|
|
|
"And EPO is a sad gathering of twenty hate-fuelled, dysfunctional misfits…"
Can I be one, please can I, hunh, can I? I've always wanted to be a misfit!
"Hate-fuelled"? Would that be like somebody rejecting their former close friends and associates and spreading lies about them and contacting their employers with stories, true or not, in an attempt to hurt and discredit them, possibly causing them to lose their jobs---all because their former friends stopped believing some guy who used to say he was the Lord of the Universe? (But, of course, he's not, never was, actually. That was all a misunderstanding. Westerners just misunderstood it all.)
"Dysfunctional"? That wouldn't be like just turning over your inheritance or your house or all your money to some guy who said he was God, (but-it-was-all-a-misunderstanding), would it? Or like dumping your job and hauling your ass across country to every "event" this God, (not-God-no-never-was) gave? Or kissing the feet of this God, (not-God-nor-cult-leader).... that's not dysfunctional, is it?
"Misfit", hmmm? Would that be like someone who sits under a blanket
for an hour or two each day and everything that happens under there is
a secret? Or someone who sits and watches the guy who isn't god or lord on the videos for hours? No, no, that wouldn't be a misfit.
Modified by Premie_Spouse at Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 14:22:08
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the rant, Nigel. Good luck getting that on Wiki. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
|
|
thanks for the reference. I will add some of it. I do not mind the scepticism of the Mishler's interview or the scepticism of Dr. Finch website as a notable opinion. I do have a problem when this very skeptical attitude is not applied to anything that Rawat or his followers say. On the other hand, I have to admit that it is natural to be skeptical of anything that does not fit into one's world view. This applies to all people, I believe, not just to cult member but also to scientists. I mean, it would be hard to convince a scientist that the law of conservation of energy was untrue. Andries
|
|
|
|
What do you mean by when you say "I do not mind the scepticism of the Mishler's interview or the scepticism of Dr. Finch website as a notable opinion." Do you not feel that, as you have seem to have taken on the task of being a major Wiki editor, that you need to counter the obvious bias that is happening? Earlier on today I spent some precious time cleaning up and providing you with the actual Mishler interview and providing you with links to the full interview. That was in response to a thread you started. You did not respond in that thread but now say that you 'do not mind the scepticism' of the Mishler interview. Let me get this really clear. Someone provides you with absolute proof that that interview happened when earlier you inferred there was doubt, you ignore that and say that you do not mind ongoing scepticism. Andries, that sucks! Tell me where I have got my understanding wrong. Please don't tell me this is a NPOV thing of some sort. Gallery
Modified by Gallery at Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 15:42:05
|
|
|
|
I personally cannot reasonably doubt the interview with Mishler. I am not saying that scepticism is wrong, only that it should be reasonable and not selective. It is wrong to be skeptical of the Mishler interview which seems very very plausible and not be skeptical of the implausible claims of Rawat. I phoned some time ago with a non-American ex-premie who told me that he then saw Mishler's early death as a well-earned divine retribution. This shows that the Mishler interview was common knowledge. Andries
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily Andries. Over here in Australia I heard that Mishler had been fired and had died in helicopter crash after suffering a heart attack on a deserted beach (I'm not sure if the details are true as that's what I remember being told and it was a long time ago) but I didn't know about the recorded interview until decades later. It was generally known back then that Mishler was a hate filled apostate (though in those days we were still "love is everything" so I felt sorry for the guy as did other people I spoke to rather than hating him) but we didn't know the details. It was all rumours and gossip though if the details were even close it was quite an unusual way for someone to die at his age.
With all due respect to Mishler, who seems to have had high ethical standards, how anyone involved in DLM in those days could think that Guru Maharaji was not the Lord of the Universe and still be part of DLM eludes me. I mean you could be in my position which was wait and see what he is once I've "realised Knowledge" but the whole show was toatlly based on him being an incarnated Perfect Master/Satguru/avatar and he certainly just couldn't be an inspirational speaker without the whole shebang being bullshit.
|
|
|
|
With all due respect to Mishler, who seems to have had high ethical standards, how anyone involved in DLM in those days could think that Guru Maharaji was not the Lord of the Universe and still be part of DLM eludes me.
Well, Mishler lived with Rawat for a while and being his top honcho he knew him as well as anyone could. So he certainly knew Rawat was no Krishna-cum-again but still felt that the knowledge was beneficial and therefore worth the efforts to disseminate internationally. On that basis he was committed to the game but wanted Prem to stop pretending - to come down off the Krishna throne and promote knowledge without all the balyogeshwar bullshit. I believe the way he described it in the interview was de-conditioning his followers or de-mystifying Maharaji - something like that. At any rate, Mishler was very concerned about premies believing Maharaji was the Lord. Maharaji even went along with it for a brief while but his donations started to thin so he returned to form with a holy vengeance. As we know Rawat did eventually stop dressing up in his Crown and vestments; stopped having westerners queue up to kiss his feet; and stopped bleating on about surrender and devotion. This would be after his fortune was secure and about 15 years after Mishler made the recommendation. Meanwhile, the followers who did in fact take him at his Word ended up high and dry so to speak. Having pissed away their love and youthful adventure and ambition at the clay feet of the Malibooze master. Go figure.
Modified by Dr.wow at Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 00:07:47
|
|
|
|
There are reports that he has had people kiss his feet at Amaroo, I believe someone said this happened in 2002, and maybe later.
He still talks about surrender and devotion, he just uses different terminology.
The testimony given about the trainings reports that people are trained to "follow the rules", i.e. his rules. Period, no questions asked, even if it means denying obvious truths, even if it means death. In other words, surrender.
Prem Rawat's Trainings - 1999
I believe I read that he is still doing 'trainings'.
Instead of "devotion" it is "gratitude", "appreciation", etc.
From John MacGregor's third post:
- Entrenching of top-down hierarchical structure, and
unquestioning obedience. E.g. M said, 'If a manager tells
you to dig a hole immediately above a buried electrical
cable, the only thing you are to say is, 'How deep?!'
- Demands for devotion were escalated. (E.g. one premie was
quizzed on why he spent his days in his high-profile job and
ONLY his evenings, when he was tired, doing service for
M.)
M said: 'If
the team decides it's dark outside, and you look out and see
that it's light, IT IS DARK OUTSIDE!'
Modified by G at Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 20:45:24
|
|
|
|
I hadn't read those 'training' sessions since they first went up, and even then didn't read them properly. It has suddenly reframed everything for me. I think Maharaji might be clinically insane.
Modified by nigel at Mon, Mar 27, 2006, 13:48:18
|
|
|
|
I couldn't finish reading this transcript, too creepy. I've read about 1/3 of it. I reminds me of seeing the move 'The Thing' (the one with Kurt Russell), I had to stop watching it the first time I saw it because I was so weirded out by it.
Yes, I think there's more going on than Rawat just being an abusive sociopathic con man. It's more disturbing. There's some cunning manipulation going on, but also some incoherent ramblings.
One thing about psychotics that many people don't know is that some can be extremely manipulative, even though they are talking nonsense, they know how to push peoples' buttons.
|
|
|
|
Probably arguable that the more out there and beyond the pale you are the easier it is to see through peoples defence mechanisms and weaknesses, and manipulate, especially when you've got the arrogance and sense of superiority that he has.
But that's in "his" environment, out of it I bet he's socially inept and hardly good company at all, because the feedline of subservience is no longer there.
|
|
|
|
That's what I've heard, he's quite shy when he can't hide behind his wizard of Oz personna. I saw a picture of him at an airport that seemed to confirm it.
There are different types of mentally ill people who are quite manipulative. One type are sociopaths, the interesting book 'The Mask of Sanity' discusses them. They can seem sane, charming, and convincing, but underneath there's something lacking, and not just a lack of conscience. A sociopath can land up in jail (and not care much) and charm his/her way out.
Some schizophrenics are also manipulative, and many drug addicts (which includes alcoholics) are charming and can dupe people out of money.
|
|
|
|
"Well, Mishler lived with Rawat for
a while and being his top honcho he knew him as well as anyone could.
So he certainly knew Rawat was no Krishna-cum-again but still felt that
the knowledge was beneficial and therefore worth the efforts to
disseminate internationally. "
Yes but in case Knowledge was beneficial but Prem Rawat was no Krishna-cum-again then there would be no need for the whole secrecy of the techniques and satsangs before receiving Knowledge etc. So instead of young Rawat promoting K without the Balyogeshwar stuff there was no need for Rawat at all and if the Balyogeshwar stuff was bullsh_t then he was a positive hindrance as well and the whole DLM facade was rubbish. Maybe Mishler came to that conclusion as I don't know if he went of his own accord or was kicked out but without any need for the Perfect Master's grace then Knowledge was just a minor (and pretty dubious) pary of Hatha Yoga.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think Mishler did come to the conclusion that Rawat himself was the major stumbling block on the road to receiving knowledge. He knew it would have been so much easier if people didn't have to buy into the Balyogeshwar bullshit and he was very much interested in deprogramming the cult membership from that belief. In the end Rawat rejected this approach because as he made known loud and clear, he was not just a figurehead. Mishler viewed Rawat as the figurehead and chief spokesperson for the dissemination of the meditation techniques. I believe that he had already arrived at the conclusion that the devotional aspects were clearly misplaced and an impediment not only in propagation but harmful and wrong for the adherents.
|
|
|
|
I never heard of it until I read it on EPO in 1999. Like Ocker I heard he'd left Maharaji and died in a helicopter accident. Yes, I also thought this may have been divine retribution but at the time I knew nothing about any interviews with the press.
Who is your ex-premie contact? Email me if you like.
John.
|
|
|
|
This is probably a difference between the States and UK. I had heard about it though never actually listened to it. At least one person I knew had. This was in New York. Wasn't there also a print interview with him somewhere? It was kind of one of those forbidden things. Don't listen to the fallen angel Bob Mishler being in his mind. It was something that you talked about in hushed tones and then quickly changed the topic.
I remember the same thing with another guy we all knew who was in the ashram and then got deprogrammed. These people just got shunned in good ole Amish fashion. You might try to save them and if that didn't work you shunned them.
What a stupid fearful reaction when you think about it. Premies treated me the same way when I went over to the dark side. With the few that I managed to remain friends with, the subject of Rawat and Knowledge was absolutely taboo. If I brought up something controversial even in the most basic of ways, like the closing of the ashram and Prem claiming to be God, they would immediately get that gray fearful Amish look on their faces and refuse to speak one word about it. Actually even if I asked them something non-controversial they would clam up and look at me suspiciously.
Modified by aunt bea at Sun, Mar 26, 2006, 06:05:47
|
|
|
|
Like I said, it was a big article in the Miami Herald. I know a lot of people were aware of it.
|
|
|
|
Although I doubt many premies actually heard it. It was widely mentioned, even in satsang as I recall, about how easy it was to get confused -- it even happend to Bob Mishler, for God's sake! But it was well known that Mishler left the cult, and then did an interview on Denver radio critical of Maharaji. But I never actually saw a transcript of it until it was re-printed on EPO by David Stirling.
|
|
|
|
i did hear at the time that Mishler was writing a book, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have rushed out to buy it, so if I had heard about the interview I'm sure it wouldn't have made any difference. I remember the feeling clearly of being afraid to blow it by forgetting who Maharaji was.
"Leaving your Lotus Feet, oh, where would I go?"
John.
|
|
|
|
>it would be hard to convince a scientist that the law of conservation of energy was untrue< No it wouldn't - it would be very, very easy. All that would be required is an experimentally supported, falsifiable theory that demonstrates that energy is not conserved. As until now pretty much every bit of evidence subjected to rigorous analysis shows energy is conserved, it is hardly surprising that most people (those tha care enough to understand at any rate) accept that the law of energy conservation is an accurate description of how our Universe behaves. Popular belief - the witless blitherings that pass for 'humanities' on Wikipedia - has no comparable internal tests as those that are provided by physics, chemistry and the other disciplines that are subject to 'science'. The non science parts of Wikipedia are simply backwaters of personal hobbyhorses and, as with the Rawat article, sheer propogandising by self interested politicos and cult heads. Sorry Andries, I hope you fun with Wikipedia, but please don't use science as a reference for an argument for a 'relatavistic world view' that in turn justifies the crappy basis of Wikipedia - it only makes you look as dim as Jossi and Co. And I'm sure you are not dim. N
|
|
|
|
and you did a damned fine job of describing the difference, too!At the risk of sounding Darth-Vader-esque..... "Impressive!"
|
|
|
|
It's all so unbelievably absurd. It's the history of our lives and our past that Jossi and "Momento" are screwing around with and it really makes me mad that they are getting away with writing falsehoods. Jossi is a fully programmed premie. I don't know where the hell Momento is coming from, but he/she is awfully stupid. Between the two of them, the article has become unreadable with bad grammar, sentence structure, dumb stupid references, etc. They are completely confusing the truth about our lives on purpose. Don't tell me that Maharaji never said he is the Lord and don't blame it on Mata Ji! Jeezus, I became a premie after she was history in Prem's life. Oh yeah, tell me I wasn't instructed on how to answer the phones at DECA when the LORD called. I was told 1) answer the phone by the last four digits of the number (he had two private lines so I always knew it was gonna be him); and 2) You never, ever put the Lord, Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji on hold. Which I never did, and M told Jim Hession that he loved the way I dealt with him on the phones. Why? Because I when he asked me to talk with someone I always said "Right away, Maharaji!" It's the truth. Now remember folks, if Prem Rawat ever calls you, you never put the Lord on hold... 
Modified by Cynthia at Sat, Mar 25, 2006, 14:40:26
|
|
|
|
I'll be too busy telling him what I think of him. That could take hours. Neville B
|
|
|
|
Good answer, Neville. It would take a few hours at least.
|
|
|
