|
Jim has an excellent
analysis of Erika's latest missive, and sorry if
this repeats some things, but I couldn't help it.
Here it is:
ERIKA, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FILTERING
ME
Erika Andersen has a new article on her website
entitled Filtering out the Good (November
11, 2001). It is very much in line with the themes
of most of the other things she has written,
namely, that those “critics” of Maharaji
are focusing on “selected information,”
only presenting part of the story, or giving false
information about Maharaji. Why do they do this?
Well, Erika usually says it’s because there is
something wrong with them. In earlier articles she
said that they criticize Maharaji’s obscene
wealth because they are filled with jealousy, in
another, she says they criticize Maharaji’s
ashrams because they were too spiritually immature
and moved in for the wrong reasons. In this
article, her theory is that it’s because they
have a “filter” in their brains.
Erika says that critics of Maharaji have a
“he’s-a-jerk-and-a-cult-leader
filter” in their heads and hence can see
Maharaji only negatively. Erika never addresses
what might cause someone to get such an infirmity,
but she says the “filter” causes these
critics to come across as “rote, predictable
and often self-righteous.” But as is the
pattern in her other articles, Erika never gets
around to addressing, or responding to, any
allegations that ex-followers have actually made
about Maharaji, as opposed to those Erika
fabricates herself. (See especially, her
article Myth Buster, dated August 8, 2001
and my response thereto for examples of
Erika’s propensity to make things up). Because
she will not deal with those specific allegations,
predictably, she is left with only the route of
attacking the people who make those
“predictable and often self-righteous”
criticisms. And this she does.
That one could turn her hypocritically
“self-righteous” lecture on this subject
back on Erika seems to have eluded her. It would be
quite logical to suggest that followers of Maharaji
are typical of other cult members and have
extremely skewed views of Maharaji because they
“filter” out all negative
information about their cult leader. Further, they
then engage in “rote” responses like
Erika does, with self-righteous put-downs of
critics as having some sort of mental defect, like
she also does. Isn’t it ironic?
One also gets the impression after reading a
number of Erika’s articles that she is talking
to children and not teenagers either, but really
young children, like seven-year-olds. She usually
presents some simplistic metaphor or illustration,
like comparing her marriage to the evolution of
Maharaji, comparing the ashram to a tropical plant,
comparing the critics’ one-sided views of
Maharaji to views of her daughter as a truant and a
thief, and so on.
In this article, the simplistic metaphor
involves a fictional business executive named
“John” whom Erika is distressed to note
“thinks that most of the other senior people
in his company are idiots.” Because
“John” steadfastly holds on to this
viewpoint, Erika says he “filters” good
things that those other people might do. Similarly,
and I’m sure you can see this coming, Erika
says that Maharaji’s critics do the same
thing; they take all information about Maharaji and
view it through their pre-conceived
“filter,” not only failing to see the
positive, but also twisting it into the worst
possible light.
What Erika never asks is why does
“John” think those associates are
“idiots?” Did “ John” just make
that up for no reason? Is “John” just
mean, vindictive and wicked? Could it possibly be
that John’s associates really are
idiots? In any case, isn’t it very important
to ask what interactions or experiences caused
“John” to have that viewpoint, since
it’s logically unlikely that he just pulled it
out of thin air?
Maybe they walk into walls, or repeatedly stick
their fingers into the electric pencil sharpeners,
or are just very incompetent in their jobs. The
point is, there are experiences “John”
has had with these people that have made him have
the opinions he does. Avoiding a close examination
of their validity and getting to the bottom of
whether they are indicative of the kind of
co-workers “John” actually has, would not
seem to help the situation. Just telling
“John” that he has a
“pre-conceived” viewpoint and to get rid
of it, without analyzing whether the viewpoint is
valid, would seem to be a major waste of time.
Despite this obvious flaw, Erika uses this same
intellectual fallacy when she talks about
Maharaji’s critics. So, we get no analysis of
why they think the way they do about Maharaji, just
that the way they think about him is very messed
up.
But regarding “John,” one would also
think that continued and repeated evidence of the
competency of his co-workers would likely turn him
around, either showing that he was wrong, or that
his co-workers had changed. On the other hand, if
such evidence does not arise, maybe
“John” is right after all. A person does
not just start out with a “pre-conceived”
point of view. It takes a lot of evidence and
experiences to “conceive” the viewpoint.
Presumably, “John” has had a lot of
experiences with his co-workers, just like
ex-followers of Maharaji have had lots of
experience interacting with, and observing,
Maharaji, some for as many as 25 or more years.
In fact, the only situation in which
overwhelming contrary information does not have
this effect is, well, in cults. That’s because
people in cults do what Erika Andersen does, they
engage in mind control. They generalize, obfuscate,
attack the person providing the contrary
information, deflect, and to every extent possible,
protect the cult leader from criticism, even if it
means blaming themselves. Under no circumstances do
they analyze the validity of the criticisms of the
cult-leader that the ex-followers have.
So, Erika tells us that for some unstated reason
some former followers of Maharaji have developed
this “filter.” The more
“antagonistic” these opponents of
Maharaji are, Erika diagnoses, the more they have
such a “filter” (an “impermeable set
of negative assumptions” no less), and the
less they are able to see Maharaji clearly. She
provides two examples of this phenomenon.
Example Number One: Erika says that the critics
with these filters” would view the fact that
Maharaji hasn’t been involved with her
website, as evidence that he is “a jerk and a
cult leader” for being so
“heartless.” If he were involved with the
site they would say he was “a jerk and a cult
leader” for using the site to his own
advantage. According to Erika, poor Maharaji is
“damned if he does, damned if he
doesn’t” by such filter-infested
people.
Not to be as dramatic as Erika, but this is
insane. I don’t think critics of Maharaji
care whether Maharaji has commented on
Erika’s website, and I haven’t seen any
comments, even on the Forum, one way or the other.
It’s kind of a non-issue. It certainly
isn’t something that’s on the high
priority of criticisms of Maharaji. One thing I
will say is that I would bet hard-earned money that
if Maharaji didn’t want her website up,
or wanted it changed, it would be gone or changed,
no doubt about it. He wouldn’t need to make a
public statement either. Just a communication over
“first class” or through the proper
communication channels and it would be done.
Similarly, if Maharaji wanted the CAC and the
other websites that members of his cult have set up
to criminally attack his “critics” to be
gone, they would be as well. There have been seven
separate websites so far; one website remains as of
the date of this writing. That site accuses me and
others of committing felonies, and it includes the
names of our employers. We have heard nothing
whatsoever from Maharaji about this. What are we to
conclude?
I think there are three possibilities: 1) He
doesn’t know about them; 2) He doesn’t
care one way or the other about them; or 3) He
approves of them. Since I find item “1”
utterly implausible, that leaves the other two,
either of which reflects very negatively on
Maharaji. Is this just my filter working, making it
impossible for me to see the positive side of
Maharaji’s inaction or tacit approval of those
attack websites, or is this a legitimate
conclusion? What do you think Erika? More
importanly, what would an “innocent
bystander” think?
Erika’s Example Number Two: Maharaji has
made some changes in how he presents himself since
the 70s (like closing the ashrams, dropping
“Guru,” no longer wearing Krishna outfits
and crowns, etc.). Erika thinks Maharaji made those
changes for entirely positive and altruistic
reasons -- so knowledge would be more available to
people. But Erika laments that the
“filter-critics” see those changes as
“deception” and a way to “keep
people under his control” and “to make
money.”
Okay, fair enough, there are always two sides to
any story. But we are talking about motivations and
because of Maharaji’s failure to explain any
of this we don’t know for sure. I tell my
students that when they don’t know the full
story about something they should focus on what you
do know -- focus on the evidence that is
available. Anyone who does that will see that
it’s Erika who is doing the filtering, not
Maharaji’s critics.
For example, we have the testimony of at least
two former high-level people who were assistants to
Maharaji at the time he closed ashrams saying that
he did so for financial reasons, because the ashram
premies were getting older and were more a
liability than an asset. Maybe they were also an
obstacle to propagation, and that was a reason as
well. But Erika doesn’t seem to grasp that by
“filtering” out the evidence of the other
motivations, it makes it impossible for her to see
why in relation to the ashrams, people criticize
Maharaji as being uncaring towards his followers.
Obviously, people who do not think Maharaji is
worthy of being their master do not think there
should still be ashrams. No, the
“critics” do not criticize Maharaji for
closing the ashrams; it was his motivations for
doing so, and the uncaring way he did it,
especially in light of how he browbeat us for years
prior into being terrified of ever leaving the
ashram, that is the criticism.
What about getting rid of the Hindu trappings,
and how the “filter-critics” view that as
“cynical?” I don’t consider those
changes cynical as much as I consider them
superficial, because I don’t think all that
much has changed. Darshan and ARTI are still
happening. I watched a video of Long Beach 1997 and
watched Daya and the Pwks sing “please,
please, please teach me devotion” to Maharaji
as he sat on stage, and how Maharaji is “pure
and his love is deeper than the ocean,” etc. I
saw the Pwks go ape-shit when he got up and danced
just like in the bad old 70s. And I can see how
some would find it cynical when Maharaji, Elan
Vital and Erika make it sound like those changes
were deep and profound. “Devotion” is now
“gratitude.” “Service” is now
“participation,” “Word
Technique” is now “Technique Number
3.” So what? The basic belief system of the
cult is just as intact as it was in 1973, just with
some new buzzwords. Yes, the ashrams are closed and
that is a positive change, because it means fewer
people can be exploited and abused in that forlorn
institution.
Most critics of Maharaji don’t really care
that he made those changes. The criticism is that
Maharaji has never taken the responsibility that
one would think a “master” should, to
explain, counsel, admit errors and address the real
human damage he caused. Instead, he ignores,
covers-up, blames others, and lies. For example,
for years Maharaji claimed to be the incarnation of
God, as can be substantiated in numerous quotes,
and now he lies and claims he never did it.
Maharaji and Elan Vital must have the
world’s worst PR people, because on the Elan
Vital website there is an actual video clip of
Maharaji in which he outright lies about this. The
text on the Elan Vital website is also a lie. This
isn’t about changing Hindu trappings.
It’s very basic. It’s that Maharaji seems
to have a real problem with telling the truth. A
lie is a lie and no “filters” can change
that one way or the other. This, in addition to his
incapability of admitting he has ever committed
errors, much less taking responsibility for such
errors, or doing anything to correct the damage
they caused, is dispositive in my view of his ever
being my master. Of course, this would be important
information for any “innocent bystander”
also to know, and they are unlikely to get it from
either Maharaji or Erika. Thank God for the
critics.
To be fair, maybe partly because of our
criticism, Erika courageously tries in her article
to make a lunge towards a very tiny criticism of
Maharaji. One can almost see Erika’s teeth
clench as she says the following:
Has he made mistakes along the way? From my
point of view, yes. There have been dead ends,
changes that were confusing, swings of the pendulum
that went too far in one direction or another. From
what I can see, he has had a tendency to shift
gears without acknowledging how his 'shifting'
might affect those trying to keep up with
him.
Close, but you just can’t quite do it, can
you Erika? As is typical of Erika and other cult
members, if anything even slightly verges on the
teeniest criticism of Maharaji, out comes the
passive voice. While Erika says Maharaji “made
mistakes,” one waits in vain to hear what they
are. Rather, she says, “there have been dead
ends,” and also “changes that were
confusing” and there were “swings of the
pendulum”. These things, mild and forgivable
though they may be, just sort of
“happened” and weren’t really
Maharaji’s fault. Hence, Maharaji should never
have to talk about them, or take responsibility for
them, even if, as is the case, real people were
damaged in the process.
But wait. As we read on, it appears we might get
an actual criticism of Maharaji out of Erika. Can
it be? Erika says that Maharaji has a tendency to
“shift gears” (one’s heart begins to
beat faster. Will Erika actually criticize
Maharaji? Oh my God. A real live cult member,
criticizing the cult leader? That hasn’t
happened yet!). But our hopes are dashed. Erika
concludes that the problem wasn’t really
Maharaji, it was that his followers couldn’t
“keep up with him.” Oy Vey. I give up.
Oh, and Erika, for your convenience, the above is
about the best example of a “rote and
predictable” statement as I have ever
seen.
What is the point of all this? Erika says she is
concerned about all those filter-impaired critics
of Maharaji, not really for herself, or for
Maharaji, but because it gives those “innocent
bystanders” an unbalanced view:
If someone is interested in Maharaji and
Knowledge, listening only to people who see through
such negative filters isn't going to give a
balanced view. I would suggest listening to what
Maharaji has to say about Knowledge and the Master,
and to people who have been benefiting from what
he's shown them. Most important, I'd suggest
applying one's own filters not those that filter
out the good, but those that let it
through...
A balanced view? Give me a break. If it
weren’t for those “critics” all
those innocent bystanders could find out about
Maharaji is the propaganda he, his websites, and
Erika’s website puts out. One of the main
reasons the “critics” are speaking out on
the Internet is because there is nothing
approaching a “balanced view’” of
Maharaji on the cult websites, in his videos, or in
the Visions publications.
While admittedly not “balanced,” the
critics’ websites serve the function of giving
the other side of the story, because, let’s
face it, Please Consider This, Visions, Elan Vital
and Enjoyinglife are completely censored websites,
that do not even admit contrary views. I have
submitted a number of dissenting views to Erika
herself and she is batting 1000 in censoring every
one of them from her supposed “balanced”
website. The same is true of Enjoyinglife (see the
great “Nigel caper” on EPO for a
description of the massive censorship that goes on
at that particular cult site).
On the other hand, the ex-premie sites allow
anyone, including Erika herself and her brother,
both of whom have done so, to come forward and
present opposing views, and counteract those awful
filters. So, for Erika to self-righteously lecture
us on our supposed “rote” and
“predictable” explanations, when she, on
her own website censors off anything she
doesn’t agree with, gives new meaning to the
word “chutzpah.”
Joe Whalen
November 13, 2001
|