|
|
|
Dear all,Given that Prem Rawat has sexually molested his own child, and that he has access to his grand children, and other children of premies, this crime is not just in the past but there is chance that it continues and the only way to stop him is to take away the power he has as leader of a cult covering up for his crimes (past and present). NDAs is a way to silence the people who have “seen too much” and cults are using them to cover up their leaders crimes. In my NDA there is a clear statement where I am not allowed to share any information about Prem Rawat s “personal life” as well as any other information of what I have witnessed during the time working for him. However I wander if NDAs with cults (given that these cults are structured as criminal organizations meaning with layers of information the “devotees” are asked to keep secret no matter if the cult or the leader are violating the law) are valid. When I signed the NDA I believed Prem Rawat is God on earth. The same did others who not only did they sign NDAs but also signed that Rawat cult gets their inheritance when they die. One of them, David Passes, committed suicide and left his fortune to the TPRF : the fact that TPRF took the money form a suicide when in the actual suicide note David Passes Thank the Lord of the Universe for the opportunity to be useful to him with his death, is more than a red flag that law should investigate. I know that most ex premies when disillusioned they just though of Rawat as clown but in reality there is a very dark side to his cult and a very dangerous one, so to stop him from having the power that he actually has is crucial and urgent.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been wondering as well about how iron clad NDA's are. It would take someone with a lot of money to challenge this. I am sure the Rawat cult is not the only cult to impose NDA's. Maybe Janja Lalich would know.
|
|
|
|
After doing a google search on breaking NDA'S, it appears that they are not enforceable if the person who signed it has information that shows illegal or criminal behavior that should be reported. I'm not sure where immoral behavior fits in. (so many things to report there, such as the fact that he finally admitted in an interview a few years ago that he knew when he was still a kid that the "perfect master" title was a sham. And then quit numerous times, only to keep it going for the obvious rewards he got from keeping the deception going).It does state that there are exceptions for different situations, probably up to a judge's interpretation. If an NDA is violated for no valid reason, the judge can order the leaking to be stopped, and there could possibly be a financial consequence for the leaker, if loss of income could be determined. But there are definitely exceptions where someone can speak out, if the leaker knows that they are concealing illegal or criminal acts or information by not speaking out. This probably varies widely from state to state and I'm sure that California has had this tested numerous times over the years.
|
|
|
|
So not a lawyer here, but I have signed many an NDA for the clients that we work for. The way I understand it is that the legitimate reason for an NDA is to protect intellectual property and also company secrets that have not become public yet. To that extent the punishment for violating them is related to the financial loss the violation has caused.
Using NDAs the way the Rawat organisation and probably other similar organisations do is therefore an abuse of their intent. Certainly they can not be used to prohibit testifying about criminal offences. Things that are not criminal, but mostly just embarrassing – that is interesting. The Rawat organisation could claim that it reduces the value of their brand or try to claim some other way that they have lost revenue. This would be a very interesting legal case I would think, considering it is all supposed to be about helping people and not about making money.
Again, just to emphasise, I am not anything close to being a legal authority though.
Then there is the issue of defamation, but I don't see how this relates to NDAs.
Finally, I want to add that NDAs seem to mostly have a psychological scare tactic on people. Here is just one of many examples I have seen. I have a good friend who was working at a big tech company. For years he would never tell me what he did because of his NDA. So one day I asked him, "what is the penalty if you violate it?" He had no idea. But I think he was mostly concerned with losing his job.
Now once you leave the company, that is obviously no longer an issue. If at his new job he happened to speak about something that he wasn't supposed to, well the old company would have to bring him to court and prove that he said something and that it had caused financial damage to them. I suspect this situation happens often and is one reason why the tech companies try to steal staff from their competitors.
In conclusion, seek legal advise but probably the cult can't do much legally against you speaking out.
|
|
|
|
ChatGPT just sorted out some programming issues easily for me, and I've finished that task, so I thought I'd ask it for some feedback on what you wrote about NDA's. I'm sure I'm less lawyerly than you, but anyway, I found the result interesting and clear:
Your understanding of NDAs generally aligns with common legal principles. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) are legal contracts designed to protect confidential information. They are often used in business settings to safeguard proprietary information, trade secrets, or other confidential matters. However, the enforceability and limitations of NDAs can vary based on jurisdiction and the specific terms outlined in the agreement. Here are some general points based on your statements: Legitimate Use of NDAs:
NDAs are typically intended to protect legitimate business interests, such as intellectual property, trade secrets, and confidential information. Misusing NDAs to suppress information about criminal activities may not be legally enforceable. Criminal Offenses vs. Embarrassing Information:
NDAs are not generally designed to prevent individuals from testifying about criminal offenses. If an NDA attempts to cover up illegal activities, it may not hold up in court, and individuals may still be able to speak out. Defamation:
Defamation is a separate legal concept from NDAs. NDAs focus on confidentiality, while defamation involves making false statements that harm someone's reputation. Truth is often a defense against defamation claims. Enforcement and Penalties:
The enforceability of NDAs depends on the specific terms, jurisdiction, and the nature of the information involved. Penalties for violating an NDA can include financial damages, injunctions, or other remedies specified in the agreement. Post-Employment Restrictions:
NDAs may include provisions that extend beyond the termination of employment, but their enforceability can be subject to legal scrutiny. Post-employment restrictions need to be reasonable in scope, time, and geographic reach to be enforceable. Psychological Impact:
NDAs may indeed have a psychological impact on individuals, often influencing their behavior even after leaving a company. However, the enforceability of NDAs is a legal matter, and individuals should seek legal advice if they have concerns.
It's crucial to consult with a legal professional for advice tailored to specific circumstances and jurisdictions. Laws can vary, and legal advice should be sought for any situation involving NDAs or related legal matters.
|
|
|
|
I use ChatGPT all the time for work. But I don't usually ask about things that I don't already have knowledge about, because it does tend to spit out nonsense at times. Also this is one of its typical noncommittal, hedging answers. It could be, might be, ... Sometimes I think that ChatGPT has been trained to become a politician. Often I write a followup prompt along the lines of, "Okay, but can you just give a direct answer."
What was your prompt? Did you just throw in my text and ask for feedback?
But what is interesting is about the jurisdictions. That is something specific to the US I think.
|
|
|
|
Me:
Can you verify the accuracy of the following text: (my original post)
ChatGPT:
The text you've provided offers a layperson's perspective on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and their implications, particularly in the context of the Rawat organization and similar entities. Let's analyze the accuracy and implications of the key points made:1. **Purpose of NDAs**: The text correctly identifies that NDAs are typically used to protect intellectual property and company secrets. This is a standard practice in many industries, especially in technology and creative fields. 2. **Punishment for Violating NDAs**: The statement about punishment being related to the financial loss caused by the violation is generally accurate. Legal consequences for breaching an NDA can include damages that are often tied to the financial harm caused by the disclosure. 3. **Abuse of NDAs**: The assertion that using NDAs to cover up criminal offenses or embarrassing incidents is an abuse of their intent is accurate. NDAs are not legally binding if they are used to conceal illegal activities. 4. **NDAs and Criminal Offences**: The text correctly states that NDAs cannot legally prohibit someone from testifying about criminal offenses. In many jurisdictions, such clauses would be considered void as they go against public policy. 5. **Defamation and NDAs**: Defamation is a separate legal concept that deals with false statements harming someone's reputation. The text correctly suggests that defamation is not directly related to NDAs. However, the fear of defamation suits can sometimes reinforce the silence encouraged by NDAs. 6. **Psychological Impact of NDAs**: The anecdote about the individual's reluctance to discuss their work due to an NDA highlights a common psychological impact of these agreements. People often refrain from sharing information, sometimes more out of fear of potential consequences than actual legal restrictions. 7. **Post-Employment Enforcement of NDAs**: The text's claim about the challenges of enforcing NDAs after an employee leaves a company is partially accurate. While it is true that a former employer must prove a breach and its financial impact, this does not mean that NDAs are unenforceable post-employment. The enforceability depends on the specific terms of the NDA and the jurisdiction. 8. **Legal Advice**: The conclusion advising to seek legal counsel is sound. Legal complexities, especially in cases involving potential abuses of NDAs or speaking out against organizations, often require professional legal advice. Overall, while the text provides a reasonable layperson's overview of NDAs and their implications, it should not be taken as legal advice. The interpretation of NDAs can vary significantly based on jurisdiction, specific contractual language, and the context of the disclosure.
|
|
|
|
That was just about the same prompt as I used.
I've used ChatGPT only recently for programming. Had a project to finish, got tired and bored with looking up stuff I half knew and just asked it to finish the job. It seemed to get the intention of the code well despite no context provided. It even taught me a few things.
I've previously seen it produce code that looked correct and well done, but was just gibberish with a little bit of analysis.
So yes, I agree it can be useful in an area where you have some expertise, saving time, but I wouldn't trust it otherwise.
|
|
|
|
I then asked it to create an image visualising its answer.
|
|
|
|
(That is 10/10 for the Prem Rawat cult)
Identifying cults involves recognizing a combination of behavioral, social, and organizational characteristics. While there's no universal definition of a cult, certain key qualities are commonly observed:
1. **Charismatic Leadership**: Cults often have a charismatic leader who becomes the object of worship. This leader typically has authoritarian control over members and is considered infallible or uniquely capable by the group's followers.
2. **Isolation**: Many cults isolate their members from family, friends, and the broader society. This isolation can be physical (living in a secluded location) or psychological (instilling the belief that the outside world is dangerous or morally corrupt).
3. **Control over Members**: Cults often exert excessive control over members' lives. This can include control over personal decisions, finances, relationships, and information access. Members may be encouraged or forced to sever ties with non-members.
4. **Manipulative and Coercive Techniques**: Cults commonly use manipulative and coercive techniques to recruit and retain members. This can involve psychological tactics such as gaslighting, thought reform, and indoctrination.
5. **Exclusivity and Elitism**: Cults often promote a sense of exclusivity, portraying themselves as the sole possessors of truth or salvation. Members are made to feel elite and part of a special in-group, contrasting with the supposedly misguided or inferior out-group.
6. **Us vs. Them Mentality**: A strong dichotomy between the cult and the outside world is fostered, often leading to an "us versus them" mindset. This can be used to justify unethical behaviors against non-members and reinforce group cohesion.
7. **Demanding Loyalty**: Loyalty to the group and its leader is often demanded at the expense of personal autonomy and critical thinking. Questioning or dissenting from the group's beliefs or practices is discouraged or punished.
8. **Financial Exploitation**: Members may be required to donate a significant portion of their income or assets to the group. This financial exploitation can be justified as a form of spiritual commitment or duty.
9. **Apocalyptic or Utopian Beliefs**: Many cults are centered around apocalyptic or utopian beliefs, promising salvation or enlightenment to members, often in the context of an impending end of the world or a quest to build a utopian society.
10. **High Emotional Cost**: Leaving the group often comes with a high emotional cost. Former members may face shunning, loss of social support, emotional and psychological distress, and a sense of lost identity.
It's important to note that not all groups with some of these characteristics are cults, and the term "cult" itself can be controversial. Context and the degree to which these qualities are present are critical in making an assessment.
|
|
|
|
What companies also do as part of their high-value employee contracts is to have a stipulation that you can't work for a competitor for a certain period of time if you quit your job. This indirectly shows the weakness of the NDA in that sense. But the problem with this stipulation, at least in Germany but I imagine elsewhere too, is that they then have to compensate you for not working for the competitor. Essentially they have to keep paying you for the time they don't want you to work.
This doesn't directly relate to Prem Rawat NDAs, but indirectly as expressed above. The NDAs are difficult to enforce for ex-employees. An organisation is not supposed to own you even when you do work for them and doubly so afterwards.
I think it would be a really interesting case for an ex-follower with inside info to speak out and challenge their NDA. They would first have to make sure they have some serious free or paid legal support behind them though. Because the act of the Rawat organisation taking them to court in itself would be highly embarrassing for them.
As already mentioned briefly, the defamation aspect might be a more serious thing to worry about. It is really a terrible weapon used against victims and whistleblowers. In Europe it is a typical way for typically male abusers in high places to silence their victims. I have read about this several times for cases in France but also Germany. But things seem to be changing for the better.
Indeed I have a personal story involving one of my children where the defamation threat was used. I don't want to discuss that here though.
|
|
|
|
About the defamation aspect. As far as I know, the Rawat organisation has never brought a defamation case against any ex-follower who has ever spoken out. So it would seem that anyone who speaks out now would be pretty safe here. JHB could probably help to verify that. I mean if there was anyone who would be a target for that it would be JHB.
I don't remember what exactly happened with John MacGregor though. Was that a defamation case?
EDIT: I just checked. I think it was about John MacGregor leaking stolen documents as part of his whistleblower campaign. I don't remember the details, but JM was probably pushing the limits here in a way where he should have been more cautious.
Modified by aunt bea at Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 06:14:27
|
|
|
|
JM was taken to court charged with perjury. It was a private prosecution by Rawat's minions, I forget the actual details, of who brought the charges probably the cult compound people. He was guilty, he had committed perjury.
|
|
|
|
I remember when the guru-goons came after JM, but I don't remember what the final resolution was.Did he have to admit to something about the writing he had done? A fine? Retraction of his writing?
|
|
|
|
Aunt Bea is right - he had thrown caution to the winds, I remember arguing with him on the phone and thinking he would not listen to reason.
It is a pity he did not stick with simply writing that very good article Blinded by the Light.
His family and friends were harassed by hired goons, the legal case was mounted against him - the cult fundraised from local premies, ie his friends, to pay for this. not sure of the details of the case, do know he formed a very low opinion of Queensland justice. And fled to Asia.
From there he made his peace with Rawat by doing what they were asking him for and writing a letter retracting all criticism of the cult and saying whatever they wanted him to. He then returned to Australia.
|
|
|
|
I just want to publicly say I now forgive John Mac. I was very upset back then. I write about feeling betrayed by journalists re Sara Sidner. This felt like a betrayal for me back then. Another time I took a risk and was public about the cult. Do these folks go to cult leader support system conferences-
How I imagine it-
Opening speaker-
Ballroom- Friday 6pm -How to adapt your cult to changing times- Social Media, Rebranding, finding Allies”
Hall E at 2pm- “Novel Techniques to silence critics”
Final Session Grand Ballroom- “Catch and Kill - don’t underestimate your trading power”
I never totally understood what happened. I just remember in that way you remember where you were when scary things happen speaking to JMac on the phone, telling my story, and agreeing with a great deal of fear to let my name be in the story.
When I read the retraction I felt betrayed. It’s taken a long time to understand the cult must have threatened him into that retraction. I was angry about him doing something stupid that put his sources credibility into question.
But I do forgive him. I think he paid a high price.
I also heard a little about the goons way back then. It sounded like something out of a John Grisham novel.
Old news Susan.
Modified by Susan at Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 12:20:25
|
|
|
|
The fear levels I felt when I first spoke up here were through the roof. Massive psychological fear induced by indoctrination. It was like riding a wave.
The fear I felt after the phone call from JMac telling me to be careful after the goons had harassed his daughter was not so intense and not like riding a wave, it was not a release of emotion, it was something I had to live with for a while - not huge, I could easily be left alone, (I was), but there - I might get a visit from some thugs wanting to scare me.
To be honest it probably didn't last more than a matter of minutes - I must have put it to the back of my mind in a forewarned is forearmed sort of way. I just remember sitting at my desk after the call feeling a bit uncomfortable for a while.
The other call, that I spoke about in my last post was upsetting. I had been meeting him for a coffee just about every week for 6 months. He had literally let me talk him out of Knowledge. I felt responsible and now he was talking about pinning these documents up on a billboard in Byron Bay and seemed to think everything would be fine because he was hightailing it out of here, slinging his briefcase in the car and driving all the way to Western Australia. (put two and two together and the pumped up emotional mess he was in is clear). I have a vague memory that he said he was followed and his briefcase stolen out of his car at a petrol station.
He had not talked with me at all about his interactions with other ex-premies. I didn't know much about it all, just what he told me on the phone during the court case - he did not have confidence in the judge. He felt it was a foregone conclusion, it didn't matter what he did, he would be ruled against.
The next I heard he was in Asia. And it was after that, here on the forum I discovered ex premies had been supporting him, giving him funds to fight the case and maybe a lawyer? anyway it was a brutal act of betrayal that I know he was reluctant to do.
And then there was a court case going on in America, the cult wanted his letter of retraction for that and he gained the safety of his family and his return to Australia for it. It was the efforts of Marianne, if I remember right who rescued that court case and made it so Rawat would have to appear in court and so the cult backed off anyway.
Sort of bottom of the barrel moment in life for JMac I guess. He put himself first and it worked. He has a good life I think, not that I know for sure as I haven't heard from him in a while now - getting divorced tends to disrupt friendships too, I've found.
Modified by lesley at Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 15:57:04
|
|
|
|
I don’t recall much besides exactly where I was, in my old kitchen, when he called and I was interviewed for the story.
The rest of it I was no part of at all and didn’t know much of that. It’s f***** scary though.
I have had many of those fear waves. They subside but they come back too. So ironic how people who speak out about the ambassador of peace feel. The irony of their perfect charity navigator score that lists a whistleblower and conflict of interest policies.
So glad Lakeshore wrote about fear and thanks for sharing your experience with it too. It needs a little sunshine; the topic of fear. Like Maria77 said, this isn’t supernatural fear like we have when we leave. It’s a very serious and real concern. It’s not the bogeyman.
I give Leah Remini and Sara Edmundson a lot of credit. But I am also cognisant that their success exposing the underbelly of their respective cults was not a success enjoyed by some who tried prior to them.
It’s sobering.
|
|
|
|
I may have been forgiving something I don’t know the details of.
So maybe not. Not if he hurt someone else with it. Honestly I don’t think I have heard that part before.
Modified by Susan at Thu, Feb 08, 2024, 18:22:42
|
|
|
|
It's all been on the forum before, I think.
Relating the story now it strikes me how secretive he was with me about writing the article - maybe investigative journalism, ok - from my perspective he was just getting on with his life, helping his daughter, his family his friends, getting used to being an ex-premie, continuing to write his book and we were meeting regularly for coffees where mainly we talked through the whole exiting thing.
Then comes the call where he is heading off to Western Australia for the rest of his life and he is not listening to reason, he is in what I think of as a fugue state.
The why's and wherefores of how come he was in such a state are what they are - all I knew was I couldn't get through to him and it felt like he wasn't making good decisions.
A feeling which is borne out by the fact that he ended up a fugitive living in Asia. Where he started helping village people, and I know he has continued doing that. He also supported Julian Assange a lot.
The experience of being in Rawat's bad books really is like he says in that quote someone pasted recently, you don't want to meet him. There's the psychological overload of believing he is God if you are a premie but wherever you stand on that, there's the very real experience of it.
What JMac said and I believe him is that it was the article Blinded by the Light which put him in Rawat's bad books.
|
|
|
|
Yes Lesley, your recollection is mostly accurate, but not completely so. I am not going to say more than that. This episode is still infuriating to me. Those who were involved know what happened.
|
|
|
|
I don't expect you will necessarily see this one from me but incase you do - I entirely believe I'm not entirely accurate, as I said in a previous post, JMac wasn't telling me everything by a long chalk.
And I am getting the feeling that maybe there's more I still don't know.
What I can offer is a little bit about the person. He was always ready to help someone. He'd go to great lengths, driving for hours or whatever it took.
He was entertaining to talk with. He was funny intelligent and kindly but a bit scratched up - like, oh well picture one of those cartooned tom cats who has been electrified.
His father was the captain of a group of commandos surviving at large on that island which the Japanese took. When he took off for WA I remember thinking it's like he is channelling his father. He was entirely impervious to reason.
The last I knew before that phone call, he was still mainly involved in helping one of his daughters, and he was doing fine but still early in the exiting process from an emotional standpoint. I didn't know about his involvement with other exes at the time at all, much more going on than I realised.
But I did know he was being subjected to the experience of Rawat's disapproval due to the article and at that point I became very concerned that he had lost touch with his feelings.
With hindsight he is maybe a bit less kind and a bit more feral than I imagined. And I might be a bit dumber because how could he have written the article Blinded by the Light anyway other than with the help of other exes.
|
|
|
|
Those are important questions. I can’t help but think of the role NDA’s and settlement agreements played in allowing Harvey Weinstein to abuse and rape women for decades and how the system and fear of his power worked to silence the victims and allow him to do it again and again and again. The book “She Said” by two of the reporters who broke that story is really good exploration of this. As is “Catch and Kill” by Ronan Farrow. Heck the story of Woody Allen also is a lesson on how people around a powerful man protect him. It also shows how incredibly difficult it is for the abused child of a powerful man has it when telling her story- how her siblings some of them turned against her- and one of her siblings marries him and yet the man still made movies.
Can’t you just see some of these folk railing against “concepts” as our former leader used to? Who had more concepts than him?
It seems to me the main theme of many powerful men who were eventually brought to justice is the power of speaking out. I have read and watched and listened to everything I can about cult leaders and powerful men and justice. Secrecy serves them.
Imagine how I felt to see a movie called “Sands of Silence” about the power of voices to stop sexual crimes had a dedication to Prem Rawat. While I naturally feel that denial may work to silence this woman who spoke for the silenced and indeed had been silenced herself. That video shows the producer creator premie’s father or grandfather begging her not to be public. I fear for how painful it will for her to be to learn her beloved teacher is so similar. But I have hope, that she will know, that rarely do sexual abusers “look” like a person’s image of what one will look like.
Another thing I think of is a podcast I listen to almost every episode “Real Crime Profile” the host Laura Richards is an expert in coercive control. I can’t help but see what you describe Maria77 as extreme coercive control.
How can one legally sign an agreement to keep secret the acts one sees while working for the man they were raised to pray to as their Lord and Master? How can that be consent? That isn’t consent any more than any of the women Prem Rawat is said by whistleblowers here to have brought to him to have one night stands. Him enacting the perversion of the Krishna gopi relationship has been said to be bullshit as best I read by true Hindus. You can’t consent when one person is the one you sing “my lord is the superior power in person” and you can’t consent with someone who gives “agya”.
And yes, whatever diagnosis a psychiatrist would give Prem Rawat there are people who abuse children, and married and who abuse women too.
I think the families of premies who put Prem Rawat in their wills must be pissed. Especially the children. Who likely suffered being brought to kiss the lotus feet growing up, suffered from the 1970s-1980s incessant demands to give everything you had to the cult… then maybe the parent gets on their feet and has some financial stability- and the Prem Rawat Foundation is in the will. The Prem Rawat Foundation is likely to outlive the man himself - who will most benefit from that? Study the Moonies after Rev. Moon passed. Great that they are now feeding kids with some small part on their budget. And good tactical move by the cult. But as Prem Bio has pointed out- most of the expenses go to the expense of supporting the promotion and travel of the speaker. They proudly list all his travels all over the world. prem bio also has a list of his incredible list of expensive homes all over the world. How does that tie in to what the foundation may use as expenses. Of course I don’t know that answer.
This horrible story of child sexual abuse doesn’t make any of his other abuses of power suddenly not matter. Frankly, in my opinion, they show the world this child grew up in and how his cult compound wasn’t Waco or Jonestown but instead palatial homes filled exclusively with household staff who called his father and mother “dad” and “mom” too. Who drank the water his father bathed his feet in. Who obeyed agya “implicitly” as his father is recorded saying in those years demanding of his followers. Where the f*** was such a child to turn?
|
|
|
|
Amazing post. But I have a question about the Sands of Silence documentary. I don't remember where the original post was anymore, but I followed the link and couldn't find the credits you were referring to. I guess it is at the end of the complete documentary, which didn't seem to be accessible?
|
|
|
|
September 22, 2014
Honoring David Passes
We lost a good man a few days ago. Anyone who ever knew David was blessed by his presence. David was a radiant, loving, kind, creative, sweetheart of a human being -- full of grace and giving, devoted through and through to the highest there is on planet Earth. The sparkle in David's eyes said it all. Here was a man who not only found peace, but lived it day by day. In the big picture, David has gone just a few seconds before the rest of us. Godspeed, David! Til we meet again! If you want to leave a message for David or his family, click here. The funeral is September 24th.
https://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/blueaquarius/blueaquarius_album.html
In the Blue Aquarius credits too
And is mentioned in this fundraiser for TPRF https://tprf.app.neoncrm.com/np/clients/tprf/campaign.jsp?fundraiser=28565113&campaign=86&team=32&
Modified by Susan at Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 18:59:15
|
|
|
|
This morning I drifted into Mitch Ditkoff's fundraiser for TPRF and peeked at his Valentine's Day gift for me. Daya sings in the background to quotes from the Beatles, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein and others. Words rose from my stomach. Words like juxtaposition, co-opting, mis-appropriation, grifted association. I looked-up cultural appropriation but it didn't fit. Identity theft, the co-opting and theft of a beloved universal theme (the best of humanity that Prem Rawat once severed me from).
I can't blame Mitch, unless of course he knows what we're grappling with... that "both daughters were present," in which case his actions would be a gut punch.
Then the chasm. The gap between my reaction and that of the donors whose elated hearts surely melted, not to mention my sadness as I recognized a few of the donors. How would they judge my words if they don't know?
What will be the defensive rationalizations of those who will cling desperately? Sadly we already know. Even sadder is empathetically feeling their desperation, putting myself in their shoes.
Sometimes truth pierces like a... hurts.
Modified by lakeshore at Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 04:18:44
|
|
|
|
Everything you say, but that fundraiser is from 2015. When I noticed that, it gave me some hope that this would perhaps not go over today. And by the way, they only raised about 5K of their goal of 50K.
I could say more about some of the people, but I don't disparage people like that online.
|
|
|
|
I didn't notice and I might've overreacted just a little bit. Regarding disparaging others online, I tend to make a very slight exception for Mitch because like so many of Prem's apologists, he once said "the ashrams were no more onerous than little league or summer camp," and "some people chose celibacy as part of their path towards enlightenment." He said that long after "Guru Maharaji" gave "agya" that anyone in a position to do so should move into the ashram. Anyone familiar with the history - and honest about it - knows that that level of order or command from the perfect master, especially to a true believer, removed the condition of unfettered free will, i.e., choice. What Mitch said is so absurd it still makes me laugh.
(That's why this is about the tenth time I've posted those quotes and I'm sure it won't be the last.  )
Besides, not that I hold a grudge, but he tried to disparage (or humiliate or patronize?) me online on FirstClass (a private messaging system used by premies) in a group message.
Bob! Bob! Bob!
was the salutation.
You know, in my old age, I'm kinda taking a liking to that guy.
Modified by lakeshore at Sun, Feb 04, 2024, 08:40:31
|
|
|
|
I think that you are probably right about NDAs but what do any of us know? There maybe some sort of balance between the obligations placed on you by the NDA versus civic responsibilty not to cover up a crime? It is a question of getting good quality confidential legal advice and really being careful to look after yourself as far as all that goes.
Horrible about David Passes - but the more I learn the darker and the more rotten to the core Rawat and his enablers seem to have been. Like most readers here I am just completely shocked by what seems to be coming out.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Who is he - and what is horrible (news?) about him?
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein
Avoiding a problem does not make it go away, avoiding feeling does not make it go away either. (me)
|
|
|
|
Maria77 2024-
"I know that most ex premies when disillusioned they just though of Rawat as clown but in reality there is a very dark side to his cult and a very dangerous one, so to stop him from having the power that he actually has is crucial and urgent."
Hudson Marquez TVTV documentary filmmaker 1974-
"When we first began planning the film, we thought the guru was humorous,” Marquez told me. "Here was this outrageous fat kid, sitting on thrones, riding around in Rolls Royces, saying all these indecipherable things. It seemed funny. But the closer we got to it, the more we got the feeling that it was very evil."
https://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/newspapers/1974/31307216.html
Modified by Susan at Sat, Feb 03, 2024, 23:58:20
|
|
|
