| Apology to Maharaji & premies |
|  |
|
|
|
Forum |
|
|
|
I’ve held this back till now on legal advice, but I can’t hold it back any longer. It was written in December, so the events are slightly dated - though not the sentiments. I’m posting it on the ex-premie forum and the Catweasel forum simultaneously:It’s very hard to apologise comprehensively and not seem pathetic. But when you’ve done wrong, what can you do? I feel like I’ve snapped out of a long spell. In the last few years I have sparked an amount of bad feeling and acrimony which now staggers me. What has lately befallen me and my family has caused grey hairs to sprout all over my head, and has led me to get treatment for depression, anxiety, ‘suicidal ideation’ and recurring nightmares. This is a long way from the abstract battle of ideas which is played out on various websites, which sometimes resemble a Boys’ Own game. It is horribly real, and it basically destroys any ability one has to enjoy life. I’ve now had 14 months of it. Every day of that 14 months there has been deep fear - it’s there when I wake up, and it’s there when I go to sleep at night. Then I dream about it. In the end, you either die or start to learn something. The first thing I learnt was to stop blaming others, and start to look at what I have done to bring this situation about. Unsurprisingly, all the other lessons flowed from that. In relation to the various proceedings against me, my legal advice was always to attack back. That always made me uncomfortable; now it no longer seems either sensible or (of course) even possible. Being thoroughly defeated in court, several times over, was a very painful experience. Defeat isn’t a happy time, and was not something I was used to. On the psychological level, one response to such pain is to harden your position, to get more entrenched (Slobodan Milosevich-like). The other, which I have belatdely come to, is to examine my own actions - to see what responsibility I have for the hideous mass of pain my life has become. Pathetic though it probably appears, this is my attempt to do that. My lawyers are in the process of offering IRCC a hopefully generous sum (courtesy of my ever-kind father) to settle their costs in the present conflict - so both sides can eventually walk away from this battle. But these words are not mandated as part of any agreement, nor have they been requested or demanded (or even hinted at) by IRCC. I hope it’s accepted that, were it my intention to use them to somehow gain advantage, I would have held them back and used them as a bargaining chip. But I make no request, implicit or explicit, for Maharaji or IRCC to give anything in return. I think things will take their course regardless of what I say now. This post is the result of nothing but the very belated stirring of my own conscience. It is freely and sincerely written - the result only of a painful look at my soul. I have written it unprompted, on my own initiative, against legal advice, and against the advice of all my ex-premie friends and supporters without exception. The events of the last 14 months were, so far as I can guess, sparked by a press article I wote two and a half years ago, about my time as a devotee of Maharaji. I now painfully appreciate that the article was written with a bombardier’s mentality. Bombadiers press their button, watch a few dark shapes fall toward the ground, maybe observe the odd distant flash, then fly home and have a meal or a beer. Meanwhile in some village far away, homes have been levelled, and women and children torn limb from limb. Whilst I didn’t kill anyone, I displayed the same kind of callousness. Maharaji is a human being, as are premies, and it is obvious that what I wrote caused him and his family, and premies, great distress. I apologise deeply to him and them for that. I would hate to have a lifetime’s worth of claims relating to my faults and mistakes spread across a newspaper. It would no doubt be a longer article than the one I wrote about Maharaji. I now see that the maturer option by far would have been to walk away from Maharaji and Knowledge without rancour, and keep my feelings to myself, at least till they were a lot clearer. Engaging in an attack on Maharaji not only hurt many people needlessly, but violated the first principle of life - taking responsibility for one’s own actions. No-one (least of all Maharaji) forced me to be a premie for 28 years: it was a choice I made every year, every day. I have often deplored the media’s tendency to exploit the private lives of public figures, yet I walked straight into the trap of doing so myself. I’m appalled at how I managed to separate myself from my own principles so easily, because it suited me. There’s always a ‘noble’ rationale or excuse for such journalism, but it usually doesn’t stand up - and certainly not in this case. If there’s anything further I can do to publicly correct the record (such as a letter to the newspaper concerned), I will. I should have had the sense and maturity to realise that becoming a premie was my own choice, and to have taken responsibility for that choice. No-one drugged me or locked me in a room. I did pay some lip service to that ‘self-responsibility’ sentiment, but I was too consumed by anger to understand it in any depth. As numerous people know, the last year has left me very depressed, and I have spent a little too much time contemplating suicide (the ‘long-term solution to a short-term problem’ as one of my clinicians wisely described it). I’m not revealing this to attract sympathy - I doubt if I’ll get any - but to explain the process which has led to my seachange in attitude. Basically, only now that my own pain and distress have reached unbearable levels can I appreciate the pain I have caused others. That’s sad, even pathetic. This post is part of my effort to climb out of that abyss. I am grateful that this one silver lining has come, belatedly, out of the ordeal. I would hate to instead have been desensitised and hardened by the experience, or to have become stuck forever in ‘I am right’. I’ve resented having been dehumanised in recent times, though I have hidden this behind a wall of amused detachment. That was just a mask. Really I’m devastated by it - it is fatally undermining of one’s self-esteem. Much more importantly, I now see that ‘dehumanisation’ is exactly what I tried to do to Maharaji. (To put it mildly, I was trying to punch way above my weight.) To me, he was no longer a real person with feelings and sensitivities and good qualities, but an impersonal force to be attacked. Such insensitivity, and such stupidity. Pain seems to be the best teacher, unfortunately (words are next to useless by comparison), and I am grateful that I have, I think, had this capacity in myself to dehumanise ‘enemies’ extinguished. I shall not do it again, whether the object be a political leader or anyone else. I’ve enunciated such ideas before, but regrettably it’s only now, with my health broken, that I finally feel and understand them. Some of us like to learn the hard way. This is definitely not the time to complain of what has happened to me, but to settle my own conscience. Whilst only deep suffering could have prompted me to write what I am writing now, I’m not writing it to escape more suffering - but because through suffering this much I have come to understand the hurt I have caused others. Sadly, I simply did not see this before. Premies just want to be left alone to do their thing, and this is a right I will (belatedly but respectfully) accord them. I used to feel that my writing public words about Maharaji was something premies could ignore, and so should not complain about. That was wrong too. Words have power, change perceptions, alter social climates - and wound. Certain words need to be spoken (of course), but, as my first year in the East has taught me, there is another very important category of words: those which are best left unsaid. There’s something dignified about silence and discretion. I was anything but silent or discreet. I was born angry, and have always been on my high horse about something or other. The events of the last 14 months have been so hideous, and yet so perfectly tailored to knock the irrational anger out of me - and the pride in my own brilliance out of me - that I’ve began to think again that there might be a God. It just seems too perfect otherwise, dreadful though it has been. I was very angry when Damian Scattini told The Australian in March that I was ‘obsessed’ and ‘irrational’. But he was right. No doubt there is a place for discharging the large emotions which sometimes arise in ex-premies. However what begins as therapeutic can soon become obsessional, and addictive. A good thing soon becomes a bad thing. Discharging one’s feelings can turn into one-sidedness and bitterness, and a constructive examination of one’s own illusions can, instead, turn into a destructive attack on those one perceives in others. That’s never helpful, and never right. Self-knowledge vanishes, and war begins. So I deeply regret becoming involved in publicly criticising Maharaji, mainly for the needless pain it has caused him and his followers, but also because it was an attempt to flee responsibility for life choices which were one hundred percent my own. It will be hard for my ex-premie friends - in the unlikely event that I have any by the end of this post - to grapple with these ideas, especially coming from me. But no-one else has had my experiences of the last year. To be surveilled, or successfully sued, or to have all your savings drained away, or to be put through the shame of bankruptcy, or to put your friends in danger, is horrible. To have had all of it happen at once is beyond description. Worst of all is the realisation that you’ve brought it on yourself. A psychological breakdown brings about profound self-examination and profound change. Walk a mile or so in my shoes before you leap to judgement. Exes advise me to fight on, as do others. One of them, a Brisbane journalist, said, ‘It’s a fascinating saga’. All I could say was, ‘You have no idea.’ Unless you’re in the middle of something like this, as I have been every minute of every day since October 2003, you really have no remote concept of the damage it does to your mind. By far the worst aspect is the realisation that it is self-inflicted. So I respectfully decline to perpetuate my daily suffering for the sake of someone else’s battle, ‘fascinating saga’, or whatever. And, really, this is no longer my fight anyway - I lost interest in it a long way back. As it is, I’m about to lose a fair slice of my inheritance; and my life will not be as it was before, or at least not until after what I think will be a lengthy emotional recovery. But I definitively do not say this with any sense of complaint. I alone bear the blame for my fate. In litigating against me, IRCC was defending its work, something they or anyone else are entitled to do. And all the humiliation is a small price to pay for ending some of the acrimony which now exists, and for learning some of the lessons I have learned. (There are worse mottoes than ‘live and let live’, for example.) The idea of taking sides again makes me feel physically ill, or iller than I feel already. There’s something strange and unbalanced about publicly and endlessly raking over the coals of your youth in middle age. It was something I’d realised two years ago - but foolishly I got sucked back into the fray one more time with the IRCC document I posted. As many already know, the feeling in me of ‘wanting out‘ of the premie/ex-premie dispute is long-standing. But, unhappily, the document-posting and the subsequent litigation forced me back into battle mode. Though it seemed a small thing at the time, posting the document was the stupidest decision of my life. Then came the litigation etc., and, just when I’d hoped to enter a new phase of life, I was right back in the middle of the old one. That, in turn, led to endless defensiveness and self-justification. I am now deeply tired of trying to justify myself. Indeed I’m tired of the sound of my own voice. As I said above, the realisation that I should apologise to Maharaji has sadly come very late, and only after my own pain had reached such a level that I can finally appreciate the pain I have caused others. However, as my premie friends will attest, I have for a long time felt I owe George Laver an apology. When I posted the document in September 2003, I made a few unkind personal remarks about him. To the best of my recollection I have never met George Laver, and so those remarks were founded on nothing. An apology was impeded by the legal processes, and my need to keep a low profile while they worked themselves out. But now it is definitely opportune - so I offer George Laver my full and unreserved apologies now. It may be suspected that this letter is a bid to get myself out of a tight spot, or the product of my impaired psychological state. Firstly, I’ve deliberately made it separate from the legal/settlement processes, and I have little doubt that it won’t affect them. It’s Maharaji’s choice whether to continue proceeding against me, and he has the right to do as he chooses. I’m not asking for or expecting anything in return for these words of remorse and apology. Secondly, whilst my mental state is indeed impaired (so my clinicians tell me), I believe I have the utmost clarity on these matters at least. I will not be privately telling anyone that I don’t mean these words; nor revising them down the track when and if the pressure is off. I’m posting this now, rather than waiting to offer it as part of any settlement. That, I hope, means that no-one will be able to say it is forced or insincere, or that I did it for an ulterior reason. I’ve written to Maharaji separately, to offer my co-operation in the event that there’s anything further I can do to heal the situation. I’ll also be writing to individual premies I might have offended. My first response to what happened to me was moral outrage. That lasted about a year. This month, to my horror, I learned that a draft post I’d written earlier, about those events, had somehow found its way onto the Web. Those in touch with the website concerned should be able to confirm that this was very much against my wishes. Those from the ex-premie forum will hopefully confirm that I asked for the draft to be taken down the moment I learned of it. (And for the record I now disown the draft, and decline anyone permission to re-post it in the future.) The reason for my dismay was that, by the time that draft appeared, I was pretty confused - talking (via email) to premies as well as ex-premies, and (in a nutshell) in the middle of a seachange in my attitudes. Now that seachange is complete. The moral outrage has gone, and I have belatedly examined, and now accept, my own role in furthering and fueling an entirely unnecessary war between two parties. The premies I know are by and large good people, and my role in demeaning them I now see as infantile. I was stupid - it is stupid - to insult people’s cherished ideals, or to show disrespect to the person whom premies respect more than anyone. A doctor/counsellor who has treated me, and has consequently learned a lot about these matters, noted that I have an ‘incendiary streak’. She likened me to a man who stands on top of a hill in an electrical storm with a lightning rod in each hand, and is surprised when he gets a jolt. Like all good therapists, she is more interested in leading me out of my own stupidity than in propping up my ego. I owe her a lot.
I’ve long believed that mental illness sometimes has a moral component, and now I’ve had direct experience. A couple of years ago David Lovejoy told me I was a zealot. That was also true, and I trust that that particular madness has now left me too. There are some other real fundamentals that I’ve missed in recent years. I failed to understand, for example, that by allowing yourself to remain angry at a person, that person wins without firing a shot. Most of the lessons of the last year have been brought on by great pain and humiliation. I’ve never been publicly humiliated before, and have never been so crushingly beaten, and it has not been fun. One ray of light has been that in the earlier part of the year I had to relocate to Asia, where I have wanted to live for many years. One can’t escape one’s troubles by travelling, but being here does at least keep a physical buffer between me and Australia, which sometimes makes life a little more tolerable. A major benefit of travelling around Asia, as I do - of almost never seeing people I know from before - and a major benefit of a future outside Australia, will be that I remove myself from those who have strong feelings for or against Maharaji. Those feelings are extinguished in me, and I have no desire now to influence or be influenced by them. I now long to fall silent on that issue for good. Last Sunday morning I was woken by my guest house rocking violently from side to side. Later in the day news came through of the tsunami devastation throughout Asia. The day before, after a two-person family Christmas, I’d farewelled my daughter for a flight to the Thai islands. The thought of anything happening to her, after everything we’ve been through lately, was unbearable. Heart in mouth, I frantically tried to make contact. I eventually learned that she was safe. Now I’m surrounded by news of death and grief. It’s entrenched the realisation (again very belated) that life is brief, and best spent not starting conflicts. As a premie friend, Jon Puckridge, wisely told me years ago: ‘Life’s too short for them and us.’ I wish it had sunk in better. I wished it hadn’t taken my own life going down the tubes before I to realise it. Now I’ve finally applied some of my brilliant psychology to myself. I thought it was premies who were possessed by an illogical madness, when all along it was me. In my obsession with ‘exposing fanaticism’, all I was doing was engaging in it. And to think that I was the person lecturing the world on ‘projection’. I now appreciate that what has happened to me in the last year or so must spring from very deep feelings, and very deep hurt. I much regret having caused this. I wish I could turn back the calendar five years, and have myself walking out the gate of IRCC and discreetly moving on to purely constructive endeavours. That’s not possible unfortunately, but hopefully this confession and apology to Maharaji and all premies is a start.
John Macgregor
|
|
|
|
|
As some more time goes by you will see how you would rewrite this post.
As someone who is your reader, I have the vantage of distance to view from and when the dust settles you will view this post as an error in analysis.You also made a legal tactical error in that post that I wont mention in public, but hopefully it wont come back to haunt you. Look, aside from your money stress, what was done?
If rawat was flush with cash, this computer info would not have sparked a court issue like it has.
Innocent you were when you were enshared in rawats lies.
And they were lies.
The idea of decision is false. You were tricked with partial info. Info rawat hid from us all. How possibly can the idea stand that this was all your "choice"?
Choice could only be used by you like this IF
IF you had not been lied to so deeply and so long by a true deciever.
IF you didnt have the truth in hand, and it was hidden from you, how possibly can you have --choice--?
You cannot. You might be trying for sincerity here, and contrition, but sorry, you dont qualify as someone who is in a position to claim you made a --choice--. The decieved are not guilty of choice.
How typical your post is of a child who is molested finding a way to blame himself.
Sorry, the apology is false.
False because you cannot make it.
Your idea of -harm- you caused is false, and while this may help you placate a narcissist, the truth is that he is a deciever, and you, like the rest of us who have had our lives ruined by rawat, first want his hooks of torment removed.
SO, if this post helps you accomplish that, fine. Waving money and an apology in front of the demon may work. But in time, you will have a whole different perspective.
By the way, do not smoke pot. Ever. It twists the view. I, we respect you. And justly so.
Will Burke
|
|
|
|
I agree entirely with you Bill I would not apologise to the Demon and Demon He is
The mind goes through strange things when it is pushed in to a corner
so there is no blame on you John as I feel that this is what It is
You do not have to feel bad
One thing that I have realised when trying to get at m is how small we are and how foolish we feel when trying to come up against M
Have no doubt about it M is very powerfull and will only be overcome by the joint efforts of us allHe is dishonest, he is a thief, he has stolen my life, my soul
This is not negotiable
He does not care or even probably know who we are or ever knew
All you are doing with this K is projecting a form of craziness on the world which does not become apparent untill you start to pull back from m
Etc Etc Etc
|
|
|
|
Please give us a description so that we can put up posters for it. Anybody seen Zak's soul lately? Just let us know, Zak, we'll get right on that for you.
|
|
|
|
Joy,
Please don't taunt or harrass Zak. Please don't do it.
By the way, it's "buttinsky" as in "butt" "in" + "sky" and I'll take that under advisement.
Cynthia
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the courage and honesty to post your apology, I can imagine that it was not an easy thing to do. For whatever is worth it, I want you to know that it touched me deeply.I sincerely accept your apology, and wish you a prompt recovery and a joyful life.
a PWK.
|
|
|
|
Hi John,take care of yourself and good luck with the healing. x
|
|
|
|
John,
I hope you get better, get happy and have a grand time in your life, for you, your family and everything you love and care about. You really do deserve it you know. I've never met you personally, but I know you to be a decent, loving, caring, intelligent and talented person and you do not deserve what happened to you. We all make mistakes in life, and you come a long way by admitting and trying to atone for yours. That is a lot more than you can say for many other people who never admit mistakes, no matter how much damage they cause.
All I can say John, is that I just cannot imagine the hell you have been through or what the hell they did to you, but I just hope things get better.
Sometimes there is nothing you can say except things suck. And what happened to you really sucks, whoever is responsible for it.
Peace and love kiddo,
Joe
Modified by Joe at Tue, Feb 01, 2005, 22:47:38
|
|
|
|
If this is the real John Macgregor, then I'm ever more determined to stand opposed to Rawat. If he's capable of reducing one of his critics to such a humiliating state, he ranks the same as Stalin. The abject confession before being taken out & shot was that particular monster's speciality.
I suspect though that this is yet another wearisome move by the bullshit artists. If so, then be assured that your contemptible scumbaggery impersonation has been seen through.
Either way...........la lotta continua..............get the message Valerio?
|
|
|
|
Pathetic though it probably appears, this is my attempt to do that.
Yep, it definitely does appear pathetic.
I have often deplored the media’s tendency to exploit the private lives of public figures, yet I walked straight into the trap of doing so myself. I’m appalled at how I managed to separate myself from my own principles so easily, because it suited me. There’s always a ‘noble’ rationale or excuse for such journalism, but it usually doesn’t stand up - and certainly not in this case. If there’s anything further I can do to publicly correct the record (such as a letter to the newspaper concerned), I will.
No one’s private life ….whether they be a private or public person should be exploited just for the sake of it. Most people would probably agree with that. However, what you seem to be suggesting is that no public persons ( or private persons, even) private life should be open to scrutiny, questioning or criticism even if there appears to be a discrepancy between values, judgements and teachings made publicly and the private “ goings-on “ that contradict the public image. We might as well as lift up “ hypocrisy” ( for example) upon a pedestal and proclaim it as a fine, human quality. Be done with investigative journalism in all fields. Not just in matters pertaining to personality cults but everything else as well. If a journalist exposes hypocrisy, say, then let’s blame the journalist for discovering it. Every public figure has a right to be a hypocrite, yes? No one has a right to point out the hypocrisy, yes?
Anyway, as far as I’m concerned there’s more than enough in Prem Rawats public life to point out and comment upon, let alone his private life.
As numerous people know, the last year has left me very depressed, and I have spent a little too much time contemplating suicide (the ‘long-term solution to a short-term problem’ as one of my clinicians wisely described it). I’m not revealing this to attract sympathy - I doubt if I’ll get any - but to explain the process which has led to my seachange in attitude. Basically, only now that my own pain and distress have reached unbearable levels can I appreciate the pain I have caused others. That’s sad, even pathetic. This post is part of my effort to climb out of that abyss.
Well, you get some sympathy from me. Sincerely. Even so, I’ll continue to respond to and criticise some of your post.
Premies just want to be left alone to do their thing, and this is a right I will (belatedly but respectfully) accord them. I used to feel that my writing public words about Maharaji was something premies could ignore, and so should not complain about. That was wrong too. Words have power, change perceptions, alter social climates - and wound. Certain words need to be spoken (of course), but, as my first year in the East has taught me, there is another very important category of words: those which are best left unsaid. There’s something dignified about silence and discretion. I was anything but silent or discreet.
Oh codswollop !! Poor Premies…I’m sure my sitting here writing this is going to prevent premies from going to the next Sat TV show or the latest event with Prem Rawat or sitting down and sticking their fingers in their ears or whatever. Of course they have a right to “ do their thing” as I have a right to do mine ,providing it’s legal and honest. They have as much right to praise Rawat, and his work, to the rafters ….(and they exercise that right privately and publicly)…..as I have the right to criticise him and his work. Or don’t you think it works like that? Maybe I shouldn’t have rights, eh?
So I deeply regret becoming involved in publicly criticising Maharaji, mainly for the needless pain it has caused him and his followers, but also because it was an attempt to flee responsibility for life choices which were one hundred percent my own.
That’s up to you. Personally, I don’t deeply regret publicly criticising him at all and it certainly is NOT as simplistic as “ fleeing responsibility for life choices”. It’s as if you’re saying, for instance, that the “responsibility” Prem Rawat had in touting himself as the Lord ….backed up by orgs, Mahatmas etc….then denying it all ever happened by blaming his followers for “ Indian-ising” everything isn’t “ fleeing responsibility for life choices” on his part. Let me tell you something, it is and it’s on a far greater scale than foot soldiers of the cult such as you and I have ever done.
I used to be a premie and now I see the whole caboodle as a personality cult. Often, even as a premie, I saw it as that but you know how it is. Conditioned so much to look upon doubt as something unhealthy, conditioned to consider my “ mind” as some sinister “ not really me” entity by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of “ speeches”from the Master, peer influence……all sorts of stuff converts the simplistic “ fleeing responsibility for life choices” view into something far more complex. Of course, every aspect of my life has some degree of my own personal responsibility involved in it. To then think that because I made bad/wrong life choices therefore I have no reason or right to comment upon my life and criticise other people who played a large part in encouraging that choice is just poppycock. Take one example of many that I could use. I have privately and publicly apologised to people for all the bullshit propaganda “satsang” I gave to people ( friends, relatives, strangers) on behalf of , and with the definite encouragement from, Prem Rawat. That is NOT fleeing from a life choice, it’s facing up to it. When has Prem Rawat ever apologised for his over-the-top bullshit?
Take a very extreme example. I’m only using it because it is extreme and thus maybe it helps to clarify things, not because it has direct bearing on Prem Rawat and his personality cult business in many respects but in some respects it does. Say I’m an ardent patriot in the 1930’s. My country has been shamed and ridiculed for close to twenty years. Some political party emerges that puts my country first and promises to deliver work, infrastructure, international respect…the works.I go to the meetings. It’s a thrilling experience. There’s one very strong leader, plenty of strong sub-leaders and a whole lot of peer pressure/influence/encouragement ( call it what you like), to boot. The more I get involved in the party the deeper the frenzy, the greater the propaganda.Of course, in this bubbling pot of mass hysteria little old “me” is free to make a life choice. That’s undeniable. However, it’s also the case that a whole combination of forces will inevitably sweep me along with them in something that is so intensely passionate. Agreed? Now every Nazi party member made a “life choice” to join the noble crusade to make Germany great again but are you saying Hitler, Goebbels etc played no part in influencing those “ life choices”? Of course they did!! They were the ones who created and propagated this noble “ Nazi world” and they can’t rationally or fairly be considered separate from or irrelevant to the life choice that, yes, I made.
Ok, Hitler and the Nazi’s in many respects are an extreme example. However, personality cultism is the common factor when considering Prem Rawat and the choice I made to become his follower. The same principle applies. There is my life choice and there is the “ world” I choose to enter and be swept along with but it’s not as simplistic as you seem to suggest. Also, as I’ve already pointed out, Prem Rawat’s version of “ fleeing responsibility for life choices” is on a grand scale. Is there anything grander than proclaiming avatar hood to the world? And then blaming your followers for misconceptions? Gimme a break.
There’s something strange and unbalanced about publicly and endlessly raking over the coals of your youth in middle age.
Possibly, just possibly. But only if that’s all we ever did and had no other life to speak of. However, that’s not the case for the vast majority of exes, I’d wager. I’d also wager that anyone who’d been immersed in a really intense personality cult would reflect upon it, comment upon it. Some privately, some publicly. A private in the Nazi Army during the War would probably “ rake over” his involvement with Nazi’s if he were alive today. So, too, would ex Rajneeshi’s, Moonies, Sai Babaists etc etc . It would be perfectly natural, honest and common-sensical to do so. Not insanely or obsessively but honestly and carefully. Otherwise we all would be, truly, fleeing responsibility.The point is, that "responsibility" is shared. Master-Devotee. Remember?
. I was stupid - it is stupid - to insult people’s cherished ideals, or to show disrespect to the person whom premies respect more than anyone.
I have a cherished ideal. A world where the propaganda and power of personality cultism and religion isn’t protected from honest scrutiny and valid criticism. Prem Rawat and premies, when referring to me as an ex-premie and publicly criticising me for being so, have, IMO, insulted and disrespected me. Hmmm, I wonder what I should do about it? Ah, I know, I’ll apologise to them and then keep my mouth shut forever. That sounds fair, doesn’t it?
John, you’ve obviously been through a shit time and, I repeat, I sympathise and wish you the best for the rest of your life. Having said that, I find the grovelling, submissive nature of your post….. Well, yes, pathetic.It’s like a verbal pranam but instead of rising to kiss a foot it sounds like you’d like to lick his ass instead.
Of course you’re free to say or do whatever you wish to and Premies are free to say, do, worship, kiss feet or whatever. I wonder. Do you think, and do premies think, that I should have the full freedom and the full right to express myself as an ex-premie? Or, even as an ex, should I heed what Prem Rawat says and just “ walk” with my mouth firmly shut?
Finally, did you have to call Prem Rawat…Maharaji? He’s Prem Rawat. Maharaji, as we know, means “ Great King”. Great King, my ass. : )
Modified by Dermot M at Tue, Feb 01, 2005, 23:32:10
|
|
|
|
John,
I feel so, so sorry for your despair. But the truth leaps out from between the lines. I think you know the real message you're conveying. There you are, beaten, fearful, even offering the cult some of your parents' money just to leave you alone. Maharaji's shown his fangs at times but you've gone one step better: you've shown us his bite marks.
Jim
Modified by Jim at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 00:03:59
|
|
|
|
has the humanness to apologise for the many lives he REALLY hurt.
"Find your humanness first" quote from Maharaji
Modified by Jethro at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 03:27:24
|
|
|
|
It's pretty clear that whatever "document" issue went on down in Australia is kind of besides the point. The facts seem clear that the cult wanted to destroy John because he said things in print that Prem Rawat and the premies didn't like.
You can see the seething hatred in the Rawat cult right on the Elan Vital websites around the world and all the gratuitous press releases they distributed trying to paint John as an evil fanatic -- all as part of a campaign to label critics of Prem Rawat as blinded by hate. How does all that look now? Well, Rawat, it looks like you got what you wanted. Happy?
But it's pretty clear it's the cult that has the hate, to the point of actually trying to destroy someone, not only just financially, but emotionally, mentally, even driving him out of his own country.
From what I have observed the Rawat cult in Australia is particularly fanatical. I don't know if it would resort to those tactics in the US or the UK, but, maybe it's in the water or something, Australia just appears particularly Rawat-nuts, and it's kind of scary to see it.
So, I'm sure that if some obscure document got distributed that wasn't supposed to be and that's all that happened, John wouldn't be in the position he is. It's critics that the cult hates. And hatred is the exact word to use.
I think this is just, unfortunately, historically true. It seems fanatical adherents to religious belief end up doing the most damage to the most people. Here we see an example again.
Are these the same people I knew when I was a premie? What happened to them?
Modified by Joe at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:16:15
|
|
|
|
John, what an interesting timing...I'm a premie from South America, attended the recent event in LA and stayed in the US for a couple of weeks to visit with friends. Maybe you don't remember me, but I did service in your team at Amaroo 1997, and saw you as one of the nicest premies that I ever worked with (as I mentioned it to several people) so emailed you in 2000 to do the same service again but you replied that you were not doing service anymore and directed me to someone else. When I read your journalistic posts about Maharaji and Knowledge, I was truly sad because I had told some people that the path of the heart can use bright and sensitive and focused people as I considered you while doing service with you.
In any case, I know of someone who did much more damage to Maharaji a very long time ago, sincerely apologized to Maharaji, and was completely forgiven. Premies...all types and with all levels of consciousness...I have walked away from several service areas due to unbearable people involved in them. However, I was able to maintain my focus on Knowledge, which was what brought me to this path among all these people in the first place, and on my teacher, who always fills my heart with song. And my desire to do service remained ever so sincere within me that my ship did come along and I've been in a very good service situation these last couple of years, enjoying myself to the max. Hopefully one day you'll want to enjoy life with Knowledge again; as Maharaji has said many times, the door is always open. But even if you don't, John, I know in my heart of hearts that you'll be alright after the storm, simply because you're a fine person and thank goodness for confirming it to me this second time around 
Modified by Elisa at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 00:10:31
|
|
|
|
After I left Maharaji, I went through a severe depression experiencing similar symtoms to those that you have described. It is no joke and easy to cave in.Some people may be angry at you for withdrawing, but noone can really blame you.
Just get yourself well.
There is light at the other side. Jethro
Modified by Jethro at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 10:08:12
|
|
|
|
Hi John,
thanks very much. I believe your words. You are taking care for yourself. After spending 28 years in this premieworld, I don't want to spent the rest of my precious time to cultivate my anger in good arguments against Maharaji. If it would not be him it would somehow some other Guru I would have followed.
I felt a little sorry for you, cause your fight aginst it was obviously ego bound. But your profession is to be a journalist and so this is a desease that may stick to this profession to fight in that way and to cover up things like that. In this way you have't had not much in your hands it was too much based on morals and your own experience.
According to my thinking, it is importend to explain and to inform that cults can be dangerous to individuals. We gone through a process and we learned a lot. For me I can say I came to the same resulution, cause I want to be free and this can not happen with a lot of anger in my heart. I forgive myself for being so easiely hooked. And in the premieworld I see too much that I don't like and I will have the freedom to say it with a calm mind, what I don't like, but that does not mean that I don't like the human beings that are involved.
my best wishes to you .....your post moved me and I will it remember more clearly as Maharaji' often bigot, sweet words..........the truth will make us free.
love .....wolfie
|
|
|
|
John
Bravo for your courage. I guess we are all responsible for our own actions. I salute you for taking responsibility for yours.
Like Bill, I feel you are making the apology of an abused person, but that does not make it any less real.
Hope you have a whole healthy happy wonderful funny fantastic life from here on in. 
Nya
|
|
|
|
Let's be clear: stealing documents is stupid. It left John wide open to legal attack. We've been warned.
I see nothing in this apology to contradict his previous writings about M. That testimony stands.
Neville B
|
|
|
|
Neville writes: Let's be clear: stealing documents is stupid. It left John wide open to legal attack. We've been warned.
I disagree. Stealing documents sometimes has a positive effect. For example, stolen documents from the US tobacco industry helped many Americans learn the truth about the effects of smoking. Ultimately, tobacco companies were brought to justice for their egregious business practices.
Mr. MacGregor's apology notwithstanding, he is a hero in my book. His whistle blowing maneuver helped countless people learn the truth about Rawat. In rare cases like this one, the truth is more important than one's individual concerns about propriety. I liken John to Jeffrey Wigand, the former tobacco executive who blew the whistle on tobacco companies secretive efforts to get Americans addicted to nicotine. Mr. Wigand, like Mr. MacGregor, endured lawsuits, smear campaigns, and death threats by the companies he faced.
Despite the Queensland Judge's conclusion, the MacGregor documents prove that IRCC ownership is in the hands of Rawat. The documents clearly spell out the truth, namely that Rawat collects personal profit from IRCC, while duplicitously calling his US companies "non-profit." The US Internal Revenue Service ought to give Mr. MacGregor their highest award for whistle blowing excellence on a fake non-profit organization.
John's apology needs to be understood in the context of him being a whistle-blower. It is not easy for one person to take on a multi-million dollar corporation. The apology aside, Rawat and Elan Vital are much more harmful to the world than an individual publishing stolen documents. While the ends do not justify the means, in my opinion John did nothing wrong, in light of Rawat's defrauding the IRS. MacGregor helped people gain a clear understanding of Rawat's menace to society, through his manipulation of tax law, IRCC profit, and premie donations.
If anyone is interested, I would like to set up a fund for Mr. MacGregor's legal fees. I have some things I can donate to an online auction (Ebay) to help raise money. If this is a viable idea, please let me know, so we can get started.
Related link: Dr. Jeffrey Wigand
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 10:53:43
|
|
|
|
Jonathan,
It certainly didn't have a very positive effect on John, now did it? Easy to say, Jonathan. I've never encouraged or condoned any ex-premie breaking the law or behaving unethically in order to tell the truth about their life with Prem Rawat and I never will. It's not necessary. Simple as that.
Had I known what John MacGregor and Tom Gubler were up to before they did it, I would have told them very strongly not to do it.
I broke the law when I was a DECA premie as a devotee of Maharaji. I'm not about to condone that behavior now or walk that road again.
This isn't the tobacco industry.
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 10:24:01
|
|
|
|
Well, I respectfully agree and disagree with you. I agree that people should not break the law, if the laws are just and fair. But, in some cases, the laws themselves are not fair. Here is an example:
This weekend I attended an preview screening of a PBS documentary and a follow-up, round table discussion. The documentary profiled the events surrounding the Woolworth Lunch Counter Sit-ins in Greensboro, NC. Four African American NC A&T college freshmen decided they would follow their consciences to break the law. On February 1st, 1960, the four Black males walked into Woolworths and sat down in the reserved "white-only" lunch counter section.
Their singular action sparked a non-violent revolution across the Jim Crow American South. Soon, other non-violent protests began sprouting throughout the racially divided South. Last Sunday, two of the four original protestors spoke. Their common theme was that, it is OK to stand up for something that is right, even if it means breaking the law.
You might say that MacGregor's actions against Rawat cannot be compared to the stands taken against the tobacco industry and the racially divided South. I disagree, Cynthia, because MacGregor's plight is no different. He was brainwashed and indoctrinated into a dangerous organization. He worked obediently for that organization and was not fairly compensated. His civil liberties have been threatened for one reason: his attempts to uncover teh truth about a shady organization. MacGregor's suffering is no less real than the plights of the nicotene addicted or racially segregated.
I cannot judge what MacGregor did as against the law, given the Elan Vital injustices that continue to occur. These injustices include not fully diclosing the nature of their organization to the initiates, not fully disclosing profits as abdicated by US non-profit tax laws (thanks to documents uncovered by MacGregor), and not making full restitution to former members that claim either monetary, labor, or sexual abuse.
As citizens, we need to understand the importance of standing up for something we believe in. If one's morality drives a person to become a whistle blower, then, despite the law, as citizens, we need to encourage civil disobedience as a means to an end.
|
|
|
|
Jonathan,If you had said you support 'breaking the law in certain situations' then you may have a valid point, but if you, who presumably are not involved, encourage someone to leak confidential documents, then you would be partly responsible for any unpleasant consequences resulting from the leak. How would you feel now if you had in fact encouraged John Macgregor to leak those documents? Would you feel righteous that he's lived through 14 months of hell, has contemplated suicide, and is, for now, a defeated man? Anyone in possession of sensitive information should think long and hard about whether to share that information, and it should be a personal decision, taking into account the possible legal, professional, and health consequences both on them personally, and on family, friends and colleagues. Certainly no outsiders have any right to 'encourage' them to do so. John.
|
|
|
|
I agree wholeheartedly.
It's so easy to opine from afar. I haven't been this upset about what's happened to an ex-premie since the Jagdeo victims were posting regularly and were being revictimized.
I think it's important to note that John MacGregor had already spent the majority of his life as a premie before all this happened.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand your logic, Cynthia. Or John's. It's not so easy to opine from afar. It takes strength to stand up for one's convictions. It seems like MacGregor is getting blamed by Jim and others, and you are looking the other way, when, in my view, I want to come to MacGregor's defense. But, first, it just seems like I have to cross yours and John's and Jim's red tape to get my point across and do something!!
|
|
|
|
I maintain my use of the word "encourage," and here is why: Again, to use the historical example of the racially divided, 1960's American South: many Southern Whites encouraged racial equality. They marched alongside African Americans, helped organize, gave financial assistance to the movement, etc. These brave citizens encouraged and supported Blacks who were breaking race laws that were meant to humiliate and subjugate an entire race.
In this case, had I known what was happening with MacGregor and his sensitive documents, I might have encouraged him to take all the necessary legal and psychological precautions, but still follow his conscience.
John MacGregor is a hero who stood up against a powerful, corrupt Goliath. And outsiders have every right to speak their mind. Being a White American, if I was in Woolworth's on that fateful day of February 1st, 1960, I would have spoken up and encouraged those courageous Black citizens who sought equal rights. Just as I'm speaking up and encouraging Mr. MacGregor to continue his struggle against this Goliath called Elan Vital. And yes, I would have gone to jail in the 1960's and who knows, I might go to jail for writing this.
But, your argument here is not valid, because outsiders have every right to speak up for the down-trodden. Just because I have no direct involvement does not mean that I cannot defend, encourage, and speak my conscience. And, if in the process I am implicated for helping someone commit a non-violent act of civil disobedience, then arrest me now.
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 11:27:36
|
|
|
|
Jonathan,
If we are talking you and me - then fine I'll go along with your fiery radicalism, but when it comes to encouraging others, I have a proviso - and that is, is the person I'm going to encourage to pursue some hazardous course ' strong enough' ? If I can't be sure of a definite yes then I must keep my mouth shut.
For some of us, radical action may be something that we can genuinely consider, however many, many of Rawat's followers, both current and ex are very fragile people. Twenty plus years of cult thinking has done enormous harm to many psyches and taking on the cult in legal battles is simply beyond most of us.
I also want to clear up this stuff about John breaking the law. John was found in contempt of court in very unfair circumstances. The judge also found against John in the Civil case that IRCC brought against him - the same judge also declared that under Queensland law - digital files could not be 'stolen' because they did not have physical substance.
The issue against John ultimately fell to what his intention was in seeking to gain access to IRCC files. John sought to defend himself as a journalist - something to which the judge gave little weight. John and his lawyers certainly made a tactical error in the Court case and arguably, John's primary fault was not passing the IRCC documents - which seemed clearly to demonstrate very questionable procedures within IRCC - directly to the relevant authorities - as happened for instance in the UK when the documents became available online.
Receiving documents - whatever their origin is not 'wrong' if the purpose of receiving them is to pass the documents to a relevent legal authority. Where no legal authority exists or where that authority is demonstrably untrustworthy - the recipient of the documents may have to take a decision which places them in conflict with the law, and that can only be a matter of personal concience. For my part I salute all whistle blowers - they keep the rest of us honest.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, NikW. You posted something that I can agree with. And, you treated my opinions with respect and intelligence, when other posters seemed to react otherwise.
There is so much with which I agree, that posting this seems a little post-climatic. (But, guess that's better than pre-climatic, or so my wife says.)
Absolutely, there can be no question about it: inner strength is of supreme importance in civil disobedience and non-violent resistance. Had one of the Greensboro Four thrown a single punch at one of their many tormentors, the battle would have been lost.
But, back to MacGregor, I do not think any less of him, despite his apology. He may not be as strong as Martin Luther King, but still, he acted courageously and followed his inner moral compass. I'm not sure that I could do what he did, or withstand Rawat's lawyer goons for as long as he did.
|
|
|
|
Macgregor did not leak the document(s), Gubler did. Macgregor published it/them, in the process naively ignoring a fundamental of journalism - if you are going to publish confidential information, make sure you do it with the backing and support of a media organisation who will fight the legal battles for you.
By the way, I am convinced that if the alleged crime had any direct link to Rawat that could have dragged him into court in some capacity, prosecution would never have been considered an option. The one thing sure to burst Rawat's tenuous philosophical bubble is exposure to a rigorous examination process and he will avoid this at all costs.
I am disappointed in Macgregor. Apologising is sometimes necessary in journalism. Apologising for an apology is unbecoming. But however morally spineless he may seem he will never approach the depths of those who drove him to it. They know who they are and so do we.
Candy (not feeling a great deal of luv at this point)
Modified by Candy at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 17:00:20
|
|
|
|
Candy,You are right, except that John only published one of the documents. I published all but one of the rest (and, apart from that one, here they all are - http://www.ex-premie2.org/pages/macgregor_vs_ircc.htm). I keep checking for Rawat's lawyers and private detectives down the forest road, but I guess they don't know where Latvia is, or believe EV's FAQ where they say that Latvia is beyond the reach of the law. There is nothing in these documents to justify EV's actions, which are clear evidence of vindictiveness. John.
|
|
|
|
There is nothing in these documents to justify EV's actions (against MacGregor), which is clear evidence of vindictiveness.
I agree. Those documents might corroborate future evidence on Rawat's non-profit tax status, but, by and large, they are innocuous. It represents another example to add to the heap about how petty Rawat can be. What is going to do now, repeat the pie incident and send some mahatma goons with baseball bats to Thailand?
It's funny: working in the architecture business, I understand some of the language in the first document. It sure sounds like M runs a tight ship when it comes to the design process. I would not want to be the sorry architect who has to explain a change order or cost overrun to Rawat. For a man who pretends to know about peace, I'll bet he has melted more than a few architects!
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 17:44:47
|
|
|
|
Jonathan,
I just want to say sorry for today. I was upset and I should have just shut-up. It had nothing to do with you...
It's funny: working in the architecture business, I understand some of the language in the first document. It sure sounds like M runs a tight ship when it comes to the design process. I would not want to be the sorry architect who has to explain a change order or cost overrun to Rawat. For a man who pretends to know about peace, I'll bet he has melted more than a few architects!
Funny you said that. You hit the nail on the head. When I worked on Maharaji's B707 airplane project in 1979-1980 I worked in the design dept. with the project architect, designers, engineers. M came into the design room very often (at least daily) for nearly a year. Maharaji has what I term the "impeccability imperative." He demands everything to be beyond perfect and there was never a reasonable deadline for his requests. Working several days in a row pulling all-nighers was common too. Micomanager.
I've seen M meltdown his architect/designers many times and it's really not pretty. He melted down everyone else in his wake, too. One day, Maharaji was in a nasty mood and said to the project architect: You've only designed one small house, what do you know about jet aircraft!" The little shit.
Oh. There were no C/Os that didn't generate first from Maharaji but, the number of them was almost infinite.
Sorry again for my mood... 
Cynthia
|
|
|
|
They were just spreadsheets as to who lent how much and blah, blah, blah.
They revealed no crime whatsoever. Thus, the theft of the documents could not be considered as any kind of protected whistleblowing in court.
And I heard all sorts of bullshit about trading while insolvent that was supposed to mean something. It didn't. The documents were non-events and meant nothing other than how much debt Amaroo had been financed by wealthy premies. And there are no laws preventing private lending amongst individuals. Sorry!
|
|
|
|
Well, the documents were definitely not the smoking gun, like you say. However, I think Nya is correct in the post above. Nya identifies that the documents point to inconsistencies in Rawat's non-profit tax status. Meaning, were all those contributions reported on Rawat's IRS forms? Where were the IRCC construction activities reported on Rawat's tax forms? In whose hands does the profit from IRCC events land?
Definitely not a smoking gun, but still, a small yet tangible piece of the puzzle.
Related link: Nya's post above
|
|
|
|
My opinion is that even as much as being cult members has harmed us personally it does not rise to a comparison with blacks in the American south.
One of the problems with all cults is that moral issues become very skewed. Cult members engage in "the cult can do no wrong" thinking and then must contort the wrongs they see in their cult to justify them. When people leave cults they are faced with relearning a lot of things. I think one issue people face is regaining personal values and ethics. In the cult, someone else told them what is right and what is wrong. Upon leaving, if they are angry, the only thing they may really feel is the cult is WRONG, and that anything done to fight it could be construed as right. This is still thinking like a cult member.
Most people who now fight cults have also come to the belief that forcible deprogramming is wrong. We have to draw ethical lines in how we fight the cult. I think it is not only right, but also most productive, to try to always error on the side of doing too little when it comes to any questionable tactic. We all have emerged from a belief system where the ends justify the means. We can't deal with the cult that way.
|
|
|
|
Susan, no one said anything about deprogramming, forcible or otherwise. I'm advocating non-violent civil disobedience. I also advocate that people follow their inner morals, and, when they deem necessary, follow their conscience, even if it means breaking the law, provided it does not physically hurt anyone or anything.
If a person feels compelled to commit an act of civil disobedience or protest, they know that the calling comes from within. To my knowledge, MacGregor did what he did for himself and by himself, and for moral reasons. That is the textbook definition of a non-violent protestor, according to the Greensboro Four.
|
|
|
|
And I think what you said goes right in line with what Nik posted as well.
Those of us who left the cult, many of us years ago, have processed most of the hurt and anger we have. It probably never entirely goes away, but I know for me, it's not something I think about very often.
But I think some ex-cult members feel they can do a service by doing what they can to just shine a light on the cult, what it's done, what the history has been, how it affected us, and as time goes by, you can do it with a lot more detachment that you could right after you leave, when you are still so raw. I think John might have been in that situation, and so he is also more susceptible to the fear cults instill, because he was in so long, and so recently left.
But the purpose of this whole internet exercise in ex-premieland is what Nik said. To help people get out, and to inform people. That's pretty much it. And nobody should kid themselves. That's what the cult hates the most, and that's why they tried to destroy John. It was what he said about his own experience in the cult in the Australian newspapers that made them angry, not because some document, that nobody really cared about got leaked.
Modified by Joe at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:18:59
|
|
|
|
If anyone is interested, I would like to set up a fund for Mr. MacGregor's legal fees. I have some things I can donate to an online auction (Ebay) to help raise money. If this is a viable idea, please let me know, so we can get started.
My understanding is that John will just offer the money along with his parents' to pay Scattini's overblown fees. Why don't you just donate to the U.S. Republican party instead?
|
|
|
|
I might have read into MacGregor's apology, but it seems like he is relying on his father's financial assistance, which, in itself, can be embarassing and psychologically harmful at his age and position in life.
I think MacGregor's actions were commendable, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. If you don't feel the same way, you don't have to be a jerk (i.e. your quip "Why don't you just donate to the U.S. Republican party instead?")
Aren't you a lawyer, Jim? Have you even heard of protecting the whistle blower? In fact, in the United States, new laws have been created to protect whistle blowers from criminal charges. I think this came about after a whistle blower blew the lid on Texaco, a company that actively sought to prevent African Americans from attaining high-level positions in the company.
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 10:59:27
|
|
|
|
"Protecting the whistleblower" does not entail supporting the whistleblower's abject, grovelling efforts to pay off the wrong-doer he reported.
Gotta run!
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I see your point. My idea emanates from feeling compassion for MacGregor. He actively attained documents that "blew the lid off" the IRCC funding scam. Also, he wrote award winning articles that exposed Elan Vital as the sham "non-profit" organization that it is. Now, he is living in seclusion, using his father's retirement money.
What if donations went towards his living expenses, and could not be used to pay EV's lawyers?
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 11:07:36
|
|
|
|
Just think about the number of years you've been alive, Jonathan, subtract about thirty and see what you have left.
That's about how long John was a premie.
Very easy to say, Jonathan. Very easy to say.
|
|
|
|
So? what does that mean? Argh, Cynthia. I love reading your posts, but spell it out for me. What are you saying?
|
|
|
|
Jonathan,
First, money and fundraising is a huge, huge issue among ex-premies. A long time ago I think many of us came to the conclusion that we'd never get into fundraising on the forum for anyone or for any purpose. Aside from the occasional request for donations for the upkeep of EPO, it's just not done here. It's just too much to ask of any ex-premie, because so much money and more has already been given to Prem Rawat and his organizations by us. Besides, that, who's going to chose the most worthy victim of that cult? MacGregor isn't the only and first person to put himself on the line. So I think you probably hit quite a few nerves about that.
Second, ex-premie can be very fragile people. Nobody needs to become a hero and I don't think it's my place or yours to enourage it. This is not the same as the civil rights movement or a former employee who blows the whistle on an industry. It's just not the same thing.
I thought that would be obvious, and maybe someone else can explain it better than I have, I'm sure there are many others here are willing to disagree with me.
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:06:01
|
|
|
|
I'm inclined to disagree with you on the fundraising issue, but I can't explain why. Let's just say that money makes the whole world go 'round, and leave it at that!
Being a hero comes from within. Nobody told John to take the documents Gubler snatched off the premie's computer. John did what came naturally to him. And I support and encourage that kind of non-violent, civil disobedience. In many respects, MacGregor's action does resemble that of a civil rights activist or a corporate whistle blower. And most importantly, he did not the fabricate documents, which Elan Vital does not deny! So, the documents, taken at face value, could be used to implicate Rawat's misuse of his non-profit status with the IRS.
But thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm curious if others agree with you.
|
|
|
|
Re-read John's post, why don't you. He's apologizing for being a whistle blower. Indeed, "whistle blower" has a certain implicit honour to it but everything John says militates against it. As far as he's concerned -- if you take him at face value -- it was unthinkably low for him to ever write about Rawat, oh sorry, Maharaji, in the first place, let alone leak those documents.
I agree that a principled whistleblower deserves respect and admiration. Why? Because of the risks they assume, before and after they expose injustice. John was a whistleblower. Now, I hesitate to say what he is but, sorry, "whistleblower" doesn't top the list.
Modified by Jim at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:14:59
|
|
|
|
Well said, thank you Jim.
Besides that ex-premies don't need heros. It's hard enough for a person to rid themselves of that misty-eyed hero worship that comes with being in a personality cult.
I don't know about anyone else around here but I never looked at MacGregor as my hero. Not even once.
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 13:22:44
|
|
|
|
You seem to be trying to polarize everyone against me, Cynthia. Why? Meaning, every time someone posts something disagreeing with me, you jump on the bandwagon. Is this personal?
I don't think this issue particularly needs polarity. Whether or not you think MacGregor's actions were heroic, it does not change what he did and his reasons for doing it. Furthermore, his apology does not diminish himself in my viewpoint.
Finally, I think the course of history will prove you wrong. In the long lens of hindsight, I think MacGregor will be vindicated as a hero for his actions against the cult. He accomplished something that emanated from deep inside him, standing up to the mind-controlling cult and its leader. For that, history will commend him.
Either way, it will interesting to wait and see if more premies follow in his footsteps.
|
|
|
|
This isn't a bloody cult, Jonathan. Anyone who wants to agree with you is free to do it.
Where are they?
|
|
|
|
I applaud whistle blowers who have good cause, but obviously anyone wanting to embark on such a venture should be very very clear, ahead of the actual blowing, of what they may be getting into. In particular they should clearly understand what they are whistle blowing against and the potential reaction that may prompt. And then armed with that understanding the whistle blower should be prepared, financially, emotionally and whatnot, for the possible long solitary journey ahead. And also be prepared that success is not guaranteed. It's a tough choice tro make.
If this applies to John Mac, I simply do not know as I am too distant from the events.
That is my first cent
My second cent ...
If Jonathan wants to setup up some sort of fund for John's living and/or legal expenses I don't think anyone can or should try to stop him and personally I would applaud Jonathan doing something like that. However I don't think it is appropriate for Jonathan to solicit cash for such a fund on this or any other ex-premie forums for the very good reasons that have been mentioned. That is the extreme allergy that ex-premies (and most likely current premies) have to fund raising activities.
Just my opinions.
all the best
Thorin
|
|
|
|
Thorin,
If John's legal expenses consist of money given to the cult to prevent them from harrassing him, there's no way in the world that exes should contribute to that. Might as well just send the money directly to TPRF and get a tax receipt.
Modified by Jim at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:30:11
|
|
|
|
Obviously if Jonathan did anything like that for John then some form of assurance needs to be given that cash would not go straight to Maharaji or his goons.
If John is actually in some form of insolvency process where he is not allowed to have any cash over an agreed amount then that puts a totally different complexion on any funds raised for John. But I don't know the facts, I was speaking generally.
Altougth I don't see John Mac as some form of leader, as the cult would have everyone believe, I do admire John a lot for his wit, style of writing, stuff like that. I feel deeply saddened by the state he appears to be in, and even though he claims he is 100% responsible for it, I don't think that is the case.
T
|
|
|
|
I too like John for all those same reasons. I've gotten to know him some over the past few years and it's always been a pleasure. I get the sense, though, that he's almost trying to get us exes to write him off for some strange reason, perhaps part of his forced cleansing and ablutions. Perhaps he figures that that would be easier than actually dialoguing with us, if not now sometime later, and having to discuss all this. Several people have noted that it's not as if John's resiled from any of the facts he reported in his article or posts. His whole apology (is that what you call it when a guy's got a gun to his head?) is all about the "soft" stuff, his motivation in writing the expose, Rawat's and premies' responses in reading it, his motivation for involving himself in the EV's docs, Rawat's and premies' responses to that. I doubt that even in this state he's in, even with whatever guidance or misguidance he's getting from his new counsellor, that even he thinks he can actually support that bit about being 100 per cent responsible for following Rawat. So maybe what John worries most about us exes is that we'll actually try to talk with him. I can say this much. For me, at least, I'm not planning to seek him out. I wouldn't know what to say. If he ever wants to talk with me, he knows where to find me.
But the money thing is all wrong. In fact, quite ironically, if John got enough money, say Trump took an interest in "firing" Rawat, or at least defending John, he'd probably be fighting on ever still. No, John's doing what he has to do, I guess. He's a gifted writer and, while journalism, at least the investigative kind, might not be a viable option, at least not for the next couple of lifetimes, I'm sure he'll find something. First, he's got to get the cult off his back. Hopefully, the cult will agree that they've gotten their pound of flesh and will lay off him.
Modified by Jim at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:53:51
|
|
|
|
Yeah, definitely if cash were raised by Jonathan (or whomever) I don't think that should send a message to John that he should continue the 'battle' with the cult.
Definitly I think that John, no one asked for my opinion btw, should try and get this whole cult legal saga behind him in any way that he can. I sincerely hope that Maharaji will have the good grace to now let the matter rest and move on. He has got his pound of flesh, what more does he want? Maharaji and his organisations can well afford the sunk legal costs and can afford to write them off.
The lessons, such as they are, have been learnt, time to move on.
T
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree. If money enables John to continue his abyssmal "betwixt and between" existence, then it's not worth it. The last thing he needs is an enabler.
Also, I'm sorry I did not realize this sooner, but money donated to MacGregor by a unified group of people on this forum could, in the eyes of EV's lawyers, be misconstrued to be an complicit sign of support for MacGregor's actions. Then the lawyers might come after EPO, which would be a very bad thing. Sorry for not recognizing the point sooner.
All the same, I still think MacGregor acted heroically. And, I'm not going to let his post diminish my fondness towards him and his actions. I only wish that, if I ever have to endure what he has, I would have half the composure, resilience, and braveness that he has exhibited towards Rawat's tyrannical obsesssion with rewriting history.
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 19:08:41
|
|
|
|
Yes, I can see the salient arguments in keeping fundraising out of plain sight. Also, I liked your forewarning of events, should anyone embark on a whistle blowing journey. It simply cannot be easy.
Off Topic: I swear, just understanding what happened in the South, and what the African American non-violent activists achieved is simply mind-blowing. Not only did the activists endure the scorn of their communities, but they endured the emotional toil placed on them by their families. In the 1950's the African American communities generally accepted their status, and refused to make waves. The activists families' just wanted their children to get a good college education, and not make waves. So, you can see the pressure the activists endured, and it might shed some light into Mac's current state of mind.
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that my name was in that "Blinded By the Light" article and the cult hasn't spared any expense trashing me and my life because of it. Whoops! Egg on my face now!
But, if I can make it through rough times, than so can John. Hey, imagine this: Having to go out and get, along with my four sisters, a restraining order against my 83 year old father this week. Ah, the fun never ends. John will survive, believe me. Piece of cake, especially, when I think about Jagdeo's victims or a smidgeon of my own life. Anything can be overcome if one wants to overcome it.
I simply don't think it's appropriate to place any ex-premie in the position of giving a donation to another ex-premie. Who decides who is the most worthy recipient? MacGregor isn't the only person hurt by the cult, after all That's a fact. This isn't a group or a non-profit organization and well, you never know when you're going to get burned, either. It's too risky and not appropriate, IMO. And if anyone deserves funds, the Jagdeo victims would come first without any question in my mind.
|
|
|
|
You didn't answer the question. I was not asking why people aren't agreeing with you or me. I was asking why you seemed to be piggy backing on everyone else's arguments without directly talking to me. But then, you started to post directly to me, so I guess the point is moot.
Forget about it.
|
|
|
|
Jim, we're not going to agree on this issue! Here is why: I can't diminish my view of MacGregor's brave actions, just because he has clearly been intimidated by Rawat's goons into capitulating, in the form of his apology. His actions speak louder than his word, or yours, for that matter.
I think MacGregor needs compassion right now, not your heartless judgment. In your heart of hearts, do you really think that John is any less of a hero because of his post?
His situation reminds me of Ken Kesey's book (and then movie) called One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. In the end, when the rebellious protagonist McMurphy had been so completely and utterly devastated by the hospital, i.e. when the hospital fried his brain with so much electric shock therapy that he accepted and succumbed to his incarceration... AT THAT POINT, Jim, do you really think that McMurphy was any less of a hero, due to what the hospital did to him?
You will probably ridicule me for writing this, but I think that Rawat's goons have pumped so much fear and intimidation into MacGregor, that his apology amounts to nothing less than bottled loathing.
Go ahead and criticize my thoughts, Jim...shred them to pieces to make yourself look good!
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 15:51:09
|
|
|
|
First, John did not have a lobotomy. That's an outrageous analogy. Christ!
Beyond that, the only reason we're arguing about this is because you're trying to make some ridiculous point that John's being a hero here. Sorry, man, that's just absurd and, in fact, it invites the very kind of criticism of John that you seem to want to avoid.
So do us all a favour, please, and give it up already, will you? John's predicament is a sorry one and that's about it.
|
|
|
|
You're being absolutely ridiculous, Jim. I don't understand how you can be so judgmental against John MacGregor. You never walked a mile in his shoes. In fact, it seems utterly reprehensible that you would jump on the bandwagon to distance yourself from John, the minute he writes some crappy apology. Some friend! I can't get my words into succinct sound bites like you, but, look at you! The minute John writes about his regrets, you banish him. It can't be easy for him, and with people like you around, it's not gonna get any easier.
Yet, when the MacGregor documents bear out inconsistencies in Rawat's non-profit status, which they will corroborate, you'll be the first to jump on that bandwagon. Blaming the victim, Jim, seems like your modus operandi these days. What happened to you?
Modified by Jonathan at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 15:53:39
|
|
|
|
I now understand that it's impossible to communicate with you. Later, dude.
|
|
|
|
It's funny how two people can speak the same language, yet totally miss each other's point of view. Maybe we can get it straight some other time. Today, (figuratively speaking) you are playing Machiavelli and I'm playing Thoreau. It's not a good mix. Too bad we can't meet after work and thrash today's arguments out over a cold beer and in person!
Well, you're always welcome to visit me in Charlotte, Jim, and escape the arctic air. We've got plenty of Canadian geese to keep ya company!
|
|
|
|
Both of whom posted on this forum today who get the biggest award for bravery from me. Both of them were victims of sexual assault while children in Rawat's cult. And I can assure you, neither of them have suffered any less than John MacGregor!
Modified by Cynthia at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 14:09:37
|
|
|
|
In all the legal actions there was no accusation of theft, but I understand the gist of what you wrote, which is that our efforts to present the truth about Prem Rawat and the organisations that he controls should be (and to the best of my knowledge, are) within the law.John.
|
|
|
|
Anyone who believes that engaging in challenging a cult will result in a 'win' is in my view, deluded. The only achievable objective can be to state ones views honestly and provide information to individuals, groups and institutions that may benefit from that information.
I don't think JohnM's post is really appropriate for F8 but out of sympathy for his situation I'm not going to complain about it remaining - nevertheless we should understand that his 'open letter' is using this Forum to resolve a situation that has nothing to do with the Forum.
The one phrase that struck me was:
>and have myself walking out the gate of IRCC and discreetly moving on <
I wonder how many of the guards from Auswitz and Belsen thought the same.
Whatever John now says - it should not be fortgotten that the Amaroo documents that came to light, raised serious concerns about the IRCC operation and the failure of the Australian authorities to investigate remains a serious indictment of instutional paralysis. Neither should it be forgotten that on at least one occaision (as John acknowledges in his post) a single parent and her nine year old twins were 'put in danger' by individuals 'looking' for John.
John is intent upon following a particualr course, it will hopefully give him the 'closure' he seeks, unfortunately it offers no resolution to any of the issues that John has raised in his criticisms of the cult and its business operations; neither does it provide 'closure' for others who have been harmed and attacked by the cult.
|
|
|
|
Well put.
To be honest, I never followed John's saga in minute detail and wasn't aware of the "put in danger" incident. I noticed the reference in John's post but didn't ask because, given the nature and tone of his post, I figured he wouldn't want to go into it on a public forum.
I'd like to know the full details of that incident but maybe it's not appropriate right now. Another time perhaps.
|
|
|
|
IMO was to accept and publish the confidential material furnished to him by Tom Gubler.
I suspect that after the success of his magazine article in Australia, he might have become a little over-confident.His whole post is really a lament on this error of judgment. John's over-elaborate apology to Maharaji and premies for basically recording his own experiences of 30 years involvement with DLM/EV stems really from the immense stress to which he has been subjected post publication of the leaked EV files. I think John's attitude was formerly always quite fair. He believed in the individual right of people to chose involvement with Maharaji, so long as the facility existed to discuss in detail the realities of premie-world. John became involved with DLM at a young age (20, I believe), so I think he believed he was more vulnerable to the persuasions of cult membership than someone maybe a bit older.
However, this is miles away from now saying that his present dilemma is due to previous total avoidance of accepting responsibility for his own actions. His post is the work of a man who has shit kicked out of him to the point he is now prepared to accept anything to try to recover some harmony in his life. Any premies privately exulting in his apparent total capitulation to the Master should really shiver at the potential retribution waiting to be meted out to anyone who pries too deeply behind the scenes of premie-world. To John himself, I wish all the best.
I think he needs time to recuperate and get his life back on track. I think he has made an immense contribution to the lives of many people here. However, I hope that somewhere he still believes in the right of people to question and speak openly concerning the powers and influences shaping and to an extent controlling their lives.
|
|
|
|
Dear John,
I don't believe we ever met, but I can empathize with what you are going through.
Taking papers is nothing compared to taking lives and families and fortunes and dreams.
There may be many who will say that he helped them have a better life.
There are also those who were caught in the cogs of his juggernaut to 'save the world'.
He said his eye is on the sparrow. Now he calls them other names, like 'defective matches'.
Many sparrows got caught and cooked in his proverbial jets as he globetrotted in his Armanis.
You are not such a bad guy as you think.
For whatever reason you said what you said, it was good for you to get it out of you.
For whatever reason you said what you said, I respect your ability to be humble.
It takes a very big person to be humble.
Now if only Prem Rawat would come forth and do likewise.
He did say he was just a humble servant of God....
Then it would be full circle.
You have done your part.
You deserve great peace.
You will have it.
Love to you and yours,
San
Modified by San at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 07:37:15
|
|
|
|
John,
Thanks for keeping us informed. I appreciate knowing how you are doing, and the lessons you are learning are important for many people. There is a sense of "humanity" in your words, although I'm afraid some premies will be very sceptical. Mr. Rawat's own humanity is something that noone is supposed to consider, or certainly not act upon; so I'm not sure what the dynamics really are in regard to apologies. If he himself were to reach the "low" point of humanity, how many apologies would he even consider?
I'm glad that you have not rescinded any of the factual content of your writings. Truth needs no apologies, even if it hurts. Conflict happens with cults, it comes with the territory. There IS something constructive to be accomplished for those of us whose lives have been adversely affected by our mistaken affiliation with Mr. Rawat and his teaching.
Don't be a stranger.
|
|
|
|
John and Will,
You have obviously taken note that none of the "content," of the exposed material, was denied or even questioned. Only the "possession" of that info was questioned.
That should be a very telling to anyone with a brain. Of course, the lap dogs of prem haven't thought of it, so I'm glad you brought it up, Will!
|
|
|
|
It's not uncommon for people who have suffered deeply to gain much compassion for the suffering of others.
Oscar Wilde became a campaigner for prisoner's rights.
He also wrote De Profundis, a description of his sufferings in which he spent about 200 pages in skilfully blaming everyone else except himself for his fate.John Macgregor goes to incredible lengths, however, to blame himself totally for his recent problems, and to exonerate Maharaji in every conceivable manner. The sections in John's post in which he recounts his own ego-tripping, anger and combativeness are very moving.
IMO it's often very rewarding and growing to be able to discern when we are acting from our own ego and ill-will, and without regard to the sensitivities of others. However, this is surely a whole universe away from apologizing for causing the slightest stress or upset to Maharaji or any one of the premies by anything which he may have said or done. For example, John is probably very conscious of writing in his magazine article about Maharaji's personal habits, his mistress, and so on. Yet isn't he forgetting that the whole reason why he should have repeatedly raised such matters was to ask the basic question: Would a person who the premies of the 70s were trained to believe was the Lord in Person act in such a manner? Probably the majority of the work that has ever been done on this Forum has been around this topic: To demolish the grip upon our personal psychology imposed by the belief that we are or have been subordinated to God in Person, who has often acted in some very strange and problematic manners when viewed from the viewpoint of conventional human values and standards. 'Engaging in an attack on Maharaji not only hurt many people needlessly, but violated the first principle of life - taking responsibility for one’s own actions. No-one (least of all Maharaji) forced me to be a premie for 28 years: it was a choice I made every year, every day.' Now this statement is a chestnut in contradicting what John has been saying over the last 3 or 4 years.
Yes, we should always attempt to take responsibility as far as possible for our own actions.
*However*, the notion that John made the conscious choice every year, every day for 28 years to be a premie is the most complete and utter (well-intentioned) nonsense. If this were true, how is it that John had to write the first two of his very long posts for EPO under an assumed name, in great trepidation and with very mixed internal feelings? In fact, he was so conditioned into a belief system, and obviously afraid of potential retribution for breaking ranks and silence on his experiences, that he apologized greatly to readers at the time for having to post in such a manner, and for taking such an incredibly long time to reveal his identity. No - in fact it's very difficult to extract oneself from a totalitarian type of belief system, often because the mind is trained to circumvent its own free reasoning ability. The main reason why I am able to view Maharaji in any form of dispassionate way nowadays, and see him no longer as the Greatest Incarnation is by emailing for months with a very patient and kindly John Macgregor. It seems that the lessons John has learnt regarding anger, humility and so on are extremely valuable to him. However, to forget exactly where he came from some years back - the lengthy exiting process he was obliged to undergo, with the angsts and fears involved seems an example of false memory syndrome. The sufferings and fears he has undergone in the last 14 months have caused John to swing from criticism of Maharaji to offer any type of recompense for the slightest upset he may have caused M or anyone else in premie-world. His position now is so diametrically opposite the one he used to espouse, and so actually at odds with reality and memory, as to maybe even be harmful to himself. While wishing him extremely well, and a long recuperation from his troubles, it's as well to remind him somewhat of the above. Otherwise, there is always the possibility that his story might become some updated example of the notorious Bob Mischler Syndrome (which in itself restricted our choice to opt out of the movement), in which people who confront the Living Lord are fated to crash and burn.
|
|
|
|
Another good post, Tempora.
You've really got a handle on this issue and all its subtle ramifications.A pleasure to read, especially in comparison to my hob-nailed boots approach to this sad affair : )
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Where were you a few hours ago when I really needed an editor to help guide and protect me when I posted my magna piece? Oh, I guess somebody came by and edited it out.
Hey, I think Dermot's post incited me. Yeah, that's the ticket.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, the janitor's been round here earlier on by the looks of it. I had a couple of exchanges with Q but they've vanished.
Actually, I'm glad Cat & Q are no longer in this particular thread, to be honest. It was a bit like having vultures buzzing around the place. : )
|
|
|
|
I agree with lots of your observations but when it comes to applauding John's newfound insights about his "own ego-tripping, anger and combativeness" I disagree. I spoke with John a number of times over the years and I never got the sense that he was blighted with any of that stuff. Hey, let's face it, what he was doing, first in leaving the cult, then in writing about it and later leaking the documents and later still fighting to protect himself from the outrageous over-reaction of the cult, required a certain resolve on his part. There's nothing the least bit wrong with that although it necessarily requires some measure of combativeness and yes, anger's inevitable as well. And "ego-tripping"? Hell, that's ridiculous unless, of course, you think he didn't deserve to feel some pride in finally leaving a cult and being able to write about it so effectively.
John's trying to somehow transcend the anxious and wearying circumstances of his life as if he were in a hot air balloon and, to do so, he's willing to throw anything over the edge of the basket. It's hard to take anything he says at face value and, as I said elsewhere, I think John knows that.
|
|
|
|
'I was born angry, and have always been on my high horse about something or other. The events of the last
14 months have been so hideous, and yet so perfectly tailored to knock the irrational anger out of me - and
the pride in my own brilliance out of me...'John says that, while the last 14 months have made him feel depressed and suicidal, they have been constructive in helping him to face his anger, ego, etc. This is his perception, and he tells us this has been the positive aspect of a hellish experience. 'the pride in my own brilliance'
One of the things that sticks clearly in my mind from the email conversations posted on F7 between John and Tom Gubler is when John says something like he isn't posting on forums these days because he had a 3 million readership for his magazine article in Oz.
Now, call me an old-fashioned clairvoyant if you like, but that small extract sent a little shiver down my neck. I think the thing that swayed John to take the foolish decision to post the purloined EV files was the feeling that he was becoming invulnerable.
His (well-founded) pride in his own writing gifts was slightly bedazzling him.
This is all very human.. Personally, I think John is beating himself up to a ridiculous point.
I believe he has been frightened shitless, and is seeing things from a dramatically extreme position which I find quite frighteningly unreal. He is taking therapy, where the point presumably is basically to accept responsibility for one's position rather than blame others. *However*, he actually does have quite a lot to reproach others with - Maharaji for instilling in him at age 20 that he was the infallible, unquestionable Lord. Also, the actions of many cult-headed super-egoists of DLM/EV who commonly shit on one another and those weaker than themselves like swatting flies. At all this he had a right to feel somewhat angry and somewhat vengeful, which he admits, and which seems fairly reasonable to me. The point which he really appears to regret is allowing these feelings to draw him into a ceaseless circle or spiral of conflict, into a permanent sense of aggrievement and flame which comes to occupy one's whole existence. That he was starting to feel entrapped in this. I agree with him on this last part, as there can be a genuine difficulty at prising oneself loose from forums such as these.
There is a danger of becoming an institutionalised victim.
This is IMO why so many people enter this place, spend maybe a few months expressing their piece and then quietly leave to pursue their outside life. John regrets that last little temptation to engage just that shade more, by posting the purloined stuff, when for ages he had been feeling the time was well right for him to depart. It gives me pain to see him whip himself so much - to drive himself into such a corner of self-humiliation that he cannot perceive that his original actions were honourable, and founded on a sense of care and duty towards other people.
He once said to me that he believed we would one day all meet up again outside the cult. John Mac is a really beautiful man - very kind, caring and noble-spirited, and helped me enormously. I hope he will eventually come to a more middle point in his realisations - to see Maharaji as human, and not an arch-fiend, yes. But that it was very needful to examine and deconstruct all the LOTU stuff, for the sake of many, including, incidentally, the former LOTU himself. I think John thought that it was quite acceptable for people to follow Maharaji so long as they had an open-mindedness, and truly just thought he was an inspiring guy, and so long as M wasn't secretly trying to say something else. That's how I personally see it too. I feel deeply for what John has had to go through, and I dearly hope he recovers his equilibrium soon.
He says he feels he has passed through it all now, and this is no longer his fight, so good luck to him. IMO that is a good point to have reached. No one can say that he didn't play his part in the debate to the full.
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think John is beating himself up to a ridiculous point. I believe he has been frightened shitless, and is seeing things from a dramatically extreme position which I find quite frighteningly unreal.
I agree and that's why I think it's rather unsafe and unfair to try to infer anything serious from John's post. As eloquent and plaintive as his comments are, he's clearly in no position to accurately recount anything. Notice, Tempora, that John is not inviting any criticism or dialogue. My guess is that he knows deep down that he can't possibly justify his analysis rationally. Indeed, if someone had a million bucks to float his way so he could get out of the mess he sees himself in, I'm sure he'd snap out of this self-flagellation fast enough.
You want to see the real John MacGregor? Re-read "Blinded by the Light". Contrary to what he's saying now about himself, he comes through as an astute observer, not just of the cult and Rawat but of his own participation and its implications. If you buy what John's saying now -- and it sounds like you do to some extent at least -- he went too far in that article. Indeed, he went too far writing it at all. Indeed, to hear John tell it, the entire notion of investigative journalism is ill-advised and unethical. Nonsense, of course.
Anyway, I find it rather ironic that you say this at this time especially:
I hope he will eventually come to a more middle point in his realisations - to see Maharaji as human, and not an arch-fiend, yes. But that it was very needful to examine and deconstruct all the LOTU stuff, for the sake of many, including, incidentally, the former LOTU himself.
If Rawat was so "human" and not an "arch-fiend" John would never be in such dire straights. It's like you're kissing the lapel of John Gotti when you say something like this in this context.
|
|
|
|
'As eloquent and plaintive as his comments are, he's clearly in no position to accurately recount
anything.'Sorry, Jim, but IMO you can't make that assertion. It's totally negating his credibility. He's seeing all his minor blemishes as massive protrusions and the cause of his problem. He also sees that the people he was commenting on at least have a human dimension. He feels there are some lessons to be learnt by him. He has, however, forgotten the whole other side of the story - that he felt compelled to speak out because of his integrity as a human and investigative journalist, and (my addition) as a brave guy. This latter part has to be reminded to him and every reader here - otherwise John's present very one-sided view of things might seem to be a vindication of those he was commenting on. Yes, I did read Blinded, Jim. John sent me a copy at the time which I critiqued for him. 'If Rawat was so "human" and not an "arch-fiend" John would never be in such dire straights. It's like you're kissing the lapel of John Gotti when you say something like this in this context.' Don't rush to judgement, Jim.
The human is a reference to how John now sees Maharaji. As a human being, not some objective force (as he says in his apology). One of the keys to understanding the whole K and M situation IMO is to see Maharaji as a human, with the whole array of human emotions, not as some incomprehensible entity. To see him as an arch-fiend would remove him from the orbit of human make-up and perpetuate a whole bizarre and impenetrable mystique.
|
|
|
|
One of the keys to understanding the whole K and M situation IMO is to see Maharaji as a human, with the whole array of human emotions, not as some incomprehensible entity. To see him as an arch-fiend would remove him from the orbit of human make-up and perpetuate a whole bizarre and impenetrable mystique.
There's a strong tendency amongst some ex-premies to see Rawat & his trip in terms of religion. That is understandable. It was after all supposed to be about God, once upon a time, but trying to understand the real man in those terms is ultimately fruitless, when one considers the claims made by him in the past. On even the little which is known about the historical Jesus Christ, there is simply no comparison, yet the claim was made that Rawat was in some ill defined way an inheritor of his 'power'.
Looking at other authoritarian leaders about which a great deal is known, is a much more useful way of putting him into some sort of perspective. Of those which I know something about, Mussolini strikes me as being the most apposite, though that's more to do with the structure of his organisations than anything else. The same basic imprint comes through however. The bombastic public front, the love of luxury kept hidden, the micro management of organisations which in theory he had no control over. I could go on & on.
Comparing him to John Gotti is pretty much on the nose too, I would think.
Saying that people who see the man in those sort of terms is making him an 'incomprehensible entity', is way off the mark.
Unfortunately he's all too comprehensible, & becoming more easily understood by the day.
|
|
|
|
I sincerely believe we are dealing with a person (PRem Rawat) who has no conscience, who knows the difference between right and wrong but feels no guilt when he crosses the line. Also he can't empathise with anything others might be going through so he makes ruthless decisions with little regard for how he might hurt other people. It's all about Him, The Perfect Master of Our Time, Spoiled Born Lord of the Yogis, Balyogeshar B Narcissus, Inc. (TM)
|
|
|
|
Prem Rawat got really annoyed at the recent tsumi tragedy because it took the attention away from himself for a while.
|
|
|
|
'Comparing him to John Gotti is pretty much on the nose too, I would think.'Saying that people who see the man in those sort of terms is making him an 'incomprehensible entity', is way off the mark.' Actually, I have no idea who John Gotti is, so didn't understand the allusion. I used to think that a useful way of understanding Maharaji is a comparison with Napoleon. I even mentally constructed a post comparing the historical circumstances behind the rise of the Emperor with those which produced Maharaji. Certain similarities are unmistakable. Both were short men, of around the 5 feet twoish mark.
Both had dominant mothers and largeish collections of siblings who all had to be provided with kingdoms. Napoleon gave them chunks of Europe.
In Maharaji's case, they were provided with sections of the Cosmos. Napoleon was subject to depressions (not tonight Josephine), which Maharaji also suffers.
Napoleon had a collosal ego which increasingly brooked no dissent. Maharaji's trainings maybe have a similarity to the Emperor's later staff meetings. Both experience the Jungian Ego and Shadow syndrome, in which the ego is so paramount that no blame for any matter whatsoever is accepted by the possessor.
The responsibility for any problem or catastrophe is always severely at the door of anyone else - it is totally unthinkable for them to accept any fault. In all these things, Maharaji, Napoleon and Musso are probably highly similar. On the other hand, Napoleon was noted for great personal charm by many people. He could be a very engaging friend and companion (see interestingly Doctor O'Meara's memoir of Napoleon on St. Helena). On the other hand, many people found him terrifying. Madame Staël said that a 'chill wind whistles around that man'. (Maharaji: You don't want to see my other side!). Seeing Maharaji as premies do, as totally infallible, is a mental trap. Attempts to totally and utterly demonize him seem to me to potentially represent another one.
Modified by Tempora at Thu, Feb 03, 2005, 18:49:25
|
|
|
|
Well, precisely.
You make your own comparisons, but castigate others for making theirs, then wrap it up in fluff.
John Gotti was a Mafia boss.
I go with Gerry actually, the man is a ****.
|
|
|
|
'You make your own comparisons, but castigate others
for making theirs, then wrap it up in fluff.'No idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
I did manage to post something, but it seems like it gone now. I guess maybe I was dreaming that I had a long honest forthright discussion with catweasel.
Anyway, I guess I feel beaten down too and I certainly have an idea of how it is for you. And I know that Maharaji would really love to put the screws to me like he did to you.
You said something about dehumanizing Maharaji. Well, maybe it's not the best way to look at it, but he started it. What is calling us "rotten vegetables" or "a mirror shattered into a million pieces" or "unlit matches". He dehumanized us from day one.
Hang in there and keep trucking. Hopefully, something will work out for you.
P.S. I do see that someone has saved my post over on the Unmentionable Forum.
Modified by Babaluji at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 10:18:04
|
|
|
|
Reading the numerous postings in reply to John's apology, I can see that it is very hard for ex-premie activists to simply accept John's statement face value. The attempt to over-analise and rationalise what is a heartfelt apology, shows the "cultish" mentality of these activists.John's sincere apology, is a wrench in the works of the painfully constructed ex-premie world-view, one in which they are always right and in which there is always an explanation for their actions, their cynicism and their bitterness. It is also fascinating to read some of these activists claiming that this forum is not a good place for that apology. Can you spell "cult-mentality"? There is only one thing that can be said to John: "thank you for your honesty and courage to admit your mistake". The rest is just a lame attempt to reject what is obvious.
|
|
|
|
How can you separate John's "apology" from the duress and fear he's experienced and which, he says, continues to plague him? He's a fugitive -- or at least he thinks he is. He describes break-ins and harrassment directed against him and his family that have scared the hell out of him. He's been ostracised by all his old friends (Well, what do you expect when you're dissing their cult leader?). By his own account he's suffered a breakdown and considered suicide. He's in therapy. He doesn't know where his next paycheck's coming from and he's obviously scared shitless of Maharaji. In short, he's got a gun to his head.
How can you not take his apology with a grain of salt?
You know what you sound like? You sound like some Islamic terrorist who's got some hostage "apologizing" for the sins of America on tape.
|
|
|
|
"You know what you sound like? You sound like some Islamic terrorist who's got some hostage "apologizing" for the sins of America on tape."
When I read John's "apology" I felt sick to the stomach. I haven't been able to bring myself to read it twice. It feels like standing helplessly by while witnessing intolerable suffering.
My thought was that these were like the "confessions" of a victim of torture.That much is so, so clear and so, so terrible. I am totally stunned that someone like ppwk ( whatever the first "p" stands for ) is so brainwashed by cult thinking that this very terribly ,obvious ( IMO) truth doesn't leap out at them from the screen. Thank god , I am stepping away from being a party to such dishonesty.
Thankyou Jim for daring ( as ever) to say what I was thinking !
|
|
|
|
I think I've read everything he's written that's been posted here or on EPO, and I've got to know his voice.
This is a different voice. It might well be the same person, but there's something very different happening behind his eyes and it ain't humble and sincere apology. The words say one thing, but to my ear the tone says something else.
His refusal to retract his previous writings may be the only atom of defiance the lawyers have left open to him.
This is definitely the confession of a man with a gun to his head. I think we'll get the details within about two years. Mac will be back. There may even be a further reckoning.
Neville B
|
|
|
|
John, it looks to me you are projecting your personal problems, fuck-ups on the very valid and necessary ex-premie movement.You don't owe The Great King and his brainwashed cult fanatics an apology but you surely owe a big one to all ex-premies now for writing that pile of hogwash.
Modified by gerry at Wed, Feb 02, 2005, 20:40:13
|
|
|
|
The guy's obviously got a gun held to his head.
Neville B
|
|
|
|
John’s "forgiveness" post is quite consistent with his Journey:
"Of necessity, we ex-premies are caught in the gap between:
1. Not wanting to dedicate the second half of our lives to tearing down the idol we spent the first half building up and
2. The need to process what we have to process.
But premies should know that part of the anger ex-premies feel is for ourselves. On the one hand we're outraged at the breathtaking lies we were told. On the other, what we're also saying - tho we're usually a bit shy to spell it out - is that we believed them.
Sadly, most of us were just kids, and didn't know any better. It has been said that because we were manipulated and indoctrinated, it is 100% M's fault - and none of our own. But the logical end to that argument is that M himself - just about the youngest and most comprehensive cult victim of all - is entirely blameless.”
Well said John and enjoy the second half of your life.
Related link: http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/journs/macgregor.htm
|
|
|
|
...Maharaji is a trick of the light. He is an imaginary friend. A relationship with "him" requires a vast number of magical assumtions, and superstitous good will to support.
When you start to discover what you have been investing in your imaginary friend, master, mentor or whatever, you begin to see what you have been making your own concealed identity out of.
Religion is a vast gallery of imaginary friends, highly ambiguous luminous faces and bodies available for pegging every unexamined aspect of your personality on-free of charge! Rawat is one more.
Orthodox religious movements re-enforce there glamourous personas with an awesome abstraction/myth called God. Rawat has the mystic experience of "Knowledge" as his personal thunderbolt. Neither experience is penetrable to reason and leaves the believer/observer feeling at once scared, dependent yet invincible! What an awkward combination that is.The whole mess is dangerous and I wish I had been a little more circumspect in my time. Gurus trade on mugs like me with un examined hero problems.
IMO holy men of all descriptions are antiques. I have no respect for their antics.As a premie of 25 years I am in a position to know about the concealed intentions of both devotees and their masters. Yuchh.
Prem Rawat has never been put in the situation that he has put John MacG. in. My respect and encouragement to JM. He leaves his master far behind imo
Love
Bryn
|
|
|
|
I am back online again since today. Hi to John and everybody. I assume that John's post was his own and sincere.It seems that John has gone from one extreme into the other with his apology. I do not find this suprizing because cult involvement is a complicated, ununusal experience that is difficult to interpret. Of course, both the guru and the follower are responsible for being a follower for such a long time. Like John, I have been thinkingn about this question, in my case due to the the writings of David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe. I think to answer the question who is repsonsible one has to ask whether there has been any false advertisement (or even deception) or whether it was just a contagious illusion. I do think that there was some false advertisement (e.g. Maharaji's drinking habits) so it is not entirely the mistake of the followers. Andries
|
|
|
|
I am back online again since today. Hi to John and everybody. I assume that John's post was his own and sincere.
It seems that John has gone from one extreme into the other with his apology. I do not find this suprizing because cult involvement is a complicated, ununusal experience that is difficult to interpret.
Hi Andries,
I don't think it's accurate to suggest that John's gone from one extreme to the other as I think that if that were the case he'd be jumping back into the cult. As some have noted, John doesn't actually retract a single allegation he wrote about Rawat, he just beats himself over the head for putting himself in harm's way and goes through some ridiculous contortions to beat himself over the head for standing in Rawat's way. But I have to correct that; John did retract one major allegation and that's that Rawat is responsible for people following him. John parrots the stupid cult line that it was his choice every step of the way. True, but only on the most meaningless, superficial level.
Of course, both the guru and the follower are responsible for being a follower for such a long time. Like John, I have been thinkingn about this question, in my case due to the the writings of David G. Bromley and Anson Shupe.
I think to answer the question who is repsonsible one has to ask whether there has been any false advertisement (or even deception) or whether it was just a contagious illusion. I do think that there was some false advertisement (e.g. Maharaji's drinking habits) so it is not entirely the mistake of the followers.
What are you talking about, "some" false advertising? Come on, Andries, Rawat claimed to be God and warned us that turning our backs on him would lead to a fate worse than death. Literally. That was the major false advertising. That and I guess the fact that he was on the verge of bringing peace on earth and we'd be complete idiots to miss the boat. The drinking etc. was small change in comparison although, to the extent that Rawat hid such habits from us, that was false advertising too.
But the way you put it -- some false advertising ... not entirely the mistake of followers .. Christ, Andries, do you still not get it?
|
|
|
|
What you did no matter how you are judged by premies or exe's was right and the expose was needed. You have been devistated by what evryone knows to be a shitty and decrepid judicial system and it has taken it's toll as it would on anyone John.
Do not be down on yourself .. you got in the ring and you lost ... forget it man and move on.
Your apology is admirable and humble more humility than M has ever shown.
Take it easy now and rebuild yourself you fought well and you lost well and it all goes on .. premies, exe's and plenty of M's and deceivers will always be there to lead the gullible and weak.
Good on you matey. Your a true champion
|
|
|
