants) that are due a perfect master. I use the word “expectation” advisedly. I have since come to learn how much power we unleash in ourselves when we fully “expect” our desires, visions, dreams, etc. to manifest. However, most of us may wish for this or that, but secretly we may not really “expect” it to manifest. Inner feelings of doubt, fear and unworthiness are what we are really emanating and, consequently, we attract to us the exact opposite or less than what we really desire. I realize that some of your may characterize this as New Age bullshit (Jim and Rob, are you reading this?) but it is what I have come to realize in my own life and forms the basis for my opinions that follow. Looking back at the time I spent with Maharaji, I can see that he never allowed whatever doubts he may have had about his identity, to control him or prevent him from expecting to receive whatever he wanted. And he perpetuated (through his own ignorance of any other explanation) the myth that it was by his “grace” that his wishes became our command. In other words, we bought into a particular “interpretation” of who he was and how his power worked. Unfortunately, that particular interpretation had the insidious consequence of keeping us enslaved in the belief that he was all worthy and powerful and we were nothing by dirt at his divine lotus feet. In that interpretation there is only one big winner and everyone else is a loser. Now, I suggest that there is another “interpretation” about our ability to manifest what we desire that is far more empowering if we are willing to pay the price, and one that does not necessitate that we surrender to anyone. The price is that we are willing to take the time to examine and overcome the doubts and fears that keep us from realizing our full potential. In this regard, Maharaji had a distinct advantage in that, from the moment he was born, he was indoctrinated into an absolute belief system and an identity, reinforced by his father as a living role model. I personally don’t know anyone else who falls into that category although I can think of some historical figures, such as Mozart, who may. But, in my opinion, the time is coming when he is going to have to pay a serious price for the unexamined life he has been leading for the past 40 or so years. The big disadvantage to any absolute belief system is that it breeds arrogance and the mistaken assumption that there is nothing to learn because you already know everything worth knowing. When this attitude is embodied in a teacher, you have a formula for disaster. In my opinion, Maharaji’s belief system and his identity in it is leading him blindly down a dead-end road along with everyone else who chooses to follow him. And I would be very surprised if, by now, he isn’t strongly suspecting as much. His recent efforts to put a spin on the past through Élan Vital’s FAQ’s simply won’t work because nothing fundamentally has changed in his belief system. I wouldn’t surprise me if we started to hear rumors that he is retiring. Maybe he will, but that act would be nothing more than him saying once again “fuck you” to all of us ungrateful people. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:50:29 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: The S in success Message:

Michael: I have since come to learn how much power we unleash in ourselves when we fully “expect” our desires, visions, dreams, etc. to manifest. However, most of us may wish for this or that, but secretly we may not really “expect” it to manifest. Inner feelings of doubt, fear and unworthiness are what we are really emanating and, consequently, we attract to us the exact opposite or less than what we really desire.... Now, I suggest that there is another “interpretation” about our ability to manifest what we desire that is far more empowering if we are willing to pay the price, and one that does not necessitate that we surrender to anyone. The price is that we are willing to take the time to examine and overcome the doubts and fears that keep us from realizing our full potential. I just haven't the slightest idea what might be left after examining all my fears and doubts, except more of the same. The presumption is that we are all entitled to a sort of native success, and that all we need do is to kind of peel away the scales and the bright and shiny entity will emerge. Where does this model come from, and what evidence is there for it? I suggest that the behavioral model is really more accurate. You repeat what brought success, with increasing confidence and greater competence, which brings more success, leading to a typical sigmoidal (S) career curve of reinforcement, success, and saturation. There's a bifurcation at the ends of the 'S,' a hypo and hyper critical stage, that solves the same functional equation. Hypocritical: if you don't get sufficient reinforcement at the beginning then instead of building success you generate catastrophic decline. Hypercritical: at saturation you can launch a new success function, and take the same risk of catastrophic failure. We live in a culture that encourages us to put all our eggs in one basket... to 'go for the gold,' and we recount stories of extraordinary success, and give a big discount for modest success. We don't honor or recount stories of the Renaissance Human who develops many skills, but given the risk of catastrophic failure the one-basket approach is probably somewhat irresponsible. What sort of insurance lies at the bottom of that big ONE SHOT S-CURVE? How about, steroids, political payoffs, corruption, bribery, extortion... the same kinds of 'insurance' that lie at the top. Just thinking out loud about responsibility, pressure, and corruption, and all of our bright shiny potential. --Scott 'looking for people like myself to inspire me' T.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 19:55:31 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: About responsibility Message:

I have since come to learn how much power we unleash in ourselves when we fully “expect” our desires, visions, dreams, etc. to manifest. However, most of us may wish for this or that, but secretly we may not really “expect” it to manifest. Inner feelings of doubt, fear and unworthiness are what we are really emanating and, consequently, we attract to us the exact opposite or less than what we really desire. Well, this may or may not be so. I've never expected a hell of a lot in life, materiallistically. But as a premie, I expected Knowledge Of God, which I thought was the highest goal a person could strive for, and I saw pursuit of material gains as an obstacle to that. My lifestyle has always been a humble one, although I am a respected professional in my field as a computer technician. But I've always felt that I could have achieved more if I worked harder, and sometimes I get down on myself for not having done so, but, still, I'm not so sure I agree that we don't excel because we don't expect to. I know I could have gotten much further if I applied myself. I'm sure many 'underachievers' feel this way. I realize that some of your may characterize this as New Age bullshit I think there's some truth to your philosophy, but I think it's inaccurate when it tries to 'blanket' everybody. There are different reasons for why people don't achieve high status in life. Some of us just don't want to make the effort (we're lazy, or we've got other priorities), although I'm certain I could have gone much further if I made an attempt to. As it stands, I only got as far as I did by a concerted effort. I know if I wanted to continue my advancement, more hard work and desire would have been the key. But I don't believe low self esteem is what prevented me from making that effort. Looking back at the time I spent with Maharaji, I can see that he never allowed whatever doubts he may have had about his identity, to control him or prevent him from expecting to receive whatever he wanted. I think a more appropriate appraisal of Maharaji is that he was a spoiled brat. Yes, they do expect the world on a silver platter. And he perpetuated (through his own ignorance of any other explanation) the myth that it was by his “grace” that his wishes became our command. Delusion might be a better word. You're not painting a picture of a very sane man here, Michael. In fact, the picture is clearly one of a man drunk with power. It's his drug, and I disagree with you that he's beginning to see the damage it's done to him and others. I think he's in too much denial for that. There's certainly nothing in his stage presense, his public demeanor, to this day, that would suggest otherwise. But then, who knows what goes on once he's out of the public eye? You once did, and I assure you, Michael, anything you can reveal to us which would reveal Maharaji's humanity, as a result of the confidence you once shared with him, would be a great help to us all. Thank you for your candor.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 18:46:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: I don't have a problem with that Message:

Michael, God, what's with all this 'new age' this and 'new age' that? Is that all you people can talk about around here? :) No, seriously, I don't have a problem with anything you've said here. There's a lot of truth in the notion that we set ourselves up for this or that, intended consequences or otherwise, depending on how honest we are with ourselves. I only take issue with that kind of thinking or talking when it crosses into the metaphysical. The moment you're explaining the train coming on time or being late as a function of your attitude and expectations, well, let me off. Fast. But that's not what you're saying (I think) so fuck you for calling it new age. Now I've got to argue against fake new age 'new age' stuff and I can't. I've got to go to the office.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 17:03:42 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Well said, Jer (nt) Message:

gggg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 20:09:17 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thanks, Jim Message:

You say things pretty well, yourself. And I agree with you that Dettmers is on the level. I see no ulterior motive on his behalf by coming here to share with us on this forum. If he's trying to clear his name in the process, well fucking 'A', man, he's got a right to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 06:58:55 (GMT) From: janet of venice Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers Message:

let me quote you,and parse your words, and ask for clarification on this part: Instead, this culture fostered the belief that '†** only Maharaji's needs were important' because,* 'even though he really doesn't have any needs', *he creates them, out of ' mercy and compassion'* so that †'his devotees will have something to do for him' *'since this is the only way to surrender' and thereby 'realize knowledge.'* I think that Maharaji really believed this to be the truth. Hence, I believe he viewed the closing of the ashrams as a kind of **'failure, on the part of the ashram premies'; a failure to recognize the 'opportunity' he was offering or **'a failure to be grateful'** for the opportunity. So even though he agreed that they should be closed, I '†don't think he felt he owed anybody anything.' 'After all, **he was already giving us everything' and 'we were just too blind and ungrateful to recognize and appreciate it.'** we all heard plenty of that, then, Michael. looking at the quoted parts, don't you see how cruel(†) and crazymaking(*,**) and codependently destructive(**,†) it all is/was to us? those are the words of the battering husband, the alcoholic Mommy Dearest, the height of the abusive Other. do we just let him find new prey to suck in and abuse? do we all sit by and do nothing? Do you believe that he still thinks the same line of pap, to justify his extravagant demands, in his head, still , today??

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 12, 2000 at 02:06:02 (GMT) From: dv Email: None To: Joe Subject: The 707 was extremely expensive to operate, Message:

so I was told. All of that gold weight didn't help. The air traffic controllers were veeeery quiet as the plane barely cleared the runway with a first time full load. M was probably terrified of the plane. After all, it was built by his slaves, and how much did he trust us?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 19:24:53 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@hom.com To: Joe Subject: Question to Michael Dettmers Message:

There are lost souls and there are Lost Souls. If a drowning man pulls you in, you know what to do, right? Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 21:46:02 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: Hello? Message:

Are you suggesting Michael is a drowning man? Tell me Steven, what should I do if he is? Was that post supposed to make any sense, or is it just spam?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index